2d Session.


[To accompany bill H. R. No. 63.]

DECEMBER 29, 1841.

Mr. TALIAFERRO, from the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, made the following


The Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, to whom the petition of Elizabeth Jones was referred, concur in the report made 25th Congress 3d session, herewith submitted, and report a bill.

DECEMBER 21, 1838.

The Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, to whom the memorial of Elizabeth Jones was referred, report:

That the petitioner represents that she is the daughter of the late John Carr, a soldier of the Revolution, and in the continental regiment of Col. George Gibson; that her father served in said regiment from an early period of the war until peace was made; that her said father, being aged, was also afflicted with a loathsome incurable malady, (a cancer on his face,) and, being destitute of the means of support, was necessarily sustained by his daughter, the petitioner, and she, also, a poor woman. In this situation the petitioner's father applied, in the year 1818, for a pension, under the act of Congress of that date; but a pension was not allowed him, on the ground that the regiment of Colonel George Gibson was not a continental regiment. But, in 1831, it appeared that Gibson's regiment was, in fact, a continental regiment; and a pension was allowed to the said Carr, the petitioner's father, some time in the year 1831. This he continued to enjoy until his death, in the year 1833.

The petitioner further alleges, that during the interval between his first application and the time when he was placed upon the roll, he was in a diseased and indigent condition, and was sustained by her own scanty means; and that he remained a charge to her from the time when he commenced drawing his pension until his death, and that she bore the expenses of his funeral.

The petitioner argues, that the error which prevented her father from drawing a pension from his first application, in 1818, was not his, but the Government's; that she, the petitioner, consequently bore the very burden which the Government had engaged to do, and would have done but

from its own error; and that she, in consequence, is equitably entitled to receive from the Government that sum which should have been paid her father.

The facts in this memorial are fully proved: first, by two witnesses, one of whom, viz: Thomas Jones, of Prince William county, Virginia, swears that, from 1819 till the year 1831, the said John Carr, being an aged, infirm, and indigent man, was sustained by Elizabeth Jones, his daughter, who then was, and now is, a poor woman; that the said John Carr departed this life at the house of his daughter, about 1833, in an excessive state of infirmity, arising from cancer.

Isaac W. Davis, of the same county, swears that he was well acquainted with John Carr; that, from 1819 until 1831, he, being an aged, infirm, and indigent man, was sustained by Elizabeth Jones, his daughter, who was then, and continues to be, a poor woman; that the said John Carr departed this life at the house of the said Elizabeth Jones, about the year 1833, in an excessive state of infirmity, arising from cancer, and that the funeral expenses were defrayed by his said daughter.

Secondly, in relation to this case, and under date of the 29th of December, 1837, the pension agent says that "he (John Carr) applied for the benefits of the act of March 18, 1818, in that year; but his claim was rejected, on the ground that the regiment of Col. George Gibson, in which he served, was not on the continental establishment. In 1831, however, after the department had decided that the regiment was a continental one, he renewed his application, and the claim was admitted. The pension commenced on the 7th June, 1831.".

In a letter of January 9, 1838, and in answer to inquiries by the chairman of the committee, the pension agent writes as follows:

"SIR: In answer to your inquiry whether the proof exhibited by John Carr, in 1818, would have justified me in allowing him a pension at that time, provided the regiment of Col. George Gibson, in which he served, had been considered a continental regiment, I have to state to you that a pension would, at that time, have been allowed to him, had the regiment then been recognised as one belonging to the continental establishment."

The committee are of opinion that the petitioner has made out an equitable case, and that it addresses itself to that sense of justice by which they should be actuated; and they have resolved to report a bill for her relief.

2d Session.


[To accompany bill H. R. No. 64.]

DECEMBER 29, 1841.

Mr. AYCRIGG, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, made the following


The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to which was referred the petition of Burnett Burdsall, of the county of Cumberland, and State of New Jersey, praying for arrears of pension, report:

That it appears the testimonials of the petitioner were referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions of the 25th Congress, and reported on favorably, as will appear by report No. 289, 3d session; that it was again submitted to the said committee of the 26th Congress, and again reported on favorably, as will again appear by report No. 527. The committee, having re-examined the claim, adopt the above reports:

That it appears, by the evidence submitted, that the petitioner served faithfully in the army of the United States, from the year 1814 to the year 1826, when he was discharged for inability arising from a fractured arm; that, in the year 1827, the petitioner applied for a pension, but that, in consequence of an erroneous decision of the department relative to the law of March, 1821, the application was refused; subsequently to the refusal, the Attorney General of the United States having decided that the construction of the act of March, 1821, by the department, was not correct, the petitioner applied de novo, and obtained his certificate of pension, dated, however, from the time of his last application, instead of the first, the department alleging that the then Secretary could not correct the errors of his predecessor. The petitioner now requests that his pension may date from the time of his discharge, and that he may receive the consequent arrearages of pay.

The committee are of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to his pay, as an invalid pensioner, from the 15th of June, 1826, (the time of the completion of his testimony on his first application,) to the the 20th of January, 1830, at the rate of eight dollars per month. They report a bill.

2d Session.


DECEMBER 29, 1841.

Read, and laid upon the table.

Mr. BURKE, from the Committee of Claims, submitted the following


The Committee of Claims, to which was referred the petition of Harry Richardson, ask leave to submit the following report:

The petitioner alleges that in the winter of 1831 he became satisfied that John French, of Randolph, in the district of Vermont, was extensively engaged in the business of smuggling; and, from the low circumstances of the said French, he became convinced that he was in the employment of other individuals, who furnished him with capital to carry on the business of smuggling; that he caused a considerable quantity of broadcloths and nutmegs, smuggled by the said French, to be seized, which were afterwards condemned and sold according to law; that afterwards he caused two prosecutions to be commenced against the said French, for the recovery of the penalties imposed by law for said offences, one at the May term and the other at the October term of the district court of the United States, in which suits judgments were rendered by said court at the May term, 1832, for the aggregate sum of $12,750 48, and for the costs of prosecution; that he had been put to great expense of time and money in procuring the conviction of said French; that said French was, in default of payment of the executions issued on said judgments, committed to jail, and there remained about one year, when he was discharged, on a pardon by the President of the United States. The petitioner further alleges, in substance, that, by reason of the poverty of the said French, it was not expected that said penalties would be collected of him; but that the object of said. imprisonment was to coerce him to disclose the names of the individuals who furnished him with the capital which he used in the business of smuggling, and who were accomplices in the offences for which he had been. prosecuted; and that object was frustrated by the aforesaid pardon of the President, whereby the petitioner lost one-fourth part of the penalties recovered of the said French, and for which he now asks to be remunerated. The testimony accompanying the petition sustains the allegations of the petitioner, with the exception of that point touching the employment by others of the said French in the business of smuggling. And as that rests upon the uncertain declaration of one of the alleged accomplices, since declared, the committee cannot regard it as entitled to full credence.

The question occurring upon this state of the facts is, does the possibility of recovering of the alleged accomplices of the said French the penalties

« ForrigeFortsett »