IN ASSEMBLY, January 13, 1831. REPORT Of the Committee on Claims, to which was referred the petition of Orson Smith, in behalf of himself and others, heirs of David Smith. Mr. J. C. Spencer, from the Committee on Claims, to which was referred the petition of Orson Smith, in behalf of himself and others, heirs of David Smith, REPORTED The difficulties which this claim has heretofore encountered, seem to be removed by the discovery of a manuscript copy of a re- gister of the officers and soldiers serving in the regiments of this state in the continental army during the revolutionary war. This document, which the state has purchased, and deposited in the office of the Secretary of State, and which is deemed authentic and of great weight as evidence, shows that David Smith was enlisted as a private in Capt. McCracken's company in the first regiment, on the 8th of January, 1777, to serve during the war. The fact had been sworn to positively by Capt. McCracken, and by Matthew Bellamy, who was a private in the same company and a brother-in-law of Smith's, and other circumstantial evidence had been adduced before the discovery of the register above mentioned. The fact of enlistment to serve during the war, seems now to be put at rest. The fact of his having died in the service, is established as satisfactorily as such a fact well can be proved at this distance of time. McCracken and Bellamy both prove his having been taken sick at Valley-Forge, and their having heard of his death soon after. His relativcs all testify to the report of his death about the same time.[A. No. 21.] 1 This is the usual evidence given in such cases in courts of law, and from the nature of the case, it is the best possible evidence of which it admits. The fact of his not having been returned dead, amounts to very little. The officer of his regiment, whose duty it was to make the return may not have been at the station where he died; and indeed considering the confusion which prevailed during that glocny period of the war, an omission of this kind was more likely to occur, than an accurate return. In numerous instances these returns have been found imperfect. These two points being established that David Smith enlisted during the war, and that he died in the service, it follows inevitably that he was entitled to the bounty lands promised by this state. This principle has been perfectly settled by the legislature of this state for the last twenty-five years. On the subject of delay in making the application, no fault can be imputed to the heirs of the soldier. As early as 1796 a petition was presented, the facts were all admitted by the committee who reported on the subject, but they adopted a construction of the laws and resolutions respecting bounty lands, which has since been universally discarded as erroneous From that time to this, at various intervals, the application has been renewed, and bills for the relief of the petitioners have passed one or other house of the legislature, but finally failed, owing, as it is presumed, to a defect in the proof of the fact of Smith's enlistment. That defect being now supplied, anxious as your committee are that no new claims against the state should be admitted without the most thorough investigation, yet having bestowed that investigation, and being unable to detect any deficiency in the proof to sustain this claim, they cannot think it comports either with the character or dignity of the state to refuse an act of justice so long delayed. The most satisfactory evidence is furnished by the balloting book that no patent was ever issued to this David Smith. With these views, your committee would at once report a bill directing the issuing of letters patent to the heirs of Swith, for the usual quantity of land; but they learn that the lands set apart for the revolutionary claims are exhausted, except what remains in the town of Sterling, where there are a few hundred acres of swamp land of very little value. The committee have no alternative but to present to the house a proposition to satisfy this claim by a direct appropriation of money. Although ancient, they do not conceive its character is less sacred, because it originated in that eventful struggle which secured to our fathers, and to ourselves, liberty and independence. They have some difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory estimate of the value of the five hundred acres of land to which Smith was entitled at the time of the first application of his heirs in 1796. But upon the whole, after obtaining all the information within their reach, they have concluded to recommend the sum of eight hundred dollars, to include as well the original value of the land, as all claims for interest. Another difficulty is, the want of sufficient proof who are the right heirs of David Smith. This has been provided for in the bill which the committee have directed their chairman to report to the House. IN ASSEMBLY, January 13, 1831. Of the Committee on Claims, on the petition of George Thompson. Mr. J. C. Spencer, from the committee on claims, to which was referred the petition of George Thompson, REPORTED The petitioner, with other heirs of John Thompson, deceased, had two hundred acres of land granted to them in the west part of lot number ninety-six, in Sterling. They divided the land into seven parts, and each took his respective portion. In 1825 the portion belonging to the petitioner and his sister, Margaret Elder, was sold to pay a tax assessed upon the whole of the lot, which had thus been granted. The petitioner discovered the sale in time to redeem the land, but says he was unable to pay the whole amount, and was advised if he did he would have no remedy against the owners of the other parts of the lot, to compel a contribution. This is the substance of the petition, and he solicits redress, without specifying its nature. The petitioner was certainly ill advised; he had ample remedy to collect their proportion of the other proprietors, if he had paid it. His want of means to do so, is a misfortune, for which he can scarcely expect the state to be accountable. The tax was laid to improve a road, and no part of it has been received by the state. Your committee can not discover any ground upon which this claim can be for a moment entertained. They therefore recommend to the house the following resolution: Resolved, That the prayer of the petition of George Thompson be denied, and that the petitioner have leave to withdraw his peti. tion and the accompanying papers. |