ment as authentic, and by it the right of the soldier, David Smith, was established. This evidence overcame. the difficulties under which the claim had hitherto labored, and .a law was then passed giving to the heirs of said David Smith, the sum of eight hundred dollars, upon the report of the committee on claims in that year, which was "to include as well the original value of the land, as all claims for interest," and be, as expressed in the act, in full satisfaction of the claim of the said heirs for bounty lands, for services in the revolutionary war. This petitioner has established his claim to the benefits of that law, and the money has been paid by the Treasurer to the petitioner and another individual, who claimed a right to participate.

The petitioner now asks that his claim may be reviewed, and that justice may be dealt out to him with a more liberal hand. He solicits the passage of an act giving to him, among other things, the original value of the 500 acres of land, to which he claims the soldier to have been entitled, and the interest thereon from the the year 1796; that being the time when the claim was first exhi bited. This the committee apprehend is wholly inadmissible. It is believed by the committee that throwing open this claim again to legislative action, could be attended with no beneficial consequences to the petitioner. His right was established to the satisfaction of the Legislature when the act of 1831 was passed; and if it should again be opened, he could do no more than establish that right. He does indeed add other testimony, and interposes new claims, and probably advances other arguments, but all grow out of, and depend upon, the original claim, and are merely cumutative, tending only to illustrate and enforce the original demand.This law, too, of 1831, is based upon a principle long since established, and practised upon by the government. In 1827 the rule was established which had partially previously prevailed, when considering claims of the character of this, in this branch of the Legislature. It was then said that, "as the value of the land has much increased since the time of the original balloting for soldiers' bounty lands; and as we conceive these applicants can hardly claim interest in a case where so long delay has been occasioned, principally by their own neglect, the committee would recommend that in no case should more than two hundred acres be patented to any one claimant.' 'From that time hitherto, the committee do not find that any greater quantity has been given. In the present improved condition of the country, the estimate of value averages about

four dollars per acre, and it was most likely that these considerations led to the conclusions which were adopted in 1831. If, then, this applicant is entitled to an increased sum, equal justice would seem to require that such as have been closed upon the same principle, should also receive additional compensation. In the case referred to, we have the moving cause of the rule laid down. The improved condition of the country, the increased value of the land, the remisness of the applicant in establishing his claim, or his misfortune arising from his inability to do so, and the promptness with which all these claims have been satisfied, whenever clearly established; all these were considerations which must have actuated the Legislature in prescribing the aforesaid rule. Under this view of the subject, the committee apprehend that if upon principle, a rule of action was now for the first time to be established for the settlement of these claims, it would not vary essentially from the one which now prevails.

The committee are of opinion that the claim for interest cannot be entertained. This, with the original demand, was before the Legislature, and prominently presented, when the act of 1831 was passed. It was then acted upon, and whether the applicant then received more or less than we might now think the case would have warranted, it is believed there is not so great a disparity as to authorize its being again agitated on that account. If each successive Legislature were to disregard the acts of their predecessors, it will readily be perceived that little regard would be paid to the enactments of either. Stability, uniformity and decision, should eharacterise legislative action, as well as judicial proceedings; and an essential departure from this rule would soon impair the public confidence in either. It is obvious that no rule of law or practice in equity exists, which would sanction this claim, if the contest was between two individuals. The right of the petitioner was never established until the newly discovered evidence in 1831; and the extent of that right never ascertained until the law of that year was passed. It may have been unfortunate for the individual that he was not able before to exhibit the evidence of his demand, but surely that was not the fault of the government. If upon the original balloting, a given lot had been drawn to the right of this soldier, a different rule of compensation might with somepropriety have been adopted. But here was a mere equitable right of location, upon such lands as the government may have, when the right is established; if from negligence or misfortune it is delayed

until those laws are exhausted, it would seem to be an act of liberality, when a direct appropriation from the treasury is made to extinguish such claim.

When a claim, then, of this description has been deliberately and solemnly closed and sanctioned by the acts of the respective parties to it, the committee apprehend it would be neither wise, just nor expedient, again to open it, unless for causes which do not exist at the present case.

From the manner in which this claim has been pressed, the importance of the principle involved, and the propriety of establishing a uniform practice in matters of this kind, as far forth as can properly be done, the committee have thought that an examination somewhat in detail was due to the subject.

Possessing these views, the committee have come to the conclusion that the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be granted, and therefore offer for the consideration of the House the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner, Orson Smith, ought not to be granted.

IN ASSEMBLY,

March 4, 1833.

REPORT

Of the select committee on the petition of the Roman Catholic Benevolent Society.

Mr. McKeon, from the select committee to whom was referred the petition of the Roman Catholic Benevolent Society, of the city of New-York,

REPORTED:

The institution was incorporated by an act of the Legislature of this State, dated April 15, 1817. The wish of the applicants, as stated in the preamble of the act, was a grant of corporate powers to a number of persons, residents of the city of New-York, who, together with their associates, had formed a society for the humane and laudable purposes of assisting and relieving the poor, and of protecting and educating orphan children. Since that period the members of the society, including different sects, have, in accordance with the object of their creation, through various difficulties and embarrassments, supported an asylum in which children deprived of their natural protectors, find not only a home, but ample means of instruction. Depending solely on the contributions of individuals, it has existed until the present time. A large and commodious building has been erected, and every exertion made to afford succour and relief to the destitute and helpless orphan. From the period of its foundation, the number of children has been gradually increasing, and now the establishment contains about one hundred and fifty orphans of both sexes, relying entirely for sustenance on the subscriptions to said society, and the contribu tions of a charitable community.

As appears from the representations of the petitioners, the pestilence which visited our land during the past season, and in its desolating course swept thousands from the city of New-York, has increased the number of applicants for admission into the asylum, and trusting to the bounty and generous feelings of their fellow citizens, the society did not refuse to assume the protection of the unfortunate, during a period of general calamity. The increase of the number of children has augmented the expense of, and embarrassed the institution so much, as to render it necessary to use the most strenuous exertions to sustain it. Daily applications are made for admission. The present building will not admit of an increase of the number of inmates, and the members of the society are desirous of extending it, if their means would permit.

The committee cannot but recommend to the Legislature this in valuable institution. Into its doors are admitted children of tender age, without distinction of creed, sex or country. Under its fostering care they are not only supported but instructed. By its means many are saved from destruction, and prepared to discharge the duties which devolve on every individual in the community-to become useful to themselves and to the country. The order, neatness, and entire management of the asylum, have obtained for it a high reputation in the city of New-York.

The Orphan Asylum Society, whose building is situated in a different section of the city from that in which the establishment of the Roman Catholic Benevolent Society is located, was incorporated on the 7th day of April, 1807, as the preamble states, on the petition of a number of ladies, who had formed a society for the very humane, laudable and charitable purpose of protecting, relieving and instructing orphan children. Since that period, the asylum has continued to dispense its blessings, and now contains a large number of children depending upon it for support. While this institution has received from the State for a long time a share of its bounty, until within the last year the Roman Catholic Benevolent Society, with the same object in view, has not participated in any portion of the public bounty. By an act of March 30th, 1811, the sum of $500 was appropriated out of the auction duties, for the benefit of the Asylum Society, until otherwise directed by the Legislature. By the act of April 21st, 1828, renewing the charter of the society, all the laws relating to it were re-enacted, and the appropriation continued. The asylum has received, as