Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

IN ASSEMBLY,

February 25, 1833.

REPORT

Of the committee on claims, on the petition of Emery D. Spalding.

Mr. Russell, from the committee on claims, to which was referred the petition of Emery D. Spalding, of the town of Denmark, in the county of Lewis, praying a pension from the State, in consequence of losing his right hand by the premature explosion of the charge in a cannon on the 4th day of July, 1828, while in the discharge of militia duty on that day,

REPORTED:

That from the petition and documents accompanying the same, it appears that on the 4th day of July, 1828, the petitioner was a gunner in a company of artillery in the town of Denmark, in the county of Lewis, commanded by Cap. Lewis Pearce; that the petitioner, with the company, was ordered out on that day to perform militia duty; that while serving as such gunner during said day, by some inattention of the vent-tender of the cannon, the charge in the gun prematurely exploded, and so injured the right hand of the petitioner as to render its amputation necessary, which was done a few inches above the wrist joint.

It appears from a document accompanying the petition, subscribed by many of the most respectable inhabitants of the counties of Lewis and Jefferson, that the petitioner, Spalding, is a young man of good habits and fair character, but in indigent circumstances; and that by reason of said accident, he has been rendered unable to obtain by his own exertions a comfortable living.

The calamity which has befallen this unfortunate individual, occurring as it did upon a day and on an occasion, the contemplation [Assem. No. 200.]

1

of which presents to the view of the patriot, the philanthropist and the christian, many associations for grateful remembrance; presented too, under auspices so much entitled to our respect and confidence, cannot but force upon the mind of every American at least, deep and abiding impressions; the memory of the past revives, and the sufferings and triumphs of those who have gone before us, and laid the foundation for our present prosperous condition, are presented in full review. The sympathics of all are invited, and the tenderest emotions which influence the conduct of man, are pressed into action, to relieve the sufferings of the afflicted individual; even the blighting grasp of avarice relaxes its untiring hold, and from its accumulated treasures the sufferings of the soldier is relieved.

Upon this simple relation of facts, our individual sympathies cannot but be awakened; but while we call up to view the wounded and suffering applicant, sympathy alone should not be permitted to control our actions; that sober deliberative and discriminating sense which requires us to do justice to all, must not be overlooked; and however desirous individually we may be to alleviate the sufferings of the afflicted, a just regard to others should require deliberation before we act. Can we then extend to the applicant the relief sought for without doing injustice to others? By an inconsiderate step, prompted by feeling, not regulated by judgment, a door might be opened which would lead to most disastrous consequences.

The petitioner seeks for relief upon the ground that he was in the service of the State when the accident happened. He was indeed in the discharge of a duty thrown upon him by the government which protected him, and this service or the discharge of this duty was a part of the equivalent for that protection. Perhaps on that day 50,000 of our fellow-citizens were rendering this same service, and if all had fallen victims to this same calamity, all would have been equally entitled to this relief. The common laborer who is performing his task upon the public highway, would also be entitled to relief. All the officers in the performance of civil duties, from the executive to the constable, would fall within the range of this rule, if there was in the nature of the service any thing upon which a claim could rest. Each of these individuals is required by law to perform these services, and each is therefore equally in the employ of the State. These cases do not rest upon the principle which prevails in relation to enlisted soldiers, for national military operations. Pensions are given to disabled soldiers on the ground

that it is a part of their contract when enlisted, that if they are disabled in the service, the government shall sustain them, and this always enters into the consideration for their enlistment, operates as an inducement to it. When, therefore, we extend our views beyond the narrow limits which confines our vision to the individual applicant, we must readily percieve the dangerous extent which lies before us. Under the extended view which the committee have taken of the case under consideration, they have come to the conclusion that the prayer of the petitioner cannot properly be granted, and they therefore offer for the consideration of the House the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner, Emery D. Spalding, ought not to be granted.

IN ASSEMBLY,

February 25, 1833.

REPORT

Of the committee on claims on the petition of Lucas Elmendorf.

Mr. Russell, from the committee on claims, to which was referred the petition of Lucas Elmendorf, (together with the report of the Comptroller thereon,) praying the passage of an act authorising the Comptroller to execute deeds of conveyance to him for certain lots of land purchased at a public sale for taxes,

REPORTED:

The petitioner states, that in the year 1826 he became the purchaser of several lots of land, at the Comptroller's sale thereof for taxes, and paid into the treasury of the State the amount, as the purchase money, and took from the Comptroller certificates in writing, describing the lands purchased, the sums paid, and the time when he would be entitled to a deed, pursuant to the provisions of the act in such case made; that said lands were not redeemed within the time limited for the redemption thereof, nor have they yet been; that said certificates have been mislaid or lost, and that the petitioner is not able to produce the same; that the petitioner has called upon the Comptroller for deeds of said land, the same not having been redeemed, but the Comptroller declined giving him deeds therefor, unless he produced and cancelled the original certificates; which the petitioner was and still is unable to do; that said certificates have never been transferred to any person whomsoever, and that the property in said certificates and lands is still in the petitioner.

[blocks in formation]
« ZurückWeiter »