2d Session.

NEW ENGLAND ASYLUM FOR THE BLIND.

FEBRUARY 5, 1831.

Mr. E. EVERETT, from the select committee to which was referred the me morial of the New England Asylum for the Blind, made the following

REPORT:

The select committee to whom was referred the memorial of the trustees of the New England Asylum for the Blind, have had that subject under consideration, and beg leave to report:

That it appears, from the best returns and estimates which have been made, that the number of blind persons in the population of the United States is at least equal to that of the deaf and dumb, and may, therefore, be taken at one in every two thousand. The memorialists regard it as somewhat exceeding this ratio, and observe that, "from returns made in the States of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and partial information from other quarters, there can be no doubt that the actual number of blind persons in the United States is from eight to ten thousand."

It is matter of notoriety that wonderful success has been attained in the education of the deaf and dumb; and it has been found by experience in Europe that the blind are capable of making equal or superior progress. Modes of teaching have been found out and carried to a high degree of perfection, by means of which the blind have been taught to read with great facility, and to write with quickness and elegance. Geometry, geography, and astronomy have in like manner been taught them with entire success. For the abstract sciences they have great aptitude. In music they proverbially excel; and they are capable of acquiring many of the useful mechanical

arts.

It is obvious that, by these attainments, a class of our fellow beings, which, without them, would be shut out from many of the enjoyments of life, and, if poor, condemned to a state of the most distressing dependence on public or private charity, may be made to participate in all the comforts connected with the attainment of useful knowledge; and when necessary, as in the majority of cases it must be, may be put in a condition to support themselves by some branch of honest industry.

This, however, cannot be effected without a large expenditure in organising and preparing an establishment adapted to the education of the blind. No such establishment exists in the country. It will be necessary to send a person of great intelligence abroad, to acquire a practical acquaintance with the most approved methods of teaching and the requisite apparatus, which must, also, be provided at considerable cost.

It will occur to every one that difficulties attend the establishment of an institution for this peculiar species, of education, not incident to any other. The unfortunate individuals to be educated are scattered over the whole country. The aggregate number is large, but the number in each single community is small; and it is, of course, proportionably difficult to raise in any single community the resources adequate to meet the great outlay and the heavy current expenditures of such an asylum.

This consideration seems to point out such an institution as a fit object of patronage to the legislature of the Union-at least in its outset, and when it is required to encounter the difficulties incident to the first establishment, which may become in time, if necessary, the parent of others.

Like considerations, it is believed, induced the Congress of the United States to make a liberal grant to the asylum for the deaf and dumb in Connecticut, in the year 1819, and a similar donation to the Kentucky asylum for the deaf and dumb in 1826. It is doubtful whether the disposition of any portion of the public domain has ever been productive of greater and more diffusive good. The grant to the Connecticut asylum placed that institution upon a solid basis, on which it has grown up into an honorable rivalry with the most respectable institutions of the like nature in Europe.

The committee believe that no instance exists in Europe of an institution for the education of the blind, which has not required and received the patronage of the Government. The present application comes from a part of the country where great willingness has always existed to found and support establishments for education; and it would not have been made to Congress, but in the firm conviction, that, without the assistance of the General Government, the proposed asylum cannot be effectually established.

The petitioners express their willingness, with a view to secure to the whole United States the equal advantages of the institution, to bind themselves, in case Congress should extend the same aid to them which has been granted to similar undertakings, to make it a condition of the grant, that, whenever any State of the Union shall be desirous of establishing an asylum for the blind, it shall have the privilege of sending one individual to the proposed institution, to be instructed gratuitously in whatever is requisite to qualify him to become the superintendent of such an asylum."

The memorialists have received a charter of incorporation from the State of Massachusetts, and your committee are well advised that they are persons of benevolence and public spirit, who have none but the most meritorious objects in view, in their efforts to promoting this undertaking. Believing that it is an institution promising great benefits to the whole country, and that its existence depends on its receiving the patronage of Congress, the committee have determined to recommend to the House to extend to it the same aid that was granted in the case of the asylum of the deaf and dumb already alluded to; and for this purpose they report a bill.

LAURENCE L. VAN KLEECK

FEBRUARY 7, 1831.

Mr. WHITTLESEY, from the Committee of Claims, made the following

REPORT:

The Committee of Claims, to which was referred the petition of Laurence L. Van Kleeck, report:

That the petitioner was collector of the internal revenue of the 13th collection district of the State of New York, from and after about the middle of March, 1816, and was appointed to succeed Thomas Lennington, who resigned. By the 5th section of an act, entitled "An act to fix the compensation and increase the responsibility of the collectors of the direct tax and internal duties, and for other purposes connected therewith," it is provided "that, in case a collector shall die, resign, or be removed from office, he shall be entitled to a commission equal to the average rate of that allowed to the collector of the same district the preceding calendar year, and no more; and his successor shall, for the residue of the year, be allowed a commission equal to the sum that may remain, after deducting the sum allowed to his predecessor from the whole amount of commissions that would have been allowed had there been no such death, resignation, or removal,

and no more: Provided, That either of said collectors shall be entitled to the provisions contained in the 4th section of this act. The whole amount of duties collected in that district in 1816, was $43,267 80, of which Mr. Lennington collected in the first quarter

And Mr. Van Kleeck collected in the other three quarters

$23,087 50

20,180 30

$43,267 80

The average rate of per centage for the preceding year was 5.207 per cent. There was paid to Mr. Lennington for his collection, during the first quarter, $1,259 33, and to Mr. Van Kleeck, for his collection during the three remaining quarters, $1,315 96. Mr. Van Kleeck complaims of the injustice done to him, by what he conceives to be a misconstruction of the section cited, and has put several cases in illustration to show that a collector who should die, resign, or be removed from office, at the end of the first quarter, might, on the principle adopted, absorb the whole sum allowed for the entire year. He contends that the allowance must be regulated between the incumbents according to the time each has served during the year.

On closing the accounts of Mr Van Kleeck, a balance was found against him of $565 00; suit was brought to recover this sum before the district court of the northern district of New York. The defence set up was, there was

nothing due to the United States, and the misconstruction of the act in the particular mentioned was relied on in defence of the action. It appears the cause was fully argued, and Judge Conklin took time to make his decision. At his suggestion, judgment was entered against the defendant, to be set aside in the event the court should find the law to be with the defendant. At the next term of the court, the judge presented a written opinion, a copy of which is before the committee, and to which they refer. He decided the two incumbents were entitled to compensation according to the time each had served during that year. The cause was removed by the United States to the circuit court, before whom the petitioner says no arguments were made, and the judgment of the district court was reversed, and judgment was entered against the defendant. To be relieved from that judgment is one object of the present application. Another object is to obtain a compensation for his services in refunding money under the act of December 23, 1817, which, he says, has been denied to him, and to which he is entitled under the provisions of that act. The compensation of collectors was fixed by the act of March 3, 1815. A per centage was allowed on all moneys collected and paid to the Treasury, or deposited in banks to the credit of the Treasury. The act of twenty-third of December, 1817, abolished the internal duties, and provided for the refunding of duties received in certain cases. The collectors, for refunding, were entitled to six per cent. on the money so disbursed; and if they had not sufficient money in their hands for the purposes mentioned in the act, they were authorized to draw on the Treasury. The commissioner of the revenue, on the passing of this act, issued a circular, directing the collectors to retain in their hands a sufficient amount to refund what might be required of them in their respective districts. The petitioner had on hand a small sum of money, and bonds to the amount of about $1,700, when this law was passed: he says he anticipated the bonds, to obviate the necessity of drawing on the Treasury. When he settled his accounts, he charged on the money thus refunded six per cent., which was disallowed by the accounting officers, on the ground that the money and funds in his hands, at the passage of the law of December 23, 1817, were subject to the control of the commissioner of the revenue. The committee think this disallowance was correct. It was in the power of Congress to direct this application of the funds in his hands, instead of depositing them; and although the trouble was greater to him than it would have been if he had made his deposites, still the committee do not think he is entitled to any additional compensation on that account. It appears apparent to the committee that Judge Conklin put a correct construction on the 5th section of the act mentioned, and that, so far as the petitioner's compensation has been withheld by the construction put on that section by the accounting officers, he ought to be relieved, and for that purpose report a

bill.

2d Session.

THOMAS HOPPING AND JOSHUA P. FROTHINGHAM.

FEBRUARY 7, 1831.

Mr. DE WITT, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, made the

following REPORT:

The Committee on Revolutionary Claims, to which was referred the memorial of Thomas Hopping and Joshua P. Frothingham, of Charlestown, in the county of Middlesex, and commonwealth of Massachusetts, praying compensation for certain edifices burnt by order of an officer in the continental service, make the following report:

The memorialists represent themselves to be the grandchildren and heirs at law of Thomas Frothingham, joiner, deceased, who, in the year 1775, was the proprietor of a dwelling-house, shop, and other buildings in Charlestown. When the place was reduced to ashes on the memorable 17th of June, 1775, by the enemy, these buildings escaped the conflagration, and were subsequently used as barracks for the accommodation of their troops. In the winter following, General Putnam, then encamped with his corps at Cambridge, determined to "route these British guards in Frothingham's buildings;" and he accordingly advanced upon Charlestown with a detachment for that purpose. No difficulty was experienced in effecting his object. The guards were all made prisoners, and the buildings burnt.

The committee are of opinion that the evidence produced by the memorialists fully verifies the foregoing facts. The affidavits of Peter Tufts, Job Miller, Joseph White, Leonard Parks, and Thomas Miller, who were at the time in the vicinity of Charlestown, leave no room for the least doubt. Mr. White, then acting deputy adjutant in the army at Cambridge, swears, that, "one night in the winter after the engagement of 17th June, our camp at Cambridge was alarmed by a fire in Charlestown. It turned out to be this-General Putnam went over to Charlestown to dislodge a British force which was in these buildings, (Frothingham's;) he took the British party, and brought them over to our camp, and with them a soldier's wife on his own horse, which made a great laugh through the camp. I remember this as well as though it happened yesterday. Our men who went with General Putnam upon this expedition burnt the buildings where they took the British party." Mr. Miller, a native citizen of Charlestown, resident there at the commencement of the revolution, well remembers the events that took place. He deposes, that, about the first of January, 1776, a party of continental soldiers, under command of General Putnam, and by his direction, went over in the night from the American camp in Cambridge, and, after making prisoners of the British guard which occupied these buildings, (Fro thingham's,) set them on fire: he was then about a mile and a half distant