from the scene, and distinctly saw them burnt down; and he perfectly recollects that the Americans did it by order of General Putnam. The other deponents substantially corroborate this proof. Mr. Tufts and Mr. Thomas Miller, gentlemen, now residing in Charlestown, estimate the value of the buildings thus destroyed at from $1,500 to $1,800; Mr. Job Miller, of Woburn, in Middlesex, estimates it at $1,800; and they severally found their judgment upon a vivid recollection of the size and condition of the structures at the time. The two deponents last named further testify, that Thomas Frothingham had two children-a daughter, who married one Hopping, a had by him in lawful wedlock one child only, viz. Thomas Hopping, and a son, Thomas Frothingham, who was the father of Joshua P. Frothingham; and that these persons, Thomas Hopping and Joshua P. Frothingham, are the only surviving grandchildren of the said Thomas Frothingham

To remove any suspicion which might be entertained, that Gen. Putnam was partly induced to destroy the property of Mr. Frothingham on account of his is affection to the American cause, it may be proper to transcribe the following passage from the deposition of Mr. Tufts: "I perfectly recollect that it was a matter of surprise that our own people should burn the house, &c., of our own friends.

In coming to a decision upon the prayer of the memorialists, the committee had one or two other difficulties to encounter. 1. Was it not probable that the claim had been settled and satisfied by the State of Massachusetts, under some one or other of the resolutions of Congress, adopted prior to the formation of the present Government? 2. Supposing it to be just, why has it not been presented at an earlier period?

As to the first, Edward D. Bangs, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, under date of January 26, 1831, certifies, that, on examining the public records and documents in his office, he has not been able to discover any evidence that remuneration, in any shape or degree, was made by the General Government, the State of Massachusetts, or any other authority, to individuals claiming damages for injuries caused by the American troops in Charlestown during the revolutionary war. The Journals of the Legislature of the State bear record, that, in the years 1779 and 1780, the Commissary General was directed to pay damages suffered by individuals in Charlestown, upon whom had been quartered the prisoners captured at the surrender of Burgoyne; and the amount paid was to be charged to the continental service. From certain documents on file in his office, it further appears, that, in obedience to an order of the General Court, a committee composed of citizens of Charlestown, did, in the year 1783, make an estimate of the damages occasioned by the enemy, whon the town was destroyed on the 17th of June, 1775; but it is not manifest that this included damages resulting from any movement of American troops. Of any particulars respecting the latter, his office is entirely destitute; and he concludes with expressing a belief that no recompense for them has been obtained.

As to the second point, to wit, Supposing the claim to be just, why has it not been presented at an earlier period? the memorialists offer in explanation, that Thomas Frothingham, their grandfather, and the proprietor of the buildings destroyed, died before the close of the revolutionary war; and his legal representatives at that period, Thomas Hopping, one of the memorialists, and Thomas Frothingham, father of the other, had matters of more pressing interest to occupy their attention. The first was engaged

as a soldier, fighting for the liberty of his country against British tyranny, until the peace of 1783; and the second, an humble artisan, found himself called upon to use every exertion for the purpose of retrieving the loss of his patrimony, which Gen. Putnam, from patriotic motives, had deemed it expedient to destroy. Both were, moreover, ignorant of their rights in the premises, and destitute of facilities to ascertain and assert them before the proper tribunal.

It is, however, averred by the memorialists, that, in 1798, 1799, or 1800, application was made to Congress for redress by the late Samuel Dexter, who then represented the district of which Charlestown forms a part; but, owing to the fluctuation of public opinion, his services were soon lost to the claimants, and the constituents of Mr. Varnum, his successor, were content with the honor of his elevation to the Speaker's chair at the expense of his usefulness. From that time until the present session of Congress, the claim seems to have been altogether neglected. By way of excuse for this, it is represented, that Thomas Frothingham, "of the second generation," died about the year 1816, and his legal representatative, Joshua P. Frothingham, (one of the memorialists,) "has had no ambition nor thought of rummaging into the scenes of the revolution for his rightful inheritance, until recently, and in consequence of the following circumstance. His coclaimant, Thomas Hopping, served as a soldier through the war, is now extremely poor, and has been attempting to obtain the benefit of the pension law, but is excluded by its technicalities. In complaining to some intelligent gentlemen, who had endeavored to assist him in that pursuit, of the hardship of his case, he incidentally mentioned, among other of his sufferings in the cause of the revolution, the taking of this property by the Government. He was at once advised by the gentlemen to abandon the hope of a pension, and to assert his legal claim herein. Were it not for this circumstance, the claim, however well founded, might have slept for generations to come."

Taking, then, all the circumstances of this case into consideration, the committee believe that the memorialists ought to be remunerated to the amount of one thousand five hundred dollars, and have directed a bill to be reported for that purpose.

2d Session.

WILLIAM B. MATTHEWS.

FEBRUARY 7, 1831.

Mr. WHITTLESEY, from the Committee of Claims, to which was referred the bill from the Senate for the relief of William B. Matthews, made the following

REPORT:

The Committee of Claims, to which was referred a bill from the Senate for the relief of William B. Matthews, report:

That the committee do not find any report among the papers referred to them, and are therefore obliged to present the facts proven in this case. It appears that Lawrence Muse was a collector of the revenue at Tappahannock, in the State of Virginia, and that Thomas Roane and Charles Muse, some time in the year 1794, became his sureties, in the penal sum of $2,000. Lawrence Muse, on the 1st of May, 1821, conveyed certain property in trust to the petitioner, William B. Matthews, and to George W. Banks, and to James R. Micen; and as nothing is said about the other trustees in the subsequent proceedings, the committee conclude that the petitioner was the acting trustee, if the other persons named took upon themselves the burden of said trust. The deed of trust was executed to enable the trustees to discharge, 1st, the bond mentioned, and, 2dly, to pay other debts enumerated. In May, 1822, the United States recovered a judgment on the said bond against Charles Muse, to the amount of $2,000 debt, and $69 87 costs, and a like judgment, for the same debt, against the administrators of Thomas Roane, and for $75 41 costs, amounting in the whole to $2,145 28. Judgment was recovered against Lawrence Muse for $35,421 71. On the 25th of April, 1828, a deposite was made of money derived from a part of said trust estate to the amount of $502 50. On the 31st of May, 1828, Mr. Stanard, the District Attorney for the eastern district of Virginia, received of the petitioner $1,642 78, which, with the amount deposited, amounts to ,145 28, the penalty of the bond, and the costs in the two suits against the sureties. Mr. Stanard did not then discharge the judgment, because he contended he could recover the interest by commencing an action of debt on the judgment. On the 9th of June, 1829, Mr. Stanard filed a paper in the court where said judgments were recovered, wherein he stated that he had concluded that a suit would be unavailing, and that he had renounced the idea of instituting a suit, and that he should not interpose any impediment to disposing of the trust property according to the terms of the deed of trust. Before this judgment was finally paid, it is said by the petitioner that $173 03 were deposited by Lawrence Muse, which were carried to his account, and

that he did not know, at the time he made the settlement with Mr. Stanard, that this sum was deposited. It is said by the petitioner, and stated by Lawrence Muse in a letter, that the sum of $173 03 is the proceeds of two slaves, (which were taken off by the British,) obtained under the treaty of Ghent, and for which there was a stipulation in the deed of trust. The petitioner prays that the sum of $173 03 be repaid to him, in order to enable him to apply it towards the other debts, as he was bound to do, after discharging the above mentioned bond of $2,000.

The papers were sent by the committee to the Solicitor of the Treasury, accompanied by a request that he communicate information on several points designated. His answer, accompanied by several papers, is referred to. It is satisfactorily proven that the above sum of $173 03 is the proceeds of two slaves mentioned in the deed of trust; but the petitioner is mistaken in supposing this money was deposited before the judgment was settled. It appears the deposite was made three months afterwards. By the deed of trust, Lawrence Muse was permitted to dispose of the property, and to apply the avails towards the debts intended to be secured; and if he made an application of the money towards his other debts due to the United States by mistake, or from a desire to discharge them to that amount, the committee think the United States ought not to retain the money to the prejudice of the rights of the trustee. The committee wished to know whether a judgment in Virginia drew interest. The Solicitor of the Treasury says he is not informed on this subject, and refers the committee to the letter of Mr. Stanard, wherein he states that he concluded a suit brought on the judg ment would be unavailing. It appears further from this letter that the judgment has been satisfied by the money paid, exclusive of the sum now claimed.

As the deed of trust was executed before the United States had any lien on Lawrence Muse's property, and as the trustee has satisfied the debt due to the United States, as required in the deed, the committee think the trustee should be authorized to receive the amount mentioned in the bill.