VIII. Resolution of the House of Delegates respecting the Claims of Thomas Johnson and Others
[24 January 1778]
Resolved, That the Consideration of the different1 propositions of the Senate and this House for defining the precise meaning of the term money Bill in the Act of Government, ought to be refer’d to the next Session of Assembly: and that in the mean time2 the several persons interested in the claims suspended in consequence of amendments by the senate shall receive on account thereof the sums following, that is to say
|Thomas Johnson the sum of £12||Anne Hayes £20|
|Catlett Jones £20||James Duncan £5|
|Richard Epperson £10||Richard Reeves £6|
|William Bristow £20||Wm. Grills £8-16|
Whereas the claims of John Carmack, Ezekiel Smith, John Looney and Jonathan Drake of the county of Washington cannot now be ascertained and it will be inconvenient to the claimants to [want for?] their whole money until the next session of Assembly, Resolved therefore that the Treasurer advance and pay to Anthony Bledsoe the sum of three hundred pounds upon his giving bond and security to pay the same towards the discharge of the said claims in proportion to the amount of each, accounting for the application of the same to the next meeting of the Assembly.
MS (Vi). Partly in hand of Edmund Pendleton and partly in hand of TJ. Docketed at bottom of recto: “Agreed to by the House of Delegates. Jan: 24. 1774 [i.e., 1778] J. Tazewell, C H D.” Endorsed in another hand: “Resolution Jany. 24th. 1774.”
Despite Tazewell’s categorical statement on the face of the Resolution, the Journal of the House of Delegates contains no mention of such a resolution; this lapse may have occurred because of the great pressure of business during the last day of the session, the hectic nature of which is possibly reflected also in Tazewell’s lapse in dating the Resolution. Yet the fact that Thomas Johnson presented petitions at the two subsequent sessions of the legislature would seem to indicate that the Resolution above did not take effect.
1. The word “two” is deleted in manuscript and “different” interlined. This indicates that the Senate proposal of 15 Jan. (Document vi, above) was known to Pendleton and TJ though not officially communicated. It also indicates, perhaps, that Pendleton may have had in mind his own proposal for an accommodation of the differences of the two houses (see notes to Document ii, above).
2. The following is deleted in the manuscript: “this House will proceed to Consider the Amendments proposed by the Senate to the Resolutions for giving money to Thomas Johnson jr. and others upon the footing proposed by the Senate.” From this point on the MS is in the hand of TJ, and it was probably he who deleted the passage just quoted and substituted therefor the remainder of the Resolution.