Home / Dawson, Henry B. Westchester County, New York, During the American Revolution. Morrisania, NY: (privately printed by the author), 1886. / Passage

Westchester County, New York, During the American Revolution

Dawson, Henry B. Westchester County, New York, During the American Revolution. Morrisania, NY: (privately printed by the author), 1886. 390 words

"And whereas the Inhabitants of this Precinct Did meet agreeable to " your said Resolve On the Twenty-fourth Day of August Last, under " the Inspection of the Commitee for that District Did by a very great '■ Majority as by the List will appear, Did Nominate and appoint Mr. " John Cock of the said Precinct for his known Skill and ability in the " Military Discipline and for other good Cause, appointed him Captain "of the said Company for the District aforesaid.

"And whereas we are informed that a Complaint hath been made to " the Commitee by a few of the Inhabitants against the said Mr. John " Cock out of Spite and Malice and as we conceive what has been aleg* "against him was before the Signing the Association, we are well "assured that Since his Signing the said Association no pereon Can ac- " cu8e him of breaking the same by any ways or means whatever.

" Therefore we the Petitioners and Subscribers Do Humbly beg the "Indulgence of This Honourable House To Grant unto M<. John Cock " the Commission of Captain for the Company aforesaid as we are Convinced hewoschosson agreoahle to your said Resolve and your Peti- " turners as in Duty Bound shall ever pray.

WESTCHESTER COUNTY.

those who had voted for Cock, at the Election, was induced to join with George Hadley, the latter in a second Affidavit, showing that Cock "had damned the "Provincial Congress of this Colony, and spoke dis- " respectfully of them ;*' and these were laid before the Colonial Committee of Safety, in opposition to the Petition of the fifty-nine and to the claim of the Captain -elect. The result was probably foreseen by the Petitioners and their successful candidate -- why should the carefully expressed will of fifty-nine respectable men, declared in conformity with the published terms of the Congress itself, be permitted to stand in the way of a Van Cortlandt, the latter with nothing else than two ex-parte Affidavits to sustain the evidently ridiculous charge of wrong-doing in the successful candidate? and why, also, should those other successful candidates who had, also, been elected by the same great majority and at the same time, without even the semblance of an accusation against either of them, be permitted to receive their Commissions ?