Home / O'Callaghan, E.B., ed. The Documentary History of the State of New York, Vol. III. Albany: Weed, Parsons and Co., 1850. / Passage

Documentary History of the State of New York, Vol. III

O'Callaghan, E.B., ed. The Documentary History of the State of New York, Vol. III. Albany: Weed, Parsons and Co., 1850. 379 words

John La.hb, afterwards a Captain in Montgomery's expedition against Canada, and since Irnown as General Lamb, was brought before the Assembly on the Speaker's warrant and examined, on the following day, touching his conduct regarding the two preceding " Libels." As it did not appear that he had acted at the Meeting of the Citizens on the 18th in consequence of those obnoxious papers, though it is stated that he was the proposer of the Resolutions there, he was discharged. Gen'l Lamb, after seeing considerable service through the Revolutionary War, died in New York "in poverty and distress " on the 31 May, 1800, in the 66th year of his age. The Life and Times of Gen. Lamb were published in the course of the last year by Isaac Q. Leake, Esq., to which work the reader is referred for further particulars relative to this Patriot.

Meanwhile the reward offered by government for the discovery of the author of the above addresses, had the effect of stimulating informers. A journeyman in the employ of James Parker, the printer of a newspaper in the city of New York, made some disclosures which procured the arrest of his employer on the 7 Feb. 1770. Parker being at the time a clerk in the post office was threatened with dismissal unless he disclosed the name of the author. He made certain avowals, and Capt. Aiexander McDougal was arrested, and on refusing to give bail, committed to prison. A Bill was found against him at the ensuing April term, and on consenting to give bail In the sum of £1000, he was set at liberty, but the suit never was prosecuted. On the 20th Dec. following McDougal was arraigned at the bar of the Assembly as " the supposcl author or publisher" of the address signed " A Son of Liberty." He pleaded, in reply, that as the grand jury and Assembly had declared the paper in question (o be a libel, he had nothing to say further than, being under prosecution already in (he Supreme Court, he conceived it would be an infraction of the laws of Justice to punish a British subject twice for the same offence, for that no line could be run -- he might be punished without end.