Petitions and reports regarding fortifications and wharves in Charleston, 1738.

ArchivalResource

Petitions and reports regarding fortifications and wharves in Charleston, 1738.

Petition (February 1738) to the South Carolina General Assembly by owners of bayfront lots in Charleston (S.C.) contends that the cost of building the "curtain line" is more than the property owners can afford and that "all the other fortifications in the province are built at the province['s] charge." The petitioners go on to ask for relief from the legislature and lay out arguments for their case. There is another version of this petition which bears no date. Another document contains a petition (n.d.) by those owning "sundry lots of land adjoining to the east side of the curtain line on the bay of Charles Town" which contends that the owners should be compensated for the value of land of which they have been deprived use by the Province. The same document contains a report by a "Committee appointed to consider the petition of the proprietors of the lands & wharves to the eastward of [ye] curtain line" which argues that the requests of the proprietors should not be complied with. A document (n.d.) entitled "Observations on [the] Committee's Report" critiques assessments of the legislative committee regarding the petition and argues that the petitioners' case is just. In addition, there is a list of legislative acts concerning the fortification of Charleston (S.C.) and the prevention of "the sea's further encroachment on the wharf of Charles Town"; and a document containing observations concerning the owners of land in Charleston (S.C.) on which a rampart and ditch were located who are "now at liberty to repossess and improve upon their lands."

6 items.

Information

SNAC Resource ID: 7388447

South Carolina Historical Society

Related Entities

There are 1 Entities related to this resource.

South Carolina. General Assembly

http://n2t.net/ark:/99166/w6963gb3 (corporateBody)

S.C. Statute 1811(5)639 specified that every board of commissioners of free schools was to make a yearly return to the legislature. Governor Middleton recommended the passage of this act as a response to the systematic lack of education in the state. The first appropriation made possible 124 elementary schools for the state. As the system progressed, the term "free school" became embarrassingly exchangeable with pauper schools, because the 1811 act carried within it a written directive that an a...