Disposition of the quarantine grounds on Staten Island : speech of Hon. Smith Ely in the assembly of New York, April 3d and 4th, 1862.

  • Ely, Smith, 1825-1911.
Date:
1862
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Disposition of the quarantine grounds on Staten Island : speech of Hon. Smith Ely in the assembly of New York, April 3d and 4th, 1862. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    12/14
    than an\ other County, if either amount of business, capital, produce, population, personal or real property were made the standard of taxation. Further comparison is quite im possible, [f those counties bave not l>een enriched by the expenditure of the public treasure, they certainly have not been injured thereby. All the money which thr Si has appropriated for Richmond County has l>cen for Quar- antine purposes, and e\ ery ikijlar thus employed has injured it |1,000. It may have spent $100,000, there, which has produced such r depression of property, loss of health and life, that $100,000, ►, could not compensate. The honorable member who boasts of his connexion with the Chamber of Commerce of the city of New ^ ork, very unostentatiously stated, that lie had made him- self acquainted with the Quarantine question and the merit- of this bill, and made many assertions as facts, for which 1 can find no foundation. Now, Sir. what were his facts, and how did he prove them? lie asserted that the Quarantine grounds were owned by a church in New York. I have In re copies of the original title deeds, show- ing that they were taken from St. Andrew's Church, of Richmond County. That is fact No. I. lie next said that the same persons who destroyed the old Quarantine buildings, on the eastern side of the County, subsequently passed over to the western side,and burnt those at Segnin's Point. A- it has never before been known who did the deed, permit me 1<» inquire of the legal gentlemen of this House, whether a criminal prosecution cannot be made to lie against him as an accessory, unless he will turn State's evidence. lie also said that after tho.-e buildings were burnt, many persons made large purchases of land for speculative purposes, the gentleman from Richmond in- eluded. Will he be kind enough to point out the property? The gentleman from Richmond has no recollection of ever having seen it. He opposes the bill because he has a re- monstrance againsl it. Now. Sir, I desire to give the his- tory of that remonstrance. Two day- since the honorable member showed me a letter Q cquaintanc< s, ■with a remonstra] insl my bills, lie read the letter. but asked me to say nothing of it- content-: then exhibited the remonstrance, since read by him to thi- House, omitting