ther at Oriskany or Whitesborough, and whose immediate trade lies with those places principally, it is quite inconvenient to attend their public meetings, or to public business at the corners.

This bill passed the Assembly, grounded on petitions of 1829 and 1830, containing about 300 signers, which were then before the Legislature on a like application, but which did not succeed. And the remonstrants before the Senate, `state that they were not apprised that the application would be renewed this year, as no new petitions had been got up, and they supposed the notice not suffi cient, or that the power and force thereof was spent last year, until they saw in the public papers that the bill had passed the Assembly. They then came before the committee of the Senate, and both parties have been heard on the subject.

The last notice of application is dated February 9th, 1830, and was put up then, and read at the town-meetings in 1830 and 1881; was signed by eight freeholders of said town, and is not denied to be regular, except that it extends to two years, as follows:-" Notice is hereby given that application will be made, &c. to the next Legislature; and in case the said application should not be granted by the next Legislature, an application will be made to the next ensuing Legislature, to divide, &c. Dated February 9th, 1830."

The affidavit accompanying the above notice, was sworn to on the 31st December 1830, and was used last winter; and it does not appear that any new notice was put up last year, although a vote of the town was, at the last town-meeting, taken on the subject.

The statute relative to notices, requires that a notice in writing of the intended application, subscribed, &c. shall be affixed on the outer door of the house where the next town-meeting is to be held, at least ten days previous to the town-meeting; and a copy thereof shall be read at the town-meeting; and a sworn survey and map of the new town shall accompany the petition, be laid before the Legislature, and filed with the Surveyor-General, before it shall be acted on. No verified map or survey has been exhibited to your committee, nor filed; and they refer the sufficiency of the notice to the consideration of the Senate. They will, however, indulge in this passing remark, that if the notice can be extended to two years, they see no reason why it may not be equally legal to extend it to ten in succession; and thus the benefit intended by the statute, be altogether eluded.

Your committee take this occasion further to remark, that the want of proper maps of the several new towns lately erected in this State, has been a subject of great complaint with the Surveyor-General and others; and that much of it may be attributed to the fact, that the committees of the Legislature have relaxed the law on that subject; a law which we think extremely salutary, and indeed necessary. If the Legislature should uniformly require a strict performance of that part of the statute, as a preliminary step before the merits of the application should be inquired into at all, it would certainly not operate as a hardship to the applicants, because the map would benefit themselves in common with the public, would obviate the evil so justly complained of, and would eventually save to the State large sums of money which will otherwise, from necessity, at some future day, be expended in surveys,

Since this bill has been before the Senate, a petition for the division of the town has been presented, dated this winter, containing 182 names, of whom about 100 are on the tax list; and a remonstrance of about 120 names, of whom about the same number are also on the tax list, all residing within the proposed new town.

The petitioners are those who reside west of the centre of the town, and the remonstrants those who reside at the cast part, and near the proposed east line of the new town. The petitioners are incommoded considerably in attending town and other public meetings at the corners, a distance of from 4 to 8 miles; which to the remonstrants is a matter of small moment, whether they go 2 or 3 miles east or west to attend their meetings. They therefore prefer it to remain as it is.

It is also proper to state, that at the last town-meeting, a vote was taken on this subject; when 450 were against, and 45 were in favor of the division. But inasmuch as the mass of inhabitants of old towns are always against a division, and the residents of the extreme west part of the town were probably many of them absent in consequence of the distance, the vote ought not to be considered as at all decisive of the views and wishes of those whose interests in the case are paramount-the inhabitants of the new town.

The expenses to the old town will not be materially enhanced by the division. The county poor-house supports the paupers. There are but two bridges left in the old, when there are five in the new town. And inasmuch as after the division, the town of Deerfield

will contain a population of 2300, and a respectable size as to territory, we cannot coneeive their opposition ought to have much weight.

The proposed new town will have about 300 voters: Of these, a large majority, nearly two to one, are in favor of the division; and of the remainder it may be said, if the town-meetings are held in the centre, where they certainly ought to be, that they will be as well accommodated as at present, and at the fall elections, better. The active opponents of the new town are from the old part of Deerfield, from about the corners, where the town-meetings have been held, and where the people are interested in having as many to attend these meetings as possible.

Your committee, from a view of all the facts of the case which appear on the papers, and from the statements made by gentlemen who have argued the question before them, have come to the conclusion to recommend the passage of the bill, (with an amendment as to the place where the first town-meeting shall be held, bringing it to the centre of the new town,) if the Senate are satisfied that the notice in this case is sufficiently regular, and that it is proper or even expedient to waive the production and filing of the verified map prescribed in the Revised Statutes, and thereby virtually to nullify

the statute.

WILLIAM I. DODGE, Ch'n.

IN SENATE,

February 15, 1832.

REPORT

Of the committee on claims, on the petition of John C. McLean.

The committee on claims, to whom was referred the petition of John C. McLean, respectfully report the following statement of facts:

In the year 1824 the petitioner purchased of his father, Thomas McLean, Lot No. 74 in the Peru Bay Tract, and agreed to pay for said lot four hundred dollars, over and above a balance of about one hundred and fifty-seven dollars then due to the State for principal and interest.

In the spring following, this lot, with others in the same tract, was advertised by the Surveyor-General, to be sold for non-payment of interest. The sale of these lots commenced on the 16th of June, 1825, sometime in the forenoon of which day, as the petitioner states, and your committee believe, the petitioner paid to the Treasurer thirty-five dollars for the arrears of interest, and two dollars for costs.

Unfortunately for all parties, this payment was not entered, as it should have been, in the Comptroller's books; in consequence of which omission, the books, on comparing them with the list of lots to be sold the next day, did not show that this lot had been redeemed.

The petitioner attended the sale during the first day, and finding his lot was not reached, concluded all was safe, and left the city.

The lot was sold for $157.29, the balance of principal, interest and cost, which appeared to be chargeable thereon, to George D. [S. No. 47.]

1

Simpson; and on a subsequent examination of the facts and circumstances in the case, by the Commissioners of the Land-Office, they did not feel justified in denying Mr. Simpson's claim to the patent, on his paying the amount of the bid.

Mr. McLean afterwards petitioned the Legislature for relief; and on the 19th March, 1830, an act passed, providing that the Treasurer should pay him such sum as the Commissioners should asccrtain and certify to have been the actual value of the lot on the 16th of June, 1825, deducting therefrom the sum due the State, in full of all claims of the said McLean, &c.

The second section of the act, which it is believed was added by way of amendment, after it had passed the Senate, provides that such sum shall not exceed the amount actually paid by the said McLean on account of said lot, with the interest, at the rate of six per cent.

Difficulties arose in the construction of this act, and the Commissioners of the Land-Office, declining to comply with what the petitioner contended was the proper construction, he was compelled, as he states, in pursuance of the rights which he believed the Legislature intended to secure to him, to apply for a mandamus, to the supreme court. Of this application he gave the Commissioners notice, some time in January, 1831—on the 29th of which month, the Commissioners made a communication on this subject to the Assembly, to which document, No. 72, your committee beg leave to refer. The communication here referred to, does not appear to have produced any legislative interference; and the petitioner followed the only course, as he supposed, which was open for him.

The supreme court, it would appear, took the view of the act of March, 1830, which had been contended for by the petitioner, and granted a mandamus.

Under this mandamus, an appraisal of the lot has been directed by the Commissioners, to ascertain its value on the 16th of June, 1825; and after deducting from this appraised value the sum due the State on said 16th of June, the Commissioners have certified that there was due the said John C. McLean, the sum of $145.21, which sum has been paid to him.

Mr. McLean contends that in this transaction he has suffered severely, and without any fault of his own, in several particulars: