Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

EXTRACTS

FROM THE

ORIGINAL REPORTS OF THE REVISERS.

*

The passages extracted from the original reports of the Revisers, and their original notes, are invariably indicated by quotation marks. The observations now inade, and all other matters which did not form a part of those original reports or notes, are included within brackets, or printed in notes at the foot of the page.

All those provisions which were substantially taken by the Revisers from former laws, were accompanied by references to such laws, and usually without any further remark. In all cases where provisions of this nature were enacted by the legislature, in substantially the same form as reported, the references which accompanied them have been republished with the Revised Statutes, and therefore are not repeated in the following extracts.

The phrase " Same as enacted,” will be found of frequent occurrence. It means that the section was submitted to the legislature, by the Revisers, in the reported chapter, in the same form in which it was enacted by the legislature and published in the first edition of the Revised Statutes.

Where the alteration made in the course of enactment, was merely verbal, or evidently made for the mere purpose of rendering the phraseology more perspicuous or concise, it has been deemed sufficient to remark, that the section, as reported, was a substantially the same as enacted," or was "slightly variedby the legislature. A similar course has been adopted in respect to more important alterations made in statutes of minor interest, or which from their nature are not likely to become the subjects of judicial construction.

PART I.

CHAPTER I. OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE AND ITS TERRITORIAL JURIS

DIOTION. TITLE I. - Of the boundaries of the state and its territorial jurisdiction.

(Section 1. Reported in the same form as enacted, S 1 R. S. except the short preamble preceding the words, “The State of New York is bounded, &c.,” which preamble was inserted by the Legislature.]

Original note subjoined to S 1. “The sources from which the above description has been compiled, are generally indicated in the description itself; but it may be satisfactory to the legislature to receive a

more particular account of the various proceedings by which our boundaries have been established, than could be incorporated in the statute.

“The patent of King Charles II, to the Duke of York, bears date the 12th of March, 1664. It grants ‘All that part of the main land of New England, beginning at a certain place called or known by the name of St. Croix, next adjoining to New Scotland, in America, and from thence extending along the sea coast unto a certain place called Pemaquea, or Pemequid, and so up the river thereof to the furtherest head of the same, as it tendeth northward; and extending from thence to the river of Kimbequin, and so upwards, by the shortest course, to the river Canada northward ; and also all that island or islands, commonly called by the several name or names of Meitowacks, or Long Island, situate and being towards the west of Cape Cod, and the narrow Higansetts, abutting from the main land, between the two rivers, there called or known by the several names of Connecticut and Hudson's river, together also with the said river called Hudson's river, and all the land from the west side of Connecticut river, to the east side of Delaware bay; and also, all those several islands, called or known by the names of Martin's Vineyard or Nantucks, otherwise Nantucket: together,' &c.

A great part of the territory included within those bounds had been previously granted by, and was held under the patents of New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut; and on the 23d of June, 1664, the Duke of York conveyed to Lord Berkley and Sir George Cartaret, the territory now known as New Jersey. In August following, New York capitulated to the English, and Col. Richard Nicolls took possession, as deputy governor under the Duke of York. Previous to this, in April, 1664, a commission had been issued by Charles II, to Col. Nicolls, in conjunction with Sir Robert Carr, George Cartwright and Samuel Maverick, by which they were empowered, among other things, to determine “all differences concerning the limits and bounds of the several charters and jurisdïctions granted to the colonies of New England.' These commissioners, soon after the surrender of New York, were appealed to to settle 'the bounds of the patents granted to the Duke of York and the colony of Connecticut. On the 1st of Dec., 1664, they decided, with the consent of the two governors, and of the gentlemen associated with the governor of Connecticut, that the southern bounds of Connecticut were the sea; that Long Island was to be under the government of the Duke of York; and that 'the creek or river called Mamaroneck, reputed to be about 13 miles to the east of Westchester, and a line drawn from the east point or side, where the fresh water falls into the salt, at high water mark, north-northwest to the line of Massachusetts, shall be the westeru bounds of the said colony of Connecticut.' This adjudication may be found at length in Smith's History of New York, page 52, Alb. edition. Complaints were made, on the part of the Duke of York, against this decision; and soon after the second surrender of New York to the English, which took place in 1674, debates arose between the two colonies concerning the boundary line. On the 23d of November, 1683, an agreement was entered into between Col. Don

gan, then governor of New York, and his council, and Robert Treat, then governor of Connecticut, and several commissioners associated with him, by which it was provided that the boundary line should begin at Lyon's Point, 'at the mouth of Byram brook or river where it falls into the Sound, then to go as the said river runneth, to the place where the common road or wading place over the said river is,' and from thence to be run in the manner set forth in the agreement, the substance of which may be found in Smith's History, page 276. It was also provided in that agreement, that in case certain lines therein mentioned should diminish or take away land within 20 miles of Hudson river, that then an equal quantity should be added out of bounds of Connecticut.

“Pursuant to this agreement, a survey was made in the year 1684, by a joint commission, and several lines run. It was also ascertained, that the lines specified in the agreement diminished the territory of New York to the amount of 61,440 acres:; and the commissioners therefore agreed, that a tract containing an equal number of acres should be taken from Connecticut, in an oblong form, as an equivalent therefor. The survey was confirmed by the governor of each colony, and both the agreement and survey were confirmed by the king on the 28th of March, 1700. The greater part of the bounds remaining unsurveyed, and Connecticut retaining possession of the equivalent lands, much difficulty, and many bickerings ensued. Several acts were passed by the colonial assemblies, and many attempts were made to settle the controversy; but nothing definite was done till the 29th of April, 1725, when an agreement was entered into between Francis Harrison, Cadwallader Colden and Isaac Hicks, commissioners on the part of New York, and Jonathan Law, Samuel Eells, Roger Wolcott, John Cop, and Edmund Lewis, on the part of Connecticut, by which they settled the principles on which the whole line should be run, and on which the oblong should be located. In May, 1725, they run and marked the line from Byram's brook to the end of the east-northeast line of 13 miles and 64 rods; but the other lines were not run till 1731. In that year new commissions were issued, and the remainder of the line to the south bounds of Massachusetts, including the oblong, finally run and established. The agreement of 1683, and the surveys of 1684, 1725 and 1731, have been followed in the above description.

“Before the revolution, there was much controversy between New York and Massachusetts, in regard to the western boundaries of the latter; and many ineffectual attempts were made to settle a line of jurisdiction between them. On the 18th of May, 1773, an agreement was made between commissioners appointed by the two colonies, by which it was provided, that a line beginning at a place fixed upon by the governments of New York and Connecticut for the northwest corner of the Oblong or equivelent lands, and running from said corner north 21° 10' 32'' east, as the magnetic needle now points,' should at all times thereafter be the line of jurisdiction between the province of Massachusetts Bay and the province of New York. This agreement was approved by the governors of the two provinces, but the line was not run until after the revolution. On the 7th of March, 1785, the legislature of this state passed an act authorizing the United

States in congress assembled, to appoint commissioners to complete the running of the line of jurisdiction, as agreed upon in 1773. (1 Jones and Varick, 192.) A similar act was passed by Massachusetts, on the 29th of June, 1785; and Messrs. Hutchins, Ewing and Rittenhouse, were accordingly appointed by congress, on the 2d of December, 1785. Their report was made on the 1st of February, 1788; and a return of the line and field notes were filed by them in the office of the secretary of the United States. (See journals of the old congress, vols. x. p. 340 ; xi. p. 10; xiii. p. 7.)

“ The line between New York and Vermont was not fully settled, until 1814. On the 6th of March, 1790, the legislature of this state authorized Robert Yates, John Lansing, jr., Gulian Verplanck, Simeou De Witt, Egbert Benson, and Melancton Smith, to declare its consent to the formation of that part of the ancient colony of New York now included in Vermont, into a new state. (2 Greenleaf, 297.) They executed a formal act expressing such consent, on the 7th of October, 1790. In that instrument they declare that the line of jurisdiction between this state and Vermont, shall be as follows: 'beginning at the northwest corner of the state of Massachusetts; thence westward along the south boundary of Pownal, to the southwest corner thereof; thence northerly along the western boundaries of the townships of Pownal, Bennington, Shaftsbury, Arlington, Sandgate, Rupert, Pawlet, Wells and Poultney, as the said townships are now held or possessed, to the river commonly called Poultney river; thence down the same, through the middle of the deepest channel thereof to East Bay, thence through the middle of deepest channel of East Bay and the waters thereof, to where the same communicate with lake Champlain ; thence tbrongh the middle of the deepest channel of lake Champlain, to the eastward of the islands called the Four Brothers, and the westward of the islands called the Grand Isle, and Long Isle, or the Two Heroes, and to the westward of the Isle-laMott, to the 45th degree of north latitude.' The line from the northwest corner of Massachusetts, to the Poultney river, was not surveyed till 1814; when it was run and established by Smith Thompson, Simeon De Witt, and George Tibbits, who had been appointed on the part of this state, by the act of the 8th of June, 1812, (Laws of 1812, p. 155,) in conjunction with commissioners on the part of Vermont. A minute description of the line as run and established, is contained in an instrument executed by the commissioners, on the 25th of October, 1814. It is observable, that the line run in 1814 forms several angles between the place of beginning and the south bounds of Bennington ; though on all the maps of the state it is laid down as a straight line. When the surveyor general published his map, he was obliged to lay it down in this manner; as the line had not been surveyed, and was stated to be straight. It is probable that the compilers of the maps published since 1814, bave not been informed of the proceedings in that year.

“From the 45th degree of north Jatitude in Lake Champlain, to the northwesterly corner of the state in Lake Erie, our bounds are the same as those of the United States. The latter part of this line has been settled by the commissioners appointed under the 6th article of

« AnteriorContinuar »