Слике страница
PDF
ePub

IN ASSEMBLY,

January 13, 1831.

REPORT

Of the Commissioners of the Land-Office, on the petition of David Kendall and others, settlers on the school lot, New-Stockbridge.

The Commissioners of the Land-Office, to whom was referred the petition of David Kendall and others,

RESPECTFULLY REPORT:

That the petitioners set forth that they are the present occupants and sub-lessees of a tract of land of one thousand acres, in NewStockbridge, called the school lot; that they purchased their several parts of the said lot, under the belief that they could obtain title to the land from the state, by paying into the treasury the money therefor, at the rate of five dollars per acre; that by an act of the Legislature, passed on the 2d of April, 1827, they are required, in order to obtain title to the lands, to pay into the treasury such a sum as, at an interest of five per centum per annum, will produce the amount of the rent with which their lands respectively are charged; and that this act, in effect, compels them to pay six dollars per acre.

The facts in relation to this tract of land are-that in the year 1804, it was directed to be leased upon perpetual leases, reserving an annual rent of thirty bushels of wheat upon each one hundred acres of the land, and appropriating the rents to the payment of the wages of a school teacher for the Stockbridge Indians. In 1805, the price of the wheat to be paid as rent, was fixed by law at [A. No. 11.]

1

one dollar per bushel, thus making the rent thirty dollars upon each one hundred acres of the land.

The petitioners seem to suppose that this rent was fixed with reference to the value of the lands in their then state, and to the interest which the sum they were worth would have produced, if invested at six per cent. They probably infer this from the fact that six per cent was then and ever has remained, by law, the rate of interest charged by the state upon the purchase money due on the sale of unappropriated lands.

The Commissioners, however, have not been able to find that any appraisement of these lands was made previous to the act directing the leases, nor are they able at all to say upon what principle the rent was fixed. They however see no reason, from any thing they can find in the laws upon the subject, or upon the journals of the Legislature at the time these early laws were passed, which authorises them to say that the state then even designed to part with the title to the lands, or to change the tenure by which the lessees held.

In the Revised Laws of 1813, vol. 2, page 172, will be found a direction, "that the Treasurer shall annually pay, on the warrant of the Comptroller, the rents reserved in the leases for lands granted to John Gregg senior, John Gregg junior, and to James Alexander," (being the original leases for this one thousand acres of land,) "situated in New-Stockbridge, although such rents may not have been received into the treasury." This would seem to indicate that the Legislature did not contemplate any change, and certainly none which could affect the amount of the rents; for it should be constantly borne in mind, that the state has at no period possessed the least interest in this land or these leases, other than as it took upon itself, to this extent, the guardianship of these Indians and of their interests. The leases were made upon the petition of the Indians themselves, and in conformity with their wishes; and the state became responsible to them for the amount of the rent, and held and still holds the leases as its indemnity.

The Commissioners do not find any legislation upon this subject, subsequent to the act last referred to, until the year 1819. On the 26th of March of that year an act was passed, upon the application of Philip Pond and others, directing the sale by the SurveyorGeneral, in the ordinary mode of selling public lands, to the said

money,

Pond, and all others legally interested in this land, of their respective parts thereof, upon their paying into the treasury a sum of the interest of which, at six per cent per annum, should be equal to the annual rent with which the land was charged, and upon their making a surrender of all the original leases for the whole tract.

This act would seem to have contained the precise provision for which these petitioners now ask. Why it was not complied with the Commissioners do not know, any farther than that they find, by a report made by the Surveyor-General to the Senate in 1824, that in a petition to that body, signed by David Frost and others, it was stated that the surrender of all the original leases could not be made, and that that fact was alleged as the ground of the failure by the occupants of this land, to avail themselves of the provisions of the the act of 1819.

The next legislation upon the subject is the act of 1827, complained of in the petition. That act authorises the sub-lessees of this land to pay the rents due and to become due upon their respective shares of the whole lot, and to obtain credits to themselves, and upon their respective parcels of land, for all payments then previously made by each of them, according to certain terms and conditions specified in the first section of the act. The persons claiming to be the sub-lessees and occupants of that part of the one thousand acres leased by John Gregg, junior, have availed themselves of these provisions, and have obtained separate accounts to be opened upon the books of the Comptroller's office, in the name of each, for his share of the land, and of the rent,

The parts leased by John Gregg, senior, and by James Alexander, remain under the original leases, so far as the accounts for the rent are concerned, and in relation to those parts nothing has been done under this act.

The second section of this act contains the provision of which the petitioners complain, to wit: That in order to obtain title to their respective portions of the land, they are required to pay into the treasury a sum of money, the interest upon which at five per cent, (and not at six per cent) shall be equal to the rent charged upon their respective parts of the lot.

The question appears to the Commissioners to be purely one of bargain between the petitioners and the state, and to be entirely open and unrestricted by any proceedings heretofore had, unless the Legislature shall consider the act of 1819 as fixing the rate at which the reversion held by the state in this land should be sold. There can be no doubt that the state is bound to pay to the Indians the three hundred dollars, being the amount of these rents, annually forever. It holds these leases as the equivalent for these payments, and it is not questioned that the lands are perfect security for the rents. The only point to be decided therefore is, will the state sell its reversion at all, and take the risk of re-investment for the purpose of establishing some other fund which by its regular income will reimburse the treasury for these payments to the Indians? If so, upon what terms will the Legislature consent to make that sale?

In 1819 it was agreed to be made upon the payment of a sum which, invested at 6 per cent, would meet the payment or equal the rent. This act required that all the leases should be surrendered, and the whole money paid as one transaction. With the terms of this law the lessees did not, or could not, comply. In 1827 another act was passed, agreeing to receive a sum which, invested at five per cent, should indemnify the treasury, and allowing this payment by any person interested and upon any part. No one has expressed a wish to avail himself of this provision of this act. The act of 1819 must be repealed by the act of 1827, though that repeal is not expressed in words, and the substance of the present petition is, in effect, to have that act revived, and so extended, that any one of the persons interested may avail himself of its provisions separate from the others.

The petitioners, no doubt, suppose they are injured by the law of 1827-as they have habituated themselves to suppose that their rent was to be considered as the interest at six per cent, upon the purchase money of their lands. They have probably so valued the incumbrance upon their titles, and the present holders may have purchased with these views. But the Commissioners know of no act of the Legislature, or of any agents of the state, to authorise these conclusions, unless the established rate of interest upon the sale of state lands, or the act of 1819 above referred to, has done it; and it surely is for the Legislature to determine how far either of these considerations, or the self-created deception of these lessees,

afford the ground of an equitable claim to the relief they ask; as it is also exclusively the province of the Legislature to say upon what terms the state shall receive the money for their reversionary right in these lands.

The Commissioners have considered it their duty, in as much as this subject is before the Legislature, to present them with a statement of these accounts, of the names of the occupants of this land, so far as they appear upon the Comptroller's books, of the quantity of land held by each, of the annual rent chargeable to each, and of the rent in arrear upon each account.

The statement annexed will show these facts; and it is respectfully suggested that, in any legislation which may be had upon the subject, provision should be made for the payment of all rent in arrear upon any piece of the land, before the title to such piece should pass from the hands of the state.

As it has been formerly alleged by the occupants and sub-lessees of this land, that all the original leases could not be surrendered, it may be well for the Commissioners further to suggest, that under a general act directing them to patent these lands, they should not feel themselves authorised to issue patents for any part, until the original lease for such part was surrendered to them, or until its loss or destruction was conclusively proved. It may, therefore, be necessary for the Legislature to give to the Commissioners special directions upon this point, should they, by any act they may pass, order these lands to be conveyed; as, without the power to produce and surrender the original leases, the petitioners might not otherwise be able to avail themselves of the relief intended.

SILAS WRIGHT, JR. Comptroller,
A. C. FLAGG, Secretary,

SIMEON DE WITT, Surveyor-Gen.

Dated Albany, 13th January, 1831.

« ПретходнаНастави »