Hutchinson. This proposition was unanimously rejected as unjust, as the contract had been given to Mr. Hutchinson; but the two acting Commissioners, with a desire to gratify the memorialist, agreed to such a division, provided Mr. Hutchinson could be induced to relinquish a share of his contract, and would agree with Mr. Trumpbour upon a uniform plan of executing the work. It was with this understanding, and with the further condition that the maps should be made on a uniform plar. at Utica, under his immediate direction, that Mr. Hutchinson consented, on the request of the acting Commissioners, to allow Mr. Trumpbour to take one half of the contract. And although Mr. Seymour's letter of introduction by Mr. Hutchinson, which the memorialist has embraced in his communication, does not in terms express these conditions, yet it was well known to Mr. Trumpbour, as well as to Mr. Hutchinson, that the Canal Commissioners would never ratify any agreement between them, without security being first had that they should adept and pursue a uniform plan of making their surveys, maps and descriptions. Mr. Hutchinson says that at the time he agreed with Mr. Trumpbour to divide the survey, these conditions were fully discussed, understood and agreed upon. But the memorialist, after he had received the paper signed by himself and Mr. Hutchinson, which indicated only the division of the work and the compensation to each party, appears to have supposed himself exonerated from the conditions above referred to; and Mr. Seymour had early intimations, that in making his surveys and descriptions he was not conforming to any plan adopted with Mr. Hutchinson, and that difficulty was to be apprehended on this account. And it was for this cause, that Mr. Seymour declined paying him any money, except such as he took a promissory note for, or to execute any contract with him until the business was better understood. He did not think it proper to recognize Mr. Trumpbour as a contractor, or to exonerate Mr. Hutchinson from his obligation to perform the whole survey, until every apprehended difficulty was removed "

The committee think that the allegations contained in the former part of the foregoing paragraph, have been already answered. They wish to draw the attention of the House to the remark, that "Mr. Seymour had early intimations that in making his surveys and descriptions, he (Mr. Trumpbour,) was not conforming to any plan adopted with Mr. Hutchinson, and that difficulty was to be apprehended on this account."

"And it was for this cause that Mr. Seymour declined paying him any money, except such as he took a promissory note for, or to execute any contract with him until the business was better understood."

This extract explains the grounds out of which the controversy rose after Mr. Trumpbour had commenced his survey upon a plan which had received the approbation of all parties, and the courses which were adopted to induce him to change that plan, or be ejected from the contract. He chose to stand the hazard, and we see the result.

The following extract from Mr. Hutchinson's memorial (see the document last cited, page 12) is also connected with the same subject, and tends further to elucidate the transaction.

"Subsequently to this, your memorialist, from a desire to preserve that uniformity in the surveys which was deemed from the first of so much importance, and likewise, to avoid all misunderstanding, and enable Mr. Trumpbour to obtain his contract and complete his proportion of the surveys, gratuitously offered to be at one half of the expense of an admeasurement of that portion of the canal, amounting to about one hundred miles, which Mr. Trumpbour had then surveyed after a plan of his own choosing, and which had been found upon examination, to be entirely different in principle, and greatly inferior in every respect, to that which your memorialist had, with the sanction of the Canal Commissioners, adopted.

"Notwithstanding, however, this very liberal offer on the part of your memorialist, (to which Mr. Trumpbour at first assented) and the repeated express prohibition of the Canal Commissioners, the said Trumpbour most unwarrantably persisted in completing the surveys of his part of the canal upon the same objectionable plan which he had from the first adopted, and is now endeavoring, by his appeals to your honorable body, and by various exceptionable means, to force the same upon the people of the State of New-York.

"For the purpose of more effectually accomplishing his object, the said Trumpbour in his memorial already alluded to, has incorrectly stated that your memorialist had departed from the plan of survey originally discussed and agreed upon between them, and either from a waut of candor, ar competency to judge, has stated to your honorable body, that the surveys and field notes made under the direction of your memorialist will not attain the object for which the survey was directed.""

The following extract is from the same document, pages 17 and 18, and connected with this subject, from the memorial of Jacob Trumpbour, where he says:

"In October, following, at a meeting of the Board of Canal Conmissioners held at Utica, Mr. Henry Seymour was authorised and instructed by the Board, to make written contracts, and advance the money requisite to the survey of the canals. On the breaking up of the Board, for the purpose of proceeding to the examination of the route of the proposed Chenango canal, your memorialist requested Mr. Seymour to make him an additional advance of money on account of the canal survey in which he was employed. Mr. Seymour being unwell, and also in haste, instructed Mr. Hutchinson to procure your memorialist an additional advance of $250, which he did, for and in behalf of the Canal Commissioners, as will appear by the receipt he gave at the time for that sum.

"In November, your memorialist wrote to Mr. Hutchinson to call on Mr. Seymour, for a further advance of money for him, which he wished forwarded to Port-Byron, for the payment of l.is hands, as he was then about closing his survey for the season; the copy of which letter has been misplaced. In reply Mr. Hutchinson wrote the following:

DEAR SIR,

"Utica, November 29, 1829.

I arrived last evening from New-York, and found your letter on the subject of funds. I can only say that Mr. Seymour expects that the contract will be executed, and security given for the performance of the survey; and further, that he holds me re. sponsible for the whole work. I shall be for the next fortnight in this village, and shall expect to see you shortly on your return. Respectfully yours,

"JACOB TRUMPBOUR, Esq."

HOLMES HUTCHINSON.”

The following extract from the document last cited, pages 24 and 25, is also connected with this part of the controversy, and is from the memorial of Jacob Trumpbour:

"Your memorialist further states that since the last session he received from the said Holmes Hutchinson the following letter:

JACOB TRUMPBOUR, Esq.

"Horse Heads, Tioga Co. Dec. 4, 1831.

Dear Sir-In September last I was directed by the Canal Commissioners to proceed and finish the survey of the canals, agreeable to my engagement with the State. In consequence, however, of the lateness of the season, and being occupied with other business, I have been unable to go on with the work as intended. My object in writing this letter is to ascertain from you whether you intend, or have a wish to fulfil your engagement with me, by making the survey and maps of the western part of the Erie and the Oswego and Cayuga and Seneca canals.

You must be aware that this business has been delayed by you unnecessarily, and that I hold your obligations for cash lent.

Should you wish to go on and finish the survey and maps, you must first execute a contract, with security that will be acceptable to the Canal Commissioners, to complete the survey and maps in accordance with our previous understanding, to conform to my survey, and the maps to be made at Utica on the same scale and style

of finish.

I shall be happy to hear from you on the subject, addressed to me at Utica; and should you wish to see me, I intend being in Albany in January, and will meet you there at any time you may designate. I hope you will favor me with an early answer to this letter, for should your previous survey not be made to conform to mine, and to meet the views of the Canal Board, and should you yet decline to fulfil your engagement, I shall make arrangements to perform my contract with the State as early as the weather will permit in the spring.

Sincerely yours,

HOLMES HUTCHINSON."

These several passages are further elucidated by subsequent events and transactions. Notwithstanding the ground assumed by the Commissioners and Mr. Hutchinson in these several extracts, on the 228 day of May, 1832, when both the memorialists had been engaged for a month and upwards, in laying their respective proofs before the committee; and as they had eminent counsel on both sides, they are presumed to have been fully advised of their respective rights, Mr. Hutchinson, on the closing of the examination of the witnesses, though there were several depositions which had been taken, that were not then engrossed for signature, filed with

the committee the following paper, signed by his counsel, that is to

say:

To Judah Hammond, Esq. Chairman of the committee appointed to investigate a claim presented to the House of Assembly by Jacob Trumpbour, Esq.

GENTLEMEN

ALBANY, May 22d, 1832.

We, as counsel for Holmes Hutchinson, beg leave to state, that we have appeared before the committee with the sole view of protecting his character as an individual, and his reputation as a surveyor, from unjust aspersions sought to be cast upon him by the memorial of Jacob Trumpbour. So far as the claim cf Jacob Trumpbour is to be considered as independent of the transactions between Mr. Trumpbour and Mr. Hutchinson, we wish it to be distinctly understood, that our client disclaims any interference with it. Believing from the testimony, that the object which induced our client to request us to appear before the committee in his behalf, has been fully attained, we decline submitting any argument upon the question, whether or not the Legislature ought to grant the prayer of Mr. Trumpbour's memorial.

We are respectfully,

Your obedient servants,

EDWARD LIVINGSTON,
S. CHEEVER.

In Committee, 22d May, 1832.
On the closing the testimony.

Present--The Committee.

This paper, filed on the 22d day of May, 1832, conveyed to the committee the first notice which they received of the fact, that Mr. Hutchinson did not claim the entire contract. Such a declaration on the part of Mr. Hutchinson, after the course which he had taken, and the claims which had been made, was as much unexpected by the committee, as it must be unlooked for by the House; not but that the committee had seen sufficient reason in the facts which had been proved to conduct them to a conclusion which this paper is well calculated to fortify.

The counsel of Jacob Trumpbour, submitted the following state

ment:

The following points, which are deemed to arise from the facts developed before the committee appointed to investigate the memo