A. I did not.

49 Q. Was it not at Utica in December in 1829, that you first objected to his manner of taking the field notes; and did you not then, for the first time profess your inability to understand his plan of surveying?

A. In December 1829, at Utica, being the first time that I was apprised of his manner of survey by its disclosure to me by Mr. Hutchinson, I objected to the whole of his plan, both field book and survey; and stated to him, that I could not connect my survey with his and preserve uniformity. I then called him (as stated before) to an interview with Mr. Seymour.

50 Q. Was not this objection made by you, owing to your not understanding Mr. Hutchinson's said plan; and did not this cause prevent the execution of the contract with the Commissioners ?

A. This objection was made, as I supposed, with a full knowledge of his plan as communicated to me by Mr. Hutchinson. With regard to that part of the interrogatory respecting the cause of preventing the execution of the contract, 1 answer I inferred some other cause unknown to me, from the circumstance of receiving the letter of the 29th November 1829, from Mr. Hutchinson, in which he stated that "Mr. Seymour held him responsible for the whole work."

51 Q. Had your plan of surveying, previous to December 1829, been well understood and consented to by Mr. Hutchinson? A. That is my opinion.

52 Q. Is that the fact?

A. It is, and for the reasons already assigned.

53 Q. When you speak of that being the fact, do you mean that that is your opinion, or do you mean that Mr. Hutchinson consented to make his survey on your plan?

A. I mean to say that is my opinion, founded upon previous conversations, in communicating to him my plan of survey, and his not objecting to it; but his manner in those conversations irresistibly forced me to the conclusion that he consented.

54 Q. Have you now stated all the reasons that induced you to say in your memorial that Mr. Hutchinson had, previous to the meeting at Utica in December 1829, well understood and consented to your plan?

A. All that I can now think of.

55 Q. Did the Canal Board, as such, at their informal meeting in the winter of 1830, express any opinion, take any vote, or give any directions in relation to the respective plans of surveying and mapping the canals, talked of or submitted to them by you and Mr. Hutchinson?

A. As to the opinion, I know nothing; as to the vote, I have stated in my memorial what I understood at the time concerning it; with regard to directions, I know of none.

56 Q. Did the Surveyor-General, at that meeting of the Canal Board, make a motion that you and Mr. Hutchinson should each be allowed to make an atlas of your respective surveys; and did such a motion prevail at that meeting?

A. So I understood. I was present at the time the motion or suggestion was made.

57 Q. Did the Surveyor-General report to that Board, at that meeting, that he had examined the plans of the two surveys; and that your plan of survey was decidedly the best, and the one to be adopted?

A. It was my understanding at the time that he stated or reported that mine was best, and most proper to be adopted; and so is my memorial.

58 Q. What facts occurred at the time, which induced you so to understand?

A. I could not state any facts, other than being present, seeing the Surveyor-General, and hearing him express himself as I have represented.

59 Q. Did you, at any time previous to the informal meeting of the Canal Board in 1830, on submitting your plan of survey to the Surveyor-General, state to and inform him that your plan of survey was to be conformed to any other plan, and that such other plan had been or was to be submitted to the acting Canal Commissioners for their approbation? or did you give the Surveyor-General to understand, that in determining on a plan for the surveys, you were left to your own judgment, without the control or instructions of others? A. I have no recollection of making communications to him of that kind, one way or the other.

60 Q. When Mr. Hutchinson left you at Kingston, in April 1829, after signing a memorandum with you of the 13th of that month, did you contemplate entering into a written contract with the Canal Commissioners for surveying your part of the canal?

A. I cannot say what my ideas were about it then; but when I first met Mr. Seymour, I suggested to him the propriety of entering into some kind of contract or agreement.

61 Q. Did you, after your second proposition to the Canal Commissioners for surveying the canals had been rejected, request them, or either of them, to give you half of the job without the consent of Mr. Hutchinson, or did you make any request of that purport?

A. As to the time of the rejection, I do not know any thing. There was a suggestion from them, or one of them, that it might be divided; upon which considerable conversation was had; but whether I requested them to give me one half without seeing Mr. Hutchinson, I have no recollection.

62 Q. Did any person inform you that a written contract for performing the survey would be necessary, and security required; if so, who, and when?

A. The first I heard on that subject, was when Mr. Seymour made me the first advance of $250, in August 1829. At that time he stated, that before he would make any farther advances, it would be necessary to make a written contract. I have no recollection of

his saying any thing of security.

63 Q. Why did you not then proceed to enter into the written contract with Mr. Seymour?

A. I can give no particular reason. I stood ready to make the written contract at any time, and have always told him so; and at other times have offered to enter into a written contract, and give any security required. In the winter of 1830, I drew a written

contract and presented it to him, and proposed to give him sufficient security if he wished it.

64 Q. Did Mr. Seymour make any objections to entering into a written contract with you; if so, what were they, and when first made?

A. He did so object after the interview in December 1829. He first objected in the winter of 1830, the time alluded to in the last answer, and may have done so at other times in that winter. One of his objections was a want of uniformity in the survey; the other objection was, that he held Mr. Hutchinson responsible for the whole

survey.

65 Q. What plan of surveying the canals had you in view, when you made the first proposition to the Canal Commissioners in 1828 for the job?

A. I had the same plan in view that I pursued, and I then communicated and explained it to Col. Bouck.

66 Q. Did you then expect that that plan, if executed, would cost the State more than five thousand dollars?

A. My view of the case then was, that as I had some young men under my instruction, I could do it for that sum; relying much upon the facilities which I then imagined the documents in the canal room would afford.

47 Q. When and by whom was it first communicated to you, that a uniform plan would be necessary in the survey?

A. It was always my idea from the beginning. I do not know that any thing particular was said about it until the discovery of the difference in the two surveys, and then the conversation about it became general.

68 Q. Were the blank field-books shewn to you by Mr. Hutchinson at Utica, ruled with two parallel red lines transversely; and did not he then state to you, that he should survey by running a base line, and taking offsets to the exterior bounds of the canal?

A. To the first branch of the question, I have no distinct recollection about the red lines, but they may have been there. As to the residue of the interrogatory, I have no recollection of his saying any of his surveying by a base line and offsets, and it could not have appeared so from the book; the two red lines would have represented the sides of the canal.

69 Q. Did Mr. Hutchinson tell you at Kingston he had surveyed canals for the purpose of ascertaining the quantity of land, or designating their boundaries; and that he did so by running a single line on the towing path, and taking offsets to the exterior boundaries of the canal?

A. He did not; and I think that if he had represented that plan, I should have remembered it. He did not say any thing on that subject.

Direct examination resumed.

70 Q. When Mr. Hutchinson shewed you his blank books in October 1829, was it because he had not stated his plan of survey, that you could not understand his method of keeping his field-notes?

A. I can only say, that being ignorant of his plan of survey, he having withheld it from me, probably may have been the reason why did not understand his explanation about the manner of keeping his field-notes.

71 Q. You have stated in your cross examination, that your plan of survey was communicated to Col. Bouck at the time of your first proposition, what did he then say about it?

A. My impressions were that he was, as he appeared to be, satisfied with it. He said nothing against it.

72 Q. When, for the first time, did Mr. Seymour or Col. Bouck interpose any objection to your plan of survey?

A. Upon that subject, in my intercourse with those gentlemen, they never pretended to find fault with my plan of survey, but always spoke well of it in my presence.

JACOB TRUMPBOUR.

(No. 30.)

Second Deposition of Holmes Hutchinson.
June 22d, 1832.

IN COMMITTEE-Present, Mr. HAMMOND, Chairman.

Mr. M'DONALD,

Mr. HOGEBOOM.

Holmes Hutchinson, a witness, produced and sworn, &c. 1 Q. Have you a memorandum of an agreement between yourself and Judge Trumpbour; and if so, produce it?

A. I have, and now produce it.

[It is marked Exhibit X, in committee, June 22, 1822.]

"It is agreed between Jacob Trumpbour and Holmes Hutchinson, that maps of survey for the Erie canal, and the Champlain, Oswego, and Cayuga and Seneca canals, shall be made at Utica, from the rough maps first to be plotted from the survey. It is agreed that they shall be made on a scale of chains to the inch, and on the best of super-royal drawing paper, and that the style of finish and completion shall conform to a map made by E. F. Johnson, of part of the village of Whitesborough, as far as the different surveys made by them will admit; and that the whole shall be prepared to be bound in atlas form. And Jacob Trumpbour agrees that the persons who shall be employed by Mr. Hutchinson to make the fair maps, shall be employed to complete the fair maps of the lines surveyed by the said Trumpbour, and it is agreed that the price shall not exceed $3.50 per day while employed. This agreement is understood to be for the purposes of having a perfect uniformity in the whole maps, as it respects size, paper, appearance, and the general topography and finish, &c.

"And it is further agreed, that the field-notes shall be written out from the survey, in a book to be prepared for that purpose. The field-book shall be made of ruled paper, and written in a good fair hand, and this book shall have lines drawn across and near the top, representing the canal and all the important monuments and lines that cross the same, with spaces to put down the offset between the inner edge of the tow-path or water line, and the outward boundary of the tow-path side of the canal. This sketch is intended for the purpose of illustrating the field-notes of the survey, and the whole shall be made to correspond as near as the different methods of doing the work will admit of.

"And it is further agreed, that Henry Seymour Esq. Canal Commissioner, with whom contracts are to be made, to make those surveys and maps, as contemplated by the Revised Laws, shall have the power, and he is hereby authorised to settle any question of difference that may arise between the parties in the fulfilment of this agreement, and his opinion to be final and conclusive; and he is authorised to retain such sums of money from the amount to be received for this work, as may enable him to compel or carry into effect the intention of the parties."

2 Q. When and where was that memorandum written?

A. It was written in Albany, in a room occupied by Judge Trumpbour, at the Columbian Inn, in or about the last of January, or beginning of February, in the year 1830, and soon after the informal meeting of the Canal Board referred to in my former deposition.

3 Q. Is the body of that memorandum in your hand writing, and is any of the interlineations in the same in the hand writing of Judge Trumpbour; if so, point them out?

A. The body of it is in my hand writing. Some of the interlineations are in the hand writing of Judge Trumpbour. The following words were written by him, to wit: "As far as the different surveys will admit." 2dly. "To make the fair map." 3dly. "The map." These passages are interlined in the fore part of the instru

ment.

4 Q. Did you intend that this agreement should conform to your original agreement with Judge Trumpbour?

[This question was objected to on the ground that this is an inquiry into the intention of the witness. Upon which the question is modified as follows:]

5 Q. Does this memorandum conform to the agreement you made with Judge Trumpbour at Kingston, as you understood it?

A. It does in part. It goes more into particulars, and has some modifications which were made for the purpose of enabling Judge Trumpbour to procure his contract of the Canal Commissioners for the said survey.

6 Q. Was this memorandum made at the request of the Canal Commissioners, or either of them?

A. The acting Canal Commissioners requested Judge Trumpbour and myself to arrange our surveys so that they would be willing to execute the contract, or a contraet, with Judge Trumpbour.