Further examination on the part of Judge Trumpbour.

48 Q. How many persons were, at the same time, engaged in making Judge Trumpbour's survey, while you were with him, and in what capacity?

A. Two surveyors, four chainmen and two axemen, flagmen, in all eight employed in surveying; one cook,who had the care of boat, and sometimes a boy also to drive the horse, being ten in the whole. 44 Q. Did you frequently make your stations at permanent objects, such as buildings and the like; and if so, were they noted? A. We did as frequently as we had an opportunity of so doing; when so done, we noted it in the field notes.

45 Q. Where the long distances occur between your check lines are they upon sections where the canal, its embankments and courses were uniform, or nearly so?

A.

Yes.

46 Q. Were you in the habit of correcting your survey as it progressed, by comparing courses and distances oftener than check lines occurred?

47 Q. Can you, from the field notes of Judge Trumpbour's survey, give the true metes and bounds of the several lots of land taken from the different farms for the use of the canal?

A. I think it can be done.

Cross-examination by the Counsel for Mr. Hutchinson.

48 Q. Look at Trumpbour's map, beginning at Buffalo, and the land described as belonging to Samuel Wilkinson and David E. Evans, and state whether any check lines are there put down, and how you would describe those lands there taken by metes and bounds?

A. I do not know that any check line passes through their land. I do not know what proportion of the land taken belongs to them, but the quantity of land there taken for the use of the canal may be ascertained by metes and bounds from the survey of Mr. Trumpbour. I cannot give the quantity taken for that particular section of the canal, not having the minutes.

49 Q. Can you describe the metes and bounds of the land taken for the canal from the farm of Walter Osborn, as laid down in Judge Trumpbour's map and field-notes, now before the committee; and how would you do it?

A. I cannot from the map only, but with the aid of the notes I can, by beginning the line at the boundary between Osborn and Buck; thence to the east bounds of the lot, as the courses and distances are laid down, on the tow-path side; thence along the boundary line across the canal south, thirty-four degrees east, to the south bounds of the canal on the berm side; thence along the outer lines of the canal to the west line of the farm, as the courses and distances are Jaid down; thence across the canal along the west boundary of the farm, north thirty-four degrees west, to the place of beginning.

50 Q. The courses across the canal being given on each side of the above farm, how would you ascertain the distance across the eanal on those lines?

A. In this case it may be done by scale and dividers, and by protraction, there being a check line between the two boundaries, which gives the breadth of the canal.

51 Q. How long is that check line, and how far is it from each side of the farm?

A. The check line is one hundred and nine feet long, and is taken at a station six chains and twelve links from the west side of the farm, and from the east side of the farm thirty-six chains eighteen links.

52 Q. You mentioned in your direct examination, that you were in the habit of correcting your survey as it progressed, by comparing courses and distances oftener than the check lines occurred; how did you do it?

A. We were generally in the habit of asking each other across the canal, what course they were running, and what the distance In long distances, in setting our stations we placed them as nearly opposite as possible.

was.

John B. Jervis, a witness sworn in behalf of Mr. Hutchinson, deposes as follows:

FQ. What is your profession?

A. Civil engineer.

2Q How long have you followed that profession, and on what works have you been employed?

A. Between fourteen and fifteen years. I have been employed on the Erie canal, the Delaware and Hudson canal, the Mohawk and Hudson rail-road, and the Saratoga and Schenectady rail-road. On the two latter works I was and now am the principal engineer.

3 Q. Have you examined Mr. Hutchinson's maps and fieldbooks of the survey of the Champlain canal, now before the committee?

A. I suppose it is the book I have seen here in the committee room. I have looked at a few pages of it only, and cannot say I have examined farther than to ascertain the plan upon which the survey was conducted, but not sufficient to give the details.

4 Q. Have you in like manner examined Mr. Trumpbour's fieldnotes and rough maps, and do you understand the principle upon which the two surveys have been made?

A. I have examined some of Mr. Trumpbour's field-notes that have been shewn me here, and looked over a sample of his fieldbook, shewn me by him, and which is marked Exhibit I, 3d May, 1832, and also some of his rough maps, and from the examination I suppose I understand the principles upon which both surveys are made.

5 Q. To which plan of survey do you give the preference; what are your reasons for the preference?

A. Where I have done surveying of that kind, I have always adopted the plan of a base line and offsets, as pursued by Mr. Hutchinson. I have given it a preference. I have thought there was greater accuracy obtained by that plan in getting a correct measurement of the base line of the ground occupied, as the measurement is generally less obstructed by irregularities of ground, and affords a more convenient reference to ascertain the lines of a canal or similar works at a future day.

6 Q. Would not a survey of the Erie canal upon Mr. Trumpbour's plan be subject to a great many difficulties from marshes, swamps, woods, thick brush, uneven land and other obstructions in the line of the outward boundaries of the canal?

A. There are many obstructions of that kind in the line of the canal which I should think would increase the difficulty of making accurate surveys.

7 Q. Would not an accurate survey upon Judge Trumpbour's plan be extremely difficult, if not impracticable, in many places along the line of the Erie canal where the foot of the slope or out-bounds of the towing path, embankment or wall, is in the channel or deep water of an adjoining river, for instance, Niagara river, and in crossing rivers and large streams, also in many places along the Mohawk river, as at Little Falls, Devendorf Hill, at the Great and Little Nose, and many other places?

A. I should consider it impracticable to run a line along the outbounds in many places. I am not particularly acquainted with the Niagara river. At the Little Falls and Devendorf Hill, the Great and Little Nose, and several other places at which I am acquainted, I should think it impracticable to run a traverse line along the outbounds.

8 Q. How would you make the survey in such cases?

A. I should do it by making offsets and running the line on that part of the work, where it was practicable, and from that line make offsets to the exterior bounds of the canal.

9 Q. (By the committee.) How are the offsets made on Mr. Hutchinson's plan?

A. According to the plan as described; where it occurs at an angle in the base line the angle is bisected, at other places at right angles with the bases.

Cross-examined by Counsel for Judge Trumpbour.

10 Q. Is not the foot of the towing path embankment at the places to which you have referred on the Mohawk, and where you say

it is impracticable to run the out line in the stream or bed of that ri

11 Q. Is not the method of making an offset in the line which you have stated, the proper one to be pursued in those places, the usual mode adopted by surveyors where any insurmountable objects, as a stream or pond of water occurs in the course of a line? A. I consider it so.

12 Q. When the offset is made at such places in the manner by you suggested, may not the survey of the canal there, be then as correct and perfect as if made upon the plan of Mr. Hutchinson? A. I should think so.

13 Q. What surveys have you made upon the plan adopted by Mr. Hutchinson? For what purpose, under whose and what directions?

A. I surveyed a section of the Eric canal under Judge Wright, then engineer, for the purpose of ascertaining the quantity of land to aid the Appraisers. I also superintended the surveys of the Mohawk and Hudson rail-road, as chief engineer, under the directions of the directors, to ascertain the quantity of land required for the work, and to construct maps as required by the charter; and also the Saratoga and Schenectady rail-road, for the like purpose.

14 Q. In making those surveys, did you take the course of your offsets on the ground, and set stakes or monuments at their extremities; and what permanent objects did you note along the base line or upon the out lines?

A. The offsets were taken at right angles, with the base line; where there was an angle in the base line at the offsets, the offset was taken at right angles, with the course last run; we set stakes at the angles in the exterior line in improved lands. All permanent objects were noted on the base line, and offsets were taken and noted to such other permanent objects as were within the exterior lines, such as locks, waste-weirs, aqueducts, bridges, and buildings, if any occurred on the canal. I also noted in my survey, all buildings on the exterior lines, and took the entire position of the buildings, so as to be enabled to designate it on the map, as it stood on the ground, and noted what portion of it came within the ground taken by feet and decimal parts. In making the offsets on the ground, we took the courses by the compass.

15 Q. Does Mr. Hutchinson's plan of survey designate on the ground where the exterior bounds of the State property are, or merely furnish data by which those exterior bounds may, by measurement, be ascertained?

A. I do not recollect observing that there was any thing said about setting monuments or stakes in the out bounds; nor do I recollect whether that was a part of his plan or not. I did not observe any thing of that kind in the description of his plan of survey. If no stakes or monuments were set, it could not be known on the ground that any survey had been made, the survey would give the means of ascertaining the quantity of land taken, without setting any stakes or monuments, but it would not designate on the ground itself,

the bounds of the public land along the canal, to ascertain that a new measurement of the ground would be necessary.

16 Q. Can you, from Mr. Hutchinson's survey map and fieldbook, or either of them, ascertain, without further measurements on the ground, how many feet and inches, or chains and links, any buildings along the canal encroach upon the State property?

A. Not without it is described in the field-book.

17 Q. (By the committee.) Does the field-book contain any such description?

A. I have not noticed any description in reference to buildings in the field-book, but there may be such entries contained in it. My examination of it has been brief. In examining some cases upon the first sheet of the atlas of the survey of the Champlain canal by Mr. Hutchinson, I think it would be necessary to take a measurement on the ground from some offset to ascertain the encroachment.

18 Q. Will you look at part first, chapter nine, title nine, section four of the Revised Statutes, and then state which of the two surveys, that of Mr. Trumpbour or that of Mr. Hutchinson, you, as a surveyor, consider most conformable to the requirements of that section?

A. I do not think that I am so well qualified to judge of that, not being in the habit of land surveying for the purpose of ascertaining boundaries, as those who are more familiar with that branch. I don't know that theoretically there would be any thing to choose between the two plans, as to ascertaining the boundaries. All objects proper to be referred to in the boundary, could be taken in either plan.

19 Q. Upon the plan of the field-book and maps submitted, which survey does in fact most clearly and fully designate, by the maps and field-books, the exterior boundaries of the parcels of land taken by the State for the use of the canal?

A. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the two plans to be very decisive on that subject; but from what I have seen from the samples produced, there is more fullness in Judge Trumpbour's specimenз of field-book submitted, and should rather give it the preference over that of Mr. Hutchinson's, submitted to me at the same time; being that of Buffalo on the part of Judge Trumpbour, and that of Whitehall on the part of Mr. Hutchinson.

Thursday, 9th May, 1832. 4 o'clock, P. M.

IN COMMITTEE-Present, Mr. M'DONALD,

Mr. HOGEBOOM,

Mr. HAMMOND, Chairman.

The memorialists and their counsel are also present.

Mr. Jervis further examined on the part of Mr. Hutchinson. 20 Q. From further examination of the field-notes of Judge Trumpbour, do you think the case at Buffalo, referred to in your last answer, a fair sample of the field-book to be compiled from his fieldnotes?