IN SENATE,

January 31, 1833.

REPORT

Of the judiciary committee, on the petition of inhabitants of Montgomery county, for a law authorizing the appointment of a supreme court commissioner to reside at Johnstown.

Mr. Beardsley, from the committee on the judiciary, to whom was referred the petition of sundry inhabitants of the county of Montgomery, for a law authorizing the appointment of a supreme court commissioner to reside in the village of Johnstown,

REPORTED:

That for many years the first judge of the county of Montgome ry has resided at Johnstown, and is a counsellor of the supreme court, and such is the case at present.

A supreme court commissioner also resides in that county at Canajoharie.

The petitioners request the passage of the present law, on the ground that it would frequently be convenient to have a supreme court commissioner in Johnstown, as well as a judge of the degree of counsel.

As a general rule, the committee believe it has been deemed impolitic to authorize the appointment of a supreme court commis sioner where a judge resided who was a counsellor of the supreme court, because it seems to have been desirable to command the services of gentlemen of legal attainments.

The compensation to county judges is very limited, and as the appointment of a supreme court commissioner would necessarily reduce the amount which the judge would otherwise receive, the committee deem it impolitic to recommend the passage of the law prayed for.

They cannot believe that with a judge of the degree of counsel in the village of Johnstown, and a supreme court commissioner in another part of the county, that there can be any serious inconvenience in the transaction of business.

The committee, therefore, report against the petitioners, and recommend that they have leave to withdraw their petition.