the treaty of Ghent; and it is understood that the settlement of the remainder is in progress under the 5th article.

"The western extremity of this state derived its present boundary from a cession made to the United States, on the 1st of March, 1781, pursuant to a law of this state passed on the 19th of February, 1780. 1 Jones & Varick, 53.) The act of cession and other proceedings may be found in the journals of the old congress, vol. vii. p. 43 to 48. On referring to the act of cession, it will be seen that the line is described in the alternative; and that the ultimate boundary is made to depend on a contingency which could not be determined without actual survey. Such a survey was afterwards made, and the line adopted in the above description, thereby established.

"The line along the north bounds of Pennsylvania was not fully surveyed until after the revolution. The patent to William Penn grants all the territory 'bounded on the east by Delaware river, from twelve miles distant northward of Newcastle town unto the three and fortieth degree of northern latitude,' extending westward five degrees of longitude, and bounded on the north by the three and fortieth degree of latitude.' In the year 1774, lieutenant-governor Colden appointed Samuel Holland, and governor Penn appointed David Rittenhouse, to fix the beginning of the 43d degree of north latitude in the western branch of the Delaware, and to proceed westward as far as the season would permit, along the beginning of said degree. On the 14th of December, 1774, Messrs. Holland and Rittenhouse reported, that they had ascertained the beginning of the 43d degree of latitude in the Mohawk, or western branch of the Delaware, at a stone which they had planted and marked on a small island in the river, and had marked the line for 22 perches west, but that the severity of the season prevented them from proceeding further. In 1786, Messrs. James Clinton and Simeon De Witt, who had been appointed on the part of this state, pursuant to the act of the 7th of March, 1785, (1 Jones & Varick, 194,) in conjunction with Andrew Ellicott, who had been appointed by Pennsylvania, ran and marked from the Delaware river, 90 miles west. The remainder of the line to its western extremity, was run and marked in the following year, by Abraham Hardenburgh and William W. Morris, on the part of this state, and Andrew Ellicott and Andrew Porter for Pennsylvania. From the 43d degree of latitude to the New Jersey line, the Delaware river, and probably its west bank, is the boundary. As it is possible that Pennsylvania may dispute our right to the whole of the river, the above description merely provides that the line shall run down along the said river, leaving the question, if it shall ever arise, to be settled hereafter.

"The boundaries between New York and New Jersey, have been a fruitful source of contention. A history of the controversy concerning the line from the Hudson to the Delaware, may be found in Smith's History of New York, page 228 to 238, Alb. ed. That account terminates with the year 1753. In 1762, New York passed a law submitting the controversy to the king. (Van Schaack's edition of the colonial laws, p. 421.) A like act was passed by New Jersey, and a further one by New York in 1768. (Van Schaack, p. 512.) In the mean time commissioners had been appointed by the crown, who

determined on the 7th of October, 1769, that the boundary line between the colonies, should be a direct or straight line from the fork or branch formed by the junction of the stream or waters called the Mahackamack [now known as the Nevesink] with the river Delaware or Fishkill, in the latitude of 41°, 21' and 37′′ to a rock on the west side of Hudson's river in the latitude of 41°.' From this decision both colonies appealed to the king. Whilst this appeal was pending, in February, 1772, the general assembly of New York passed an act confirming the decree of the commissioners, and making provision for running the line. (Van Schaack, p. 602.) A similar law was passed by New Jersey, and both received the royal assent. Pursuant to these acts, the line was run in 1774, by Messrs. Wickham and Gale on the part of New York, and Messrs. Stevens and Rutherford on the part of New Jersey.

"From the rock on the west bank of the Hudson river in the latitude of 41°, it will be seen that the description proposed includes all the waters below low water mark. Our right to such a boundary has long been contested by New Jersey, but the revisers thought it their duty to follow in distinct terms, the ancient claims of the state. (See the report of the New York commissioners, Senate journals of 1808, p. 51. See also 1 R. L., 238.) If the legislature shall think it advisable to modify this part of the section, it may easily be done; by omitting the proposed description from the rock on the west side of Hudson's river to Sandy Hook, and substituting in lieu of it, the following clause: then southerly along the easterly bounds of New Jersey to the place of beginning; in such manner as to include Staten Island, &c.' This description would possess the double advantage of suiting our present claims, and of accommodating itself to any future arrangement concerning the eastern boundary of New Jersey.

"In regard to the islands belonging to this state, it is proper to observe that Nantucket and several other islands now forming part of Massachusetts, were included in the patent to the duke of York, and for some time were under the government of New York, forming with Pemaquid, the counties of Duke and Cornwall. The territory and islands within those counties were claimed by Massachusetts, and yielded to the government of that province soon after 1693.

"As the bounds of the state are derived from grants, treaties and possession, the section has been framed in a declaratory form."

[The boundary line between New York and New Jersey, from a point in the middle of Hudson river opposite to the point on the west shore thereof, in the forty-first degree of north latitude, to the main sea, was settled by an agreement concluded between the commissioners of the two states, on the 16th of September, 1833, which was afterwards ratified by the legislatures of the states and by congress. See ante, p. 175.]

TITLE II. Of the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the state.

Section 1 as reported. "S 1. The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries thereof, except those Iceded to the United States."

Original note. "Special acts have been passed at different times to maintain the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the state over portions

of its territory. Two were included in the last revision. See 1 R. L., 127. Ib., 238. Instead of re-enacting the provisions of those acts, one of which is obsolete, it is conceived that general provisions referring to all the territory of the state, are more proper for a permanent law."

[S 3. Same as enacted.]

Original note. "Similar to S 4 of the act 1 R. L., 127, and $ 4 of the act 1 R. L., 238. In framing the section for general application, it was conceived to be proper to include the case of suits brought against persons deriving title from this state, where such suits involved the question of jurisdiction."

[S 4 and 5. Same as enacted.]

Original note to § 4 and 5. "Sections 4 and 5 were suggested by the 1st and 3d § of the act 1 R. L., 127. See also the special act relative to Grand Island, Laws of 1819, p. 302. The remedy proposed is less severe than in the acts referred to, but it will probably be sufficient for ordinary cases. It was thought best to impose the duty of giving information on the district attorney."

CHAPTER II.

OF THE CIVIL DIVISIONS OF THE STATE.

TITLE V. Of the several cities in this state.

Preliminary note. "To complete this chapter, the revisers are of opinion that it should contain a description of the cities and their wards, and of the several incorporated villages. They have, therefore, abstracted from the several acts concerning the cities and villages, the contents of this and the next title. This is the more proper, as it is not expected that the legislature will direct the re-publication of all those acts. The acts concerning the cities, were included in the revision of 1813; but the laws incorporating villages, had then become so numerous, that it was deemed expedient to omit them. As they are now still more numerous, they will probably again be omitted. But, even if republished, with the other local laws, it is conceived that it will be useful to present in this place, a view of all the civil divisions of the state."

Original note to § 2. "The bounds of the city of Albany originally depended on its charter which was granted on the 22d of July, 1686. Prior to the revolution, there were frequent debates concerning the bounds of the city; nor were its north and south bounds definitely settled until the 17th of July, 1800, when an agreement was entered into between the corporation of Albany of the one part, and the Hon. Stephen Van Rensselaer of other part, by which it was declared that the lines surveyed by John R. Bleecker in 1764, should be the boundary lines between the city of Albany and the manor of Rensselaerwyck. It was also agreed that Simeon De Witt and John E. Van Allen should re-survey and designate the lines run by Bleecker, which was accordingly done. This agreement has been followed in the above description of the bounds of the city. The town of Colonie was added to the city in 1815. (Laws of 1815, p. 44.). The description of the wards is conformable to the act of 1826, p. 184, except that some mistakes in that act have been corrected."

TITLE VII. as reported, VI. as enacted. General provisions concerning the erection and alteration of counties, &c.

[$ 1, 2 & 3. Same as enacted, except that § 1, as reported, included towns.]

Original note to $ 1, 2 & 3. "The foregoing provisions are intended to secure a correct description of the territory referred to in applications of this sort. They will also enable the surveyor-general to delineate new towns, &c. on the map kept by him, without subjecting the towns to the expense of an additional survey.

"Since the revision of 1813, forty-two laws have been passed, altering the bounds of towns, by taking from one town and adding to another, and 206 new towns have been erected. In the northern and western parts of the state, the rapid increase of population, and the convenience of the inhabitants, have required frequent changes; but it is believed that towns are frequently altered, and new towns sometimes erected, without adequate necessity. It is respectfully suggested that a salutary check may be imposed on the improvident alteration of towns, by requiring that the applicants, instead of giving notice, or in addition thereto, shall not be permitted to present their application to the legislature, until he has received the sanction of the board of supervisors. Such a regulation, it is conceived, would not only prevent unnecessary alterations, but relieve the legislature from much difficulty and embarrassment.

The Revisers suggest the propriety of incorporating in this chapter such alterations as may be made during the present session, in the civil divisions of the state."

[S 4, 5 & 6, R. S. inserted by the legislature, pursuant to recommendation of the Revisers, who reported these sections as an addition to the Title.]

CHAPTER IV.

OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS AND INHABITANTS OF THIS STATE.

Extract from preliminary Report accompanying Chapter.

"The first constitution of this state, contained no formal bill of rights; but the legislature on the 26th of January, 1787, passed an act concerning the rights of the citizens of this state,' which has been republished without re-enactment or alteration, in all the subsequent revisions of the laws, though some parts of it were affected soon after its passage, by various provisions in the constitution of the United States. Since the last revision of the laws, other parts of this act have been substantially incorporated in the amended constitution of this state, and a higher sanction has thereby been given to the principles contained in them.

"The chapter presented has therefore been compiled from the act of 1787, and from the constitution of this state, and the United States. Each section has been framed in the declaratory form; a mode of expression which the Revisers have uniformly adopted, whenever it has been found expedient to incorporate in the statutes, a constitutional provision, or any other principle which does not depend on the will of the legislature.

"The opinion has frequently been advanced that a declaration of rights by the legislature, or even by a convention, is, in this country, unnecessary and improper: inasmuch as the people are the acknowledged depositaries of all rights not expressly granted by themselves; and because the very enumeration of certain rights seems to warrant an inference unfavorable to the possession of rights not specified-to imply that the rights specified are conferred by the authority making the declaration-and sometimes to afford a colorable pretext for the assumption of powers not intended to be granted. These views were adopted by several of the members who took part in the debates on this subject, in the convention which framed the present constitution of this state. (See Carter and Stone's Report of the Debates of the Convention, p. 163 to 173.) But they did not prevent the convention from incorporating in the constitution, several provisions in the nature of a bill of rights, and analogous to the act of 1787, or to the amendments to the constitution of the United States. It is obvious that the objections above adverted to, are much stronger when applied to the legislature, than when applied to a convention invested with extraordinary powers; but as the statute book contains a bill of rights, the Revisers did not feel themselves at liberty to omit it. Nor do they know that any injury can result, from the solemn recognition, by the legislature, of those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which constitute the basis of our government and laws."

CHAPTER VII.

OF THE LEGISLATURE.

Extract from preliminary report of the Revisers.

"Many subjects are embraced in this chapter, which, from their intimate connexion with the fundamental principles of a free goverument, and the most valuable rights of the citizen, demand, and will, undoubtedly receive, the very serious attention of the legislature. The Revisers would refer particularly to the new provisions which they have suggested, in relation to the apportionment of the members of the assembly; the enactment and promulgation of the laws; the power of the respective houses to punish for contempts; and the proceedings in case of contested elections. The peculiar character and importance of these provisions, seem to have imposed on the Revisers the duty of attempting a somewhat fuller explanation of their views, than on other occasions, they have deemed necessary or advisable. These explanations will be found in notes subjoined to the proper titles."

TITLE II.

Of the powers, privileges and duties of the two houses and their members.

Original note to title II. "The amended constitution of this state is silent upon the subject of the privileges of the legislature, or of either house; and the course of legislative proceedings, except in regard to those privileges which are specially defined in the act of 1788, (1 R. L., 122) has not been sufficiently uniform and clear to have ripened into precedent, acquiring the force of law. But were this not the case, it would seem to be peculiarly proper, that all the privileges, both of