In the letter from the Board of Canal Commissioners to the chairman of the committee on canals and internal improvements, dated Albary, April 8th, 1831, Document A., page 8, referred to the committee, is the following passage: "After Mr. Trumpbour's second proposition had been rejected, he was desirous that the survey should be divided, and that he should be permitted to take onehalf of it without the consent of Mr. Hutchinson. This proposition was unanimously rejected as unjust, as the contract had been given to Mr. Hutchinson; but the 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 plan 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."

In the deposition of Col. Bouck, before referred to, in answer to the 48th interrogatory, Can you now say with any certainty whether you saw Mr. Hutchinson in Albany between the first of March and the thirteenth of April, 1829, or whether you had any conversation with him during that period about dividing the survey with Judge Trumpbour? He replied:

A. I do not recollect distinctly whether I did or not. In my testimony of yesterday I conveyed the idea that the conversation with Mr. Trumpbour in relation to the division of the contract for making the survey was previous to a conversation on the same subject with Mr. Hutchinson, and that he (Trumpbour) expressed a wish that I should prevail on Mr. Hutchinson to give him a part of the survey. I now say that the conversation with Mr. Hutchinson in relation to a division of the contract with Mr. Trumpbour may have been previous to my conversation with Mr. Trumpbour, and in anticipation on my part of submitting such a proposition to Mr. Trumpbour; if so, the conversation as having been had with Mr. Hutchinson was after the terms of Hutchinson and Trumpbour's first propositions had come to my knowledge. The conversations referred to are now pretty strongly impressed upon my mind, but the time at which they were had I cannot now distinctly recollect.

Jacob Trumpbour, in his deposition before the committee, No. 29 of depositions, stated as follows:

IQ. Before you presented your first proposition for surveying the canals, did any, and which of the Canal Commissioners state to you the manner in which the proposition ought to be made; and if so, how?

Before my first proposition was submitted, I had an interview with the acting Canal Commissioners, Col. Bouck stated that the proposition must be made for a specific amount. This interview was sometime in the winter of 1828.

2 Q. Was this statement made in the presence of Mr. Seymour? A. I do not recollect. I think he was not present.

3 Q. Did you at any time authorise or request Col. Bouck or Mr. Seymour to apply to Holmes Hutchinson for a division or participation in the contract for surveying the canals?

A. I have no recollection that I ever did; but to the contrary I know that it was suggested by one or the other or both of them, I cannot say which, that a division might be made.

Dr. William Campbell, in his testimony, (see depositions No. 13,) states that after the passing of the act for the survey of the canals, he was present at an interview between Henry Seymour and William C. Bouck, Canal Commissioners, Jacob Trumpbour, David H. Burr and himself, in the city of Albany, relative to the survey of the canals; and to the following

Q. Did the said Canal Commissioners, or either of them in that interview state the manner in which the propositions for surveying the canals must be made? If so, what did he or they say upon the subject?

He answered: "If I recollect right, Mr. Seymour said in answer to Judge Trumpbour, that propositions must be definite or specific, ⚫ and in writing. This response was made to us collectively; we had some conversation about taking the job jointly."

Q. Did this conversation take place in 1827; if so, at what place?

A. I think it was in 1828, at Lemet's boarding house, in Albany, where the Commissioners lodged.

It is apparent that Mr. Campbell is uncertain which of the Canal Commissioners is was, that said "the propositions must be definite or specific, and in writing;" but states the fact positively, that this response was given to the inquiry made by Judge Trumpbour. The uncertainty in his mind was whether this answer was made by Mr. Seymour or Col. Bouck. Judge Trumpbour also swears that this response was given to his inquiry; but he, though not recollecting by which of the Commissioners, thinks it was by Col. Bouck, because he does not remember that Mr. Seymour was there at that time.But Dr. Campbell swears Mr. Seymour was there. Thus, though there is uncertainty as to which of the Canal Commissioners gave this response, there seems to be no room to doubt the fact that it was given. If so, when the Commissioners afterwards by oversight or forgetfulness, received a conditional proposition from Mr. Hutchinson, if it was right for them to entertain Mr. Hutchinson's conditional proposal after they had heard Mr. Trumpbour's representation of the matter, it must have been equally right for Mr. Trumpbour to turn his specific proposition into a conditional one, notwithstanding he had become acquainted with the terms of Mr. Hutchinson's offer.

The following is an extract from the testimony of Asa Starkweather, No. 5 of depositions:

14 Q. Did Mr. Bouck state to you what ought to be the form or character of the propositions, that is, whether they should be definite, or might be conditional?

A. He stated that it must be definite, but within the sum of five thousand dollars, limited for making and completing the surveys.

It further appears from Mr. Starkweather's deposition, that this statement was made to him after Judge Trumpbour had submitted his first proposition to the Canal Commissioners, and before Mr. Hutchinson's was made to them.

The committee are entirely satisfied that these circumstances indicated to the Commissioners the propriety of dividing the contract between Mr. Trumpbour and Mr. Hutchinson, as the readiest means of allaying the dissatisfaction that began to exhibit itself, they being the only persons that had made proposals, notwithstanding the contract had been held open for more than a year, the appropriation being considered too small by other surveyors.

Now, in Col. Bouck's deposition, above cited, in his sixth answer he says: "I should perhaps further state at this time, that after the acceptance of Mr. Hutchinson's proposition in the winter of 1829, the execution of the contracts for making this survey, and the disbursements necessary to be made under the contracts, were assigned to the charge of Mr. Seymour."

Here, we inquire what contracts? For if the whole survey had been given to Mr. Hutchinson there would have been but one contract; but if the survey was divided, as the committee are entirely satisfied it was, then the language of Col. Bouck is correct; for in that case there would have been two contracts for this authority to Mr. Seymour to act upon; one with Mr. Trumpbour and one with Mr. Hutchinson.

The time here mentioned by Col. Bouck, "in the winter of 1829," is understood by the committee as intended by the witness to designate the period at which Mr. Hutchinson placed his proposition in the hands of the commissioners, and is in this respect believed to be correct. But the time when Mr. Seymour received the direction alluded to in this part of Col. Bouck's deposition is shewn by other circumstances to have been at a later period, and no doubt was after the second proposition of Mr. Trumpbour had been submitted to the Commissioners. This circumstance shews the reason why the direction to Mr. Seymour referred to "the contracts," because two contracts were theu in view.

The next step in the history of this transaction seems to be the entry on the execution of this duty by Mr. Seymour, and the statement of Jacob Trumpbour in his memorial is corroborated, where he says that at a subsequent intercourse the acting Canal Commissioners acknowledged the receipt of the letter and proposition, of which the above are copies, and intimated that the survey might possibly be divided between himself and Mr. Hutchinson; and on the 12th day of April, 1829, Mr. Holmes Hutchinson called upon him in Kingston with a letter from Henry Seymour, Esq. acting Canal Commissioner, of which the following is a copy :

JACOB TRUMPBOUR, ESQ.

Utica, April 7th, 1829.

Dear Sir-The bearer is Mr. Hutchinson, who made proposals for surveying the canals. He will confer with you on the subject of dividing the job with you; and any agreement which you may

make

with him, not more disadvantageous to the State than Mr. Hutchinson's proposition, will be acceptable to the Canal Commissioners. With much respect,

Your obedient servant,

HENRY SEYMOUR.

Mr. Hutchinson, in his testimony, No. 27 of depositions, proves the genuineness of this letter, and he delivered it to Jacob Trumpbour, knowing its contents at the time; and in answer to the 45th interrogatory, What did you mean in the former part of your examination, where you stated that Mr. Seymour had charge of the business of the surveys? he replied, Well, I supposed he had. When I saw Mr. Seymour at Utica, he told me the Canal Commissioners had accepted my proposition, and asked me whether I would be willing to divide the survey and allow Mr. Trumpbour to have a part of it, and gave me the letter to Mr. Trumpbour, and said there must be a perfect uniformity in the plan, and said he would execute contracts; and from this and other conversations I presumed he had the charge of the surveys. There are but two acting Canal Com missioners.

Hence it appears, that at the time the acting Canal Commissioners communicated to Mr. Hutchinson the acceptance of his proposition, the intelligence was not only accompanied with the suggestion of a division of the surveys between him and Mr. Trumpbour, but also with the letter above set out; which, in the opinion of the committee, constituted Mr. Hutchinson the agent of the acting Canal Commissioners, to negotiate a contract with Mr. Trumpbour in behalf of the State for the survey of one half of the canals; which facts, taken altogether, seem to amount to a sufficient indication that the Commissioners had determined to parcel out the surveys in sepa rate contracts with the State to the memorialists, previous to their communicating to Mr. Hutchinson that they had accepted his proposition as the basis of those contracts. When, therefore, it is recollected that Mr. Trumpbour was negotiating with the known and accredited officers of the State, and that the suggestion to divide the surveys originated with them, what views could he possibly anticipate different from those that were spread before him. We perceive, also, that Mr. Hutchinson here represents Mr. Seymour as speaking of the contracts, using the plural number, as Col. Bouck did in his deposition above referred to. So also Col. Bouck, in his 6th answer, in deposition, No. 14, says the execution of the con