A. I have examined Mr. Hutchinson's plan of surveying the property of the State, along and including the canal. It appears to have been this: To take the courses and distances along the inner side of the tow-path, and at every angle to have made offsets each way across, and measured the distance of the offsets, to the exterior 'bounds of the canal on the other side; and connected the points of those offsets by straight lines, as appears on the map. It appears that he noted the situation of permanent objects that came in the course of the survey; that he has noted the bounds of private property, wherever they have been crossed by his survey. He has taken the courses and distances around basins and other projecting waters, connected with the canals, and also the situations of wastewiers, and waters entering the canal.

To the second branch of the question, I answer as before; if the lines and boundaries are accurate, and truly describe the State property, so as to ascertain the metes and bounds, the survey may answer the purpose of the law. Mr. Trumpbour gives the metes and. bounds in the usual way; and Mr. Hutchinson gives the points by which the metes and bounds may be ascertained. The map upon the face of it gives the metes and bounds, but the description does

not.

The reason why Mr. Hutchinson has not given the metes and bounds in his description, as here mentioned by the Surveyor-General, is because he did not survey the boundaries, and therefore could not give such a description in his field book. Mr. Hutchinson surveyed the towing-path on that side of it which is next to the water in the canal. The blue lines upon his map representing the boundaries, are inserted to give the map a finished topographical appearance, and to exhibit a diagram or plot of the canal, and the lands appropriated thereto; but these out lines were not run on the ground, and probably no monument of Mr. Hutchinson's survey appears on the ground itself in the boundary lines, except in running round basins, slips, ponds, or such like places.

The great pains which Mr. Hutchinson has taken to prove by witnesses the innumerable difficulties of surveying the boundaries of the public property, as will appear by a reference to the affidavits, seems to have little other tendency than to shew the steady fortitude, and unyielding perseverence, with which that duty has been actually performed by Jacob Trumpbour, according to the true con[A. No. 334.]

6

struction of the statute, and the design of the Legislature, so far as that could be done.

The committee have been thus particular in describing the respective plans of surveying and mapping the canals, as they understand that subject to have been placed before them by the memorialists. The difference between them is simply this: Mr. Hutchinson has surveyed the inner edge of the towing path, and has omitted to survey and designate the boundary lines, so that the question of boundaries is as much in the dark and unsettled as if Mr. Hutchinson's survey had not been made. Mr. Hutchinson professes to furnish data for settling or finding the boundary lines at any time hereafter. This, however, can only be done by means of another survey, and which must be commenced at the Quoin post of the nearest lock, although it should happen to be twenty miles distant from the particular piece of land, the precise boundaries of which it is desired to ascertain on the canal, unless indeed the parties are willing to designate the boundary by the fluctuating line of the inner edge of the towing-path, without the means of confining it to a permanent location.

Having thus commenced at the quoin post of the nearest lock, because the locks appear to be the only places where Mr. Hutchinson has given sufficient means to determine the location of his base line; this line must be resurveyed, until the surveyor arrives in front of the property he wishes to locate; he may then find the boundary line by offsets from the base line so resurveyed, and by this means ascertain the situation of the property he wishes to designate. On the other hand, Mr. Trumpbour surveyed the actual boundaries on both sides of the canal, and located them on the ground by visible monuments, and where there were no other landmarks, he set stakes in the usual and customary way of surveying boundaries.

The committee cannot hesitate to recommend the survey of Mr. Trumpbour to the favorable consideration of the House; and they at the same time suggest that the amount of labor and expense neces. sary to perform the survey upon Mr. Trumpbour's projection, is at least twice that of Mr. Hutchinson's.

The Commissioners seem to entertain the idea that the design of the Legislature was, that the canals should be first surveyed, and when that is done, the Canal Commissioners should compile a map,

and the Canal Board then make choice of a plan, as appears by the passage in the report above alluded to, page 2. It is difficult, however, to imagine that the Legislature had such a design, as that the work should be first done, and the manner of doing it be determined after the work was finished. It is manifest that the survey must be made before the map can be projected. There would be, therefore, great injustice in employing surveyors to make the surveys, which amount to about one-half of all the labor and cost of completion, and then rejecting them because the plan was not approved, when no plan had been furnished.

If by the conformity so much insisted on, it is intended that Mr. Trumpbour should make his survey conform to Mr. Hutchinson's, the committee are not able to perceive any good reason for such a requirement. The statute requires "the boundaries of every parcel of land to which the State has a separate title to be designated in the map and field notes." For this reason, Mr. Trumpbour justly inferred that it was the design of the Legislature to have the actual bounds of the property run out and designated by proper and visible land-marks, as there could not be any description of boundaries in the field notes, without an actual boundary survey on the ground itself.

It may be proper to state here, that in running the offsets, Mr. Hutchinson did not take their courses by the compass, unless perhaps in some few instances, so that the offsets from his base line to the outer boundaries are not generally run by the compass, but by the eye; and in most cases, no monuments were set at the points of the offsets to shew where the boundary lines are. Hence it seems to be manifest, that Mr. Trumpbour could not conform his survey to that of Mr. Hutchinson's, without abandoning the survey of the boundaries, and adopting the survey of the towing path,"instead thereof.

It ought perhaps to be here stated, that Mr. Hutchinson's remark, that "offsets on either side were made in a specified manner, and the distances to locks, bridges, aqueducts, waste-swiers, culverts, buildings, and other permanent objects, carefully and correctly noted," does not apply to the designation of the boundary lines by these objects, because the distances between these objects and the boundary lines are not noted. But it is the distance between the base line run upon the inner edge of the towing path, and the quoin posts of the

locks, that is noted in the first instance; and in the second place, the distance at which those several objects are longitudinally situated from each other along the canal. The offsets allude to the crossmeasures, taken to shew the breadth of the canal, its embankments, borders, and other casements not designated by monuments on the ground, but by lines on the map.

Mr. Hutchinson's survey and delineation of the Champlain canal, was executed for him, chiefly under the care of Mr. Edwin F. Johnson, and his atlas is a very beautiful topographical map of that canal. Its practical utility is, as we have seen, a very different matter. Mr. Johnson was examined as a witness, and in relation to enroachments upon the State property, concerning which, he was inquired of, in the 49th interiogatory of his deposition, (No. 6,) he says in substance, "I was not directed to notice any interference or encroachment by the erection of buildings on the State property."

"The object of the survey was to obtain the means of determi ning at any future day, with the greatest practical degree of precision, the boundaries of the State property. It was with reference to that leading object, that all the measurements were made. A reference to the buildings, which at the time of the survey, stood within the outer or blue lines of the map, (which represent the outer or boundary lines of the State property,) was not generally made, because the buildings were the greater portion of them, groceries, sheds, &c. of a temporary structure, and could not be relied upon as permanent objects." But in answer to the 53d interrogatory he says, "the instances of buildings thus situated are, I believe, all exhibited on the map." It would seem, however, that the extent of the encroachments is not noted in feet and inches, or by other measurements.

The objects intended by Mr. Hutchinson to be accomplished by his survey and map, are here set out by the witness who made the survey for him, of his proportion of the canals. His design seems not to have been to ascertain and determine the boundary lines of the State property, or the extent of the encroachments which were made upon it, but to provide the means of ascertaining these things at any future day; so that instead of accomplishing at once the design of the Legislature, his survey lays the foundation of another, as the means by which it may chance to be accomplished; unless

the surveyor who may happen to be employed for that purpose, should in like manner render a third survey necessary.

The committee are nevertheless of the opinion, that it is expedient to protect the public property along the canals from encroachments, in order that adverse titles may not be obtained by intruders on the public lands, set apart for the purposes of the canals, by a continued occupancy thereof. This seems to be the more necessary, as buildings are annually erected in various places along the lines of the canals; and if there are no visible boundaries or landmarks on the ground itself, it cannot be doubted but that many encroachments will be made in addition to those which already exist.

It is not sufficient that a space merely wide enough for passage may be left; for when repairs become necessary, as they frequently do, it is requisite that there should be some place where materials may be laid without obstructing the navigation. The memorialists were prudently instructed by the Canal Commissioners, to make due allowance for these objects in their surveys, and to include sufficient ground for these purposes, which it is believed they have done.

The temporary buildings, such as groceries, sheds and the like, mentioned above to have been erected on the lands of the State in the vicinity of the canals, are of the kind most likely to be built by intruders on lands to which they have no title. Men do not construct costly edifices in such situations; and these light buildings are as good as any other for the purpose of instituting an adverse possession, and gaining a title by occupancy; and probably better, because of their humble character, as they attract less notice, and are therefore not so likely to be ejected by the owner of the land.

The committee are happy in perceiving that their views in respect to these encroachments, are in accordance with those heretofore entertained and expressed by the House of Assembly, and recorded in their Journals for the year 1831, page 785, in their proceedings upon the report of the committee to which the memorial of Mr. Spalding was referred, in the following resolution :

"Resolved, That it is the duty of the Canal Board, and the Canal Commissioners, to defend the canals and their appendages, from any unauthorised appropriation to the use of individuals; and to protect the grantees of the State in the rights conveyed to them."