A. The acting Canal Commissioners requested Judge Trumpbour and myself to arrange our surveys so that they would be willing to execute the contracts, or a contract, with Judge Trumpbour.

7 Q. Why was not this memorandum of an agreement signed by Judge Trumpbour?

A. The Canal Commissioners requested that an agreement should be made to re-survey that part of the Erie canal which Judge Trumpbour had surveyed, to produce uniformity in the surveys and maps. I supposed that that paper contained our exact understanding; it was intended to be engrossed and signed; it was the agreement between us. The request of the Canal Commissioners alluded to in the beginning of this answer was made subsequent to the writing of the above memorandum of an agreement.

8 Q. Have you any other memorandum of Judge Trumpbour in relation to the said surveys; if so, produce it?

A. I have, and now here produce it, marked Exhibit Z., read in committee, June 23, 1832.

Memorandum of Agreement between Hutchinson and Trumpbour.

1st. Hutchinson agrees to allow Trumpbour $200, to conform his survey of the Erie canal to his; and in addition, to add to his part of the survey of the eastern part of the canal to Syracuse, which shall be the division between them.

Surveying 85 miles Erie canal,

$600 00

123 miles Cayuga and Seneca, and Oswego and Cham

plain canal,

1,230 00

Allow for 10 miles difference,..

200 00

$2,030 00

123 miles of canal, Cayuga and Seneca, Oswego and

....

Champlain canals, in proportion,. . .
Half the cost of surveying 85 miles of canal, at $5, .....

1,110 00

222 00

$1,332 00

9 Q. In whose hand-writing is this second memorandum ?

A. The first page is in the hand-writing of Judge Trumpbour; the residue of the writing is in my hand.

10 Q. When and where was that memorandum written?

A. I think in Judge Trumpbɔur's room, a day or two after the foregoing memorandum, here in first mentioned, was written.

11 Q. Did you at any time, and when, agree with Judge Trumpbour as to a re-survey of that part of the Erie canal that had been surveyed by him, so as to make it conform to your survey?

A. We did make such an agreement, at or about the time of writing the last memorandum marked Z; the said memorandum being an offer, and not an agreement.

12 Q. What was the substance of the agreement spoken of in your last answer, and why was it not reduced to writing?

A. The substance was, that I was to re-measure one half of the line surveyed by Judge Trumpbour. This agreement or offer on my part was stated to Col. Bouck, which he understood, and recapitulated to us. At that time, I supposed it would be reduced to writing. Judge Trumpbour, however, after we had been in Col. Bouck's room some time, stated, as I recollect, as follows: That he should have to re-survey the line that he had once surveyed, and it would be inquired of him why he did so ; that he did not know what answer to make to such inquiry, and that he would not agree to it; and he took his hat and left the room.

13 Q. What were the inducements which prompted you to make

that offer?

A. It was done to enable Judge Trumpbour to get his contract with the Canal Commissioners, and to produce an entire uniformity.

14 Q. At the informal meeting of the Canal Board, did you understand the Surveyor-General to express an opinion that a full description of the survey ought to be given in writing, in the returns to be made with the maps?

A. I understood him as suggesting that an additional copy of the field-notes should be added to my field-book.

35 Q. If that memorandum was understood to be the agreement between you, and difficulties had already arisen in relation to the agreement made at Kingston, why was it not signed by the parties?

A. There was a subsequent difficulty rose, as I have already related; it was not signed, because it was not engrossed. I supposed it would be engrossed and signed; before that was done a difficulty rose about the re-survey, which prevented the signing of it. The second agreement, offer or paper, marked Z, was intended to modify or alter the original agreement, only as to the re-survey.

36 Q. Was Judge Trumpbour ever requested to sign the memorandum marked X, or an engrossed copy of it?

A. I think he was not.

37 Q. Was any copy of it ever made for signature? A. I think not.

39 Q. Was the arrangement you have spoken of, for re-surveying the line of the canal which had been surveyed by Judge Trumpbour, intended to supersede or vary any part of the agreement, as purporting to be contained in memorandum X?

A. It would some part of it.

It was so intended.

Mr. Hutchinson submitted the following paper as a copy of the memorandum Z.

Monday, June 25, 1832.

H. Hutchinson gives the following statement:

"J. Trumpbour's offer, in paper marked Z, is as I recollect, H. Hutchinson to allow J. Trumpbour...

to conform his survey to Hutchinson's, and in addition, to extend the line from Canastota to Syracuse, which shall be the division between them.

$200 00

From Canastota to Syracuse is 25 miles, which added to the former line of H. Hutchinson, at the rate of the proposition to the Canal Commissioners, about $10 per mile, is 250 00

"Terms agreed on, as stated in presence of Col. Bouck, Canal Commissoner: H. Hutchinson to re-measure one half of the 85 miles of the Erie canal, previously surveyed by Trumpbour, from Canton to Rochester, which is considered worth about the half of the cost of the survey, that is 42 miles, at $5 per mile,...

$450 00

$222 50

IN COMMITTEE-23d June, 1832.

Present-Mr. HAMMOND,

Mr. McDONALD,

Mr. HOGEBOOM,

The memorialists and their counsel.

Jacob Trumpbour sworn as a witness.

1 Q. Was the memorandum marked X prepared in your room, and was the same ever assented to by you as an agreement between you and Mr. Hutchinson?

A. The paper marked X was presented to me in my room by Mr. Hutchinson, in the winter of 1830, after the informal meeting of the Canal Board. He told me he had prepared and written it, except the few interlineations in my hand-writing. It was handed to me for consideration. I never did, directly nor indirectly, assent to this agreement. Upon examining it, I made a few interlineations, but before I got through I stopped and laid it down, and would have nothing to do with it, and so informed Mr. Hutchinson at that time or shortly afterwards, and gave him my reasons for it.

2 Q. What were those reasons?

A. After the informal meeting and the report of the SurveyorGeneral, Mr. Hutchinson was very anxious that some plan should be adopted to reconcile or produce a uniformity of the maps or returns of the survey, upon which he produced this memorandum X. My objections to it were, that the manner as herein set forth, although it might have the appearance of uniformity, yet the surveys would be different, and it would necessarily be detected if properly examined, and as I was opposed to his survey, I would not lend myself to the attempt to make such a return. Another reason was the difficulty of giving such a description of Mr. Hutchinson's part of the survey as to make it any way conformable to mine; and besides, another principal reason was, that I did not choose to put myself in the power of Henry Seymour as arbitrator.

3 Q. Did Mr. Hutchinson say any thing about Mr. Seymour's approbation of the terms of that agreement? And if so, what?

A. At the time that he handed me exhibit X, I think he mentioned that he had seen Mr. Seymour, and had obtained his approbation, or he had assented to become arbitrator; or some such thing.

4 Q. Did you make any agreement with Mr. Hutchinson for a re-survey of the part of the canal you had surveyed, upon his or any other plan?

A. I never did.

5 Q. Was memorandum Z ever submitted by you to Mr. Hutchinson as an offer for an agreement?

A. It never was. It is a memorandum of my own, which I made of his verbal proposition, and the middle part of the first page has reference to a different subject. As to the other memcrandums which appear upon the last page in the hand-writing of Mr. Hutchinson, I have no recollection of ever having seen before. How the paper came in his possession I have no knowledge. It was upon my table.

Taken and sworn, the

23d of June, 1832.

J. HAMMOND, Ch'n.

JACOB TRUMPBOUR.

The committee are of opinion that these several extracts, and the memorandums X and Z, together with the affidavits, sufficiently show that the controversy with Mr. Trumpbour was entirely about the plan of his survey, and that the often repeated remark about the execution of written contracts, giving security, and getting his contract from the Canal Commissioners, must all be taken as referring to the attempt to induce him to enter into a contract to conform his survey to Mr. Hutchinson's, after Mr. Hutchinson had conceived the project of adopting the plan of surveying the towing-path: the committee having been wholly unable to trace it up to any other source. In the correctness of this conclusion, however, the committee had no doubt from the course of the preceding testimony.

Mr. Trumpbour has made the survey of his part of the canals, the field notes and rough maps; what remains to be done on his part is to make his fair maps or atlas, field books and returns; the expense of which is about equal to the expense of what he has already done; so that the labor of his contract is about one half performed.

The committee are of the opinion that he ought to be permitted to finish his contract, and to receive the compensation stipulated therein; and that all the expenses of these proceedings should be paid out of the Canal Fund.