IN SENATE, March 1, 1834. REPORT Letter from Reuben D. Dodge, relative to the Se venth Ward Bank. To the Hon. J. W. EDMONDS, Chairman, &c. SIR As my name has been called in question in the report in relation to the Seventh Ward Bank, in a manner highly injurious to me, and as I conceive not justified by the facts of the case, I desire to lay before the committee the explanation, which I could have presented at an earlier day, if the opportunity had been afforded me by them. I had been some acquainted with Mr. Perkins before he came to Albany last winter, and while he was here he was often asking my advice in relation to his bill, and soliciting me to aid its passage. . I really felt in favor of its passage, because I was desirous of increasing banking capital in the city, and from representations made to me by gentlemen of undoubted honor and probity. Therefore I voted for the bill; but certainly had nothing more to do with it: and I well recollect, that in answer to some of Mr. Perkins' repeated importunities, I told him, that such conduct, if continued, might yet cause me to change my mind. . About the time of the passage of the bill, Messrs. Gilbert, Darling, Adriance and Kidder came to Albany, and occupied a room at the same boarding-house, which was situated on the first floor, directly off the dining-room, and which was much frequented by the boarders. I frequently called there after meals, and almost always met more or less company. I recollect that on one occasion, Messrs. Gilbert and Arnold were disputing in reference to this bill, the former speaking against the bill or commissioners, I do not recollect which, and the latter favorable. Some appeal was made to me during the conversation, and I replied to them, they must settle their own matters among themselves. I do not recollect whether Mr. Perkins was present at this time, but I certainly intended nothing more by the remark, than to decline having any thing to do with their matters. In a subsequent conversation with Perkins, the opposition of Gil a bert and others was spoken of; but it is entirely untrue that I communicated that fact to Perkins, or that he could have derived his first information of it from me. It is equally untrue that I ever advised him to give the bond to Messrs. Gilbert & Co. or that he ever consulted me about giving it. It is also a mistake that I was present when it was signed, to my knowledge; and if it was signed when I was in the room, it must have been when several others (as was often the case) were also present, and my attention taken up with something else, for I never heard in any manner that such a bond had been given, until after the passage of the bill into a law. After the passage of the bill, and just before I left for home, Perkins asked me if I would subscribe for stock. I answered him that I thought I would. I did conclude to subscribe for some; and wrote John F. Adriance to subscribe for me. I also wrote Perkins that Adriance would subscribe for me, and requested him to try and get me some stock. All which I concluded I had a perfect right to do, without violating any duty; or that there was any thing at all improper in it. In conclusion, I beg leave to request that you will adopt such measures in regard to my explanation, as will give it equal publicity with your report. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, REUBEN D. DODGE. Albany, March 1, 1834. IN SENATE, March 1, 1834. REPORT of the select committee on the petition of John H. Lathrop. The select committee to whom was referred the petition of John H. Lathrop, and the report of the Commissioners of the Land-Office thereon, REPORTED: That the petitioner states, in his petition, that he is in possession of a gore of land of about one and an half acre, lying on the east side of a tract of land of about twenty-five acres, formerly leased to Moses D. Rose, in the village of Lodi in the town of Salina: that he became the purchaser from the State of the aforesaid land, so leased as aforesaid to the said Moses D. Rose, under a representation that the tract of land so leased contained twentyfive acres, whereas, in truth and in fact it contained only about twenty acres, exclusive of streets; and that these streets were laid out through the said lard without his permission, and in violation of the said lease: and he requests that an act should be passed authorising the conveyance of the aforesaid gore to him, in part compensation for his claim, arising in consequence of such deficiency. It appears that in the years 1821 and 1822 John Randall, Jr. surveyed and laid out the village plot of the village of Lodi; and that, although the term of the lease to the said Moses D. Rose at that time had not expired, yet the said lease land was included in the said survey and plot, and streets were also laid out by him through the same. In this survey the lines of the lease land were not regarded, but new lines were run for the lots of the village plot, which occasioned two gores of about one and an half acre each, on the east and west side of the said lease land. The Surveyor-General afterwards had a sale of the lands surveyed, reserving out of ihat sale the lease land, as well as the gores above mentioned: afterwards, in the year 1827, an act was passed authorising all that certain tract of twenty-five acres, theretofore leased, by the superintendent of the salt springs to the said Rose, pursuant to the act passed the 11th of March, 1814, to be appraised and conveyed by the Commissioners of the Land-Office, to such person or persons as should prove themselves the grantees of the estate conveyed to the said Rose, on paying the appraised value with interest, &c., provided the said lease was surrendered up, &c., which act will be found in the Session Laws of 1827, page 52. In the year 1829 another act was passed, amending the act of 1827; by which amendatory act the Commissioners of the LandOffice were authorised to convey the lands mentioned in the act of 1827, according to the bounds surveyed, for the ground held under a lease from the people of this State to the said Rose, when allotments of the adjacent ground were made by the authority of the Surveyor-General. The petitioner became the owner of the aforesaid lease to the said Rose before the land was conveyed under the aforesaid acts, and on his surrendering up the aforesaid lease and complying with the provisions of the said acts, the aforesaid lease land was conveyed to him, as described in the said acts; but this description did not comprise the aforesaid gores. When the village plot was surveyed it appears that the aforesaid lease land was included in that survey, by the consent of the then owner of the said lease, and in that survey the streets, of which the petitioner complains, were laid out. He afterwards surrendered up the lease and purchased of the State the land so leased as aforesaid, after the streets were so laid out on the village plot, and, as it must be presumed, with full knowledge that the streets were thus laid out, and would, therefore, be liable to be opened, whenever the owners of the adjacent lots required it. Under such a statement of facts, your committee concur with the conclusions arrived at in the report of the Commissioners of the Land-Office, that the said petitioner is not entitled to have the said gore of land conveyed to him, in consequence of any claim he may have against the State. But as the aforesaid west gore was conveyed to Rufus Stanton, on his paying the appraised value thereof, by virtue of an act of the Legislature, at the last session, and as the said petitioner is similarly situated, in relation to the aforesaid east gore, the committee see no reason why he should not have the privilege of purchasing the same at its appraised value. |