gan, then governor of New York, and his council, and Robert Treat, then governor of Connecticut, and several commissioners associated with him, by which it was provided that the boundary line should begin at Lyon's Point; at the mouth of Byram brook or river where it falls into the Sound, then to go as the said river runneth, to the place where the common road or wading place over the said river is,' and from thence to be run in the manner set forth in the agreement, the substance of which may be found in Smith's History, page 276. It was also provided in that agreement, that in case certain lines therein mentioned should diminish or take away land within 20 miles of Hudson river, that then an equal quantity should be added out of bounds of Connecticut.

"Pursuant to this agreement, a survey was made in the year 1684, by a joint commission, and several lines run. It was also ascertained, that the lines specified in the agreement diminished the territory of New York to the amount of 61,440 acres ; and the commissioners therefore agreed, that a tract containing an equal number of acres should be taken from Connecticut, in an oblong form, as an equivalent therefor. The survey was confirmed by the governor of each colony, and both the agreement and survey were confirmed by the king on the 28th of March, 1700. The greater part of the bounds remaining unsurveyed, and Connecticut retaining possession of the equivalent lands, much difficulty, and many bickerings ensued. Several acts were passed by the colonial assemblies, and many attempts were made to settle the controversy; but nothing definite was done till the 29th of April, 1725, when an agreement was entered into between Francis Harrison, Cadwallader Colden and Isaac Hicks, commissioners on the part of New York, and Jonathan Law, Samuel Eells, Roger Wolcott, John Cop, and Edmund Lewis, on the part of Connecticut, by which they settled the principles on which the whole line should be run, and on which the oblong should be located. In May, 1725, they run and marked the line from Byram's brook to the end of the east-northeast line of 13 miles and 64 rods; but the other lines were not run till 1731. In that year new commissions were issued, and the remainder of the line to the south bounds of Massachusetts, including the oblong, finally run and established. The agreement of 1683, and the surveys of 1684, 1725 and 1731, have been followed in the above description. "Before the revolution, there was much controversy between New York and Massachusetts, in regard to the western boundaries of the latter; and many ineffectual attempts were made to settle a line of jurisdiction between them. On the 18th of May, 1773, an agreement was made between commissioners appointed by the two colonies, by which it was provided, that a line beginning at a place fixed upon by the governments of New York and Connecticut for the northwest corner of the Oblong or equivelent lands, and running from said corner north 21° 10′ 32" east, as the magnetic needle now points,' should at all times thereafter be the line of jurisdiction between the province of Massachusetts Bay and the province of New York. This agreement was approved by the governors of the two provinces, but the line was not run until after the revolution. On the 7th of March, 1785, the legislature of this state passed an act authorizing the United

States in congress assembled, to appoint commissioners to complete the running of the line of jurisdiction, as agreed upon in 1773. (1 Jones and Varick, 192.) A similar act was passed by Massachusetts, on the 29th of June, 1785; and Messrs. Hutchins, Ewing and Rittenhouse, were accordingly appointed by congress, on the 2d of December, 1785. Their report was made on the 1st of February, 1788; and a return of the line and field notes were filed by them in the office of the secretary of the United States. (See journals of the old congress, vols. x. p. 340; xi. p. 10; xiii. p. 7.)

"The line between New York and Vermont was not fully settled, until 1814. On the 6th of March, 1790, the legislature of this state authorized Robert Yates, John Lansing, jr., Gulian Verplanck, Simeon De Witt, Egbert Benson, and Melancton Smith, to declare its consent to the formation of that part of the ancient colony of New York now included in Vermont, into a new state. (2 Greenleaf, 297.) They executed a formal act expressing such consent, on the 7th of October, 1790. In that instrument they declare that the line of jurisdiction between this state and Vermont, shall be as follows: beginning at the northwest corner of the state of Massachusetts; thence westward along the south boundary of Pownal, to the southwest corner thereof; thence northerly along the western boundaries of the townships of Pownal, Beunington, Shaftsbury, Arlington, Sandgate, Rupert, Pawlet, Wells and Poultney, as the said townships are now held or possessed, to the river commonly called Poultney river; thence down the same, through the middle of the deepest channel thereof to East Bay, thence through the middle of deepest channel of East Bay and the waters thereof, to where the same communicate with lake Champlain; thence through the middle of the deepest channel of lake Champlain, to the eastward of the islands called the Four Brothers, and the westward of the islands called the Grand Isle, and Long Isle, or the Two Heroes, and to the westward of the Isle-laMott, to the 45th degree of north latitude.' The line from the northwest corner of Massachusetts, to the Poultney river, was not surveyed till 1814; when it was run and established by Smith Thompson, Simeon De Witt, and George Tibbits, who had been appointed on the part of this state, by the act of the 8th of June, 1812, (Laws of 1812, p. 155,) in conjunction with commissioners on the part of Vermont. A minute description of the line as run and established, is contained in an instrument executed by the commissioners, on the 25th of October, 1814. It is observable, that the line run in 1814 forms several angles between the place of beginning and the south bounds of Bennington; though on all the maps of the state it is laid down as a straight line. When the surveyor general published his map, he was obliged to lay it down in this manner; as the line had not been surveyed, and was stated to be straight. It is probable that the compilers of the maps published since 1814, have not been informed of the proceedings in that year.

"From the 45th degree of north latitude in Lake Champlain, to the northwesterly corner of the state in Lake Erie, our bounds are the same as those of the United States. The latter part of this line has been settled by the commissioners appointed under the 6th article of

the treaty of Ghent; and it is understood that the settlement of tho 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 ceded 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 § 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 S 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."