your difficulty in these respects, perhaps I could have given you a written explanation that would have removed them; but as you do not intimate the nature of these "disagreements and uncertainties," I am at a loss to comprehend your precise meaning. At our last interview we definitely informed you that we were entirely satisfied with the line as it is run and established by your surveyor, and that as soon as the balance of the monuments were set we should be ready to meet you and settle our financial matters. This we are still ready and anxious to have done. It is true, that in running the line up King-street, I did not, as surveyor on the part of Connecticut, in all respects, approve of the course pursued by your surveyor, and so frankly expressed myself. Neither did I then, or now, deem the great expense incurred in so elaborate a survey of Byram river necessary or expedient; but as Col. Tarbell assured me, in a written communication, which is before me, that you only desired a "perfect survey,' that "no territory was in dispute," that you had "hired him, (Mr. Wentz,) expressly to run a line that no future surveyor could ever break down," I quietly yielded to your wishes. Thence forward you conducted the whole work at your pleasure-adjourned when you pleased-resumed labor when, where, and as you pleased, without any further demurring on our part. You turned the angle at Ridgefield to suit your own views of the correct bound without listening to my suggestions; you run the line through to Massachusetts, and fixed upon the angle bound there to your satisfaction, as expressed at the time; you retraced the line, your surveyor setting the points for the monuments, pronounced the survey completed, and disbandoned the party. I have reviewed the whole line, (when run in my absence) as surveyor on the part of Connecticut, examined every point designated for monuments, and am perfectly satisfied your surveyor has established a perfect line-"a line that no future surveyor could ever break down;" and on the part of Connecticut Mr. Whiting and myself cheerfully assent to and establish it as the true line between the two States we represent, and we are prepared, and so shall report to our Legislature. Hence, so far as a correct line is concerned, there is no "disagreement or uncertainty" between us. All that remains to be done is to set the balance of the monuments in accordance with the survey so satisfactorily run by your surveyor. This you may take the burden of, or we will complete the work as soon as the weather will permit, and then we will meet at some convenient place for all parties, when, I have no doubt, we can as satisfactorily adjust our financial matters, and close up the duties committed to us by our respective Legislatures. Very respectfully yours, &c., WM. H. HOLLY. ALBANY, March 25th, 1857. To Messrs. Wм. H. HOLLY and JASON WHITING, Com'rs, &c.: GENTLEMEN-We acknowledge the due receipt of your joint note assuming the responsibility of Mr. Holly's individual letter of December 23d. There seems to be some misapprehension of the real questions between the two States, and in our view an error in supposing they can be disposed of in the manner indicated. The resolutions of both Connecticut and New-York, under which we are respectively acting, limit and define our duties, empowering us only to "ascertain" and perpetuate "the boundary," and not to create a new one. If we were to assume to create a new line, however formally, our action would be void. No authority can be given to the straight line, so long as in fact and law it does not coincide with “the boundary" established in 1731, ever since recognized, and now easily to be "ascertained" and identified. Whether Mr. Wentz was "our" or "your" surveyor; whether the survey was joint or ex-parte; whether we usurped its direction, the precise share of control exercised by each commissioner, and the like matters contained in Mr. Holly's letter, we regard as pertaining to the conduct of the survey and not to the adjustment of the boundary. Our first wish has been and is to effect a final settlement at the earliest possible day. From this purpose we are unwilling to be diverted by a correspondence immaterial to the final issue, involving a detail of the work and of our daily and hourly intercourse, with the position of each upon the thousand questions raised—a subject which we may enter upon on some future occasion, should it become necessary, but which we waive for the present, with the following notes: 1st. We have not declared the straight line the boundary; neither have we assented, nor do we assent, to it as such. Indeed, so far were we from regarding "the survey completed," that we, in fact, hoping to come to some arrangement with you, engaged assistants and teams, and held them in readiness to return to the line at a moment's notice, until winter set in, forbidding further field operations. 2d. Neither did the engineer pronounce the survey completed; much less did he establish the boundary. Such action on his part would have been an unwarrantable assumption of power, which neither in fact was, nor in law could have been, delegated to him by the commissioners. 3d. Mr. Holly seeks to infer our assent, yet does not accede to our suggestion for a joint declaration of the line ascertained. Our action must be final in many places; and hence joint action, and a joint report are not only business-like, but legally necessary. 4th. There is no evidence of assent to any portion of the line. Steps should at once be taken to preserve the evidence of the points agreed to, so that if any monument shall be destroyed, or wilfully removed, the position may be again ascertained. 5th. The survey was joint, equally binding pecuniarily and otherwise on both States. On the day of our first meeting a joint board was organized, of which Mr. Field was made chairman, on motion of Mr. Holly. There was but one surveyor, one survey party, and one survey, under the direction and at the expense of that joint board. By reference to the resolutions of our respective States, directing the survey, you will perceive we were authorized to make no other than a joint survey. 6th. An adjustment of expenses is a right either party may demand at any time, without regard to the state of other questions, and cannot with propriety be refused. Lastly. The propriety of an early proposition made by us strikes us with renewed force, viz: a joint statement of the questions on which we differ, with the position of either party, in order to allay the anxiety of those living near the lines, to avoid the inevitable disagreements of ex-parte reports, and to facilitate a determination of the duties of our commission. Of your views of the legal questions presented by us we are still uninformed, as you will see by reference to the previous correspondence. With due respect, yours, &c., SAM'L D. BACKUS, (D.) OPINION OF COUNSEL. The following opinion of the Hon. GEO. A. SIMMONS, of Keeseville, is the same in substance as the one lost in the mails and referred to in the Report of the Commissioners. It has been re-written by Mr. S., and received by the Commissioners since that part of the Report was printed. The question to be considered arises from conflicting views as to the boundary line between the State of New-York and Connecticut. In May 1855, the Legislature of Connecticut appointed Commissioners on the part of that State "to ascertain the boundary line between that State and the State of New-York," and authorised them, jointly with Commissioners to be appointed by the Legislature of the State of New-York, vested with similar powers on the part of the latter State, "to ascertain the said boundary line and erect suitable monuments at such places as they should deem necessary to prevent any further mistakes concerning the same." In April 1856, the Legislature of New-York appointed similar Commissioners with the like powers "to ascertain the boundary line between this State and the State of Connecticut, and to erect suitable monuments at such places as they should deem necessary to prevent any further mistakes concerning the same." From the preambles of the two legislative resolutions appointing the Commissioners, stating "That sundry differences and disputes have arisen among the inhabitants resident near the line dividing the States of New-York and Connecticut concerning said dividing line, and that most of the bounds and monuments erected on and along said dividing line have been removed or destroyed, rendering it uncertain to which of said States sundry citizens, residents as aforesaid, belong; now, therefore," &c. It is not to be presumed, that the Commissioners were meant to be empowered to make a new line where the old one could not be found, and thus exercise the powers of a court of chancery to settle confused boundaries; for the operative and directory part of the resolutions is confined in terms to the duty of finding or ascertaining the old line-" to ascertain the boundary line between this State and the State of Connecticut and to erect suitable monuments at such places as they shall deem necessary," &c. But besides these words, thus excluding the Commissioners from making a new line and restricting them to the duty of ascertaining or finding and marking the old one, even a Court of Equity never authorises any other thing if the ancient boundary can be ascertained, nor even where it can not be, until acting for itself on a report of the facts and evidence made by the Commissioners as to that point; and then only by a subsequent order of the Court adapted to the case. 1 Chitty Gen. Pr. 722. 2 Meriv. 507. 1 Swant. 9. If, then, the Commissioners are satisfied that the old line can be found or ascertained, they have performed their duty, and it is for the Legislatures of the two States to say whether they will give them authority to alter it or make a new line, not the Commissioners. And even the State Legislatures cannot authorise such alteration without the approval of Congress. 10 U. S. Statutes at large, p. 602, and Constitution U. S. see Art. 4, Sec. 3. But more than this, the two Legislatures must have assumed the existence of an old line once marked on the land and that it is capable of being ascertained by careful and proper resurveys with the help of ancient marks and documents, and they have precluded the notion of making a new line or altering the old one in any respect. We may take for granted, then, that the only question to be decided by the Commissioners is, where is the old line? This line was agreed on by the two colonial governments in 1683 and ratified by the King in council in the year 1700. It was provided in the agreement, that in case certain lines therein mentioned should diminish or take away land within twenty miles of Hudson River, that then an equal quantity should be added out of the bounds of Connecticut. In 1684 a survey was made by joint Commissioners and several lines run. It was ascertained that these lines did diminish the territory of NewYork to the amount of 61,440 acres, and that a tract must be taken from Connecticut containing an equal number of acres in an oblong form as an equivalent for the 61,440 acres, and the particular location of the oblong was agreed to and the agreement and |