Note. From this sum should be deducted the value of several pieces of property not sold, originally mortgaged to the Commissioners of Loans, and by them released to the State, for the aggregate sum of $1,412.46, exclusive of $400, the title to which is considered doubtful; and a further sum of $44, the title to which was ascertained to be bad after the release to the State. No. 35. IN SENATE, February 24, 1837. REPORT Of the select committee in relation to the Oneida Bank. Mr. Beckwith, from the select committee to whom was referred the petitions of sundry citizens of the county of Oneida, praying an investigation into the manner in which the capital stock of the Oneida Bank was distributed, and also into the matters contained in a resolution passed February 7, 1837, REPORTS: That they have proceeded to the examination under the resolution, and have taken all the testimony which they deem necessary under that branch of the investigation, which they now ask leave to present to the Senate, without making any comments thereon. As to the examination into the manner in which the capital stock of said bank was distributed, your committee are of the opinion that it would require a long and tedious examination of witnesses, and that many nice legal questions would arise, which it would be very embarrassing to your committee to decide. In the opinion of your committee, the facts in relation to the allegation that fraud was committed by the commissioners in the distribution of the stock, can be more conveniently ascertained in the supreme court, upon proceedings on an information in the nature of a quo warranto, than before your committee. Your committee came to this conclusion the more readily, as the counsel who appeared before them on the part of the bank, and two of the petitioners, who are professional gentlemen, admit that the supreme court have juris[Senate, No. 35.] A diction of the matter; and because the Vice-Chancellor, in his opinion in this same matter, says: "If these commissioners, who are authorized to designate upon certain principles, the proprietors of the franchise of banking, in this instance have perverted the design of the Legislature, and are about to put a corporation into operation upon principles forbidden by and in fraud of the statute under which they are empowered to act, it is a public evil of considerable magnitude, for which the law has provided an appropriate and adequate remedy. But that remedy is not in a court of chancery. (The Attorney-General vs. The Utica Insurance Company, 2d J. C. R. 371.) "If the charges in this bill are true, and a large or any considerable portion of the inchoate stock of this contemplated bank has been illegally obtained by the defendants, it cannot I think be doubted, but that their assumption of the power and privileges of a banking incorporation would be an usurpation of a franchise; and in such case, the supreme court, upon an information by the Attorney-General, would oust them of their pretended corporate rights. The People vs. the Utica Insurance Company. (15 J. R. 358; Com. Digest, tit. Quo Warranto A. 2d, R. S. 581, § 1.)" Your committee have therefore come to the conclusion that it would be more expedient for the Legislature not to act upon the repeal of the charter, until after the court shall have ascertained the facts in relation to the aforesaid allegations of fraud. They have therefore prepared the following resolution, which they ask leave to present: Resolved, That the select committee to which was referred the memorials of sundry inhabitants of the county of Oneida, praying for an investigation into the conduct of the commissioners for the distribution of the stock of the Oneida Bank, and for a repeal of its charter, be discharged from the further consideration thereof, and that the same be referred to the Attorney-General; and that the Attorney-General is hereby directed to take the requisite measures for filing an information in the nature of a quo warranto, in the supreme court, against said corporation, upon his own relation. No. 36. IN SENATE, Febuary 24, 1837. REPORT Of the Canal Board on the bill, entitled "An act for the relief of John A. Ehle and John Spencer." The Canal Board, in answer to the following resolution, viz. STATE OF NEW-YORK, } "Resolved, That the committee on canals be discharged from the further consideration of the "Act for the relief of John A. Ehle and John Spencer," and that the same be referred to the Canal Board, to report the facts in relation thereto, with their opinion thereon.” RESPECTFULLY REPORT: That John A. Ehle, George Spencer and John Spencer, of whom the petitioners are the survivors, entered into a contract with the Canal Commissioners on the 29th day of January, 1836, for the construction of section No. 2, of the Puddleford feeder, on the southern division of the Chenango canal, at the following prices, viz. For grubbing and clearing, and felling and clearing trees without the the bounds of the feeder, two hundred and fifty dollars: For grubbing and clearing extra width, at the rate of fifteen dollars per acre: [Senate, No. 36.] A |