semblages, induces the neglect of appropriate callings and promotes intemperance and vice. Your memorialists are aware that the revenue yielded by the franchise is an important item in the finances of the state, judiciously appropriated to its internal improvement; yet, at the same time, they, in common with all who are conversant with the subject, are constrained to acknowledge that these benefits are far less than the evils resulting from the system, particularly to the inhabitants of country villages. Believing that the extent of this evil is to be measured by the extent of country over which the system prevails, and the amount of population thus pervaded, rather than by the aggregate of sales under it in a given place, and believing that the only consideration to the state for the license to generate such evil, is derived from the impost per centum upon such aggregate, your memorialists would respectfully suggest the expediency of confining such license to those places which do thus, in the form of revenue, furnish the only consideration for the grant, and thereby remove the evils attendant upon the system of which your memorialists humbly complain. Your memorialists, therefore, respectfully ask of your honorable body, to enact a law prohibiting auction sales in the county of St. Lawrence, in all cases other than those specified in the fourth and fifth sections of the first title of the seventeenth chapter of the first part of the Revised Laws. Or prohibiting the sale at auction, of any article below the value of three dollars. Or prohibiting sales at auction on more than one day in each week. IN ASSEMBLY, January 12, 1831. REPORT Of the Committee on Claims, on the petition of Abel Guthrie. Mr. J. C. Spencer, from the committee on claims, to whom was referred the petition of Abel Guthrie, in behalf of himself and other heirs of Christian Guthrie, REPORTED By an act of the Legislature, passed in 1829, the commissioners of the land-office are directed to cause letters patent to be issued to the heirs of Christian Guthrie for two hundred acres of land in Sterling, upon the said heirs releasing to the State all their claim to lot number ninety, in Milton. The petitioner not having complied with the condition, the two hundred acres have not been granted. He says he has releases from two of his brothers, but it would seem that he had sisters, who have left issue, but as he has not heard of them for twenty years, he presumes they are dead. It would seem that the commissioners of the land-office were not satisfied with the proof he offered respecting the heirs of Christian Guthrie, and delined issuing the letters patent. The petitioner prays some relief, and has intimated to the committee his willingness to take other land in Sterling in trust for the heirs of Christian Guthrie. The act of 1829, very cautiously directs the letters patent to be issued to the heirs of Christian Guthrie, without naming them. And it would seem to have been intended to throw on the petitioner the burthen of showing who were such heirs, as well as procuring re[A. No. 13.] 1 : leases from them. From an examination of the reports of former committees on this subject, the present committee think they discover good reason for this caution, and their opinion is confirmed by the statements of the present petitioner, that the issue of two of the petitioner's sisters are not accounted for. No evidence whatever has been adduced to them to establish who are the right heirs of Christian Guthrie. They see no propriety in granting land to the petitioner in trust for those heirs, in preference to any other person; but on the contrary, are well satisfied with the provision of the act of 1829, as they are calculated to cause the heirs, whoever they may be, to become acquainted with the grant to them. With these views, the conmmittee would recommend at once that the prayer of the petitioner be denied, with a view of leaving the heirs to avail themselves of the act of 1829. But by a provision of law, (1 Rev. Stat. 205, §45,) the commissioners of the land-office have no authority to execute the act, after twelve months from the time of the passage. They think it but reasonable to extend the time to enable the heirs of Guthrie to avail themselves of the act of 1829. And as it is understood that there is yet land in Sterling to satisfy the grant, they have agreed upon a bill to attain that object, which they have directed their chairman to ask leave to introduce. IN ASSEMBLY, January 12, 1831. REPORT Of the Committee on Claims, on the petition of Gideon Castle. Mr. J. C. Spencer, from the committee on claims, to whom was referred the petition of Gideon Castle, REPORTED The facts of this case are so minutely detailed in a report of the Attorney-General to the house of Assembly, nade March 3, 1830, which will be found among the legislative documents of the last session, No. 233, and also in a report of the committee on public lands, made at the last session, (No. 348 of the documents,) that the com-. mittee conceive it necessary only to notice the leading and prominent features of the case. In 1819, proceedings by ejectment in behalf of the State, were instituted to recover lot 97 in Camillus, on the ground that it had escheated by the death of Robert Gipson, the patentee, without heirs. The petitioner applied to the then Attorney-General, Mr. Oakley, to stay proceedings as to 56 acres of the lot which the petitioner claimed to belong to him by virtue of a conveyance from Orremel Gipson, the nephew and heir of Robert Gipson. The petitioner declares that an arrangement was made with Mr. Oakley, by which it was agreed that depositions should be taken to establish the fact of Orremel Gipson's heirship. That such depositions were taken and submitted to the Attorney-General, who assured the petitioner that he would abandon all proceedings in relation to the fifty-six acres. This statement of the petitioner is corroborated and proved by the [A. No. 14.] 1 affidavit of James Winder, who says he was present when the engagement not to proceed was made. It is further corroborated by the testimony of the officer who took the depositions, who says he did so under the direction of Mr. Oakley, and by other strong facts in the case, Mr. Oakley's recollection is very indistinct, and his statement does not, in the opinion of the committee, invalidate that of the petitioner. Judgments were however obtained by the confession of the tenants who hold leases under the petitioner, but as he says, without his knowledge. These judgments were obtained in May 1820, and in the month of November in that year, the lots were reported to the commissioners of the land-office. It is a remarkable fact that from this time to July 1828, no steps were taken on the part of the State, either to sell the land or to obtain the possession of it, but the tenants were suffered to remain undisturbed. Of course the petitioner rested easy, until in 1828 he accidently saw an advertisement of the sale of the land in question by the Surveyor-General. He alleges that he attended the sale and solicited and remonstrated with the Surveyor-General, who told him that his only relief was to be had by the interposition of the Legislature. The petitioner supposed he had done all that he could or ought to do, and in 1829 prepared his papers for an application to the Legislature. His advanced age (being now 87 years old,) and his narrow pecuniary means, prevented him from making an earlier application. In 1830 his petition was presented to the Assembly, and referred to the committee on public lands, a majority of whom reported a bill directing the payment of $800 to him. From the lateness of the session this bill was not acted on in the House, and the petition is now renewed. From this outline of the leading facts, it is obvious that the petitioner has not been guilty of any neglect in asserting his claim in due time. And the committee think there can be no doubt entertained that the petitioner has acted under a full and honest belief that the proceedings to recover the land in question would be discontinued. Whether this belief was founded on sufficient evidence, or whether it was from misapprehension, cannot be material; the result to the petitioner has been, that he has been deprived of the opportunity of establishing his title to the land. It appears to the committee that the most obvious dictates of justice require that the petitioner should be at least reinstated in the situation in which he was at the |