New-York daily tribune., 1858-08-17
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE

a.
Courecscu. Lecss;rre, ;1rPcr:.rg 20 reply 20 ny
o,ru uzn.cs.io1 paehshed JAY u, "a, % gFea. pari
tsieu 20 VIII cuo:s:ons rom tie reports Of he NsT
York Coruissoners, sho~ioe ts. for ds,sLcs OF
,hou. ttir.y L es .ori Leg Isssd Sound, boaaisry
i,res had been sro:.s-;slly asctr:sred. Quotation
e,,ro ,ny othe. aocame1: would asve been equsly
r.,usp: 20 the cuestors St ssue; for the assertion
n, for.A by the Conneetc1: Legislature hat boun-
d. rr. b,d been rrr, s.d stsrws:d repudiaied by
.ns " =-I TX COum.ssloLers was UNDERSTOOD ID re-
ls, .oey % the g0r,sers sec,on ~ tne diVifrg Ie
" ch a. ne in aDy serious cI-pute. ny ueA Al u =.
sry suc. lue had been rur oe1snAy 'eiS'rsd 20 tns
"a. ~ Ire ire ouly H. however, the Laglsis'nre
meau. 70 ssy tha. 5oarGs-y line asd o'sn rdn tue
tire distance between the States, toe a.seIS)n Is
.o1slly untrue, srG ny ceniAl sEot nVsoaed ~ tne
esst by the sckncT tdseo,ent md sAea LUCE u"@ '
y ced psIt OF the way. ,,u..
IN controversy, NJ. 2. srsges tla. TIE ,fasa- ice
laid down !rom eri - END 81 tne ssc'ou oy ,ie Il
Sireer could not hsve peeH 81 ex2er meh't AZ
a cslsG IT, becsuse !. wss asce1tslned by means OF
A.. pr;or random Inc and therefore must nave oeen
fixed IS S boundary Ihls rovei do,trne 10 ehsl-
neeliue reeds no .efatston, but Souli IKE ID Ano"
hos IN t,s case NJ. {. csp)ees OF the irsditlonsy
or ss We cisin the true eoUadsry hne, waicl YES
s,so mara &c a. tne sane tune, 10 the sa1e manner
sni by the ssme means a. the straight Ice. were
two boundaries then established TIE duty OF t1e
Engineer was 10 furp.h ths Commissioners with sucn
in determining the true locs,on o. the dvidns hre,
but be could himself mors establish boundary
than orgariZe rev State. The only C5nmissionsr
present upon the survey the ne refer ed 10 ss 80
well satisfied that the boundary rss newer straight
that or fret to his oous sgdes or 70
TIE Connecticut Compllss ne;s aiieT t1dt survey was
begun was 70 the effect inst iurtner eNsmhslon
would De rtqa.s.e. From that tine to this no Con-
missioner lem New.f0rs has ever sinl.tei or pre-
tepced that the sxot Line ever vas or could h,Ve
been i1.d ss the boundary by snY suthorty wnsiso-
ever. They certainly hsd the beet oppor, ,an;y or
knoxinc tler own opinions. Hox then shall De
characterized Mr.. C.s statement "IaN 1t was not
until after the dsbandng Of the surveying party
" that the Conmlssi )n7rs OF New fOrk nsle tue 'h
portsut discovery ttst the joint Commission hSd
exceeded its powers" ls tae charge that the
New York Commissioners agreed 70 lDe Thlcn taey
siteiwsro repudis,ed sny better tlsn hoei
H. reply TO my dena thu any mestiog 'as held Tor
settle nent of the Joint sccouots Mr. I. shows toat
the Nsw.York Commissioners urgently desired sucn
settlement, ard especially az certain meeting Win
their Connecticut sssocI.es. Yes they did oy every
in q cir power endeavor 10 procure sucn SET
tement but II rGs Nerer granted. The meeting alIl-
ced 10 was bed for other purposes, snd The Codnect
cut men refused utterly 10 allow any discussion OF
slluso TO pc unisry affsTs. Concerning ~ lhey re-
ported 70 their Legislature that the New YORK Com
mis-iopars then "made demaud having no bosrog
"whetever upon the lurlsdictionsi lice snea We de-
" clbeo to entertain until tne work was nalsned.
Mr.. Curiss also con uses this oit'epeated request
of an examination of the ioint accounts WIN de-
nand of equal division Of the eng compensa-
tiop, and says 1t vss u sde CONDITION to the settle
ment of the boundary. This is q great mistake. The
New.York Commissioners never were accorded 40 op-
pOrtunty either TO insist upon such division or % IN
form the Connecticut men upon Whist terms they were
willing to adjust tae Joint expense, because rs tne
report OF the Connecticut Commissioners themselves
shows, they refused TO entertain the subject al all
uLtil nts should have been set upon the line
where they determined TO have it established.
True, the Engireer had performed ali the operations
which Mr.. Curtss styles the work of tue JOINT con-
mia Wa nah IN ou.r fk.sfh MA
compers rsation was JOINT expense" bat this s the
only reason for s that has been said in Connecticut
about the unfair demands OF the Neg York Commits
sloneTs pectng the Eugiueei's pay. No such de-
mands were ever made. Tdere never was chance 10
make them. Even the demsnd Of an exsmin alton
was never made as condition to anything. Mr.. C.
says tbat demand was made for settlement. of
accounts dPend,R NJ Of all Oter considerations,
one Of the conditions OF settlement OF the boundary
"question. The clause in itslcs is quoted from the
New Commissioners, and should have been so
marked The contradictory clause following It is his
own.
The assertion that il s 10 consequence of disagree
ment- respecting the Joint eXpeGse OF the survey that
no lie has been es,solshed fnds 10 supper. in any
of the records or correspondence OF the ConmssiOn
ers unless the utter refusal OF the Connecticut CON-
miseones to consider any subject connected with those
expenses until after the adoption of an impossible
ne and their puerle attempt 10 that way to extort
improper settlement can he alled such disagreement
There were other topics introduced in my former
commuDi ation.
l charged the Connecticut Legislature with having
published tha. the New York Commissioners had not
within the past year requested the Connecticut Com
missopers 10 proceed 10 the settlement OF the line
notwithstanding the fact that such requests had re-
pestedly been made.
/ charged that while the state of Connecticut IN
held ts Commissioners in refusing 10 establish the
boundary where II has always been located no sxyer
or public man Of that State would seriously claim tnat
any other location was either legal or lust
charged and still charge the 5 ate of Connecticut
with owIg portion of Its Just share Of the Joint ex
penses already incurred, beyond all contingency of
dispute, which debt it consents neither to pay, &C.
knowledge nor investigate. There are DO on hls a.
Albany vouehsrs for persooal expenses Of the Con.
necticut Commissioners, paid out of the New. York
State Treasury and two separate Legislatures of Con-
necticut have been cogDizant of that fact but have
approved OF the refusal to settle these and other bills
i charged the State Of Connecticut with upholdiop
its Commissioners in an utter disregard and neglect Of
the reasonable requests and courteous communications
of the New York Commii sioners and with msstating
TO the world the OF the difficulty between the
States.
To Done Of these charges Mr.. Curtiss, c,nvsrsant
with the facts, makes aoy alluaon!
But, Gays MIR. e., the Committee designed "to pre-
" vent quarrel between Commissioners from becom-
" ing quarrel between the STATS" Too late Sir
There s 10 quarrel between Commissioners. There
has been none Tor msny months. 1t takes tvo parties
TO quarrel. When the Ne~.York Commissioners 10
January 1884, refused to be drawn Cto the discussion
OF any personal or irrelevs ant matters the Connec
cut CommsslOners refused 10 discuss any matters a.
Oh. once tnat uHle tnere has been nothing but re
quest, proposition and solicitation side apd
perfect sIence and inaction theirs So long IS the
Connecticut Commissioners had legal existence no
newspaper communication on this subject erninatsd
nom any member of the New-York Commission, TO
my knowledge. OF the character Of their official
communications let candid men Judge from the docu-
men's themselves. But the st of Connecticut
has assun "a tie responsibility Of It's late Commission
claim the ngnt to call upon it to correc. ts false
record The question for that State is whether il
shail sct csndcly and justly-not whether the New.
loik commissioners have or have not been incon.