167 



and judgment to enter fully into a matter of that nature." I call youi< 

 attention to page 92, of November 15, 1889. 



Chairman Ryan. — That was the same land that was afterwards 

 agreed to recommend an exchange ? 



A. Yes, sir. 



Q. I h61d in my hands one of the original applications of the Ever- 

 ton Lumber Company, which is dated on November 1, 1889, asking 

 for the very identical lands that were passed upon by the forest 

 commission, to which they gave their assent to the exchange; this 

 proposition comes from the Everton Lumber Company and is dated 

 November 1, 1889, filed in the office of the forest commission on the 

 same day, Messrs. Lawson, attorneys of this city, appearing for the 

 Everton Lumber Company in the matter, and I want to read in this 

 connection just a little part of it; "the application of the Everton 

 Lumber Company, respectfully shows. ' 



That it is a corporation duly formed and organized and pursuant 

 to the laws of the State of New York. 



• That it is desirous of acquiring, certain lands now owned by the 

 State of New York and hereinafter described, by exchanging therefor 

 other lands adjoining the main tracts of the forest preserve, under 

 and in pursuance of chapter 475 of the Laws of 1887. 



Then follows a description of these lands that they propose to 

 acquire from the State; then follows the same allegations as are in the 

 other applications of the Everton Lumber Company, which was filed 

 later oh, and then a description of the lands which they wished to 

 exchange; now if you will read from November 15, 1889, the resolu- 

 tion for receiving of this proposition : > 



" Mr. James W. Eaton, Jr., of Albany, attorneys for the Everton 

 Lumber Company, appeared before the board, in the matter of the 

 application of that company for an exchange of lands. After a hear- 

 ing in the matter, Mr. Eaton was instructed to present his proposition 

 in some definite form, and another hearing would be given him at the 

 next meeting." l 



Q. I understand, Mr. Basselin, at that time that this present appli- 

 cation was not by the commission considered in the form as required 

 by the statute, in one respect, that they didn't propose to comply 

 with the statute. with reference to paying the. expenses of the com- 

 mission or the appraisers in making the appraisal of the land ? 



A. Yes, sir. 



Q. That, as you understand, is one of the provisos in this bill, 

 which is known as the Hadley bill ? 



A. Yes, sir. 



