434 



Q. Did you afterwards learn the reason? 



A. Yes, sir. 



Q. What was the reason ?. 



A. Because Townsend S. Cox himself had protested against it. 



Q. Is that a copy of the paper he put in the executive chamber in 



opposition ? 



A. It is. 



Q. Bead it. 3 



State Board of Forestry Commissioners, ) 



Albany, N. Y., May 22, 1890. J 



Hon. David B. Hill, Governor, Albany, N. Y. : . 



Sir. — The forest commission respectfully submit that bill No. 254 

 (Assembly, 1339) entitled " An act for the release of the interest of the 

 State in lands in the town of North Elba, Essex county, to Benton 

 Turner," should not become a law for the following reasons: The bill 

 is not an escheat bill, nor is it properly entitled a release, for it 

 authorizes a sale pure and simple to Benton Turner, who has no legal 

 interest in the premises, of 539 acres, or thereabouts, of well timbered 

 forest land located in the centre of the Adirondacks, and lying adja- 

 cent to large tracts of land now owned by the State. 



Since the sale of such land is against the settled and well-defined 

 policy adopted by the State, such policy ought not to be departed 

 from in this instance unless they are specially strong and convincing 

 reasons for it. The facts are as follows: 



On September 6, 1859, the lands in question were bid in for the 

 people of the State of New York, at a sale for default in the payment 

 of purchase-money under the school fund bond system. The State 

 had never parted with the original title. 



The lands have remained in the full and complete possession of the 

 State from that time to>the present, and to-day the State's title is per- 

 fect and indefeasible. 



About the year 1887 Benton Turner negotiated with Messrs. Ostran- 

 der & Marsh, of Albany, for the purchase of this lot, they claiming to 

 have title, but really having no title to the same. The sale was con- 

 summated, and Turner paid the price agreed upon, not to the State, 

 however, but to Ostrander & Marsh. It is claimed that at the time of 

 such sale a search and certificate from the Comptroller's office set 

 forth the fact that there were no taxes against said lot, but omitted to 

 show that the State had any other claim against it; upon that certifi- 

 cate Turner alleges he was induced to make the purchase. In answer 

 to that it may be said that if such certificate were given it was 

 undoubtedly true, and the officer making it was not in duty bound to 



