« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
memorial and remonstrance are of a nature to be applicable to the decision of that question only, and your committee do not feel themselves called upon to express an opinion upon a case already in ef. fect adjudged by a legitimate and competent authority. In forming a new district from one or more districts possessed of a school-house, the commissioners are simultaneously to ascertain and determine the amount justly due to such new district, and the mode of ascertaining it is prescribed by the statute. If the memorialists discharged that part of their duty, they have not stated the amount so as to enable the committee to judge whether levying the same upon the taxable inhabitants of the district retaining the property, would or would not be oppressive. Allowing the intimation of the commissioners as to the value of the property to be correct, there is no evidence that those inhabitants are unwilling to become its proprietors upon the terms provided by law in such cases, and the present application in their behalf seems to have been voluntary on the part of the memorialists. If in the exercise of their unquestionable power of forming new districts from the old, or if in determining the amount due to such new districts, persons shall be aggrieved by the commissioners, they have an adequate remedy in the appeal allowed to the superintendent of common schools.
The committee cannot anticipate a case in which any plain or gross injury in resolving those questions may be done to the inhabitants of a district, while the wisdom and justice of the commissioners would be unimpeachable. When it shall happen, it will be the appropriate duty of the afflicted to seek relief; and there is nothing in the history of past legislation calculated to dissuade the meritorious from solicitation."
The committee are of opinion that the provisions of the Revised Statutes applicable to such cases, generally are sufficient for the pe. euliar exigencies of the one under consideration; and they have instructed their chairman to offer the following resolution:
Resolved, That the prayer of the memorialists ought not to be granted.
Of the committee on trade and manufactures, in obedience to a resolution instructing the committee to examine the annual report of the inspector of flour in the city of New-York.
Mr. Bogert, from the committee on trade and manufactures, in obedience to a resolution of the House of the 7th instant, instructing the committee to examine and report whether the report of the inspector of flour in the city of New-York, is such as is required by law,
The Revised Statutes (vol. 1, p. 578,) provide that “every inspector acting under any article of this title,” (including the inspector of flour in the city of New-York,) “shall report annually to the Legislature, and on or before the first day of February in each year, the quantity, and, as near as may be, the quality and value of the produce, provisions, or merchandize inspected by him during the year ending on the first day of January next preceding the making of such report, together with the amount of the fees and emoluments derived from his office; and shall also communicate in his report such information possessed by him, as may tend to the improvement of the quality, or increase in the quantity, of the articles subject to his inspection.”
The section quoted embraces the whole duty of the inspector in relation to the report which he is required to make to the Legislature. The question is whether he has complied with the requisitions of the law 3
On referring to the annual report of the inspector, which will be found among the documents of the House, No. 88, it will be seen that the report has been made within the time prescribed by law, having been received on the 24th January.
The requirements of the law, as it relates to the quality, the quantity, and the value of the flour and meal inspected have been fully complied with, as will be seen by a reference to the report itself. o
No suggestions have been made by the inspector, which, in his opinion, might tend to improve the quality or increase the quantity of the articles which it is his duty to inspect; nor any information communicated on the subject, which might induce legislation with reference to this branch of our inspection laws. The presumption therefore is, that the inspector deems the existing regulations to be sufficient, and that he has no information which he judges to be of importance to communicate.
The only deficiency which the committee can discover in the annual report of the inspector is, that instead of stating the whole amount of fees and emoluments derived from his office, he merely enumerates the rates of fees for performing the various duties imposed upon him as they are regulated by law.
In this respect the report is undoubtedly defective. The gross amount of receipts can however be readily calculated, as the number of hogsheads and barrels are given, and the fees stated.
Although the attention of the committee has been directed specially to the report under consideration, it may not be amiss to remark that a very careless manner of reporting by inspectors generally, has obtained. By this means, the very object of the law is, in a great measure, defeated.
The committee have not deemed it necessary to suggest any legislation upon this subject at present, especially as the law already
provides for the punishment of such inspectors as shall not comply with the requisitions.
By reference to the Revised Statutes, page 573 of vol. 1, it will be perceived that a penalty of two hundred dollars is imposed in case of non-compliance with the requirements of the law.