A short time since Gen. M'Clure wrote to the Attorney-General, requesting that he or the Comptroller, or other proper officer of the state, would, under the provisions of this covenant, authorise him or such other person as should be selected to enter upon the premises in the possession of Brundage, and take and sell this personal property covered by the mortgage. The Attorney-General and Comptroller were of the opinion that neither they nor any other officer of the state could give this authority, in the then situation of the proceedings, and that it could only be acquired by a foreclosure of the mortgage in chancery. This opinion was, as the Comptroller is informed, communicated to Gen. M'Clure, by the Attorney-General, and from this, the petition now referred, would seem to have originated. Of the correctness of the opinion given as to the proper manner of enforcing this covenant, in relation to the personal property held by this mortgage, the Senate are the best judges; and if it shall be determined that the authority can be given by any officer of the state, without a resort to the chancellor, the Comptroller knows of no objection to giving it, as he considers the whole proceeding as really for the benefit of Gen. M'Clure, and only nominally concerning the state, because the bond and mortgage are made payable to the people. So far as the land covered by the mortgage of Brundage is concerned, the state can certainly have no interest in its foreclosure, as no title would be gained until the foreclosure of the mortgages given by Gen. M'Clure, which are much older, and cover the same land, while the foreclosure of these older mortgages, in the first instance, would either produce the money due, or transfer to the state the title to the lands held as security. If the mortgage of the personal property included in the instrument executed by Brundage should be considered by the Senate, as adding any thing to the security of the state for Gen. M'Clure's loan, then the state may have a real interest in this proceeding; but as neither the act of 1825, nor 1827, contemplated the taking of mortgages upon chattels, as this personal property is of a perishable description, and has been in use from the date of the mortgage, to the present time, and as it is property which, if purchased in by the state, under the mortgage, would not be likely to be made available to any considerable extent in the hands of public agents, although it might be of value to an individual who could convert it to use, this addition to Brundage's mortgage has not been considered by the Comptroller as giving any increased value to the securities held by the state for the loan to Gen. M'Clure, even if the mortgage in all its parts, should be considered valid and effectual.

The petitioner seems desirous that this bond and mortgage should be assigned to him, or that some other law may be passed enabling him to avail himself of this personal property, pursuaut to the covenant in the mortgage. Should the Senate view this subject in the light in which it has been viewed by the Comptroller, it is believed they will see no objection to passing an act directing an assignment of all the interests the State have in this mortgage to Gen. McClure, that he may prosecute his securities against Brundage in his own way, without being impeded by this nominal interference of the people, when they have really no interest. But should the Senate consider this mortgage valid, and this personal property as adding any thing valuable to the security of the State, then any law they may think it advisable to pass, may be so framed as to retain within the power of the State the avails of this security, and to give effect to this part of the mortgage.

ap

The Comptroller is fully aware that he has gone more into detail upon this subject, than would seem to be required by the petition referred to him. But the situation of Gen. McClure's loan has peared to call for this full statement of all the facts in relation to it, as, in ordinary cases, the Comptroller would have felt himself bound to have directed a foreclosure of the mortgages against him for the large arrears of interest due; but the variety of legislation which has been had upon the subject, and all of which has been intended to grant indulgence, has manifested so clearly a disposition in former legislatures not to have these securities rigidly enforced, that he has not felt authorised to direct a proceeding, in its nature contrary to these lenient intentions, without some instruction to do so.

It is also desirable that the Legislature should give the Comptroller some direction as to the manner in which he is to treat the other collateral mortgages filed in his office by Gen. McClure; and whether he is to consider any part of the law of 1827 as in force, or the mortgages taken under the law of 1825 as valid, and to be enforced without the fulfilment, by Gen. McClure, of the conditions of that law.

All which is respectfully submitted.

Dated Albany, January, 1830.

SILAS WRIGHT, JR.

IN ASSEMBLY,

January 11, 1830.

REPORT

From the Comptroller, on the petition of the Super- › visors of the county of Washington.

STATE OF NEW-YORK,

COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE.

The Comptroller, to whom was referred, by the honorable the Assembly, the petition of the supervisors of the county of Washington, praying that they may be authorised to raise upon their county, and upon the town of Kingsbury in the said county, a certain sum of money by tax,

RESPECTFULLY REPORTS

That the petition states that the board of supervisors of the county of Washington did not, for certain years, direct the tax, collected from the Washington and Warren bank, situate in the town of Kingsbury, in their county, to be paid over to the county treasurer, to the end that the same might be disposed of as the tax law of 1823 (that being the law under which the taxes referred to were imposed,) required; but that the tax upon the said bank was treated in the same manner that the other taxes raised, levied and collected in the said county and town, were treated, and was applied to the payment of the town and county expenses as other taxes were applied.

The petitioners pray that they may be authorised to raise by tax, upon the real and personal estate of their county, and upon the real and personal estate of the town of Kingsbury, in a proportion, between the county and this town, precisely the same as that in which this money was expended, a sum equal to the amount of taxes which were, between the years 1823 and 1828, so collected from the said bank, and not properly disposed of, but expended to pay the ordinary expenses of the said town and county.

[No. 20.]

1