of December 24, 1759; of October 20, 1764, and of January 26, 1770). Another class of statutes related to the Post road, and other roads within the limits of the city. (Act of 1738; of November 7, 1741; of November 25, 1751; of October 39, 1764, and of March 9, 1774. As to wharves and slips, see act of September 21, 1744; of January 27, 1770, and of February 16, 1771.)

As to bridges, see the act of March 10, 1774. Various statutes were also passed in relation to streets. Most of these acts will be noticed more particularly, and commented upon when their subjects are discussed. I shall then endeavor to point out where they appear to have been superfluous, where necessary, and where merely auxiliary.

NOTE 13.-PAGE 28.

The letter of Governor Cosby is to be found in the London Documents of Mr. Broadhead, vol. 24. There is an entry in the minutes of the Board of Trade, dated 22d of August, 1734, in which they say, that the charter of Montgomerie is referred to in the act of 1732, but not transmitted; without which they could not properly judge of the act. They direct the Governor to transmit a copy.— (London Doc., vol. 25.) No further notice of the statute, nor of any act respecting it, can be found.

NOTE 14.-PAGE 28.

Extract from the Commission to Sir Danvers Osborne.

"And you, Sir Danvers Osborne, by and with the consent of our said Council and Assembly, or the major part of them, shall have full power and authority to make, constitute and ordain laws, statutes and ordinances for the public peace, welfare and good government of our said province; which said laws, statutes and ordinances are not to be repugnant, but as near as may be agreeable to the laws and statutes of this our kingdom of Great Britain; provided that all such laws, statutes and ordinances be within three months or sooner, after the making thereof, transmitted to us under our seal of New York, for our approbation or disallowance; and in case any or all of the said laws, statutes or ordinances, being not before confirmed by us, shall at any time be disallowed and not approved, and so signified by us, our heirs or successors, under our or their Privy Seal, unto you the said Danvers Osborne, or to the commander-in-chief of our said provinces for the time being; then so much and so many of the said laws, statutes and ordinances as shall be so disallowed and not approved of, shall from thenceforth cease, determine, and become utterly void."

Dr. O'Callaghan has been so kind as to examine the Commissions of Slaughter, Fletcher, Belmont, Hunter and Montgomerie, and they all contain the above clause in the same words.

NOTE 15.-PAGE 36.

The pamphlet in question is entitled "An Examination of the Validity of the pretended Charters of the Cities of New York, Brooklyn, 1852."

The following are the writer's objections and difficulties: 1st. He asks how the charter was delivered to the Mayor on the 15th of February, 1730, when it is dated the 15th of January, 1732 ?

The charter is attested as of the 15th of January, in the fourth year of his Majesty's reign, George the Second, which the writer will find was 1730, and the certificate of Bradley is of the same date.

2d. That it did not pass the Council, or was submitted to that Body, or that there is no indorsement on the instrument to that effect.

It was submitted to the Council, most thoroughly sifted by them, ratified and unanimously approved. The want of an indorsement to that effect is really an objection not worth refuting.

3d. That there is no indorsement upon it that Montgomerie consented to it, or proof that he did consent.

The seal of the province could not be affixed without the Governor's consent; and, as he never sought to break the charter, on the ground of its being surreptitiously obtained, or on any other ground, it is no very extravagant presumption that he did consent. It cannot be imagined that the writer means that the consent must have been indorsed on the document.

4th. It is objected that Montgomerie did not sign it. Perhaps the judicial decision of Assistant Vice Chancel

lor Sandford, that the signature of the king or governor, to a patent or grant emanating from the crown, was not necessary to its validity, is equal in weight to the writer's opinion. (Bogardus vs. Trinity Church, 4 Sandford's Ch. R.)

5th. It is next said, "that the consent of the Assembly is wanting."

No man, before this, ever doubted that the king could grant a charter, and empower his governors to do so. No one has ever before imagined that the assent of a colonial assembly was requisite for this purpose. If the king had agreed to abridge his prerogative in this particular, it seems reasonable to ask for some proof of it. The character of Charles and James makes such a concession rather improbable.

6th. Again it is urged, that the charter was not sent to the Board of Trade, submitted to the king, or received his sanction.

It has been shown that such sanction was not necessary for the passage of binding statutes. They were valid until the king disaffirmed them. Much less could the royal approval be necessary for charters and patents. The unrestricted power to issue them passed to the Duke of York, and from him to his governors.

7th. The only glimmer of argument in the publication, is that part of it which relates to the repealing act of 1828.

In a previous part of this work, many considerations have been urged to show that this act could not repeal either the statute of 1691 or that of 1732. These considerations appear to the author to be unanswerable; but if untenable, then the charters are left as they were before

the acts; and, as nothing yet urged against them shakes them in the most trivial degree, they were valid grants of the kings of Great Britain, and are saved by the Constitution.

NOTE 16.-PAGE 78.

Boundaries of the Wards, October 6, 1683.

At a meeting of the Mayor and Aldermen, at the City Hall, the 8th day of December, 1683, the division of the city and Corporation of New York, into six wards, is agreed upon to be as follows:

THE SOUTH WARD.-" To begin at the corner house of James Mathews, by the water side, and so northwards along the Heer Graft (Broad street) to the house of Simon Johnson Romaine; and from thence westward up the Beaver Graft to the corner house of Barent Coursen; and from thence southward by the fort to the water-side, including the Pearl street; and so to the house of James Mathews, again."

THE DOCK WARD.-" To begin at the house of Mr. Stephen Van Cortlandt, by the water side, and so northwards to the corner house of Gusie Denys, from thence eastward to the house of Tryntie Clox; and so westward to Mr. Van Cortlandt's again."

THE EAST WARD.-" To begin at the house of Thomas Lewis, and from thence northward to the house of Law