informed us,) to the depth of one hundred and sixty feet, and obtained water, which the proprietors of the spring believe to be equal in quality to the best spring at Salina. They have requested the Superintendent to take possession of it, as provided in the fifty-first section of said statute. And also to erect a pump there to raise that water for the use of the manufacturers at that place. To which request the Superintendent offered to comply, if the manufacturers there would consent to use it, and relinquish the use of the water from the spring in the village of Salina, on being furnished with water from their said spring, in case there should by a scarcity of water from the best spring at Salina. The agents of the Syracuse and Onondaga salt companies declined acceding to this proposition. For the purpose, however, of testing the quality of the water in that spring, the Superintendent has contracted with a Mr. Gifford, to put in operation an old pump near said spring. If on pumping out the water, it shall be found to be equal to the said best spring at Salina, or superior to the other three springs there, the Superintendent would consider himself authorised by the existing statute to erect a pump at that place. But, if on testing the strength of the water in that spring it shall not be found to be superior to the second rate water in the spring at Salina, then it is supposed that the expenditure would not be authorised under the present statute. It might, however, be beneficial to the manufacturers at Syracuse, to be furnished with water from their said spring if it should be only equal with the second quality of water at Salina, in as much, as it would relieve them from maintaining conduits from the reservoirs at Salina. If they could receive water from that spring the distance would be shortened more than one mile. If it is deemed expedient by the Legislature to relieve them from maintaining this extended line of conduits, it is recommended that the case should be provided for by statute. The fifty-fourth section of the statute before referred to, provides, that "the Superintendent shall take from the Erie canal, on the Salina level, so much of the surplus waters thereof, as may be necessary to drive all the pumps," &c. Does this section authorise the Superintendent to take the water out of the canal on the Salina level at different points at such place as he pleases, or must he be confined to the place where it is now taken out; or before he opens another place, should he not obtain consent of the Canal Commissioners? We request that the statute may be made more explicit, so much so, as to direct in what manner the Superintendent shall have power to take water from the canal. For the purpose of enabling the Superintendent and Inspector more correctly to determine, whether any of the manufacturers do evade the payment of duties, or incur the penalty inflicted by the eighty-seventh section of the said statute, they recommend that the same may be so amended that such offenders may be brought to justice. And this desirable object, it is believed, can be more readily attained, by authorising the Superintendent and Inspector, or either of them, to examine on oath the manufacturers, and the person or persons by him or them employed in boiling or packing of salt in his or their manufactory, in relation to the disposition of all or any part of the salt therein during the sixty days next preceding such examination. And that in case any such manufacturers, boiler or packer, shall refuse to be examined as aforesaid, or shall refuse to answer any such question as may be put to them in relation thereto, according to the best of their knowledge, that a penalty may be incurred. In case such manufacturer shall refuse as aforesaid, it may be made the duty of the Superintendent and Inspector, to suspend the operation of his manufactory, as provided for in the said eighty-seventh section: And in case such boiler or packer shall so refuse, that it shall be the duty of such manufacturer to discharge such boiler or packer on being notified by the Superintendent or Inspector of such refusing; and that in case such manufacturer does not forthwith discharge such refusing boiler or packer, that the said Superintendent and Inspector in like manner suspend the operation of such manufactory. The 121st section of said statute provides, that "no salt shall be removed" from the manufactory, except in a certain manner therein specified. We think this section useful, and recommend that a penalty attach to each person, of five dollars for every bushel that shall be removed contrary to the provision in that section. It will be perceived, that at present, there is no penalty attached to the violation of the provisions of that section. The 142d section of said statute inflicts a penalty on every person who shall remove from the reservation, or attempt to remove therefrom, to evade the payment of duties, five dollars for every bushel of salt so removed; but no penalty is incurred by removing a fractional part of a bushel. We recommend that the statute be so amended, as to provide a penalty for part of a bushel so removed. The 144th section of the statute before mentioned, authorises the officer (who has seized salt removed from the reservation without having paid the duties thereon) to seize "the boat, vessel, cart, wagon, sled, or other vehicle, together with tackle, apparel and team." In practising under this provision, we have found it very inconvenient, as well as expensive, keeping teams which have been so seized, until the termination of a suit in a court of justice. To remedy this expense, we recommend that provision be made that the owner of such property may have the possession of it, by giving a bond to the Superintendent, with sureties to be approved of by the Superintendent, Inspector, or first judge of the county, conditioned that the obligors deliver the same property to the said Superintendent, on his recovering judgment in the suit commenced or to be commenced for the recovery of the penalty, so that the avails of the same property may be applied on the execution, or the value of it; and also provide (in case such owner shall neglect to give such bond for the space of ten days after such seizure) that the Superintendent may sell the same, or such part of it as requires an expense in keeping, by giving timely notice of such sale. The 159th section of the said statute provides for the imprisonment of defendants, where property cannot be found to satisfy judgments for the recovery of penalties in justices' courts, and directs that they shall remain within the walls of the jail for the term of sixty days; but it does not extend to a like recovery in courts of record. We therefore recommend that the statute be so amended, that on the recovery of a judgment in any court of record, for a penalty under any of the sections of said statute, that the defendants shall be confined in the manner provided in the 159th section, as many days as there are dollars in the recovery against such defendant. We abstain from urging the necessity of a reduction of the duties on salt, as your predecessors, and the people so recently and with so much unanimity, have called for it, that we cannot doubt but the present Legislature will, with a laudable desire to relieve the manufacturers of that necessary article, as well as their consti tuents, from an onerous tax, promptly reduce the duties to the lowest rate authorised by the amended Constitution. On the first day of August, 1831, the Superintendent and Inspector, in pursuance of the authority conferred on them by the 13th section of said statute, did make and ordain "rules and regulations which they deemed expedient," a copy of which is hereto annexed, marked No. 3. We have found it necessary to prosecute, in some instances, for violations of these regulations; and in one suit for the violation of the eighth rule, it was contended by the counsel for the defendant, to the jury that passed on the case, that the officers had no authority to make such regulations. After proving the violation of the rule, the jury found a verdict in favor of the defendant, on which the justice gave judgment; after which, we caused the proceedings to be removed into the court of common pleas by certiorari, where the justice's judgment was reversed; on which the said defendant has since removed the proceedings into the Supreme Court, by filing a writ of error, which is now pending in that court undecided. Inasmuch as there may be doubt as respects our authority, and as we consider the provisions important and necessary, we recommend that such provisions may be embraced in an amendment to said statute. The annexed table, marked No. 2, exhibits a statement of the present number and capacity of the manufactories, and the average production while in operation. It is believed by one of the officers making the foregoing report, that the question of the water that should be furnished to those first entitled to it, has been already settled by decisions made under the act of 1825; but as there are doubts, he can have no objection to having the same settled by the Legislature. NEHEMIAH H. EARLL, Salina, January 7, 1834. |