NoO 5. IN SSENATE JAN 3, 1854. REPORT Of the majority of the investigating committee in relation to the affairs of Union College, ATTORNEY GENERAL9S OFFICE) 7 slbany, January 3, 1854.' To the President of the Senate; Sir:-I have the honor to present to the Legislature, in pursuance of a resolution passed by the Senate on the 28th of March, 1853, the report of the majority of the commissioners appointed by the Senate to investigate the pecuniary affairs of Union College. I have the honor to be, sir, Your obedient servant, 0. HOFFMAN, Attorney General. [Senate, No. 5.1 1 [u.n.3000p.] REPORT To the Senate of the State of JNew-York: The undersigned composing a majority of the committee appointed by a resolution of the Senate of the 28th of March, 1853, to investigate the matters in relation tc the pecuniary affairs of Union Collepe, specified in the resolutions of the Senate of June and July, 1851, REPORT. The following are the resolutions of June and July, 1851 "Resolved, That the commission appointed by the Senate on the 12th of April, 1851, to employ a skilful accountant to examine the pecuniary affairs of Union College, and to report upon the same, be instructed, themselves, or a majority of them, personally to visit the college, and re-examine the proceedings heretofore had in relation thereto, and to investigate and to report to the next Legislature upon the following subjects connected with said college: 1. Whether the funds granted by the State to Union College have been duly applied to the objects specified in the respective grants; 2. Whether the permanent funds so granted remain entire, and are safely invested; 3. Whether any funds belonging to the college have been applied to any personal purpose by the president, or any other officer or person; 4. Whether any and what losses have occurred in the management of the college, and the causes of such losses; 4 [SENATE 5. Whether the president or any other officer has, while in the employment of the college, participated individually in the profits of any lotteries which were appropriated by the acts granting such lotteries to Union College; and that the commission appointed by the resolution referred to, or a majority of them, be empowered to employ some person authorised by law to administer an oath to persons examined by such commission." These enquiries cannot be properly answered without ascertaining in the first place, what funds have been granted by the State to Union College, what funds have been otherwise obtained, what losses have occurred and the present pecuniary condition of the college. The following is the result of our investigations on these points: Condition of Union College, January 1, 1853. DR. Union College is chargeable with the following sums: Private subscriptions and donations,......... $42,043 73 Grants from the State prior to 1814,..........., 163,818 73 Interest received from the State on the grant of $200,000) by the act of 1814, prior to the act of 1822 *...... *................... 72,453 40 Received in money and securities of Yates & McIntyre, on settlement of Aug. 1, 1828, the proceeds of lotteries under the act of 1814 and 1822,.... $317,124 50 Received on the 24 notes of same persons, given for the balance due on the original grants, at the time of above settlement,........... 4)314 06 321,438 56 (Original grant stated by Comptroller, $322,256 81.) Received under stipulations of January, 1826,.. 90,851 03 Received from E. Nott, on account of President's fund,.,.....v.*...................... 42,000 00 No. 5.1 5 Received on sales of old college sites, and sale of common lands taken in exchange for old college buildings, on sales of lands purchased for new college sites, on sales of other real estate, and for interest on sales of common lands,... $136,161 25 Sums received as income, interest, dividends, balances of rents and other miscellaneous items, 827,575 88 Received in behalf of E. Nott, payments on the bond of Yates, McIntyre and Ely, for $150,000, and interest,....'a.............ee a 208,342 32 $1,904,684 90 CR. ~Union College is entitled to the following credits for monies expended and on hand, and for cost of property on hand, deducting debts owing: Payments on purchase of rights of other institutions,......................$.;74,725 94 Payments for repayments to Yates & McIntyre, to rectify error in estimate of amount of tickets to be drawn,................... 94)448 87 Costs ot buildings, sites, and other real estate,.. 275,468 02 of library and apparatus,............... 34,217 84 Payments of current expenses, interest, &c.,.... 1,060,097 64 Losses of bad debts, investments, &c.,'...,.,.. 60)728 02 Productive property on hand,,... $154,525 33 Deduct debts owing),........ 19,161 42 135,363 96 Payments on account of Stuyvesant Cove property, half of Hunter farm, and expenses incident to them,.......e a... *..... 181,956 07 $1,917,007 29 Total amount of receipts above,........... 1)904)684 90 Excess of payments over receipts,............. $12,322 39 6 [SENATe The above excess of payments over receipts, may be accounted for by the profits which the college made in sales of land at a price above that paid for it, and by the great difficulty of selecting, with entire accuracy, items from the books of the college, and correcting them by the statement of the accountant. And it is by no means any matter for surprise, that in the numerous and complicated transactions of fifty-eight years, an exact balance cannot be produced. The items comprising the above statement are given, with the account in full, in schedule A, annexed to this report. The foregoing statement is compiled from the printed statements and accounts transmitted to the Senate on the 4th of March, 1853, by three of the five commissioners appointed under the resolutions of June and July, 1851, so far as those statements and accounts were proved to be correct by the books of the college, and the testimony taken by the committee; and when they were not thus shown to be correct, or were shown to be deficient, the items have been obtained from the sworn statements of the officers of the college and its books and papers. Great difficulty has arisen from the inartificial and loose manner in which the books of the college have been kept by the treasurer, during a part of the fifty-eight years embraced in the investigation; by the loss of its vouchers and papers; and by the death or inability to testify of the persons best acquainted with the transactions of a remote period. This dfficulty has beeu somewhat relieved by the statements of the accountant above mentioned; but these statements are so complicated and obscure, are so deficient in arrangement and in the details on which results are founded, and frequently so contradictory, that it has required the ufmost patience and industry to extract from them the real and exact facts. We found that no reliance could be placed in the unsupported statements and abstracts of the accountant. He has not exhibited, during the investigation, an impartial mind, a patient submission to a thorough examination of his work, or an earnest desire to ascertain the exact truth of the case. False items are entered in his accounts, and his balances are evidently forced. No. 5.1 7 Although the difference between the undersigned and their associate, may be found in our respective statements of the final results of the debtor and credit side of the above accounts, owing to different views on some minor details, yet it is presumed that difference will be of little importance, and that the whole committee will be found to agree in the general conclusion, that the trustees of Union College have accounted for all the money received by them, belonging to the college, from the State or from private donations, or from contracts in which they had any interest. The undersigned are unable to speak more definitely of the settled conviction of their associate in respect to the above statement, or in respect to some other points that will be presented in this report. Although they understood in their consultations that he concurred with the other members of the committee in all the results in which such concurrence is in this report stated to exist, yet there may be a misunderstanding between him and us, in relation to some of them. And his report may present arguments and results quite variant from those now submitted, or views which have not been the subjects of discussion in the committee, and have not been noticed at all by us. Should such be the case, we shall regret that we were not better prepared to state the grounds of our differences and to meet the arguments of our associate, by being distinctly apprised of the final conclusions to which he had arrived, and of his own reasons for them. But as he did not accede to our suggestion, that, as chairman, he should prepare the draft of a report, we must leave our opinions on the matters in respect to which there is a difference between us and our associate, to be sustained by the facts which we have herein stated, and which cannot, and we presume will not be questioned. We do not regard our statements as absolutely perfect in all their details, but as nearly so as any account can ever be made up, of such remote occurrences and complicated transactions, from the existing materials. The errors, if any, will be found to be few and unimportant, while we have entire confidence in the accuracy of the general result. The reasons for our adopting the statements of the accountant, or those of the treasurer or other officers of the college, or fordisregarding both and relying on the entries in the college books, rUl 9 LP0lg-NYsUPU ~VL ~~ V~~YVl~~W BbD L~VII~VHY~d 8 [SENATE or upon other testimony, could not be given in this report without swelling it to a size that would deter most persons from its perusal. It is no small source of gratification to us that in these general results, we are enabled to concur in the very clear report of Silas Wright and William James, made in 1831, after a very thorough and critical examination of the affairs of the college. Nothing has occurred since that report affecting the actual receipts and expenditures of the college, upon which there is any difference among the committee, except perhaps the division of the twentyfour notes of Yates & McIntyre, hereinafter mentioned. It will be seen from the foregoing statement, that the trustees of Union College fully account for all the sums granted by the State, for all the private contributions, and for all the income, interest and other receipts from all sources, and exhibit a surplus of $12,322.39, over and above all their receipts. This result) so different from that to which the accountant had arrived of a deficiency of $885,789.62, is owing to our having taken a view entirely different from' his, of certain large amounts which were never received by the college as its property, but which he claims to belong to it, and to which the trustees of the college never made any claim) and had no title whatever. The principal among these, is the sum of $150,000, arising out of stipulations in which the college had no interest. This sum was secured by a bond of Yates, Ely & McIntyre to Union College, and is proved by uncontradicted and undeniable testimony of the most conclusive character, to have been delivered to the Trustees of the college, under an express trust to account to Dr. Nott for all monies that should be received on the same. The accountant:in the face of very clear evidence, misconceived the whole character of the transaction, and supposed the bond to have been given for securities returned to Yates & McIntyre, and for $29,430.92 more than those securities, without any consideration whatever. Hie therefore gave the college credit for what it never claimed, but which the trustees, as is abundantly proved before us, always disavowed) the amount of the principal and interest of this No. 5.] 9 bond except the above sum of $29,430.92, which he capriciously, in the exercise of what he considered equity powers, credited to Dr. Nott, simply as he says, because he did not know what else to do with it. But it is a little remarkable, that in the exercise of the same powers, he also credited the college with $58,342.82 of interest, over and beyond the amount which he stated to be due for the securities that he supposed to have been returned. In utterly rejecting this disposition by the accountant of the principal and interest of this bond, and in acknowledging that the whole of it belonged to Dr. Nott, it is believed the committee are unanimous. The accountant also claims on behalf of the college, the balance of what is called the President's fund, $80,798.84, with the interest. This fund consisted of two and one fourth of one per cent on the scheme price of tickets drawn in the lotteries. This percentage was by law appropriated as compensation to the managers individually for their personal services in superintending the lotteries, and was entirely distinct from and in addition to the an't authorised to be raised by lottery for the institutions intended to be endowed. And in the contracts with Yates & cIlntyre, separate provisions were made for its payment to the President, while the other fund was made payable to the treasurer. Dr. Nott made such arrangements, that while he secured to himself the legal right to this fund, he could equitably apply the surplus that should remain after expenses, to the benefit of Union College. He early declared in formal reports his intention to make such application, and in pursuance of that design, actually paid over a part of it, $42,000 to Union College, which distributed a portion of it, $18,066.30 to Hamilton College, in pursuance of their original agreement, after the intended disposition of the whole net proceeds of the fund to those colleges, was known to them. The balance, which with interest the accountant has rolled up to the sum of $232,539.47, he claims for the college. The trustees with full knowledge of this fund and its origin and purpose, regarded and treated it, by sanctioning reports of their committees, and otherwise, as is abundantly pr,ved, as the legal property of' the person who rendered the services for which it was appropriated, 10 [SENATE and willingly received and acknowledged a part of it, as a gift, while they relied on Dr. Nott's engagements to bestow the balance according to his original design. The committee are unanimous in their opinions that the college has no other than an equitable claim for this balance as a gift. This claim has been recognized and satisfied by Dr. Nott by his transfer of the amount as hereinafter mentioned to the college. Another item which the accountant has placed among the as& sets of the college, is $71,691.70, the amount of twenty-two notes given by Yates & McIntyre on their settlement with the college and Dr. Nott, in 1828. This sum amounting with interest for more than ten years, to $180,547.28, has been improperly charged to Dr. Nott. As we understand from the conversations we have had with the other member of the committee; that he inclines to the opinion that these notes belonged to the college, a more elaborate examination of this item becomes proper, than we have deemed it necessary to give in this report to the charges in which the committee all agree. By the act of 1814, certain specific sums were granted to Union College and other institutions, to be raised by lottery. The act of 1822, directed the Comptroller to ascertain the precise amount then remaining due to the several institutions; and limited the time during which lotteries might be drawn to raise the amount that should thus be found, to such a period as that in which the State could raise it at the rate by which moneys had theretofore been raised by lottery. Under this act, John Savage, Esq., then Comptroller, on the 9th of April, 1822, certified that he had ascertained the amount then due to the said several institutions, was three hundred and twenty-two thousand two hundred and fifty-six dollars and eighty-one cents, and that the same could be raised in eleven years. In order to raise this sum, a certain amount of tickets reckoned at the scheme price, was to be drawn. The present value of that amount, in effect, the present value of $322,256.81, payable in eleven years, was found to be two hundred and seventy-six thousand and ninety dollars and fourteen cents, paid at once. No. 5.1 I1 For this last mentioned sum, Messrs. Yates & Mcintyre purchased the right of all the institutions in and to the whole amount of tickets at their scheme price, authorised to be sold by the act of 1822; and they gave their note for that amount to Union College, with annual interest. If an account be stated between the State and the several institutions, ron account of the lottery grants to them, it would stand thus: Thie grants by the State to the Institutions: DR. 1822, April 9, Amount decided by the Comptroller, according to the act of 1822, to be due the institutions, was $322,256.81, payable in eleven years; the present value of which in hand is,.... e X X. $276,090 14 Interest thereon to August 1, 1828, from 1st April, 1823, when the lotteries commenced drawing, five years four months,.a.... 103)073 60 Amount to which institutions entitled, August 1, 1828,......... $379,163 74 CR. 1828, Agust 1, By payments by Yates & McIntyre in cash at different times, and in securities,...e....a Is $317,124 50 Interest on the sums paid by Yates & McIntyre, between April 1, 1823, and August 1, 1828, of which the institutions received the benefit,.................. 57,725 23 $374,849 73 Balance due the institutions,. e0., 4,314 01 $379,163 74 12 I SENATE The same result may be shown in another way: The amount to be raised for the institutions was,,, $322,256 81 The amount received at the settlement in 1838 was, 317,124 50 Deficit,............ e................ $5,132 31 The balance acknowledged to be due the institutions by Yates & McIntyre, at the settlement, and provided for in the notes was,......... 4)314 01 Showing that there was actually received the sum estimated by the Comptroller, less only........ $818 30 But they actually gave their notes for,........... $137,283 89 Deducting the above balance of,........,....... 4,314 01 Their notes were given for,.................... $132,969 88 more than they were obliged to pay by their contract. Or again, taking the other view of the matter, as above, the balance of the sum unpaid, required to make up the $322,256.81 fixed by the Comptroller, was as above, $5,132.31. The notes given at the settlement amounted to,... $137,283 89 Deducting this last mentioned balance,.......... 5)132 31 And these notes were given fore............. $132,151 58 more than the institutions were entitled to receive by the decision of the Comptroller. This sum, was therefore a net profit over and above the amount to which the college and the other institutions were entitled under the acts of 1814 and 1822; and over and above the amount which Yates & McIntyre engaged to pay for the rights of the institutions to sell lottery tickets. The notes for that amount, were given in fulfilment of a stipulation Yates & McIntyre had made, January 4, 1826, and more formally on the 24th of same month and year, to pay such additional sum as should, together with the $276,090.14, for which they were already bound, amount to eleven per cent. on the amount of tickets sold at their scheme price, to be paid immedi No. 5.] 13 ately after the drawing of each class, eight and three-quarters of said eleven per centum, to the treasurer of Union College, and two and one-quarter thereof, to the president. The 83 of this additional sum, payable to the treasurer of the college, amounted to the above sum of $132,969.88, included the 24 notes, and constituted the net profit gained by those stipulations. These 24 notes were made payable at different times, extending over three years and nine months, and included the interest upon each note up to the time of its payment; making the whole amount of principal and interest $162,713.78. To whom did this profit, represented by these notes, belong? The proposition of Yates & McIntyre, of January 4, 1826, stated the consideration of their promise to pay it, to be, that the president and treasurer of the college should raise money to enable the contractors, Yates & McIntyre, to pay prizes in the lottery then drawing. And the receipt given for the notes at the time of the settlement, stated that they were received as a balance of demands arising out of the original contract of Yates & McIntyre, and out of the special stipulations already mentioned, and in consideration of personal responsibilities to be assumed by the president and treasurer of Union College, in order to sustain the contractors in the further-performance of their contracts. To answer the question, then, to whom did this profit belong? we must enquire, who rendered the consideration on which the promise was made, and for which the notes were given? We do not understand it to have been disputed during the whole investigation, that Dr. Nott did, by his personal exertions and responsibilities, raise the money required to enable Yates & McIntyre to pay the prizes in the then pending lottery, and that he did assume personal responsibilities to sustain the contractors in the further performance of their contract. This could not be disputed, for the evidence of documents, reports of committees of the trustees, and the testimony of Messrs. Flagg and Dix, were entirely conclusive on the subject. By every rule of law and principle of equity, he was entitled, therefore, to some portion of these profits. The trustees acknowledged it, and directed their treasurer and finance committee to 14 [SENATe ascertain the amount, by a rule of proportion between the responsibilities assumed by Dr. Nott and by the college respectively. This was done by those officers, who certified the amount of responsibilities assumed by Dr. Nott to have been $338,000, and the amount assumed by the college, $140,000. A division of the 24 notes of Yates & McIntyre for the above mentioned net profits, was accordingly made; by which there was assigned to the college $95,163.09, leaving its share of the profits, after deducting the $4,314.01, owing by Yates & Mcintyre on the original contract, as above mentioned, $90,851.01, and there was assigned to Dr. Nott 22 notes, to the amount of $71,691.70. It is this last mentioned sum which the accountant claims for the college, in the face of the above facts, and of the deliberate and solemn acts of the trustees, and their acquiescence in the division for eighteen years! Independent of all mere legal grounds, as this profit formed no part of the grant by the State, but was acquired confessedly by the exertions and responsibilities of one man, it was not only competent to the trustees but their bounden duty, to make such a division of it as should remunerate and reward the services by which it had been procured. Much criticism has been and may be again indulged upon ambiguous expressions in the pleadings, in suits between the college and Dr. Nott on the one part and Yates & McIntyre on the other, to show that the former has admitted that this whole profit belonged to the college. It would not be difficult to show that these criticisms are strained, and that the expressions referred to were used incidentally and without any reference to the question now discussed, It is sufficient however to say, that as no one will pretend that these expressions amount to a technical estoppel to prevent the parties from showing the truth, we are brought back to the plain and irrefragable evidence already stated, which establishes beyond all doubt or cavil the legal and equitable right of Dr. Nott to these 22 notes for $71,691.70: and that the claim to them interposed by the accountant in behalf of the trustees of the college, not only without their consent, but against their most deliberate acts, is wholly unfounded and unjust, No. 5.] 15 The accountant also claims for the college the price of the Stuyvesant Cove property and the one-half the Hunter farm, conveyed to Dr. Nott by the college, amounting, with interest, to $316,034.81. This claim depends upon the very erroneous view, which, as already shown, the accountant has taken of the $150,000 and interest secured by the bond before mentioned of Yates, McIntyre & Ely. If that money belonged to Dr. Nott, as it clearly did, then, as it was applied in payment of the price of the property now in question by Dr. Nott, there can be no possible ground for again charging it to him. Other claims are made for expenses attending the Hunter farm and Stuyvesant Cove property, while owned by the college, amounting to $52,991.39, which in any view in which they can be considered, are entirely groundless. Claims are also set up to the amount of $92,470.87, for what the accountant has improperly called loans to Dr. Nott. These were mostly temporary advances, to be invested in permanent securities which were afterwards furnished; some of them are for alleged erroneous payments of interest advanced by Dr. Nott, and one is for alleged over payment of salary. Upon a close examination of each one of these charges, we are entirely satisfied that they are either wholly unfounded; or that those of them, which at the time of making up the account were balances to the amount of a few thousand dollars, have been since refunded in good securities. Another claim is made by the accountant for $55,641.92, for bad investments, which were made either by direct resolution of the trustees, or under the direction or sanction of the finance committee. One of these exceeding $30,000 is proved to have been paid; others were made under the express sanction of the Legislature. We can discover no reason for charging the others to Dr. Nott, as the investments were made in good faith and to advance the interest of the college; and we are unable to perceive why he should be held responsible alone for the acts of the finance committee or of the trustees. A, single item remains, amounting to $16,601.37, the value of certain shares in the Commercial Bank of Albany, which were 16 [SENATE transferred to Dr. Nott with interest. It is proved beyond dispute that the value of these shares was repaid to the college. The following items claimed for the college, and charged to Dr. Nott, viz: The amount of Yates & McIntyre's note,.,....... $180,547 00 balance of' the president's fund,............ 232,539 47 Hunter Point farm and Stuyvesant Cove property,......................... 316,034 81 expenses attending that property,.......... 52)991 39 what are called loans to Dr. Nott,........... 92,470 87 bad investments,....... 55)641 92 Commercial bank stock,.... O. 0. 16)601 37 Amount to, e.......e.............. $946,826 83 In rejecting all these claims and charges, we understand that the committee is unanimous, except that the member who does not sign this report entertains doubts respecting the 22 notes of Yates & McIntyre. This result effectually disposes of the balance of $885F789.62, claimed by the accountant, and charged to Dr. Nott. It is a satisfaction to the undersigned, to find that this astonishing balance of $885,789.62 has no existence but in the mistakes and misapprehensions of the accountant. Had it really existed, the character for fidelity and truth of many distinguished men who have been trustees of Union College, and who reported from time to time on its affairs, without discovering such a vast amount of assets, or, if discovered, suppressing the fact, would have been seriously impaired, and numbers of those who have filled the highest stations in the State and Federal government, must have forfeited all claims to the public confidence. We are glad to see them relieved and exonerated from such imputations. Nor are we less rejoiced that the reputation of a venerable man, for nearly fifty years president of one of our most flourishing colleges, a minister of the gospel, and whose public and private life has been so exemplary, has been rescued from the scandalous reproach which such an indebtedness would imply. No. 5.] 1 The preceding items *rejected as above stated, constitute the total of the charges made by the accountant against Dr. Nott, viz: $946,827.21. From that total he deducted $61,037.59, for the balance which he could not otherwise provide for, as having been received on the $150,000 bond, with interest, and which balance and interest he credited Dr. Nott, capriciously. This deduction leaves the net balance of $885,789.62, which he has thus improperly and unjustly charged to Dr. Nott, and to create which apparent indebtedness, seems to have been the object of the manner of stating his accounts. There is, however, a charge against Dr. Nott, of $46,649.85, which he withdrew from the deposites he had made with the treasurer, and which ought to have been stated as a charge by the accountant, but which he capriciously withheld, because as he says, he wished to provide some remuneration to Dr. Nott, for his services and expenses in the management of the lotteries; as if his office of accountant conferred any authority to dispose of the moneys received by the treasurer, otherwise than as they were entered in the college books. This charge With the interest thereon, is more than balanced by the credits to which Dr. Nott is entitled on his deposites of the $150,000, and interest paid thereon, and of the Bliss bond and mortgage, as will appear by a statement of his account in schedule B., hereto annexed. There is an item consisting of a supposed balance due from Dr. Nott, on account of certain notes of Stratton & Seymour, the property of the college, delivered to him, and supposed to amount to about $26,000.. It is the only item in these long and complieated accounts, respecting which the undersigned have been unable to come to any definite conclusion. The above balance does not appear from the books of the college to have been accounted for. And yet the trustees account fully for all the monies and securities they have received in the aggregate, as is shown by the statements of the committee, of the condition of the college. To suppose that it has parted with $26,000 more of its funds, than it ever had, is to suppose an impossibility. But if this item eS ate, aNo. 5.] 2 P8$~ L~[SENATE be chargeable to IDr. Nott, there is still a balance due him on his account for deposites, sufficient to meet it. The undersigned are not aware of any other charge or claim against Dr. Nott, in behalf of the colleges,. than those which have been above disposed of, except some vague and indefinite intimations of there being equities as between the college and him, arising out of the fact that the re-payment to Yates and Mcintyre of $94,448.87, on account of the mistake in the amount of tickets, to be drawn, was assessed upon the college fund, and no part of it was taken from the President's fund. There is conclusive evidence to show, that when it was agreed to make this repayment, Dr. Nott. in order to induce a very favorable settlement for the college, relinquwished undoubted claims against Yates & McIntyre, to the amount of more than $150,000. It might well be considered by the trustees, that this sacrifice for their benefit, should exonerate the President's fund from contributing to this loss. Again, as this fund was destined to the college, and the trustees entertained no doubt of ultimately receiving it, it was a mere question of form whether a part of the loss should be charged to it: the result being precisely the same to the college, whether the whole loss should be charged to it directly, or whether a part should be thus charged directly, and a part indirectly through the President's fund. There has also something been said about equities arisingfrom the combination of a part of the tickets in the literature lottery, amounting to 2,104,09.0 dollars worth, with the tickets in the fever hospital lottery, belonging to Yates & McIntyre., One ground for claiming some allowance to the college from this eombination, was, that the college assumed the risk of paying the prizes in the fever hospital lottery, by their assent to the arrangement. The committee were, as we understood, unanimous in the opinion that the college assumed no additional risk by such assent. And the undersigned can entextain no doubt whatever upon the point. Another ground for claiming some allowance on the same, transaction was, that the drawing of the remaining prizes in the Literature lottery, was delayed, and the hazard increased by ~thr No. S.] 19 combination. The evidence tends the other way: Yates & Mo Intyre were thus sustained and enabled to proceed promptly with the idrawing of the remainder of the Literature lottery, as is proved by the fact that a lottery which the Comptroller estimated would occupy eleven years in the drawing, was finished in four years and seven months. But, whatever equities may exist in favor of the college, and whatever straggling items may be found, including even the $71,691.70, the amount of the twenty-two notes, that might be apparently chargeable to Dr. Nott, beyond the amount of his deposites, they are all more than compensated by the generous donation of the property he had purchased from the college, and fully paid for, as already shown, and more particularly mentioned hereafter. See note (a.) at the end. The undersigned, therefore, entirely repudiate all allegations or insinuations that Dr. Nott is indebted to Union College a single dollar. The undersigned are now prepared to answer the specific enquiries contained in the resolutions of the Senate, cf June and July, 1,851, given at length in the early part of this report. 1. To the first, we say, that the funds granted by the State to Union College, have been duly applied to the objects specified in the respective grants, as abundantly appears by the statement of the condition of Union College, herein contained. 2. To the second, we say, that the permanent funds so granted, remain entire and are safely invested. The permanent funds referred to are these: 1. That granted in aid of indigent students, the principal of which $50,000 is invested in bonds and mortgages, except $589. 2. That for the support of the president and professors, the principal of which is $78,483.93. The books show that the investments for this purpose amount to $78,705.78. 20 [SENATE The income of these funds has been applied to its legitimate objects, and there has been a large excess of expenditure beyond the income. The committee personally inspected the securities in which the principals of these funds are invested, and took testimony in relation to their value, and were entirely satisfied that they were safely invested. We pass over the third. enquiry for the purpose of considering it in connection with the fifth. 4. To the fourth enquiry, we answer that losses have occurred, as stated in the summary condition of the college herein before contained, to the amount of $60,728.02. Of this amount, $40,197.50, consisted of investments in the stocks of banks, at the time in good repute, and which were made upon the invitation and with the sanction of the Legislature in each case. There was invested in water works and a manufacturing company in Schenectady, $3,072.29; in a turnpike, $4,000; in the stock of an insurance company, $900. These banks and companies failed. The residue of the losses consists of debts owing by former treasurers, or individuals, of small amounts, and of bonds and mortgages and notes that proved valueless. The total of the losses is less than one per cent on the capital of the college, during a period of fifty-eight years, and amidst the greatest revolutions in the monetary affairs of the country. We cannot but think that this is a result indicating uncommon care and prudence. 3d and 5th. The third and fifth enquiries are so nearly the same, that they may be properly considered together. These enquiries cannot relate to the application of the funds of the college to the personal purposes of paying salaries or loans to officers on good security; nor to the participation of any officer in the profits of lotteries not belonging to Union College. We understand them to mlean whether the president or any officer of the college has improperly and illegally applied to his personal use any of the funds of the college, or has improperly and illegally participated in the profits of lotteries which belonged to Union No. 5.o] 21 College; and we answer emphatically and decidedly in the negative, so far as respects the president or any professor or register of the college. The preceding observations and results show conclusively that the president has not so participated in any profits belonging to the college, derived from lotteries. He has, under the circumstances, and for the purpose of improving the property before mentioned, made use of monies in the hands of the treasurer of the college, but which monies, or equal and even greater sums were at the time on deposit by him with the treasurer; or when not used for the improvement of the property destined for the college, were temporarily withdrawn for the purpose of permanent investment, and deposited so as to be drawin'g interest. None of these applications of monies were in the judgment of the committee, improper or censurable. In these answers to the above specific enquiries, there is no disagreement among the committee within the knowledge of the undersigned, nor has any been expressed in our deliberations. We now proceed to notice some specific accusations brought forward in a communication to the Senate by Levinus Vanderheyden, against the integrity of Dr. Nott in his private transactions with the college. It strikes us as very extraordinary that the Senate of this State should be called upon to investigate the business transactions of one citizen with another, or with a corporation. It is not a judicial tribunal, to which such enquiries are alone entrusted by our laws and Constitution; nor has it the functions of an inquisition, or even of a grand jury; and we have little doubt, that if in any case unaccompanied by violence of personal feeling or public excitement, a corporation, or any one in its behalf, should prefer a complaint to the Senate against one of its officers for alleged misconduct, not a member of that body would be found to advocate a legislative enquiry into the truth of the complaint. The undersigned would therefore abstain from any notice of these accusations, if they were sure their silence would not be construed as a tacit admission of their truth. Unwilling to be the instruments of further injustice in this respect, we proceed to state the 22 LSENATV results of the investigations before us. The first of these imputations relates to the sale by Dr. Nott to the College, of one half of the Hunter Point farm and the Stuyvesant Cove property, at prices beyond their value. The evidence before us is very satisfactory that these properties were worth the amounts which was allowed for them by a resolution of the trustees. But without detailing that evidence, it is sufficient to state the admitted fact, that Dr. Nott purchased the same properties for a higher price than that which he received. Again it has been insinuated that although resold for a higher price than the college gave for them, yet they were attended with expenses, which with interest, caused a considerable loss to the college. We very much doubt the fact, and on the contrary find by a comparison of the items that the college lost nothing by the resale. But the effectual answer to all this, is, that this was not a purchase for private benefit; indeed it was not a purchase at all, but merely a conversion of the funds deposited by Dr. Nott with the treasurer, into these lands, to be devoted to the same original purpose, the endowment of the college. And as the whole proceeds of these lands have actually been conveyed to the college by Dr. Nott without price or cost it seems worse than idle to cavil about the modes and forms in which it has been accomplished. The next imputation contained in the above mentioned communication, was an attempt to show Dr. Nott guilty of a deliberate act of swindling, in selling to the college, stock in the Bank of Hudson to the amount of $5,000, at par, in about a month after that Bank had wholly failed. To support this charge a resolution of the trustees was referred to by Mr. Vandcerheyden the original of which was produced before us. On its face this resolution refuted the charge, for it distinctly recognised the stock as belonging to the college, having in fact been subscribed for by Dr. Nott in behalf of Union College under chapter 98 of the Laws of 1813, and the price having been advanced by him. The resolution directed the reimbursement of the advance, on the transfer of the stock, which had been held by Dr. Nott as his security, until it became worthless by the failure of the bank; when the No. B.) 23 tlustees very properly took the stock and paid the advance. How such a transaction could have been so perverted is to us unaccountable. Another charge implicates Dr. Nott and the acting Treasurer in an alleged mutilation of the books of the college, during an interval while in the hands of the acting Treasurer, before again returning them to the accountant. The entries complained of, consisted of an account betweeu the college and Dr. Nott which the acting treasurcr posted into a leger. We are at a loss to understand how this could be called a mutilation. The leger belonged to the college and the keeper of it had an undoubted right to make such postings in it as he pleased. They were evidence of nothing and could mislead no one. Their verity depended on the original entries in the cash book, or on other testimony. They were made for the very purpose of submitting them to the examination of the accountant, and at his request to bring the books up to January, 1853' and they were accordingly brought to his notice when the book was returned to him. Ordinary dullness is not sufficient to account for the pertinacity with which this -charge has been made and reiterated. In connection with these charges, is one which Mr. Vanderheyden has brought to our notice by producing and exaamining a witness to prove its falsity. It seems that in a newspaper publication which he had volunteered, he charged Dr. Nott with an attempt, persevered in for many hours at and after midnight, to persuade him, Vanderheyden, to commit a direct and palpable forgery of the books of Union College, by "; making sundry new entries in them." Mr. Vanderheyden proved before us, that he had, soon after the publication of the charge, stated to Gen. Davis, that Dr. Nott claimed that he should be credited for the Bliss bond and mortgage; and insisted that he was entitled to that credit, and that if Mr. Vanderheyden did not give it to him he would not submit to it, but would have a re-investigation in the Scnate, and that this was what his charge referred to; and on being reproached by Gen. Davis, that his facts did not justify his charge, Vanderheyden admitted in effect, that they did not. As no possible object for the intrcduction of this evidence, other than 24 [$ ESNAT to confess the falsehood of the charge and to atone for it, can be perceived, the undersigned deem it proper to aid in thatpurpose, by this abstract of the occurrence and the testimony. It is also proper in itself, as bearing on the degree of confidence to be given to the statements of Mr. Vanderheyden as an accountant. In addition to the above charges, another was also- preferred, and to some extent circulated. It was, that an attempt had been made by Dr. Nott and the other officers of the college, to deceive the committee of the Assembly of 1849 that visited the college, by handing them a printed pamphlet containing what purported to be a copy of a bill in chancery, filed by Yates & McIntyre against the trustees and Dr. Nott, but which suppressed material parts of the bill; and to sustain the charge, there was produced a bill between the same parties varying essentially from that in the pamphlet. This charge was shown to be wholly without foundation. An original bill filed by Yates & McIntyre was produced, corresponding precisely with that in the pamphlet; while the one which was produced in support of the charge was an amended bill, filed six months after the pamphlet was printed. Thus the whole charge falls to the ground upon the discovery of the error out of which it arose; but as it has been publicly made, not only before the committee, but in the Senate, the undersigned cannot, in justice to Dr. Nott and the officers of the college, withhold the statement of the evidence that so entirely disproves it. Some efforts were also made to show that the college was entftled to a larger amount from the lotteries than it received at the settlement in 1828; these efforts entirely failed, Mr. Vanderheyden himself wholly dissenting from these views. In the conclusions which the undersigned have above expressed in relation to the charges of Mr. Vanderheyden and others, all the members of the committee concur. In order to show the fulness of the investigation in which we have been engaged, it is proper to state that the committee has had free access to all the books, documents, and papers of the college; that every facility in the power of its officers has been afforded them; that they have been attended by counsel in behalf of Dr. Nott, and by other counsel in behalf of the trustees as a No. 5.] 25 -body, and that Mr. Vanderheyden has acted as prosecutor andt counsel, when not acting as a witness, has been furnished with subpcecnas whenever asked for, has adduced testimony, oral and documentary, and has cross-examined the adverse witnesses, and summed up the case to the committee. Allusion has been made, in the course of this report, to the fact that Dr. Nott had bestowed upon the college the half of the Hunter Point farm and the Stuyvesant Cove property, or the proceeds of such parts of them as had been sold, for which he paidthe college on his purchase from it. The original deed duly acknowledged, transferring that property to the college, gratuitously, was produced before us by the acting treasurer, in whose custody it was; and it was proved that it had been received by the treasurer from Dr Nott, to be delivered to the tr ustees on the event of his death. We also learn from sources of information that leave no doubt of the fact, that a new deed has been prepared conveying, gratuitously, the immediate title to the same property, or its proceeds, at once to the college, in trust for the endowment of professorships and scholarships, and for procuring a library, text books for the use of the pupils, an astronomical observatory, historical memorials, cabinets of mineralogy and geology and for other uses appertaining to collegiate instruction; and that this deed has been executed and delivered. In the purchase and improvement of this property have been expended the avails of all the lotteries with which Dr. Nott has had any connection, that have come to his hands, the balance of the president's fund, after deducting the actual expenses, and the monies hereinbefore mentioned, received from the treasurer of the college, and not invested for the college in permanent securities. This munificent donation, amounting, as we understand, to at least six hundred thousand dollars, satisfactorily explains the design and object of Dr. Nott in all the somewhat complicated transactions that have occasioned the investigation in which we have been engaged. That in all these transactions the purposes of Dr. Nott have been pure and benevolent, and his whole conduct marked with the strictest integrity, is most satisfactorily established by the evi q6 [SENATE dence before us; the results of which we have given in this report. But we should do injustice to him and to our own feelings, if we were to omit the declaration that in our judgment not only the great prosperity of Union College, but its very existence during periods of great calamity, are owing almost exclusively to hislifelong efforts, sacrifices and hazards in its behalf. He has been and is a public benefactor in promoting the great cause of education, on which our institutions, our property, our security and our liberty depend. Such a noble example should not be deprived of the merit to which it is entitled, or of its just influence upon others, by unworthy suspicions, founded upon partial views of the facts, or by individual hostility seeking its gratification by misrepresentations. And we who have been required by official duty, and upon our high responsibilities, to scrutinise the conduct of the individual who has furnished such an example, may not shrink from the obligation of manfully avowing our disinterested and consciencious convictions. These consideration have actuated the undersigned in preparing and submitting this report. December 30th, 1853. NATHANIEL JONES, ELISHA WARDT SCHEDULE A. Particular statement and account of items showing the condition of Union College on the 1st of January, 1853. DR. Union College is chargeable with the following sums received: Private subscriptions and donations: From original subscriptions,.... $7,433 15 trustees of Schenectady patent,..e * o......... 24)954 03 Dutch Ref'm'd church, Sclhenectady,...... a..... 8309 63 bequests of Abraham Yates, G. Banyer, and Presbytery of Albany,.......... 785 00 old academy,...........,. 563 93 $42,043 74 Grants from the State prior to 1814: Under act of April 9) 1795...... 3,750,00 "c 11, 1796,...... 10,000 00 March 30, 1797,... 1,500 00 c; 7 1800..., 10,000 00 same,...*........ 43,483 93 April 8, 1801, and April 3, 18021,.... 15,084 80 March 30, 1805.... 80,000 00 163,818 73 Interest received from the State on the grant of $200,000 by the act of 1814; prior to the act of 1822).......... a a 0..a e - o a.o 0 0 0 72,453 40 Cerried forward,...... I. $ 28 [SENATE ironght forward,...... a... a Received in money and securities from Yates & McIntyre on settlement Aug. lst, 1828, for proceeds of lotteries, under acts of 1814 and 1822,.............. $317,124 50 Received in the 24 notes given for the balance due on the original grants, at the time of the above settlement,...0....0....0... 4,314 06 321,438 56 Received in a portion of the above 24 notes given under the stipulations of January, 1826,.... 90,851 03 Received from E. Nott, on account of the President's fund,......,,...0 0........ 42,000 00 Rec'd on sale of West College sites, 14,400 00 common lands,. Received in exchange of old college,................... 40,722 06 Interest received on sales of common lands o o o.... o......... 38044 73 Received on sales of part of lands purchased for new college,.... 38,031 16 Received on sales of other real estate, 0 a. o. a 0. a aa o oe G a.. 963 30 136)161 25 Sums received as income, interrest, dividends, balances of rents, and various other items Tuition or term bills........... $335,041 50 Lottery prize, a gift,....... o. 8, 500 00 Interest on sale of real estate, recd,. $13,185 87 Interest on Stephen N. Bayard's acc't, received,..... 72938 24 Interest on loans to E. Nott,... O.. 15)589 46 Carried forward, No. 5.] 29 Brought forward, $ $ Interest from other loans and investments.......... 144,795 91 -.- 181,509 48 Dividends from Mohawk Bk. stock,.. $125,528 01 Dividends from NewYork State Bank,. 39,186 13 Dividends from Bk. of Albany...... 48,488 61 Dividends from Farmers' Bank,... 11,028 99 Dividends from Bk. of New-York,.... 1,100 00 Dividends from Merchants' Bank, N. York,....... 1,291 79 Divid's from Franklin Bank, N. Y.,.. 1,100 0) Dividends fr'm Manhattan Co., N. Y., 786 25 Dividen's from Schenectady Bank,... 660 83 Dividends fr'm Rensselaer and Saratoga Insurance Co..... 2,475 00 231,645 61 Tax dividends from N. Y. State Bank, $2,820 52 Tax dividend's from Bank of Albany, 1)696 50 Tax dividends from Manhattan Co.,.. 43 62 4,560 64 Premium on 3 per cent stocks,...... $319 45 Premium on N. Y. S. Bank stock sold,,.. 1,962 96 Carried fqrw'rd, $ $ $ 30 [SENATE Bro't forward,. $ $ Premium on Bank of New-York stock,. 4,556 28 Prem. oni Merchants' Bank stock,..... 2,625 00 Premium on Bank of Albany,......... 3,000 75.-.. 12,464 44 Interest from sales of military lots granted by act of March 7, 1801, 49,008 2-1 Received from Comptroller on account of African church,. 1,600 00 Received on sale of materials of college buildings,............ 3,245 97 827,575 88 Received in behalf of E. Nott, principal of bond of Yates, Mec Intyre & Ely,.............. $150,000 00 Received interest on the same,.... 58,342 32 208,3-42 32 $1,904,684 91 Cr. Union College is entitled to the following credits for moneys expended and on hand, for losses, and for cost of property on hand, deducting debts owing: Payments in the purchase of rights of other institutions,.................... $74,725 94 to Yates & McIntyre to rectify error in amount of tickets to be drawn,.... 94,448 87 Cost of buildings, sites and other real estate: Old college sites,............... $10,544 28 buildings,........ 50,101 18 Re-purchase of old site and building,.4..................... 11,500 00 Carried forward,......... $72,145 46 $ No. 5.] 31 Brought forward........... $72,145 46 $ New collegesites,... $38,961 67 buildings, 107,157 9 L 146(,119 61 Additions and repairs to college buildings,................... 43,858 22 New Philosophical Hall,......... 6,281 37 Real estate other than' sites,...... 7,064 29 275,468 95 Cost of library and apparatus (including $400 through A. Potter)............. e.... 34217 84 Payment of current expenses, interest, &c.: Salaries, regular and extra, paid from 1795 to Nov. 1, 18527.... $526,275 26 Charity fund for relief of indigent students,..................... 106,940 31 Lottery tickets,................ 323 70 Trustees' expenses,........... 1,162 39 Expenses of committee attending examinations,........*,.s 4,178 72 Interest paid Bank of Albany,. 945 98 Farmers' Bank,... 890 99 New-York State Bank, 290 00 Mohawk Bank,.... 88,827 64 Schenectady Bank,.. 4,278 20 Globe Insurance co.,. 36,283 00 State of New-York account, April 14, 18063............ 3,861 99 State of New-York loan,............ 2,213 07 D. Parish, loan of $25,000,......... 10,094 59 W. James, loan of $91,000,......... 18,289 50 I. Watts, loan of $50,9 0009......... 31,224 88 Carried forward,.,........ $ 32 [SENATE Brought ferward,........ $ Interest paid on mortgage on college, $25,000,........ 5,482 91 Interest paid P. Rowe, $2,018.33, and A. Truax, $1,050,........ 3,068 33 Interest paid E. Nott on loan No. 1 to No. 4,.................... 13,434 01 Interest paid on bond to Comptroller,................. 17,421 55 Interest incidental,.550 75 Printing,.............. 362 92 Taxes and assessments,......... 267 06 Insurance,................... 515 00 Commons).................. 726 48 Fines,. *...................... 32 08 Prof. Jackson's salary and expens's, botanical department........ 4,001 76 Expenses of commencern't dinners, 3,139 55 music,. 1,370 00 Expenses at Legislature soliciting grants,..................... 676 76 Incidental expenses, military lots, 1,120 54 "- garrison lands, 467 03 Incidental expenses, lands received in exchange, West College,.... 1,388 83 Prof. Gillespie, survey and maps, new college sites,............ 100 00 Rents and leases... e......... 3,838 02 Brokerage on loan of $50,000 from I. Watts:.....*.........* 250 00 Law expenses paid Paige & Yates, 290 83 Paige & Potter, 767 78 "C kA. C. Paige,.. 200 00 cc Learned & Wilson, 57 75 Expenses suit in chancery with Yates and McIntyre......... 1,016 80 Carried forward......... $ No. 5.] 33 IBrought forward,......... $ fBonus on $25,000 loan from D. Parish,.. 2)635 64 Expenses of collecting judgment against S. Balliet,........... 54 25 Expenses, collecting S. C, Ellis' bond and mortgage,........... 33 40 Expenses collecting John Lavall's bond and mortgage,.......... 95 00 Publishing Jackson's mechanics, optics and sections,........... 1,299 76 Office furniture,............ 421 66 President's perquisites,.......... 1,748 42 Incidental expenses,............ 3,783 70 Steam engine, fire engine and hose, $2,045.70, mulberry trees $100, 2,145 70 Register'sdisbursem'ts for sundries, 35,506 46 E. Nott, on ac't of his deposites,.. 46,649 85 " for extra services, fuel, repairs, &c.,.......1.. 1 200 00 cc 00 40000 00 1,564 42 A. Potter, for advance for books, included in library and apparatus) *............e.s. G.* *..*eo A. Holland,..... 62 50 Expenses of J. Monroe's bond and mortgage, included in losses,... e a o Loan to E. James on bond and mortgage,................. 14,000 00 Special loan to E. Nott (since paid) 6,720 00 E. Nott, for interest advanced by him..................... 15)006 01 Jonas Holland, $34.97 and $8.50, included in losses,............ Paid Hamilton College from president's fund,............. 18,066 30 Carried forward,........ $ $ [Senate, No. 5.1 8 43 4 [SENATE Brought forward,......... Paid Hamilton College interest on purchase of right......... 1 570 87 Paid to College of Physicians,...'731 26 Historical Society,....... a. 311 00 African chuPchl.. 70 00 on account of Schoharie lands, 1:915 23 for CommLercial Bank stock,. 7,57, 9'25 - - 1 —-,060,097 64 Losses have occurred as follows: Schenectady water works,....... $6545 00 Sacandaga tnrnpike,.......... 200 00 IHudson Bank,.........s. 56,000 00 Franklin Bank,.....,,. 10,000 00 On Mohawk Bank,........... 25197 50 Hallet's Cove turnpike,......... 4,000 00 N. Y. Poudrette Co.,,,.,.. 1 0,, 1,677 09 S. N. Bayard, on bond and mortg'e, 1,172 83 William Anderson,..........0,. 5,000 00 Philo Stevens' bond............ 1,295 77 Rensselaer and Saratoga Ins. Co.,. 930 00 B. Nott's bond,.......... * 700 00 Schenectady Carpet Co., stock note, &c,,................. e2.527 61 9 I. Monroe, bond and mortgage.., 1,500 0 Sundry sn'mall debts,..,......... 982 04 607i28 02 Property produetive and available: Bonds and mortgages, bonds, notes, zand contracts, and durable leases $103,100 26 Bonds and mnorgaeos in the hands o f P. 0-ott', A t'y ifr collection~, 5239 29 Stocks, par value $18 460), fTitll premiuml added, costs: &t.,... 221322 90 Accounts against individu als,.... 7,927 85 Deposit with Stillman, Allen & Co. 15,:638 07 Cash on hand and in bank,...,.. 487 01 No. K. 35 Broughtfokwax'd,......: Debts owing as stated by the treasurer,... $18 5417 76 Present value of bonds for life annuities,. 613 66 -- 19,161 42 Value ofproductive property over and above debtsg 135,363 96 Payments on account of Stuyvesant Cove property, and a half of Hunter farm, and expenses incident to them,..... e............ 181,956 07 $1,917,007 29 Amount of receipts as above................. 1 904,684 90 Excess of payments over receipts,..... e.... $12,322 39 Since the foregoing statement was prepared, we have been favored with a copy of the account of the same matters made out by our colleague on the committee, and which will probably foirm a part of his report-by which the total expenditures of the college are stated at,.........................$1 752,872 79 And the whole receipts of' the clege are stated at, 1,695,342 61 Leaving an exoess of' expenditures,........... $56,530 18 The difference between this and the ballnce stated by us is thus explained: In our colleague's account of paynments fbr new college sites, he has deducted the principal sum of two bonds, while the interest of that princicipal only was a debt during the lives of two persons to whom it was payable,... $1,461 60 whereas we have deducted ifrom available property the purchase of these annuities for life, estimated by us at,............. 613 66 the difference we claim should be added to his balance,.............................. 847 94 Carried forward,............... $ 36 [SENATZ Brought forward,...*.... A....... $ Our colleague has deducted from the amount of interest actually paid on the Comptroller's bond to A. EI. Lawrenoe, on the ground that it was received as part of the consideration of the $150,000 bond, and which the whole committee utterly reject, and which therefore should be added,..................... o......4....... 4,656 71 $62,034 83 There is an error in footing of the amount of bonds and mortgages, in the account of our colleague, or he has an amount greater than ours $2, and and in footing, one cent.........o...... 2 01 Making our colleague's total balance in fact,. e... $62,032 82 This balance is thus accounted for. We have charged the college as having received out of the deposites of Dr. Nott, as the consideration of the conveyance to him of the half of the Hunter farm, and the Stuyvesant cove property, the amount actually set off by him as payments for those purposes, the sum of,............. a $208,342 32 Among the expenditures we credit those actually made in cash and properly by the college to Dr. Nott, on the purchase of the same properties, and in expenses attending them,.... $181,956 07 Our colleague has credited the expenses on the prop'ty only, 23,323 93 158,632 14 The difference between these sums is,.......... 49710 balance of credit given by us in our account, and not given by our colleague. Carried forward,.'.........a...... $49,710 18 No. 5.] 37 Brought forward..................*.. $49,710 18 To this add the balance stated by us........... 12,322 39 $62,032 57 Difference remaining not accounted for, 25 $62,032 82 It will be seen, therefore, that there are only three items in which we differ from the statements of our colleague; as to the first $847.94, we think it evident on principle, that the purchase of these bonds only should be charged. As to the second, $4,656.71, there is no dispute that the facts are as we have stated. If the attention of our colleague had been called to these, we believe he would have concurred with us. The other difference of $49,710.18, arises from the different modes of stating the accounts. We have stated it according to the undisputed facts. SCHEDULE B. Etiphalet.Jott in account with Union College respecting the depos~ ites made by him with the Treasurer, under the resolution of the Trustees. CR. 1834. July 2. N. Bliss bond and mortgage,...... $75,275 52 Interest from July 1, 1840, at 6 per cent, to Aug. 1, 1845, when the property covered by the mortgage was conveyed to you,..... 22,959 02 1837, July 27 Cash received by treasurer between to 1849, May these dates from Yates, McIntyre 3d. & Ely, on their bond for $150,000)....... *.... 203,091 75 Interest to Aug. 1, 1852, on the payments,.......... o o......... 137,636 97 $438,983 26 1845. Consideration of conveyance of Stuyvesant Cove pro'y to you at this date, $150,225 42 Less this sumn never paid by the college on the purchase fromi Dr. Nott,............. 1 6,367 85 -; $133,857 57 Interest thereon from time of conveyance to Aug. 1, 18522....................... 65,590 21 1845. Aug. 1. Consideration of conveyance of one half of Hunter farm,......... 100,000 00 Interest thereon from tile of conveyance to Aug. 1, 1852, 7 years, 49,000 00 Carried forward,....a... a.. 4. o..... 0$ No. 5.] 39 Brought forward e...................... 1848. Sept. 1. Cash paid you,................ 56,649 85 Interest to Aug. 1, 1852, 2 y'rs, 10 mos. and 27 days,........... 12,599 31 $407,696 94 Balance of deposits,............ 31,286 32 $438,983 26.N'ote (a) referred to in the above report. The securities and property bestowed by Dr. Nott on the colleage amounting as we understand to $.600,000, represent and in them are embodied the sums belonging to him, arising from lottery transactions, as will appear from the following statement of those sums: Amount received from Yates & McIntyre on the stipulations of May, 1826, and July, 1830,................... $192,199 94 Amount of 22 notes apportioned to him on settlement., *.* O. -. I. s 4 ~.. 0 e a.. 71,691 20 Balance of President's fund, (after payment ot 4~2)000))...." o,,,. 0.e * 807798 84 Amount of principal and interest received by the college on the $150,000 bond.... $208,342 82 Interest accumulated by the college on the investment of the above sum....e........... 137,656 97 $345,999 79 Deduct a portion paid to Dr. Nott, and the interest thereon,......... 59,249 16 286,750 63 $631,440 61 leaving a surplus of $31,440.61, which doubtless was expended in the management of the lotteries, for which no charge has been made.