I have given careful consideration to all the points urged in the communication submitted, and I am still of the opinion that the price appraised and fixed by resolution of November 20, 1901, is just and reasonable, if the City, as an owner, is to be considered in the same light as a private individual.

The petitioner's property is a gore lot about 160 feet in length and running from 29 feet to a point, and its value would be greatly enhanced by the addition of the 13-foot strip the entire length in the rear. In fact, the acquisition of this strip by the petitioner is absolutely imperative to give his property front on West Fifth street a sufficient depth for improvement.

The Corporation Counsel has given it as his opinion that the fee of this old road "is now vested in the City of New York, subject, however, to the rights or easements which the abutting property owners have for the purpose of light, air, etc.." but, as only one-half of that portion of the old road abutting the land of the petitioner is to be sold in the matter, I do not consider that the value of the fee is in any degree lessened by any possible easement which abutting property owners on the other side of the road may have.

Further, in support of the City's title thereto, there appears in the Minutes of the Trustees of the Town of Gravesend, page 225, an item, dated April 8, 1892, of $15 received as one year's rent paid therefor by one Kalmon Berkovits, the grantor of the applicant.

Exclusive of this, the authorities have received no revenue in taxes or assessments from this property for many years, although it has been fenced in and occupied by the said grantor since 1892.

If, however, the value of this land to the City for any public purpose is considered, it may be that the prices quoted of sales by the attorneys for the applicant should be taken more nearly as a guide.

Under date of December 11, 1901, the petitioner, Charles C. Kropp, by his attorneys, submitted an offer of $200 for the land, on condition that the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund amend the resolution heretofore adopted by them on November 20, 1901, wherein they placed the price at $375.

Under the circumstances, I am willing to recommend that the resolution of November 20, 1901, be amended by substituting the sum of $225 for the sum of $375, as recited therein.

Respectfully,

EUG. E. McLEAN, Engineer.

Resolved, That the resolution adopted by this Board at meeting held November 20, 1901, authorizing the Comptroller to sell at public auction after due advertisement, for cash, to the highest bidder, all that certain piece or parcel of land in the Thirtyfirst Ward of the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, and as more particularly described in said resolution, at the minimum or upset price of Three hundred and seventy-five dollars ($375.00), the purchaser to pay the auctioneer's fee and twentyfive per cent of the amount of his bid at the time and place of sale, be and the sam

is hereby amended by substituting "Two hundred and twenty-five dollars ($225.00)" as the minimum or upset price, in place of "Three hundred and seventy-five dollars ($375.00)," as fixed in the resolution.

The report was accepted and the resolution unanimously adopted.

The following petition was received from Hon. William C. De Witt, attorney for Dean Sage and William H. Sage, executors, etc., for an adjustment of metes and bounds of land between 94th and 95th streets, First avenue and the East River, Borough of Manhattan:

To the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund of the City of New York:

The petition of Dean Sage and William H. Sage, executors and heirs-at-law of Henry W. Sage, parties of the first part, and Francis E. Grant, Francis L. Ackley, Samuel H. Winton, Henry A. Winton and Emily A. Brooks, parties of the second part, to the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund of the City of New York, parties of the third part, respectfully shows:

That the parties of the first and second part are owners of the land lying between 94th and 95th Streets and First avenue and East River, in the Borough of Manhattan, shown upon the annexed map marked Exhibit "A." That they have a clear and indisputable title thereto, originating in the grant of the Sovereign and in the Nichols grant of October 11, 1667, and coming down to them through certain mesne conveyances and vesting in Henry W. Sage and William G. Grant, the former the father of the parties of the first part, the latter the predecessor of the parties of the second part, on October 1, 1861, the deed being recorded November 23, 1861, in Liber 846 of Conveyances at Page 446. And that said Henry W. Sage and William G. Grant, each of whom has since died, and your petitioners who became the owners of said land, as heirs or by will, have been in full possession of said lands since the year 1861. And that they have paid all taxes or assessments levied thereon by both the State and City of New York, and are rightfully the owners thereof. That, in addition, they have paid very large amounts of taxes upon the lands lying outside of high water mark and inside the marginal street, shown on Exhibit “A” and marked "81"

That in and about the year 1891, the City, its officers or agents, began dumping and filling in the tideway and river and also the petitioners' premises, and have since extended the lines to the marginal street, shown on said Exhibit "A," and have constructed such marginal street, wharf, or place, the same being a part of the plans for the improvement of the water front authorized by several acts of the Legislature of the State. That, at the outset of said filling in and improvement, and in and about the year 1891, said Henry W. Sage, redecessor to the parties of the first part, and also the parties of the second part, each brought their several actions in law and uity in the Supreme Court to enjoin the City from trespassing as aforesaid, and cover compensation for the destruction of their rights as riparian owners and blish their right and title to the lot marked "82" on Exhibit "A," claiming that t 81⁄2, having been filled in vi et armis by the officers of the City and State

against the will of the owners of the upland, became the property of said owners as if it had been the alluvion or accretion thrown up by the action of the waters or tides of the river or bay. A stipulation having been made inter partes that the case of the parties of the second part should rest and abide the event of the case of Henry W. Sage, of the parties of the first part, the said case of Henry W. Sage against the Mayor, Alderman and Commonalty of the City of New York was tried in the Supreme Court, heard and decided upon appeal in the Appellate Division of that Court and in the Court of Appeals; and to the printed record of that action your petitioners refer and beg to make it a part of this, their petition.

By reference to the record of that case, it will be seen that the Supreme Court, Barrett, J., held against the plaintiff, first, upon the claim that the plaintiff's title, originating in the Nichols's grant, and, therefore, antedating the Dongan grant, gave him the absolute right and title to the lands lying between high and low water mark; second, that "81⁄2" did not become the plaintiff's on the doctrine of alluvion, because the addition to the upland had not been caused by gradual accretion, and, third, that the plaintiff did not get title by reason of the taxes or assessments he had paid upon said "82" or of the tax-lease by the City, which he had purchased and held therefor, but said Justice Barrett held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and that he should be allowed in said action the amounts of money which he had paid to the City upon said taxes or assessments and for said tax-or assessment-leases. The Appellate Division sustained the decision of the Special Term, Barrett, J., aforesaid, with Mr. Justice Ingraham, dissenting in an elaborate opinion, to which the attention of the Commissioners is particularly invited. The Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the judgment.

It will be seen, however, by a reading of the opinion of the Court of Appeals that the learned Court, while holding that the riparian owners had no rights which might be set up against the power of the City to improve the tideway for the public purposes of commerce, it plainly concedes that said owners could prevent any other intrusion upon said tideway and have a certain pre-emptive right in the lands, marked "82" upon Exhibit “A," properly to be asserted against private uses or private purposes or as against anybody except the Sovereign acting for public and commercial purposes.

So that, as the matter now stands, your petitioners have an indefinite but important pre-emptive right in that portion of the block below high water mark, designated on Exhibit "A" by the figures "82," which said right it is greatly for the interest of the City to extinguish. And further, the City lies in debt to your petitioners, in amounts aggregating several thousand dollars (the precise amount will be ascertained and presented to your Commission), for taxes and assessments paid by them or in their behalf on said lot "82." And your petitioners further show, as will be seen by reference to said map, or any of the established maps of the City, that the boundary line of your petitioners' lands and the lands of the City of New York, having been the fluctuating line of high water mark, is so irregular and so out of keeping and symmetry with the lot and block lines of the City, established by the City map, as to be of the utmost detriment and inconvenience both to the City's portion thereof and to the lots and premises of your petitioners.

A glance at any map will convince any reasonable mind of the absolute p justice and necessity of straightening out the said lines by a definite appo of the lands lying within saiu block, bounded by the marginal street, whar

on the east, First avenue on the west, 95th street on the north and 94th street on the south. For example: The corner of 95th street and First avenue is nearly spoiled by the relation of the boundary lines to said corner: lots 6, 7 and 8 on 94th street, are greatly damaged by their lack of depth and correspondingly that portion of lot "82" belonging to the City in fee, lying between a line drawn from the southeasterly terminus of the property of the parties of the first part on 94th street, parallel with the marginal street to 95th streeet and petitioners' property, is so injured in point of usefulness, by the irregularity of the boundary lines as to be stripped of more than half its value could the lines be straightened out.

Under the facts and circumstances, above set forth, your petitioners pray your honorable Commission for hearing and negotiation to the end that they may purchase or acquire so much of the lands of the City, by release of their pre-emptive rights and all right, claim or title they may have to what shall remain to the City of lot "81⁄2" aforesaid, and by a release of the amounts paid the City in taxes and assessments on "81⁄2,"as aforesaid, or otherwise, as may be necessary to rectify the irregularity of the metes and bounds as aforesaid, and to render the possession and title of the lands lying in said block useful and valuable, to the same extent as other lands lying in the other and regular blocks of the City. Your petitioners submit that, with due regard for their pre-emptive right in "81⁄2" and in repayment of the amounts found due to the petitioners for taxes and assessments paid as aforesaid, the City in justice and in fair dealing should yield up enough of the lands contained in "81⁄2" to straighten out these lines and that it can do so without any great diminution of the value of its own lands, the metes and bounds of which would then also be straightened and the remaining land rendered correspondingly more valuable.

Such a proceeding, upon the part of the Sinking Fund Commissioners, in deference to the rights of a riparian owner, has already been commended by the Court of Appeals, and we think its propriety is suggested by the opinion of the Court of Appeals in the case of Sage vs. the Mayor, Alderman and Commonalty of the City of New York respecting the premises under consideration.

Your petitioners respectfully ask your honorable Commission to fix a day for a hearing and submission of documents and proof on the subject of this petition. New York City, May 8, 1900.

WILLIAM C. DE WITT, Petitioners' Attorney.

Henry W. Sage and Francis E. Grant, two of the above named owners, being duly, severally sworn, each says for himself that he has read the foregoing petition and that the same is true to his own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to be true.

WM. H. SAGE.
FRANCIS E. GRANT.

Sworn to before me this 8th day of May, 1900.

ERNEST P. SEELMAN, Commissioner of Deeds for the City of New York, residing in the Borough of Brooklyn.

In connection therewith the Comptroller presented the following report of the Engineer of the Department of Finance:

Hon. EDWARD M. GROUT, Comptroller;

January 21, 1902.

SIR-Hon. William C. De Witt, as attorney for Dean Sage, William H. Sage, Executors and heirs-at-law of Henry W. Sage; Francis E. Grant, Francis L. Ackley, Samuel H. Winton, Henry A. Winton and Emily A. Brooks, requests the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund to make an adjustment of metes and bounds of land between 94th and 95th streets, First avenue and the East River, in the Borough of Manhattan.

In reply, I would call your attention to the attached diagram, showing the property in question.

The petitioners state that they are the owners of the upland (between First avenue and the original high water line) and have a clear and undisputed title thereto, originating in the grant of the Sovereign and in the Nichols grant of October II. 1667; they also claim a certain riparian right in that portion between the original high water line and Marginal Street and 94th and 95th streets, designated on the Tax Maps as Lot 82, Block 1574.

The portion referred to beyond original high water line was land originally under water, and, in my opinion, the title vests in the City under the Dongan and Montgomery Charters, 1686 and 1730.

The question being purely a legal matter, I would advise the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund to take no action in connection with this petition until directed by the Courts.

From an examination of the Tax Books and the Assessment Rolls, I find that certain taxes and assessments have been paid on Lot 82, Block 1574, being land outside of original high water line; therefore, since this parcel is City property, these amounts should be refunded by the City to the respective parties paying the

same.

Respectfully,

EUG. E. McLEAN, Engineer.

Hon. William C. De Witt, attorney for the petitioners, appeared before the Board and was heard at length in regard thereto. Discussion followed, and at the suggestion of the Comptroller, Mr. De Witt agreed to submit a written proposition of settlement for the consideration of the Board.

The Comptroller presented a report of the Engineer of the Department of Finance relative to the applications of the Commissioner of Bridges and the Commissioner of Water Supply, Gas and Electricity for the assignment of rooms in the Park Row Building.

Laid over.