The institutions of this city for the reception of the poor, have, of late years, been under the charge of a Board of Governors, one of whom is elected annually by the people; and I have no doubt that this organization has been found to work more advantageously for the city than any previously tested. These gentlemen have, under their care and control, all the places of detention in the city, as well as the various prisons, alms houses, hospitals, &c., &c., on Blackwell's and Randall's Islands. A visit recently paid to most of these establishments has impressed me favorably as to their condition and management, and has confirmed to my mind the conviction that the annual appropriations for their support are judiciously expended. The establishment of a work house on Blackwell's Island, which has very recently been put in effective operation, will, it is not doubted, answer all the expectations formed of it by those familiar with the operations of similar institutions elsewhere.

There are other topics, gentlemen, to which I might have adverted with propriety, though I have not deemed them of sufficient importance to justify me in extending this message to any greater length. If occasion should require, I shall avail myself of the powers committed to me by the charter, and make them the subjects of a special communication.

Your first duty will be to render yourselves familiar with the operations of the various Departments connected with our City Government, and their connection with each other, and I have little doubt that the information which will be necessarily acquired in the course of your investi

gations, will enable you to legislate with a greater certainty of attaining those results for which you have been elected, than could be imparted in any communication which I might make.

With these remarks, I commend to you the important interests which you have been chosen to represen, assuring you of my hearty co-operation in every measure which may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our city.

JACOB A. WESTERVELT.

DOCUMENT No. 2.
UM

BOARD OF ALDERMEN,

JANUARY 3, 1854.

The following annual report of the Croton Aqueduct Department was received, laid on the table and ordered to be printed.

D. T. VALENTINE, Clerk.

To the Honorable the Common Council

of the City of New York: The Croton Aqueduct Board has the honor of presenting herewith its

ANNUAL REPORT:

The general condition of the aqueduct, the general policy and routine of action of this Board, in reference to every branch of the important work committed to its charge, have been so fully set forth in the reports of the last five years, that a repetition of them here is deemed unnecessary. We propose, therefore, to lay before you, in as succinct a form as possible, an account of the operations of the year, and as the simplest method of doing so, the matters treated of are, as in our former reports, arranged under the several heads under which the accounts of disbursements are kept.

AQUEDUCT CONSTRUCTION.

The disbursements under this head have been confined to expenses incurred in the suit of Stephen R. Clarke and

others, vs. the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the city of New York; although the particulars of this suit have been fully set forth in former reports, yet it is deemed a matter of sufficient importance to justify a recapitulation of the prominent points, bringing down the history of the case to the present moment.

The suit was commenced in 1844, to recover a balance of account, and damages claimed by the plaintiffs, as contractors for the construction of the receiving reservoir. The main point of controversy grew out of an order issued by the Board of Water Commissioners, in the month of May, 1844, directing that a certain portion of the reservoir should not be excavated to the depth originally contemplated in the plans and specifications of the work. The plaintiffs contended, that such order was in violation of their contract, and that in consequence thereof they had sustained heavy damages. In January, 1845, the matters in dispute were referred to Messrs. William C. Bouck, David Hamilton and James B. Wasson, Esqrs.; hearings were had before the referees, and in May, 1846, an award was made by them in favor of plaintiffs for fifty thousand nine hundred and forty-nine dollars and six cents.

An appeal from this decision was then taken to the general term of the Supreme Court, where it was argued in behalf of the city, by James T. Brady, Esq., and in September, 1848, a majority of the judges affirmed the award of the referees (Judge Barculo dissenting) and judgment was thereupon entered against the city for sixty thousand eight hundred and ten dollars and eighty-five cents, damages, interest and costs. From this judgment an appeal was taken on behalf of the city to the Court of Appeals, where,

after argument by Mr. Brady for the city, the Court in 1851, reversed the decision of the Court below, and ordered a new trial.

Subsequently the cause was again brought up for trial, and Mr. Brady being absent in Europe, Charles O'Connor, Esq., was retained as counsel, who, together with Peter B. Sweeney, Esq., conducted the case in behalf of the city. In May, 1851, the case was again referred, Levi S. Chatfield, William J. McAlpine and William Eagleson, Esqrs., being appointed referees. In 1853, these gentlemen made an award against the city, which, in the opinion of the eminent counsel above-named, was not in accordance with the instructions of the Court, and the case is, therefore, again carried to the Court of Appeals, where argument will again be offered at its approaching term.

The disbursements under this head appear in schedule A, hereto annexed, amounting to two thousand dollars where is also shown an unexpended balance of the appropriation, amounting to nineteen hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-five cents, which lapses into the city Treasury.

AQUEDUCT REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS.

The largest amount of expenditure under this head, during the past year, has been for fencing the line of the aqueduct, in Westchester County, partly for the protection of the ground, partly to prevent encroachment and partly to obviate or lessen the chances of subsequent dispute, where contiguous property was about to be sold. We have found it necessary to fence in upwards of seven miles of the line, making in all (both sides of the aqueduct being measured) about fifteen miles of fence.