pride of the bar; the eloquent defender of the oppressed."

Henry's successor in office was Elisha Jenkins, a merchant and a Democrat (or Republican as the party was then called) of Hudson, who held the office from August 10, 1801, to March 26, 1806. Previous to his appointment as Comptroller he had served as Member of Assembly from Columbia county for the years 1795 to 1798. After his service as Comptroller he served three different periods as Secretary of State, to wit: From March 16, 1806, to February 16, 1807; from February 1, 1808, to February 1, 1810, and from February 1, 1811, to February 23, 1813. During his term as Comptroller there was a defalcation in the office of Treasurer, then held by Robert McClellan, and a more rigid system of testing the correctness of accounts was adopted, many features of which still survive. There was not much legislation affecting the office passed during the period of his incumbency; but the work of the office would seem to have been done in a systematic and business-like manner.

Mr. Jenkins was succeeded by Archibald McIntyre, a Democrat of the Clintonian order, of Albany, who, besides the reputation of a most excellent officer, has left behind him the record of a term of service in the office longer than that of any person who has filled it. He was appointed on March 26, 1806, and continued in office until February 12, 1821. He had previously served as Member of Assembly from Montgomery county for the years 1798, 1799, 1800, 1801, 1802 and 1804. The duties of the office had so far increased in 1811 as to render necessary the services of a deputy, and by chapter 78 his appointment was authorized, with substantially the same limitations which now exist. He cannot sign warrants so long as the Comptroller is within the State; nor can he act on the various boards. Comptroller McIntyre in 1817, under legislative authority, procured the aggregate valuation of the real estate in the several towns and wards of the State. By chapter 262 of the Laws of 1817 the Board of Commissioners of the Canal Fund was created, and the Comptroller made, ex-officio, a member of that board. This act contained a curious provision to the effect that a majority of the Commissioners, with the Comptroller, constitutes a quorum. No quorum of that board has ever been possible without the presence of the Comptroller.

This board, from that time to 1848, received and disbursed all canal moneys, audited the canal accounts, and in general transacted the financial business of the canal department. In 1848 the canal funds were turned over to the Treasurer and made subject to the warrant of the Canal Auditor. By his audit and warrant all accounts against the canals were paid; the management of the canal debt and sinking fund remaining, as before, in the Commissioners of the Canal Fund. In 1883 the duties devolving upon the Canal Auditor were transferred to the Comptroller's office. The majority of the Commissioners of the Canal Fund signed all checks on canal account prior to 1848. Since 1883, the Commissioners of the Canal Fund have had no duties to perform except to designate banks for the deposit of canal funds, and, ordinarily, to supervise the issuing of canal bonds.

The first canal debt bonds were issued in 1817 under legislative authority, and their disposition and the management of the sinking fund which was provided for their payment were put in the hands of the Commissioners of the Canal Fund. The amount of the debt that year was $200,000. As the canal system was extended, and later when the canals were enlarged, this debt was from time to time increased until in 1860 it reached the sum of $27,107,321.28. From that time it continuously decreased through the payments to, and the application of, the sinking fund, until on the 1st day of October, 1893, the last of this, the last bonded debt of the State, was paid. Something of financial history may be learned from a study of the rates of interest paid on these loans to the State. On the loan of 1817 the rate of interest was six per cent. From 1820 to 1830 the highest rate was six per cent and the lowest, five. From 1830 to 1840 a rate of five was sufficient. From 1840 to 1850 the rate advanced, the lowest being six and the highest seven per cent, the latter rate being in about 1842, the period of uncertainty as to the State's financial policy. From 1850 to 1860 the rate again fell to five and six per cent. In 1861 a small loan was made at seven. From 1870 to 1880 the rate was six per cent. This was the last of the old canal loan. By vote of the people in 1895 a loan of $9,000,000 was authorized to be used in the enlargement of the canals. The amounts thus far borrowed under that authority have been at the rate of three per cent.

Perhaps the most notable circumstance of Comptroller McIntyre's term, and certainly one of the most notable in the whole history of the office, was his controversy with Daniel D. Tompkins. During the War of 1812 Governor Tompkins had been the agent both of the State and of the National Government, and in this dual capacity he had received and disbursed very large sums of money. For much of this money he had taken, or could produce, no vouchers, and, consequently, in 1819 he stood upon the Comptroller's books a debtor, if not a defaulter, to the State in the large amount of $120,000. He claimed, and his friends claimed for him, that he had honestly disbursed all the money that he had received, and that the apparent deficit was due to his acknowledged unbusiness-like methods, and in his failure to keep books of account, and to take vouchers. He was then Vice-President of the United States, and it was thought by the "Bucktail" Republicans that he was the only man who, in the State election of 1820, could beat Governor Clinton for re-election. This unsettled balance, which had been standing for several years on the books of the Comptroller, was a serious obstacle to the execution of their plan. Accordingly, the Legislature of 1819 passed an act requiring the Comptroller to settle the residue of the accounts of Governor Tompkins, and in the settlement to allow him the same premium on the amount of money borrowed by him "on his own responsibility" as was allowed others for like service; and further requiring the Comptroller to credit the Governor with sums paid by him, legally, to any person, and to call upon such persons to account for the money. Contrary, it was said, to what had been understood by those who had been instrumental in passing the act of 1819, Vice-President Tompkins, instead of presenting a claim for premium merely sufficient to offset the claim of the State against him, presented one for $250,000, and supported this claim by opinions both of experts and lawyers. This bill furnishes a commentary on the credit of the State in the perilous times of the War of 1812, or perhaps upon the value of the services of financial agents at that time. The brokerage charged by Governor Tompkins was at the rate of twenty-five per cent. The Comptroller, feeling that this was not the legislative intent, and ever watchful as he was of the State's interests, declined to allow the claim, on the ground that the Governor had not borrowed the money "on his own responsibility," but on the joint responsibility of the State and himself. The Comptroller offered to submit the soundness of his position to the