which he adopted, and threw around him a moral duress from which there was no escape. It has been said that the right of pre-emption was fully established before the board of commissioners, and that such only of the settlers as could establish such right could avail themselves of the act of 1840. Other settlers upon the Reserve, whose claims were not interfered with by the location of the University lands, derived the full benefit of the pre-emption. The whole subject then may be reduced to a single proposition, viz: "Did the settlers by consenting to purchase under the act of 1810 thereby surrender their prior existing preemption claim?" It may be asked why this subject has been so long permitted to slumber-why it has not been successfully urged before some former legislature? A reply to this is readily suggested by the fact that the petitioners live remote from the seat of government and are not able to present the subject in person-that they are few in numbers and seldom if ever have a direct representative in either House, and their only means of communication has been through memorials, which are too frequently disposed of without proper consideration. The settlers, too, are not without an antagonist. The University has grown opulent and powerful, and her interests are guarded with fidelity; and every proposition which threatens to weaken her power or diminish her fund has been entertained with jealousy and caution. If, then, nothing has occurred to impair those rights, which at one time were most solemnly recognized by the state, there is certainly justice in the demand of the petitioners, and redress should be delayed no longer. In conclusion of this already tedious report it may not be impertinent to suggest that it is the highest duty of a sovereign state patiently to inves igate and sacredly to protect the rights of her citizens. All of which is respectfully submitted. J. B. FITZGERALD, Ch'n. RIX ROBINSON, JAMES MCCABE. AUDITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE, HON. WM. M. FENTON, President of the Senate: . SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt, this day, of a copy of the following resolution, adopted by the Senate on the 24th instant. Resolved, That the Auditor General be, and is hereby requested to report to the Senate without delay, whether the following rumor which has just reached some of the Senators is true in fact, to wit: That a mandamus from the supreme court of the State, has been served on that functionary to deliver up a certain bond of two hundred thousand dollars, heretofore in possession of the State as collateral security to the mortgage given and due by the Pontiac Rail Road Company and other individuals; and whether this compulsory withdrawal of said bond from the State authority, is not equal to a total loss of the indebtedness of said Pontiac Rail Road Company to the State of Michigan." In reply to the first part of said resolution, I would state, that on the 22d instant, I was served with a mandamus of the nature therein mentioned, by Mr. Douglas, as Secretary of the Detroit and Pontiac Rail Road Company. As an answer to the second branch of the resolution would seem to involve the decision of some questions of law, a reply to it would come more properly, perhaps, from the office of the Attorney General. But in order that the Senate may form their own conclusions in the matter, so far as any data in the possession of this office will enable them to do so, I will endeavor to submit a brief statement of such facts as the books and papers of the office show, having any bearing upon the inquiry made in the latter part of the resolution. On the 7th day of April, 1838, the assent of the stockholders of the Detroit and Pontiac railroad company to the provisions of act No. 20, 1838, entitled "an act to provide for the relief of the Detroit and Pontiac railroad company," was given; and a certificate of the assent, signed by the president and directors, as required by that act, was filed in this office. On the 19th of the same month, the company executed a mortgage, conveying to the auditor general and his successors in office, for the use of the state "all the right, title, property, interest or estate of said railroad company, in, to and of said railroad and its appurtenances, and in, to and of all and singular the rights, privileges and franchises in said company, by its act of incorporation or otherwise vested," as required by the third section of the above mentioned act. And on the same day they executed the bond referred to in the resolution of the Senate, with sureties in accordance with the provisions of the second section of the act aforesaid. The names of the sureties in the bond, were Alfred Williams, Sherman Stevens, Schuyler Hodges, G. W. Williams, Solomon Close, J. A. Weeks, G. D. Williams, James B. Hunt, and E. Van Deventer. Accompanying said bond, as also required in said second section, were given certain mortgages "on unincumbered real estate, of the cash value of at least two hundred thousand dollars," which were given up in September, 1843, by the then auditor general, on the written application of the Detroit and Pontiac railroad company, by their attorneys, Messrs. Douglas and Walker, under the provisions of act No. 22, 1842, as amended by act No. 2, 1843. Whether application was made at that time by the attorneys of the company for the bond now called for by the mandamus of the Supreme Court, I am unable to state, as the application is at present amongst other papers in the hands of the attorney general at Ann Arbor. But if it was, I cannot discover any good reason why it was not given up along with the above mortgages, both the bond and mortgages being undoubtedly embraced by the language of the act of 1842, requiring the cancelment and delivery of "any and all such securities as the state may hold collateral to the mortgage or lien upon said railroad and its appurtenances, for the redemption of state bonds issued to said company, and for the payment of interest there on." In Senate Doc. No. 17, being a communication from the Attorney General to the Senate, dated the 7th instant, I see it stated that it is said that the seven miles of the Detroit and Pontiac rail road from Birmingham to Pontiac, is individual property; and " that the right of way was acquired by individuals, and the road made by them," &c. And I have also understood that it had been, or might be alleged by the company, that the bond of two hundred thousand dollars and accompanying mortgages, were not collateral to the mortgage or lien of the state on the road, but that said mortgage or lien, under the language of act No. 20, 1833, was collateral to the aforesaid bond and mortgages. Now, the company, by their own acts and showing, before this office and before the supreme court, are certainly precluded from setting up any such defence or allegation, whereby the mortgage of the road to the state might be so far impaired. It was only upon the condition that the "company" should complete and finish, put in order for running, and run daily, the entire line of said rail road, from the city of Detroit to the village of Pontiac, that they were entitled to demand and receive from this office, either the mortgages delivered up in 1843, or the bond now called for by the mandamus of the supreme court. And that such was the showing before the supreme court, and that the company, as well as the legislature of the State, have considered, and do now consider the before mentioned bond and mortgages as the collateral securities to the mortgage or lien upon the road, and its appurtenaces, I need only refer to their application for the mortgages, or bond and mortgages, from this office, in 1843, and quote an extract from the mandamus of the supreme court, served upon me, on the 22d instant, and now on file in the office. After describing the bond, and reciting certain provisions of the act of 1842, and the amendatory act of 1843, in regard to the cancelment and delivery of the collateral securities held by the state for the loan to the company, the court, in the above writ proceed to say—" And whereas, it has been made to appear to us, that the said Detroit and Pontiac Rail Road Company has fully complied with the proviso contained in said third section (of act No. 22, 1842) and said act amendatory to the same; and that the bond or obligation before set forth, is held by the State as collateral to the mortgage or lien upon said rail road and its appurtenances," &c. As will be seen by reference to the above act of 1842, the proviso to the third section required the completion of the road from Detroit to Pontiac by the company, and not by individuals, or by any other firm or company:-and that it was so completed by the company, can hardly require any other proof than their own application to this office in 1843, and their own showing before the supreme court, as above set forth, and in which as appears from the mandamus itself, they must also have contended that the bond applied for was a collateral security to the mortgage or lien of the State on the road. Knowing of no other information in possession of this office, bearing upon the inquiries made in the resolution of the Senate, I have the honor to submit the above in reply thereto; and being so called upon in the resolution, I would state that I do not see how the withdrawal of the bond referred to, should involve a total loss, (if it does any,) of the indebtedness of the company to the State. Yours most respectfully, JOHN J. ADAM, |