And the question being put, "shall the main question be now put?" it was determined in the negative.

And the ayes and noes being called for,

Those who voted in the affirmative, are,

Messrs. Darling, Hamilton, Hicks, Hopkins, Long, Manahan, Masters, Meeker, Platt, Trowbridge and Ellis [Speaker]-11. Those who voted in the negative, are

Messrs. Agry, Capron, Crossman, Elmore, Hunkins, Judson, Olin, Palmer, Parsons, Price, Thompson, Tripp, Van Vleet, and Walker-14.

So the main question was not ordered.

The message from the Council was taken up, when

The message of the Governor containing his objections to a bill entitled "an act to abolish certain offices therein named,” which had been reconsidered and passed by the Council,

Was read and is as follows:

"To the Legislative Council :

I return herewith the bill entitled "an act to abolish certain offices therein named," which originated in the Council.

The first section abolishes the office of District Attorney, and transfers his duties to such attorneys as may be employed by the Board of Supervisors or county commissioners, in each county.

These duties are perscribed in the 3d sec. of the act concern. ing the Attorney General and district attorneys, and are as fol. lows:

"It shall be the duty of the said district attorneys to prosecute or defend in all courts of the district for which they may be res pectively appointed, all suits, applications or motions, whether civil or criminal, in which the United States, the Territory, the county or any township is interested or a party, and give their advice to the civil officers of their respective districts touching

The attorney who is to be "employed" by the board will perform the duty and receive the pay, of an officer, I cannot there. fore, and from the character of his duties, but regard him as a judicial or civil officer, who must acccording to the act of Congress to establish the Territorial government of Wisconsin, be appointed by the Governor and Council, and be commissioned by the Governor.

When there are several counties in the same judicial District, it will be impossible to determine which Board shall "employ" the Attorney to attend to the suits in the District court in which "the United States or the Territory may be interested or a party."

The territorial government ought, in my opinion, to select the person to represent the territory and protect its interests in the Courts; and I believe that this power cannot be delegated with safety to those interests.

The 2nd. section repeals so much of the act above cited as fixes the salary of the Attorney General at two hundred and fifty dollars, and declares that he "shall hereafter receive such compensation for his services as the Legislative Assembly may think proper." If it is intended that the words "Legislative Assembly," as here used, shall be construed to mean the Council and House of Representatives, I must express my dissent to this provision, as it would exclude the Governor from a joint participation with them in the exercise of a legislative power conferred upon him and them by the act of Congress.

The regulation of the salaries of public officers, involving as it does the amount of Taxes to be assessed upon the people, is a measure of vital importance to the public interests, and upon which they are entitled to receive the action of three branches of the Legislature.

And I cannot but think that such a provision as this, if it was extended to all of the public officers, would affect, if not des.

troy their independence, uncertain pay generally commands only the worst service.

In this provision there is no limitation of the amount which the majority of the assembly might think proper to allow for the services of the attorney general; and of course there is no limitation of the amount which the people may be taxed therefor.

For these reasons I cannot approve of this Bill.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Wisconsin,

Madison, April 14, 1843.

J. D. DOTY,

}

The question was then put: "Will the House on reconsideration approve the bill?" and it passed in the affirmative, two thirds voting therefor.

And the ayes and noes being taken thereon,

Those who voted in the affirmative, are

Messrs. Crossman, Darling, Elmore, Hunkins, Judson, Long, Manahan, Masters, Meeker, Olin, Parsons, Thompson, Tripp, Trowbridge, Van Vleet, Walker and Ellis (Speaker)--17.

Those who voted in the negative are,

Messrs. Agry, Capron, Hamilton, Hicks, Hopkins, Palmer, Platt and Price,-8.

So the House on reconsideration passed the bill.

And then the house adjourned until half past 2 o'clock, P. M.

The House resumed the consideration of the message from the Council, when the message from the Gevernor containing his

objections to the bill entitled "an act to amend an act entitled an act changing the time of holding courts in certain counties of the second judicial district and to provide for a change of venue in criminal cases and for other purposes," which had been re-considered and passed in the Council-was read and is as follows:

"To the Legislative Council:

I return herewith the bill entitled "an act to amend an act entitled an act to change the time of holding courts in certain counties of the second judicial district and to provide for a change of venue in criminal cases and for other purposes," with out my signature, and state the following objections to it.

The act to which this is amendatory, was only passed on the 23d of March last, and I am not aware that any thing has oc. curred to require an alteration so soon after its passage. I consider the rapidity with which the laws are passed, and their provisions changed by amendatory acts as great evils' which require correction.

If" writs" or "process" have been instituted since the pas sage of said act of the 23d of March, this bill declares that they "shall be returnable at the term next after the day of issuing the same, any thing in the 2d section of the said act to the contrary notwithstandin."

This would of course change the return day of writs already is. sued, and require the defendant to appear and answer the suit on a day not named in the writ, and of which he has no notice. I do not think this would be just even if we had the power to require it.

I object to the 2d section because it authorizes costs to be taxed without notice to the "adverse party," if he or his attorney, do not reside "within the county" in which the judgment was rendered. the 3d section is deemed unnecessary, ample pro

visions being already made upon the subjects therein mentioned. J. D. DOTY.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Wisconsin,

Madison, April 16, 1843,

And the question being put "shall the house on reconsideration approve the bill?" it passed unanimously in the affirmative, twenty-five members voting therefor, as follows:

Ayes-Messrs. Agry, Capron, Crossman, Darling, Elmore, Hamilton, Hicks, Hopkins, Hunkins, Judson, Long, Manahan, Masters, Meeker, Olin, Palmer, Platt, Parsons, Price, Thompson, Tripp, Trowbridge, Van Vleet, Walker and Ellis, [Speak - 、 er]--25.

So the house on re-conside ration approved the bill.

The amendments of the Council to bill No. 49, (H. of R. file) "a bill concerning the time of commencing actions and for oth. er purposes, were then severally read and concurred in.

Bill No. 58, (C. F.) "a bill to provide for the payment of certain Territorial debts therein named," was taken up and the action of the Council thereon being read,

The question was put, will the House recede from their first amendment which is an appropriation to John Y. Smith for ser vices as Superintendent of Territorial property, and it passed in the affirmative.

The question then recurred on insisting on the second amend. ment, which is an appropriation to J. E. Arnold and E. V. Whiton for professional services.

And being put it passed in the affirmative.
And the ayes and noes being called for,

Those who voted in the affirmativē, are,

Messrs. Agry, Capron, Crossman, Darling, Hamilton, Hicks, Hopkins, Judson, Long, Manahan, Masters, Meeker, Olin, Palmer, Platt, Price, Thompson, Ttripp, Trowbridge,