Those who voted in the negative, are,

Messrs, Elmore, Hunkins, Parsons, Walker, and Ellis, [Speaker]-5.

Mr. Hicks moved a reconsideration of the vote just taken, by which the House receded from the first amendment.

Which being put, was agreed to.

The question was then again put, on insisting on the said first amendment, and it passed in the affirmative.

And the ayes and noes being called for,

Those who voted affirmative are,

Messrs. Crossman, Darling, Hamilton, Hunkins, Judson, Long, Manahan, Masters, Meeker, Olin, Platt, Parsons, Price, Thompson, Tripp, Van Vleet, Walker, and Ellis [Speaker] 18. Those who voted in the negative, are,

Messrs. Agry, Capron, Elmore, Hicks, Hopkins, Palmer and Trowbripge,-7.

The question was then put, on concurring in the first amendment of the Council to the last amendment of the house, which is an appropriation to William H. Bruce for interest on a bond issued to Edward Elderkin, and disallowed by the Treas. ury Department, and it passed in the affirmative.

The question then recurred on concurring in the second. amendment of the Council to the last amendmet of the House, which is an appropriation to Elisha Starr, for printing for Canal company,

And being put, it passed in the affirmative.

And the ayes and noes being called for,

Those who voted in the affirmative, are,

Messts. Capron, Crossman, Darling, Elmore, Hamilton Hopkins, Hunkins, Judson, Manahan, Masters, Olin, Palmer, Platt, Parsons, Price, Thompson, Tripp, Van Vleet, Walker, and Ellis, [Speaker]—20,

Those who voted in the negative, are

Messrs. Agry, Hicks, Long and Meeker,-4.

On motion of Mr. Hamilton,

The House took up for consideration the resolution relative to printing the laws and journals," and resolved itself into the committee of the whole thereon, Mr. Platt in the chair,

After a short time spent therein, the committee rose and reported the same to the House with amendments.

Which were concurred in.

The resolution was then ordered to a third reaading, and by special order of the House was read the third time, passed and the title thereof agreed to, the sixteenth rule of the House having been suspended for that purpose.

On motion of Mr. Walker,

The house took up the motion to reconsider the vote by which the House refused on reconsideration to pass "An act to amend an act to prevent trespasses and other injuries being done to the possessions of settlers on the public lands and to define the right of possession on said lands and for other purposes," which had been returned by the Governor with his objections thereto.

And the question being put, on reconsidering the said vote, it passed in the affirmative.

The question was then put : "Will the house on reconsideration pass the bill? And it passed in the negative, not twothirds voting in the affirmative.

And the ayes and noes being taken thereon,

Those who voted in the affirmative are,

Messrs. Agry, Crossman, Darling, Elmore, Hunkins, Manahan, Masters, Olin, Platt, Parsons, Price, Thompson, Trowbridge and Walker,-15.

Those who voted in the negative are,

Messrs. Capron, Hamilton, Hicks, Hopkins, Judson, Long, Meeker, Palmer, Van Vleet, and Ellis [Speaker]-10.

So the house on re-consideration refused to pass the bill.

A message from the Council by their Secretary; "Mr Speaker-The Council have reconsidered "an act concerning removals from office," returned by the Governor to the Council without his signature, accompanied by a message dated April 15, 1813; and have passed said act, nine members voting therefor and but one against its passage.

The Council have also reconsidered "an act to provide for the payment of the expenses of the Legislative Assembly," returned by the Governor to the Council without his signature, and accompanied by a message dated April 17, 1843, and have passed said act-nine members voting therefor, and but one against its passage.

The Council have also reconsidered "Joint Resolutions rel ative to the distributive share of Wisconsin in the nett proceeds of the public lands," returned by the Governor to the Council without his signature, accompanied by a message dated April 15, 1843, and have passed said Resolution-eight members voting therefor, and but three against its passage.

The message from the Council was taken up, when

The message of the Governor containing his objections to "Joint Resolution relative to the distributive share of Wisconsin in the nett proceeds of the public lands" which had been reconsidered and passed by the Council, was read and is as follows:

To the Legislative Council:

The joint Resolutions which originated in the Council, and which are entitled "Joint resolutions relative to the distributive share of Wisconsin in the nett proceeds of the public Lands," I return herewith: and respectfully submit the following objec. tions thereto :

The first Resolution authorizes "Joshua Hathaway of Mil. waukee, Receiver of the Board of Commissioners of the Milwau.

kee and Rock river canal," to receive the "sum of one thou sand and eighty.two dollars and forty five cents, the share of Wisconsin above mentioned.

The records of the office show that Mr. George D. Dousman was the person last appointed Receiver of said Board, and it does not appear that Mr. Hathaway was ever duly appointed to that office and commissioned; or that he has given the bond and security required by the statute to be given by the Receiver.

The second Resolution authorizes Joshua Hathaway to pay to Joshua Hathaway and Allen W. Hatch the amount of money by them borrowed, together with the interest thereon, under a joint resolution of the Legislative Assembly, adopted in December last, entitled a "Resolution to authorize the Register and Receiver of the Milwaukee and Rock River Canal to borrow certain moneys."

No such resolution as the one above cited ever passed the Legislature, and therefore no money could have been borrowed or liability incurred, on the part of the Territory.

If the resolution above alluded to was one which was passed by the members of the Council and House of Representatives, at their informal meeting "in December last," then I object to it.

1st. That the Resolution was passed at a session unauthori zed by law, and without the sanction of, or presentation to, the three branches into which the legislative power of the Territory is divided.

2nd. That it is not a law and no money can or ought to be borrowed on the faith of the people of the Territory or drawn from the treasury, but by law.

3d. It authorized the borrowing of money to pay the delin. quent taxes of the settlers on the Milwaukee canal lands, which is not a "rightful subject of legislation." The power to bor. row money on the faith of the people has not been granted to the

4th. It is unjust to the citizens of other parts of the Territory to tax them to pay the taxes of those settlers.

5th. The Canal Lands belong to the Territory until the con. sideration for the sale is paid, and the property of the Territory is not liable to taxation.

No other interest in the lands but that of the purchaser could be taxed or sold and that interest is contingent upon the pay. ment of the purchase money.

The Territory owes nothing to Messrs. Hathaway and Hatch. They hold no demands against it which we are required to pay. This money belongs to the Territorial Treasury and not to the Canal Fund; and in my judgment, should be applied to Territorial purposes.

But if there was any authority to tax these lands, the amount of the delinquent tax ought to be taken from the Canal Fund; and the Register and Receiver have not done their duty if they have allowed them to be sold if there was any part of the Fund unexpended. If there was none, it was not right for the legisla. ture to remit all of the interest, and to postpone the payment of the principal due from the purchasers of those lands. Certain ly this is no reason why the people of the Territory should be taxed to supply the deficiency thus created in the Fund.

On the whole, it seems that the purchasers of those lands have got the possession of them by paying only ten per cent, of the purchase money; they occupy and enjoy them as their own, all future payments indefinitely postponed; and it is now proposed to take money from the Territorial Treasury, and which belongs to the people of the territory, to pay their taxes. The Council and House of Represntatives, I am aware, have not assumed the exclusive controlment of the Canal Board; but I presume they will not deny the right of the executive to resist by all the constitutional means in his power any attempt to levy new taxes or take the money from the Treasury, for such