[B]

Know all men by these presents, that we, Alanson Jones, Joel Harris, W. M. Irvin, Jona. Gaddis, Isaac Strickle, Wm. James Morgan, are held and firmly bound unto the State of Ohio, in the sum of six thousand dollars, for the payment of which well and truly to be made, we do jointly and severally bind ourselves and heirs, firmly by these presents. Sealed with our seals and dated this the 31st day of October, A. D. 1846.

The condition of the above obligation is such that, whereas the said Alanson Jones has been duly elected and commissioned Sheriff of the county of Clinton, Ohio, for the term of two years from and after the 22d day of October, A. D. 1846, according to the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Ohio, now if the said Alanson Jones shall faithfully and diligently execute and discharge all and singular the duties appertaining to the said office of Sheriff, then this obligation to be void, otherwise to be and remain in full force and virtue.

Signed and sealed in the presence of Joseph A. Mills.

The State of Ohio, Clinton County, ss.

[SEAL.]

I, T. L. Carothers, clerk of the court of common pleas of the county and state aforesaid, do hereby certify that the within is a full and correct copy of the bond of Alanson Jones, Sheriff of Clinton county, filed and recorded in my office, which was accepted by the court of common pleas, on the 6th day of November, A. D. 1846.

In testimony whereof I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of the court of common pleas, at Wilmington, this 7th day of November, A. D. 1848.

T. L. CAROTHERS, Clerk.

REPORT

OF THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SUBJECT OF TEMPERANCE.

IN HOUSE-March 21, 1849.

The select committee on the subject of Temperance, to which sundry petitions and memorials on this subject have been referred, would respectfully report:

The number of persons who have memorialised this branch of the legislature on this subject at its present session, is 3700. Of this number, 2554 are petitioners for the repeal of all license laws, and for a penalty to be affixed to the sale of intoxicating liquors, so as to characterise the business as criminal. 849 are petitioners for local laws to the same effect, and 297 are petitioners for the license of the sale of intoxicating liquors. This last class of petitioners state expressly, however, that they are favorable to temperance, and petition for license because they believe the traffic in intoxicating liquors can be best restrained in that way.

As this House has taken final action on the whole subject embraced in these petitions and memorials, your committee would report the same back, and ask to be discharged from their further consideration.

C. N. OLDS, Chairman.

REPORT

OF THE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, RELATIVE TO THE THREE PER CENT FUND.

IN HOUSE-MARCH 21, 1849.

Mr. Morris from the majority of the Standing Committee on Finance, to whom was committed the "reply of the Auditor of State to House resolution, relative to the three per cent fund," respectfully submits the following report:

Justice requires your committee to state, in the outset, that they have been unable to devote that care and attention to this subject which its importance demands. This has, in a great measure, arisen from the situation of parties in the present General Assembly. Perhaps at no period in the history of legislation in Ohio, has the attendance of members been so strictly enforced as during the present session, or such frequent "calls of the House," and demands for the "yeas and nays." These have necessarily called for an almost uninterrupted attendance of members on the sessions of the House. Your committee, therefore, will be able to do little else than report the facts of this case as they have come to their knowledge.

By the "reply of the Auditor of State," which was referred to this committee, it appears that on the 23d day of March, 1840, the following joint resolution was passed by the General Assembly, to wit:

"Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, That the Governor of State, be and he is hereby authorized and directed to procure by special agency or otherwise, a settlement of the claims of the State of Ohio, upon the United States, for the three per cent fund, due upon the proceeds of sales of land in this State, embracing the amount due upon sales that have been withheld since the year 1836; and also for that which it is claimed, has been withheld under the construction of the General Government, in deductions for expenses surveys, from the dividends of the State, and that the expenses necessarily incurred, be defrayed from his contingent fund, to be reimbursed from the first moneys received from the three per cent fund into the treasury."

of

This resolution, your committee are advised, was passed in accordance with the desire of the three officers of State, to whom it was known that a considerable sum was due the State, from the United States, on account of this three per cent fund. To pay the expenses of this special agency, the Governor was authorized to draw upon his contingent fund; which that year amounted to the sum of four thousand dollars, for all purposes. As a matter of course the legislature never intended to pay, or did not contemplate paying for this agency any greater sum than could be covered by the contingent fund of the Governor. And no greater sum should have been paid out of the treasury, without a special appropriation by the General Assembly.

It appears by the "reply of the Auditor of State," that "John Brough, Esq., was first appointed special agent under the resolution, for the purpose of making a settlement of the claims of the State for the three per cent fund, and that he received in 1840, the sum of $14,832 79, and in the year 1841, $144 15, from the United States on account of this fund." Out of this $14,832 79, there was paid the sum of $142 37, for "the expenses of the special agent for the settlement with the United States." This appears by reference to the Auditor's report for 1841. In this instance the resolution was adhered to, to the letter. The expenses being first paid out of the Governor's contingent fund, and then the amount thereof, transferred from the proceeds so recovered to said contingent fund.

Your committee are free to admit that great doubts had been expressed by Auditor Brough, of the State ever being able to present this claim in such a manner as to procure any further sum from the United States. The language used by him, is that he "fears the claim, though undoubtedly just in its character, cannot be presented and sustained in such a manner as to insure its payment." In this state of the case, if there was any prospect of a final settlement being attained, it was the duty of the State officers, as your committee conceive, before appointing another agent, to have procured the passage by the legislature, of another resolution, similar to the one above recited. If any particular sum was necessary to have been agreed upon as a compensation for the services of the agent, that sum should have been stated in the resolution, or the Governor have been, by it, invested with full powers to make a contract with the agent.

Your committee have no doubt of the fact, that all the power of the resolution, passed March 23, 1840, was exhausted by the appointment of Mr. Brough. They cannot believe that a simple resolution authorizing the performance of a certain act, shall remain in force and be of the same binding effect, as if it had received all the formalities, in its passage that are requisite in the passage of a law. And yet the resolution of 1840 has been so treated. It is now in as full force and effect as it was in 1846, when Governor Bartley appointed Mr. S. D. King as the agent of the State, to procure a settlement of this fund. This House can readily perceive, if a resolution of this character is to be considered as forever conferring authority upon the Governor to appoint special agents, that whenever representations may be made that there is money due the State on account of a particular fund, agents may be

appointed and paid out of the contingent fund of the Governor. This might lead to very great abuses; and for that reason resolutions authorizing the appointment of agents to do particular acts, are considered of no binding effect, or as conferring no authority after the appointment of one agent. This your committee believe to be a well settled principle. But in direct opposition to what your committee conceive would have been right in the premises, Governor M. Bartley, on the 20th January, 1846, entered into the following contract with King:

S. D. KING, Esq.-Sir:

"EXECUTIVE OFFICE, OHIO,

Columbus, January 20, 1846.

Having been informed that you were willing to examine the books and accounts between the United States and the State of Ohio, relative to the three per cent. fund, prior to the year 1840, I herewith transmit to you a power to act in the premises as an Agent for the State of Ohio. I do hereby agree, on behalf of this State, to pay you twenty per cent. on all the money you may show to be due Ohio, as soon as said sum can be realized by the State, on account of said three per cent. fund, except the small amount which may have fallen due since 1840.

I am, sir, with respect,

Your obedient servant,

M. BARTLEY."

Such is a copy of the contract entered into by Gov. Bartley on the 20th January, 1846. The Governor's letter to King, or rather a copy thereof, empowering him "to act in the premises," is in the hands of your committee, and bears date the same as the above. It will be perceived that the above contract was entered into by Gov. Bartley during the sitting of the Legislature, when he could have easily submitted the matter for the consideration of the General Assembly, and thus have thrown the responsibility on that body, of agreeing to pay what must at any time be considered a large fee. Had the Legislature authorized him to have entered into such a contract, no objection could have been raised to making an appropriation to pay the agent for his services.

On the 14th of July, 1846, King addressed to Gov. Bartley a lengthy letter, principally upon the mode in which he had arrived at the sum due the State upon account of this fund. The first paragraph of this letter is as follows:

"SIR: Immediately after the receipt of your favor of the 20th January, appointing me to make an examination of the three per cent. fund account of your State, I commenced the work, and devoted my