HOUSE DOCUMENTS. [No. 14.] Special message from the governor, in relation to suspending the distribution of public moneys on account of primary schools, &c. To the House of Representatives: I have received a communication from the superintendent of public instruction, which I respectfully herewith, lay before you, and submit to you the expediency of giving effect to the views there presented. I am not insensible of the great inconveniences which always result, especially in pecuniary affairs, from frequent change of system. A rigid adherence to punctuality, in private and social life, is of importance; but in respect to the financial operations of the state, it is of far greater consequence. Nevertheless, the reasons suggested by the superintendent, in favor of this deviation from the general rule, which he suggests, growing, as they do, out of the action of the legisature itself, seem to me to sanction the measure he suggests, for the present year. WILLIAM WOODBRIDGE. Executive Office, January 7, 1841. To the Governor : Detroit, January 4, 1841. DEAR SIR-By an act approved April 1, 1840, it is provided that the interest due on loans made by the superintendent of public instruction, to the several counties of this state, shall be paid on the first Monday in March, of each and every year. The amount due from the several counties, that have made loans from the university and school funds, is over seven thousand dollars. But other enactments provide that the interest arising from the university and school fund, shall be distributed on the first Monday of January, of each and every year. [H. R.] Vol. II. 2 It seems to be exceedingly desirable that the above amount should be included in the distribution of the present year; othwise, the amount to be paid to the university and the several school districts, will be small indeed, as many of the purchasers of the university and school lands, have failed to make payment of their interest. Without the action of the legislature, the superintendent can neither include the above sum, in the present distribution, nor delay the apportionment. If this distribution is made immediately, the interest, as above stated, will lie over till another year, to the manifest detriment of the university and the several school districts, which are expecting and entitled to receive the same. I have thought proper to communicate these facts to your excellency, with a view of their being submitted to the legislature, if in your judgment, it shall seem advisable so to do. If, in the wisdom of the legislature, it shall be deemed expedient to postpone the distribution till some time in March, it is believed no inconvenience would result from any conflict with other existing provisions of law. Respectfully, your obedient servant. JOHN D. PIERCE, Superintendent of Public Instruction. His Excellency WILLIAM WOODBRIDGE. [No. 15.] Report of the committee on elections, in relation to the Mackinac election. The committee on elections, to whom was referred certain papers relating to the election of representative for the county of Mackinac, ask leave to report: That they have examined all the papers referred to them, in regard to the said election. There being but two townships in the county, the board of county canvassers necessarily consisted of two persons, each of whom has subscribed a separate statement of the votes given in said county for representative, and attached thereto the seal of said county. Michael Dousman, one of the said board, states the votes as follows: Jonas A. Stone, the other canvasser, states as follows: 1 The one giving John A. Drew, a majority of two votes, and the other making it a tie. We next examined the certified copies of the returns of the township boards of inspectors of elections, for the above named townships, which we found to agree precisely with the statement of Michael Dousman, above given, and making a majority of two votes for John A. Drew, We next examined sundry affidavits and statements, respecting the manner in which the canvass of the votes for representative, in the township of Holmes, was conducted; from all which, it appears that on first counting the votes, they agreed with the poll list, at 119; that on canvassing the votes, there was found an excess of two; that John A. Drew had sixtynine, and Jonathan P. King, fifty-two; that the board agreed to put the votes back into the box, and draw out two and destroy them, which was done, excepting only that the two last votes canvassed, were not put back before the drawing, and said two votes were also destroyed, and were for King; the two votes drawn, were one for King, and one for Drew; that four votes were then made to correspond with the votes destroyed, and all again put into the box, and two again drawn, both proving to be for King. The ballots then agreeing with the poll list, the canvass was completed, resulting as above stated by the board of inspectors. In this procedure there is evident irregularity, and in the opinion of your committee, strong indications of fraud. Still, as the whole transaction, as detailed, might have been innocently conducted, and the irregularity caused wholly by accident, (in which case, the course pursued seems the only one to correct the error,) and there being no positive proof to the contrary, your committee think it ought not to invalidate the election. Taking, then, the returns of the board of township inspectors, as the best possible evidence, in fault of concurring statements from the board of county canvassers, your committee conclude that John A. Drew, is elected representative from the county of Mackinac, and entitled to his seat; therefore, Resolved, That John A. Drew, having been duly elected to the office of representative to the state legislature, from the county of Mackinac, be admitted to his seat in this house. E. LAKIN BROWN, Chairman. Statement signed by Dousman, Holt and Johnston. State of Michigan, Holmes, Mackinac county, ss: Whereas, It has been publicly stated, that in the canvass of votes for representative, at the general election holden in this township on the second and third days of November, 1840, a fraud was committed by the inspectors of said election, whereby Jonathan P. King, one of the candidates for representative, was deprived of two votes which are alledged to have belonged to him; and Whereas, in consequence of said statement, Jonathan P. King, being clerk of this county, has, in our presence, refused to place his proper signature to the statement of the county canvassers, certifying to the election of John A. Drew, as representative to the state legislature, for this county; which statement we know to be correctly made up from the returns of the several boards of township inspectors of said election, without regard to hearsay, or any other evidence than that afforded by the face of such returns. Therefore, in relation to the proceedings at the canvass by the board of inspectors of this township, by which it is alledged that said Jonathan P. King was deprived of two votes, We, the subscribers, depose and say, that we were members of the board of inspectors of the election above mentioned, and that the business of the election and canvass, at the closing of the polls, proceeded without difficulty, until we came to canvass the votes for representative. On opening the ballot box and counting the number of ballots which it contained, we found 119 ballots indorsed "representative," and one ballot indorsed" state." The poll list requiring but 119 votes for representative, and the votes for state having been already canvassed, the ballot indorsed "state," was destroyed. On proceeding to canvass the votes for representative, we found to our surprise, an excess of two votes over the number required by the poll list, and previously ascertained by counting said ballots; that is to say, we found 121 ballots indorsed "representative," of which, 69 contained the name of John A. Drew, and 52 the name of Jonathan P. King, and they were duly credited to said Drew and King, by the clerks of the election, in the usual manner. The two ballots last opened and examined in this part of the canvass, contained the name of Jonathan P. King. These two were laid upon the table near the other ballots, which had not yet been replaced in the box from which they had been counted. At this stage of the canvass, the inspectors became perplexed as to the proper mode of proceeding in the case, inasmuch as they could not account for the existence of any excess in the number of ballots, after having carefully counted the same, nor could they ascertain what disposal they could properly make of such excess, as the law provides only for an excess ascertained before the ballots were opened and the votes canvassed. Much confusion also occurred, owing to the interference and altercation of several by-standers. It was at length determined by the inspectors to replace the ballots in their proper box, and to draw from them two ballots, in order to reduce the number to the number of votes required by the poll list, that is, 119 votes. They were accordingly replaced in the box, and one of the inspectors appointed to draw, and the ballots being already opened, it was ascertained that the two drawn out, contained, one of them the name, of Jonathan P. King, and the other, the name of John A. Drew, and the two were then destroyed. But in replacing the ballots in the box, previous to the drawing, the two containing the name of Jonathan P. King, which had been laid upon the table near the other ballots, as hereinbefore stated, were not replaced in the box with the others, thus making the number to be drawn from, only 119 instead of 121, and leaving the number in the box, after the drawing, only 117, instead of 119; which latter number was required by the poll list. When this mistake was discovered, the inspectors were still further perplexed, and during the discussion of the matter, one of the inspectors destroyed the two ballots before alluded to, which had been laid aside from the others, supposing the board of inspectors had authorized him so to do. The discussion resulted in the unanimous determination of the board, (with the exception of Jonathan P. King, who was at the moment absent,) that the drawing which had taken place, was partial and illegal, because the whole number of ascertained ballots had not been replaced in the box previous to said drawing; two of them having been left upon the table where they had been placed when first discovered. Also, that the said two ballots had been improperly destroyed, and that they, together with the two which had been destroyed in consequence of having been drawn out, as before mentioned, should be replaced, by ballots to correspond with them, which should be written for the purpose; also, that the four ballots thus replaced, should be added to 117 then remaining of the original ballots, and the whole number of 121 being thus restored, should be replaced in the ballot box, and impartially mingled and shaken, and that two ballots should then be drawn from the whole, and destroyed without examination; and also, that the count and canvass of the 119 remaining in the box should then be renewed, and the result recorded as if no previous count or canvass had been had. This determination was complied with in every respect, with the apparent consent and approbation of every person present. The canvass as thus conducted, resulted in giving 69 votes for John A. Drew, and 50 for Jonathan P. King, making 119 in all. This result was recorded distinctly in the |