number of inhabitants or not. A far different provision, both in its object and end, from the one first proposed. This action of the convention, it seems to me, is conclusive, if any doubt existed as to the proper construction of the meaning of the term "districts," as used in section four. If it was desirable to prevent the legislature from dividing the several counties into single districts when entitled to more than one representative, the convention would have adopted that portion of the section containing such a prohibition, when proposed. In providing for the formation of senatorial districts (sec. 6, art. 4,) the restriction, that no county shall be divided, was inserted without objection; though expressly rejected, when the attempt was made to extend it to representative districts.

The sections that I have referred to are all that have any bearing upon the subject. There is certainly then no express prohibition restraining the legislature from dividing the several counties into as many districts as they are severally entitled to representatives, and I cannot bring my mind to the conclusion, either from the language used, or otherwise, that any such restriction exists even by implica tion; admitting we can resort to implication, to restrain the legislature in the exercise of powers expressly granted.

I have the honor to be,

Very respectfully yours, &c..

HENRY N. WALKER,
Attorney General.

1846.

No. 6.

Report of Committee on Finance.

The Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the petition of the Board of Supervisors of the county of Shiawassee, in relation to monies stolen from said county, on the night of the 3rd of October, 1843, have instructed me to report: That on the night of the 3rd of October, 1843, the sum of one thousand eight hundred and twelve dollars was stolen, as your committee believe, from the treasury of the county of Shiawassee, which money was a part of the proceeds of lands then sold by the Treasurer of said county, under the direction of the Auditor General, for the delinquent taxes of 1839 and 1840.

Your committee have no further proof before them as to the fact. of said money being stolen, than such as can be found in the documents, journals, laws and proceedings of the legislature of 1844. A joint resolution approved March 11, 1844, recognizes the fact, and directs the Auditor General to allow, and the State Treasurer to pay over to the Treasurer of said county all moneys due said county, without withholding the above sum, with a proviso however, that the resolution shall not be construed into an acknowledgment that the state is to suffer the loss of said money.

This resolution originated in the Senate, upon petition. The matter was first referred to the committee on the judiciary, who investigated and obtained the opinion of the Attorney General, and recommended the passage of a joint resolution. Senate jour. 1844, page 118. The resolution was again referred to the committee on towns and counties with instructians, (Journal, page 285,) and was finally reported back and adopted by the Senate without the proviso. Jour. P 294.

The resolution was referred in the House to the committee on ways and means, and from that committee reported back with the proviso. House jour. 1844, p 418, 430.

From the examination which must have been given to the subject in both branches of the legislature, as will be seen by reference to the journals, and from the admission in the joint resolution above re

SENATE.

2

No. 6.

ferred to, your committee have no doubt of the fact, that the money was stolen as alleged, and the only question to determine, is as between the county and the state, who shall bear the loss.

By the provisions of then existing laws, an account of the taxes of 1839 and 1840, which remained unpaid, was to be transmitted to the Auditor General, and they were, after such return, payable only at the Auditor's office. Rev. Statutes Ρ 90.

When the amount of taxes thus returned, exceeded the state tax apportioned to the county, the balance was to be paid to the County Treasurer, and the whole amount of taxes so assumed by the state, "shall be collected for the benefit of the state." R. S. p 91, sec. 8.

After stating an account with the Treasurer of a county, and notifying the Treasurer to pay the balance, if the Treasurer refuse, the Auditor General is authorized to institute immediate prosecution, "and the state shall be entitled to recover the balance due, with interest thereon ;" suits may also be instituted against the sureties of the treasurer on his bond. Same page, sec 10.

The sales of lands for taxes were, as now, under the direction of the Auditor General, and the proceeds of the sale were, by law, payable into the State Treasury. R. S, p 98, sec. 15.

By the provision of the tax law of 1842, p. 101, some of the laws. above referred to may have been repealed, but the same proceedings were required to be had on taxes then previously returned.

By reference to the "act to regulate tax sales, &c." of 1843, p. 56 and 57, it will be seen that the lands to be sold for taxes were advertised under the direction of the Auditor General; the sales to be under the direction of the Auditor General, (sec. 7) the remittances to be made as directed by the State Treasurer, the expenses of advertising and sale to be paid on the warrant of the Auditor General, and the remainder placed to the credit of the "delinquent tax fund." (Sec. 12.)

From this examination of the law regulating the sales of lands for delinquent taxes, your committee are inclined to believe that the treasurer of Shiawassee county in selling lands for the taxes of 1839 and 1840, acted under the direction of a state officer, and can only be considered as an agent of the state, and not of the county, and in the receipt of monies at the sale of said lands, was, under existing

laws, accountable only to the state, and could while acting in such capacity in no wise be considered as an agent for the county of Shiawassee; and further that he is liable to proscution, if at all, only at the instance of the Auditor General and in behalf of the state.

Taking this view of the subject, your committee recommend the passage of the accompanying joint resolution, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

February 10, 1846.

WM. M. FENTON.