ment, where the witnesses have fled and forfeited their recognizances. But as all the individuals accused and prosecuted, with all the required particulars attending the prosecution, are fully mentioned in my last annual report, the only additional information of facts concerning them, therefore, which I now embrace in this report, are the terminations and nature of said prosecutions in their class.

Of these, of prosecutions commenced in June and December of the year 1838, there were four prosecutions for assault and battery, against two persons; four prosecutions for conspiracy, against Conlogue and others, against five persons; one prosecution for larceny; one for assault and battery, with intent to commit rape.

Of prosecutions commenced, in the June term of the circuit court, in the year 1839, two prosecutions for larceny, against two persons; one prosecution for assault with intent to commit rape, against one person; one prosecution for selling spirituous liquors without license, against two persons; one prosecution for selling spirituous liquors on Sunday, against two

persons.

On all of the above prosecutions, pending in the circuit court, as above, nolle prosequi was entered by leave of the court. The following will exhibit the requisite information of all other prosecutions:

People of the state of Michigan vs. Warren M. Rice, circuit court; embezzlement of gold watch from John Chamberlin; commenced June term, 1839, not in the state when indicted, and not arrested in New York.

People vs. Sherwood, circuit court; grand larceny; commenced June term, 1839, not found, not arrested.

People vs. Ebenezer Prentiss, John Prentiss and Peter D. Labady, circuit court; assault and battery on an officer; commenced June term, 1839, determined June term, 1840; the two Prentiss' were fined each ten dollars and costs; nolle as to Labady.

People vs. Daniel M. C. Ludlow, circuit court; one indictment for having, with intent to utter, counterfeit bank bills, and one for having, with intent to utter, counterfeit coin; both commenced June term, 1839; fled, not arrested.

People vs. Harlow Glass, having, with intent to utter, counterfeit coin; circuit court; commenced June term, 1839; fled, not arrested.

People vs. Alanson Briggs, having, with intent to utter, counterfeit bills; circuit court; commenced June term, 1839; not arrested, fled the country.

People vs. David A. Woodward, passing fraudulent bills, purporting to be of a bank; circuit court; commenced December term, 1839, determined June term, 1840; acquitted.

People vs. Sandborn Heth, petit larceny; circuit court; commenced December term, 1839, determined June term, 1840; acquitted.

People vs. David A. Woodward, not paying over to successor, school moneys; circuit court; commenced December term, 1839, determined June term, 1840; convicted and fined fifty dollars and costs; execution in hands of sheriff.

People vs. Donald McQueri and Hugh McQueri, grand larceny, stealing oxen; circuit court; commenced December term, 1839, determined December term, 1840; acquitted.

People vs. Patrick Conlisk, grand larceny, stealing three thousand three hundred dollars in bills, in Toledo, Ohio; theft continued into Monroe county, by carrying the money there; circuit court; commenced December term, 1839; in June term of 1840, the authority of Ohio having failed, after four months' notice, to produce a requisition, a nolle prosequi was entered, and Conlisk bound over before a magistrate to appear at December term, 1840, for attempting to break jail, and he was bailed in five hundred dollars, and is out on recognizance, but a requisition is now obtained from Ohio, and orders of the governor to deliver him up.

People vs. William Conlisk, grand larceny; commenced December term, 1839; not arrested.

People vs. Peter D. Labady, perjury; circuit court; commenced December term, 1839, determined December term, 1840; jury did not agree; continued.

People vs. Isaac Bennet, perjury; circuit court; commenced December term, 1839, determined December term, 1840; convicted and sentenced to five years' imprisonment in state penitentiary.

People vs. Arnold Bennet, petit larceny; circuit court; commenced December term, 1839; not arrested, fled.

People vs. Isaac Bennet, attempting to escape from jail; circuit court; commenced December term, 1839, determined December term, 1839; convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment in penitentiary.

People vs. William Conlisk, Michael, sen., Patrick, John and Mary, wife of Michael Conlisk, receiving and concealing stolen property; circuit court; commenced December term, 1839; none arrested but Mary Conlisk; she not tried, the rest fled.

People vs. Charles Ñeddeault, petit larceny; circuit court; commenced December term, 1839; entered into recognizance with surety, and has fled and forfeited the same; nolle prosequi entered.

People vs. John Mulholland, assault and battery; circuit court; commenced December term, 1839; determined December term, 1840; acquitted.

People vs. William O'Connell, petit larceny; circuit court;

commenced December term, 1839, determined same term; acquitted.

People vs. Augustus Amilton, assault and Battery; circuit court; commenced December term, 1839, determined December term, 1839; acquitted.

People vs. John Prentiss, assault and battery; circuit court; commenced December term, 1839; plead guilty, fined ten dollars and costs.

People vs. Nathaniel Graves, perjury, in swearing to preemption claim; circuit court; commenced December term, 1839, determined June term, 1840; nolle prosequi.

I would respectfully suggest the propriety of some legislation in explanation of what the law is, respecting specific taxes on merchants, tavern keepers, &c. Is there any obligation to pay, on the part of the merchant, &c.? If so, to whom must the treasurer pay the money on hand, apply it, &c.? I have the honor to be,

With all respect,

FRANKLIN JOHNSON, Prosecuting Attorney, Monroe county, M.

Monroe, November 15, 1840.

[No. 7.]

Report of the board of regents of the university.

Board of Regents, December 31, 1840.

To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the state of Michigan:

The board of regents of the university of Michigan, respectfully present to the honorable the members of the senate and house of representatives of the state of Michigan, the following report, in obedience to the "Joint resolution relative to the university of Michigan," adopted and approved March 25,

1840:

The resolution requires the board of regents to report to your honorable bodies, at the commencement of their sessions, "if any changes, and what, are necessary to be made in the organic law of the state relative to said university, in order to secure more effectually the objects of the same."

The board of regents, having duly considered this subject, respectfully state that changes are needed, and such as were contemplated in the bill number thirty-six, on the file of the senate, and herewith presented, as containing the views of the board.

The first change in the organic law, deemed essential, is the proper restriction of responsibility to the board of regents. At present the responsibility is divided, and the board would be greatly facilitated in their action, were such amendments made of title twelfth, chapter first, part first of the revised statutes of this state, as would throw entire responsibility on the board, and require them to report their annual proceedings to the legislature.

The second change relates to the trust and management of the funds of the university. Under the existing law, it is impossible for the board to adopt their measures to their means, or to project or execute such plans as the interests of education, the wants of the state, and the resources of the university may demand. The machinery contemplated in title eleven, chapter two, and sections fifteen and sixteen, is too complicated and cumbrous, and the duties imposed on the superintendent of public instruction, in connection with the university, unnecessary and onerous.

Extract from the journal of proceedings of the board of regents of the university of Michigan, at a session of said board, held at the office of the secretary of said board, in Detroit, on the 5th day of January, 1841.

"Mr. Duffield, from the select committee to whom was referred the joint resolution of the legislature of this state, "relative to the university of Michigan," approved March 25, 1840, made a report, (of which the foregoing is a true copy,) which, on motion of justice Whipple, was adopted.

"On like motion, the president, pro tempore, of the board, major Jonathan Kearsley, was instructed to transmit a copy of said report, with the bill accompanying the same, to the presi dent of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives of this state.'

Attest,

A. TEN EYCK,

Secretary Board of Regents, Univ. Mich.

Detroit, January 6, 1841.

[No. 8.]

Special message concerning the five million loan. To the Senate and House of Representatives:

GENTLEMEN-Shortly before the commencement of your >resent session, the state treasurer was enabled to bring to a

close, the negotiations he was instructed to commence, with a view to the more effectual security of the large debt owing to the state by the "Morris canal and banking company." The act of the last legislature, by which this duty was devolved upon the treasurer, was well timed, and wise in its provisions. The trust was of the highest importance; its successful prosecution required great diligence, devoted assiduity, and business talents of a high order. No agent could have been selected in whom all the requisite qualifications were more eminently united, than in the gentleman who has conducted, on the part of Michigan, this negotiation. And I do not hesitate in the opinion, that but for the measures pursued, the state would have suffered the total loss of at least half a million of dollars. Since your session has commenced, report has been made to me of the proceedings of the treasurer, which it gives me great satisfaction to lay before you.

The amount due to the state from the "Morris canal and banking company, and which was in so great jeopardy, is an increasing sum, now amounting, as you will perceive, to about $823,000 00, for the guaranty of which, assignments have been taken, by way of hypothecation, valued at $621,600 00, and which, upon the most reduced calculation, are estimated decidedly good for one half million of dollars. And the very fact of the consummation of this amicable arrangement, seems likely, of itself, by its favorable influence upon the business operations and the reputation of the company, so far to enlarge and strengthen its capacities, as to furnish strong assurance that hereafter all its engagements to the state will be met with promptitude and punctuality.

The report is accompanied by three distinct documents, marked A, B, and C, which I also lay before you. The document marked A, contains the terms of the agreement entered into, in its details. I invite your critical examination of it. The agreement itself, appearing to be clearly sanctioned by the authority and enactments of the "Act to authorize the treasurer of the state to take further security for the five million loan," no further act on your part, would seem necessary, to give it legal efficacy; but you will perceive in it a clause which will render it necessary that provision be made for the selection and appointment of the agent contemplated in the city of New York; and in providing for that appointment, I would recommend that regard be had to the possible contingency, that the agent first appointed may refuse to accept the trust, may die, or that cause may exist for vacating such appointment and making another, during the recess of the legislature. The selection already made by the treasurer, however proper and necessary, would seem ad interim merely, and only to continue until you should have passed upon the matter.