ceeded to an examination and appraisal of the premises; the result of which was, that in the Kalamazoo land district, we allowed thirty claims and rejected sixteen. Of the claims allowed on the Niles reserve, twenty-seven were on university land, including four thousand one hundred and twenty-three and eighty-three hundredths acres; which was appraised at twenty-six thousand four hundred and ninety-two dollars and seventy-one cents, or at an average valuation of six dollars and forty-two cents per acre. On the same reserve, five claims were allowed on state building land, including five hundred and forty-four and sixty-six hundredths acres; which was appraised at five thousand five hundred and thirty-six dollars and eighty-three cents, or at an average valuation of ten dollars per acre. On Nottawasseppce reserve, six claims were allowed on university land, including nine hundred and thirty-seven and thirty-five hundredths acres, which was appraised at six thousand three hundred and seventy-eight dollars and eighty cents, or at an average valuation of six dollars and eighty cents per acre. On the first Monday of June last, we met at the village of Grand Rapids, in the county of Kent, and commenced the examination of claimants in the Ionia land district. After an examination of all the claimants in that district, we proceeded to the examination and appraisal of the premises; the result of which was, that thirteen claims were allowed and fifteen rejected. Of the claims allowed in this district, nine were on university land, including one thousand one hundred and twenty-six and seventy-three hundredths acres; which was appraised at eight thousand five hundred six dollars eleven cents, or at an average valuation of seven dollars and fifty-five cents per acre. Four claims in this district were allowed on state building land, including four hundred and one acres; which was appraised at four thousand two hundred and seventy dollars and forty-five cents, or at an average valuation of five dollars and sixty-six cents per acre. Amount of university lands allowed in Kalamazoo land district, Amounting in all to Amount of state building lands allowed in Kalamazoo land district, Carried forward, 5,061,100 1,126, A difficulty arose in the Ionia land district, growing out of a difference of opinion between the settlers and commissioners, as to what constituted a "legal subdivision" of the land; but by reference to the officers of the land office, the question was settled agreeably to the original views of the commissioners, which so materially changed the nature of several claims, as to deprive the claimants of any right under the law, which might have been granted, had the question been settled agreeably to their understanding. Several applications were made by settlers, who, in the opinion of the commissioners, were as equitably entitled to their claims as any whose claims were allowed, but who were deprived of them by some legal impediment. Some had purchased of former occupants, and paid a valuable consideration for their possession and improvements, but did not become "settlers" or residents upon the land, until subsequent to its location by the state. When such purchases and settlements were made in good faith, and without any knowledge that the agents of the state had or intended to enter the land, the occupants, in the opinion of the commissioners, are as well deserving of legislative consideration, as any who come within the letter and meaning of the law. Several applications were made by those whose dwelling and improvements were separated by a line of lots, they were not residents on the land claimed, aud consequently could not come within the meaning of the law. We are of opinion that such cases are deserving of legislative consideration, and that the same rights be granted to them that have been granted to others. We were much disappointed in the quality and value of the university and state lands; much of it is of an inferior quality, and, in our opinion, its location by the state agent, was extremely injudicious. And we must suppose that either he was ignorant of its quality and trusted to the representations of others, or that he must have made some mistake in his return to the land office. Our appraisals of the land varied from two to twenty dollars per acre. We had no other standard upon which to fix a value for this land, than the general valuation of similar lands through those sections of the state. This we endeavored to ascertain by every means within our reach, and adopted the highest valuation as our standard. Respectfully, your obedient servants, December 23, 1840. The statements required by the law to be made by the commissioners, and transmitted to the clerks of the counties of Berrien and Kent, and to the auditor general and superintendent of public instruction, respectively, were duly made and transmitted to those respective officers agreeable to the requirements of the law, immediately after the examinations and determinations of the commissioners were concluded. (Which fact was inadvertently omitted to be stated in the foregoing report.) G. W. JERMAIN, Report of Commissioners to locate the seat of justice of Branch county, 1840. Know all men by these presents, that whereas, we, the undersigned, a majority of the commissioners, having been appointed by his excellency the governor of the state of Michigan, commissioners to locate the seat of justice in and for the county of Branch, in said state of Michigan, after having been first duly sworn, and having proceeded to the performance of the duties assigned to us, by the examination of various places and points in said county, on the 11th day of May, A. D. 1840, and having all the arguments brought forward by the inhabitants of said county, for and against certain points, for the location, have finally come to the conclusion, and do finally determine, adjudge and agree to establish said county seat of Branch county, at Branch, between section thirty (30) and nineteen, (19,) in township six, (6,) range six (6) west, eighty rods from the town line eastwardly, it being at the same place or spot, and under the same restrictions and conditions that the same was heretofore located by commissioners O'Keeffe, Rowland and Disbrow. And that our decision was made up without fear, favor or affection, we being both strangers to the people of the county, Vol. I. 8 and even to each other; and our decision cannot be questioned by any disinterested or impartial person, but what it was made for the good of the county eventually. And we would further state, that the following are some of the most permanent reasons that brought us to this conclu sion: 1. That it is the nearest point to the geographical centre of said county, being only three-fourths of one mile from said cen tre. 2. That the water power at Branch is far better, and capable of being used more extensively than at any other point shown us.. 3. That from the situation and elevation of the place and the country around it, together with the quality of the soil at Branch, we considered, and even it was admitted to us by all hands that the health of the place was far better than at Cold water. 4. That it was stated to us by the people of Coldwater and Branch, that that part of the county immediately in the vicinity of Branch was equally as good as any other part of said county, and as susceptible of being improved by the farmers as any other part of the county, and, as we judged, would very soon be the best and most populated and richest part of the county. 5. That we were satisfied that improper means had been used to get the people to sign a petition for the removal of said county seat. 6. That it was admitted by at least one, and we think two, of the county commissioners, both before and after our decision was known, that the location at Branch would meet the views of a majority of the citizens of said county, notwithstanding the petition that had been circulated through the county for its removal. 7. That it would not, in our opinion, be right and just to all men, for us to exercise our judgment to the ruin of one and the advantage of another, unless there were some very substantial and undoubted reason for so doing. 8. And that the only substantial reason, in our opinion, that was urged, or could be urged, in favor of its removal to Coldwater, was because the turnpike road run through the village of Coldwater, and not through the village of Branch, and at present it is more populated and better prepared to accommodate those that necessarily have to attend courts. Given under our hands and seals, this twelfth day of May, 1840. WILLIAM STODDARD, Minority report. His excellency WILLIAM WOODBRIDGE, Governor of Michigan: The undersigned, one of the commissioners appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, under the act of the legislature, entitled "An act to vacate the seat of justice of the county of Branch, and to establish the same," approved March 16, 1840, having come to a different conclusion in the premises from that of a majority of the commissioners appointed under said act, which seems to contemplate the unanimous action of the commissioners in order to effect the design of the law, begs leave to submit his views, and the reasons therefor, in a separate report. The commissioners appointed under said act, met at the village of Branch, on the eleventh day of May last, pursuant to their own appointment; and provision having been made by the citizens of the county for defraying their expenses, the commissioners proceeded to examine such places as were pointed out to them as being suitable for the location of the seat of justice for the county. After having made such examination, and having heard such arguments as were offered in favor of the different sites proposed, two of the commissioners were of opinion that the central position of the village of Branch, and the water power in its vicinity, offered advantages of convenience and fitness to the interest of the inhabitants of the county, superior to any other site proposed, and were, therefore, in favor of retaining the present location of the county seat, which is at the village of Branch. In this opinion and result, the undersigned could not concur. He is decidedly in favor of securing to the greatest number of persons, the largest convenience and accommodation; but for this precise reason, he is satisfied that the village of Branch should not be the point selected. However spacious in theory the idea of a geographical centre may be, for the accommodation of the citizens of a county, it is found often practically delusive. Nature itself is frequently adverse to it, and the location of the great roads and thoroughfares through the state, commonly changes the centre of business and population, and diverts it from the geographical centre of the county. The undersigned is of the opinion, that in the selection of a county seat, some regard should be had to the convenience and interests of the citizens of other portions of the county, holding property or having business in the county. It often becomes desirable and necessary for persons traveling through the state, to examine the files and records of the counties through which they pass; and many other considerations of convenience and advantage to the traveler, and to the officers of the county, |