2d. That having accepted such office, they are, by the Constitution of the State of Michigan, disqualified from occupying seats in either House of the Legislature. They therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, That John N. Ingersoll, of Shiawassee county, and Jacob Walton, of Lenawee county, having, since their election as members of the House of the Representatives of Michigan, accepted office under the government of the United States, are thereby disqualified to sit as such representatives in this House, and their seats are hereby declared vacant. JAS. W. ROMEYN, BELA COGSHALL, Minority of Committee on Elections. The report was accepted. Mr. Sanford moved to adopt the resolution reported by the majority of the committee. Mr. Miles moved to amend by adopting the resolution reported by the minority of the committee; Which motion was ruled out of order by the Speaker, on the ground that the majority resolution was simply a motion to indefinitely postpone, which was not susceptible of amendment and must be decided without debate. Mr. W. D. Williams moved to lay the resolution on the table; Which motion did not prevail. Mr. Miles demanded the yeas and nays on the resolution. The demand was seconded and the resolution adopted, by and nays, as follows: yeas MESSAGES FROM THE GOVERNOR. By unanimous consent the Speaker announced the following: EXECUTIVE OFFICE, To the House of Representatives: In compliance with a resolution of your Honorable body, requesting the Governor to furnish the House with any information he may possess relative to the sale of the "Reeder Farm" by the Board of Escheats, I would respectfully reply, that whatever interest the State may have possessed in what is known as the Reeder farm, having been disposed of by the Board of Escheats nearly a year prior to my connection with the State government, and having had no personal knowledge on the subject, or of the fact that such an Escheat was supposed to have occurred, until about the time, or subsequent to the date of its disposal, the information must be mainly from the files and records of the Board. The Reeder farm, so called, is in the township of Springwells, and is supposed to have escheated to the territory of Michigan by the death of Maria Yorke Harvey, (wife of Edwin Reeder) who died in or about the year 1827, leaving a husband, but no heir so far as is known. Reeder, from the decease of his wife-now more than forty years-was in quiet possession of the farm until his death, which occurred within the last year. The property has been sold for taxes a number of times. In 1847 the land was sold for taxes and bid into the State, and by the State sold and deeded as State tax lands in 1859, to Edwin Reeder, the husband of Maria Yorke Harvey Reeder. So far as appears from the files, or records, the attention of the Board of Escheats was first called to the Reeder farm by the Hon. Alfred Russell, who, under date of November 26th, 1866, writes to the Hon. Emil Anneke, Auditor General; Hon. John Owen, State Treasurer; and the Hon. James B. Porter, Secretary of State, composing the then Board of Escheats, that a client of his "wishes to purchase your rights, as trustees, to some lands supposed to have escheated to the State;" that "it is far from certain that the statute of limitations does not bar us, but he is willing to give $1,000 for the rights of the trustees, such as they are." He continues, “much inquiry must be made in England, without any clue at present known, and the result of the inquiries is entirely uncertain, so that you will perceive that it is not a case in which the State is likely even to realize anything except by means of a speculative offer of this kind." On the 24th of December, 1866, Mr. Russell again writes to the Auditor General, and says he has heard from one of the members of the board, favorably, and sends a deed in the form approved by the Attorney General; and says, further, that that officer had examined the facts of the case, and says he shall advise the board to make the conveyance. Mr. Russell's letter of December 24th was received by the board but a few days prior to the expiration of their term of office. The first record under the present Board of Escheats was on the 6th of February, 1867, when it is recorded that a communication and accompanying documents were received from the Hon. Alfred Russell, relative to the Reeder farm, now in possession of Edwin Reeder. The papers were referred to Attorney General Stoughton for his opinion. The next record is on the 28th of August, 1867, when it was ordered that it be referred to the Attorney General, directing him to take steps for placing the State in immediate possession of the premises. The next record is under date of November 28th, 1867, when a communication was received from Walter Crane, in which he says he “knows of a piece of land that, in his opinion, has escheated to the State; he would be willing to buy the interest of the State and pay several thousand dollars; pay one quarter down, and give a mortgage on real estate for the balance." This proposition was referred to the Secretary of State for investigation. On the 17th of March, 1868, John J. Bagley and Moses W. Field made a verbal proposition to the members of the Board, to purchase whatever interest the State might possess in the Reeder farm, offering the sum of $1,500. These parties stated that their sole object in making the proposition was for the purpose of offering the farm to the city of Detroit, at the same price, for a public park; that they would endeavor to interest other citizens of the city in the project, hoping thereby to accomplish the object so greatly to be desired. The members of the Board stated to those gentlemen, that the Board would meet at Lansing on the 1st day of April, when they would be ready to receive and decide upon any propositions before them. On the day appointed (April 1) the Board met at Lansing. The only propositions before it were those of Alfred Russell, of $1,000; the verbal offer of Messrs. Bagley and Field, of $1,500; and that of Walter Crane, of $4,000, $1,000 cash, and $3,000 payable at a future time, with interest, to be secured by satisfactory mortgage on real estate. The Board had also before it the statement of Attorney General Stoughton, that the case was surrounded with difficulties, and was by no means a clear one. After full consultation, Mr. Crane's offer was accepted; he paid the $1,000, and subsequently gave satisfactory mortgage security, to secure the payment of the remaining $3,000 on or before the 1st of April, 1871. On the 7th of April, six days after the Board had accepted the proposition of Mr. Crane, and had received his first payment, Auditor General Humphrey received a letter from Moses W. Field, dated Detroit, April 2, postmarked April 6th, enclosing a letter from J. J. Bagley, Moses W. Field and H. P. Baldwin, making an offer of $1,500 for the Reeder farm, for which amount a check was enclosed, with the proviso, that in case the city of Detroit, after the title should be perfected, should refuse to accept the lands for a public park, and the property should inure to the benefit of the individual purchasers, they would pay to the State the further and additional sum of $3,500. The letter stated the object of the purchase in the following words: "Their sole aim in this purchase is to devote the lands thus acquired for the establishment and maintenance of a public park, to minister, for all time to come, to the pleasure and enjoyment of the citizens of Detroit and Michigan." Mr. Field's letter, and the accompanying papers, were transmitted by the Auditor General to the Secretary of State, that he, as Secretary of the Board, might make the proper reply, which he did by letter under date of April 10th. Although the Board of Escheats, in April, 1868, deeded by quit claim to Mr. Crane, whatever interest the State possessed in the Reeder farm, he has not yet obtained possession. Suit for that purpose was commenced in the Circuit Court for the county of Wayne; the case was heard and judgment given against Mr. Crane; the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, who have ordered a new trial it the Circuit Court. new trial may or may not reverse the former judgment of the court. A |