576 



MICHIGAN. 



by Andrew Ho well, to supply State and local 

 officials. The bill was opposed as a violation of 

 section 15 of Article XVIII of the Constitution, 

 which prescribes the method to be pursued in 

 compiling the laws; the appointment of a com- 

 piler by the two Houses, in joint convention; 

 the approval of his work by two commissioners 

 appointed by the Governor; and the printing "in 

 such manner as shall be prescribed bylaw." The 

 friends of the bill claimed that the State could 

 purchase a compilation as it could any other 

 book or books ; that the compilation in ques- 

 tion was a superior work, and that, therefore, 

 no reprint of the general laws was necessary 

 within the meaning of the cited section. The 

 bill passed the Senate without discussion, and 

 almost unanimously. The opposition in the 

 House was severe and prolonged, but tbe bill 

 was passed by a small majority. It was vetoed 

 by the Governor as unconstitutional, though 

 the Attorney-General of the State and many 

 of the leading members of the bar had given 

 written opinions holding it constitutional. The 

 Senate promptly passed it over the veto ; but 

 the House laid the bill and veto-message on 

 the table. Another bill was prepared, with a 

 view to overcome the Governor's objections to 

 some of the details, passed by both Houses, and 

 again vetoed. So the vexed question will come 

 up again at the next regular session. 



2. A bill to confirm the action of the board 

 of control of railroad lands, conferring certain 

 lands, rights, franchises, powers, and privileges 

 upon the Ontonagon and Brule River Railroad 

 Company. The lands in question were granted 

 by Congress in 1856, to aid in the construction 

 of a railroad from Ontonagon to the Wisconsin 

 State line, and conferred by the State in 1857 

 upon the Ontonagon and State-Line Railroad 

 Company. The time named in the original 

 grant for the construction of the road expired 

 many years ago, but Congress had taken no 

 steos to declare the grant forfeited. The oppo- 

 nents of the bill held that the grant was for- 

 feited years ago by non-compliance with its 

 terras ; that bonafide purchasers of large tracts 

 of lands had acquired interests that could not 

 be legislated away; and that homesteaders on 

 the lands would be wronged if exception was 

 not made in the bill in their favor. The Lake 

 Superior Canal and Iron Company, which had 

 located valuable lands within the territory cov- 

 ered by the railroad grant, under the canal 

 grant to which it had succeeded, joined per- 

 sistently in the fight against the bill. The 

 friends of the bill contended that no forfeiture 

 could be had without the action of Congress, 

 and cited decisions of the United States and 

 State courts in defense of that position; that 

 the sales made and patents-issued were without 

 warrant of law, the title having been all the 

 time in the State ; and that there were no bona 

 fide homesteaders on the lands. The discussion 

 belbre the committee and also in the sessions 

 were prolonged and heated, and charges of 

 bribery and corruption were exchanged be- 



tween the contestants. The bill finally passed 

 the House by a vote of 69 to 23 two more 

 than the necessary two thirds ; and the Senate 

 by a vote of 23 to 8 a single spare vote.* The 

 bill was approved by the Governor, and the 

 company named has already constructed and 

 put in operation twenty miles of road. Bills 

 are now pending in Congress to declare the 

 grant, with other old railroad grants, forfeited. 



3. A bill to authorize the incorporation of 

 companies for the construction of union depots. 

 Though a general act, it had a special purpose 

 the erection of a union depot at Detroit. The 

 bill, as at first presented, met decided opposi- 

 tion in certain railroad quarters, but a com- 

 promise was finally agreed upon, and an amend- 

 ed bill was passed into a law. 



The election of United States Senator for the 

 full term of six years, from the 4th day of 

 March, 1881, took place on Tuesday, January 

 18th, and the vote in each House was as fol- 

 lows: 



In the Republican caucus held the week pre- 

 ceding the election a spirited contest was had, 

 the candidates being ex-Governor Henry P. 

 Baldwin, successor to the deceased Senator 

 Zachariah Chandler, by appointment by the 

 Governor ; ex-Governor John J. Bagley, and 

 Hon. O. D. Conger, then just closing his sixth 

 successive term as Representative in Congress, 

 and who, at the preceding November election, 

 had been the successful candidate for a seventh 

 term. After several ballots the name of ex- 

 Governor Baldwin was withdrawn, when Mr. 

 Conger received the nomination by a majority 

 of one vote. On the same day Senator Bald'- 

 win, by a vote of 29 in the Senate, and 84 in 

 the House, was elected for the term ending 

 March 4, 1881, his own successor. The vote 

 of the Democratic Senators was equally di- 

 vided, one of them voting for Hon. Orlando 

 M. Barnes, and the other giving his vote to 

 the Republican candidate. The 13 Democratic 

 votes in the House were given to Hon. George 

 P. Sanford. 



An election was held on the first Monday of 



* On the day of this vote the legislative correspondent 

 of the Detroit "Post and Tribune" wrote : " Thus ended 

 the severest and most prolonged contest of this or any recent 

 session. Not a stone was left unturned by the friends or foes 

 of the bill, and pressure was brought to bear from even- di- 

 rection upon Senators and Representatives from members of 

 Congress familiar with the legislation attempted last winter 

 at Washington, and from constituents at home who can not 

 be supposed to have better knowledge of the merits of the 

 bill than the Senators or Representatives whom they at- 

 tempted to instruct. Only to-day one Senator received about 

 half a dozen telegrams from his constituents advising him of 

 the views of his friends and political partisans. The pnssaeo 

 of the bill certainly can not be styled hasty or ill-considered 

 legislation. Your correspondent takes no stock in the charges 

 that votes have been bought and sold. The defeated parties 

 interested ia the bill have the courts open to them if the bill 

 interferes with their legal rights." 



