REPORT.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,

MADISON, January 1, 1855.

TO HIS EXCELLENOY, WM. A. BARSTOW,

Governor of the State of Wisconsin:

The law does not require the Attorney General to make an annual report, either to the Executive or to the Legislature, but the last clause of section 39, page 87 of the Revised Statutes provides that he shall report to the Legislature, or either branch thereof, whenever requested upon any business pertaining to the duties of his office."

No such request has ever been made by the Legislature, and no report has been made by either of my predecessors in office. I have, however, thought it my duty, at this time, to submit to you a brief account of the law transactions of the State, during the past year that you might lay the same before the Legis'ature, or in some way call the matters herein stated to the attention of that body, should you deem it advisable to do so.

On the 18th day of December, 1852, David T. Dixon, the contractor for the State printing in year 1848, filed his petition in the supreme court, following the provisions of "an act to direct in what manner and in what courts suits may be brought against the State, approved February 9, 1850, in which he claimed damages against the State in the sum of five thousand dollars, in consequence of

the refusal of the Legislature to allow him to print the Revised Statutes of 1849, the same which was printed by C. L. Sholes, and of their refusal to give him the German and other printing in foreign languages, ordered by them; and for the refusal of the Secretary of State to furnish him with all the printing of the State Departments, including school land blanks.

This claim had previously been presented to the Legislature, and disallowed.

On the 2nd day of January last, when I entered upon the discharge of the duties of this office, the case above mentioned was on the docket of the Supreme Court, undisposed of, and even the pleadings necessary to bring it to an issue were not perfected, and my first connection with the case was to resist a motion for judgment against the State, for the want of proper pleadings. This motion was denied by the court, accompanied, however, with an order that all of the pleadings should be stricken from the files; and that the Attorney General should file an answer to the petition on a day named in the order. The answer was filed accordingly. It was a demurrer to that part relating to the Revised Starutes, and printing in foreign languages, and a general denial of the other matters set up in the petition. The answer is now on file in Supreme Court, to which I refer for a better and more complete understanding of the merits of the case.

My predecessor had filed and argued a general demurrer to the petition, which was overruled: but in overruling this demurrer, the court decided that Mr. Dixon, was not entitled to print the revised statutes under his contract. This decision being made, the counsel for the petitioner discontinued his suit against the state, and the costs of the proceeding have been taxed to him and will be paid or reimbursed to the state, having already been paid by the state to the clerk of that court.

Thus this matter which so long occupied public attention, and the attention of the legislature and the court was disposed of, and the conduct of the legislature and public officers most fully vindi.cated.

Under the law above referred to, John A. Brown, filed his petition in the supreme court, on the eighth day of July 1854, alleging that the state was indebted to him in the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars, for services rendered by order of the Legislature du ring the impeachment trial of Levi Hubbell.

To this petition, I have filed the plea of the general issue, and the case is ready for a hearing at the present term of the supreme

court.

The fact that Mr. Brown, rendered services in that case for the state, cannot be controverted, and I would suggest, in view of this fact, that the legislature shall reconsider his account, and allow what is justly due, and thus avoid the trial of a suit, which will be likely to result in his favor, and finally, in some legislative action to pay the judgment which he may obtain.

Two other suits have been commenced against the state, at the present term of the supreme court, one by Hugh McFarlane, and one by Richard F. Veeder, both for an alleged claim against the state for work done on the Fox and Wisconsin river improvement, in building bridges across the canal at Portage, while that work was under the supervision of the state. The whole amount claimed by both is $1,480,30.

Each aleges in his petition that he has demanded pay from the improvement company, and that they have refused to pay.

I have notice of several other suits, of the like character, which may be commenced against the state,

Section 5 of the act incorporating the Fox and Wisconsin river improvement company provides, that "in all proceedings against the state for damages or other claims on account of said improvement, the award or decree of which, by the terms of this act, would have to be paid by the Fox and Wisconsin river improvement company hereby incorporated; the said company shall be made a party to said suit and shall have all the rights and privileges of a defendant therein.

This section is imperfect in this, that it provides no way for

making that company a party. The law authorizing suits to be com menced against the State has provided specifically that the "complainant within ten days after having filed said petition or bill, and said bond, shall serve a true copy of said petition, or bill, upon the Attorney General of the State," &c. But, there is no way provided for notifying this company of the commencement of such suits or for bringing them into Court.

The law should be amended in this particular, and the company should have the entire management of the defense of all such suits inasmuch as they are to pay "all outstanding evidences of indebtedness on the part of the States &c.," issued on account of the said improvement," &c., "and to save the State harmless from any and all liabilities in any wise arising on or growing out of said improvement, &c.

This amendment should at least be made, and I would suggest to the Legislature the propriety of enacting a law, by which persons, having claims against the State on account of that improvement should be authorized and required to bring suits directly against the company.

The company can better attend to the defense of such suits; and, under the circumstances, it would seem that the State ought not to be troubled with such litigation.

The whole number of criminal cases now on the calendar of the Supreme Court is thirty three, and the most of these cases will, doubtless, be disposed of at this term. Twenty new cases have occurred during the present year. Of the thirty-three cases named, the State is directly interested in only twenty five, the balance being cases in which the name of the State is used, but which are matters of private interest.

In nearly all of the criminal causes, whether against the State, the costs are paid by the State.

decided for or During the last

year there was appropriated by the Legislature on this account about two hundred and fifty dollars, ($250 00) and about the same amount in the year 1853, and judging from the amount of business

now on the calendar, and the probable increase of business, I would estimate the amount to be paid on this account during the year 1855, at about five hundred dollars.

There are one or two other cases pending in which the State is interested, which, when they are disposed of, will be reported to you or to the Legislature.

Very respectfully,

Your Ob't Serv't,

GEO. B. SMITH,

Attorney General.