Resolved by the House (the Senate concurring), That the lands situated in Roscommon and Crawford counties, withdrawn from sale and homestead entry by the Commissioner of the State Land Office in accordance with the provisions of Act 227 of the Session Laws of 1899, be permanently withheld from sale and homestead entry, and that such lands be and are hereby set aside as a forest reserve and placed under the direction and control of the Forestry Commission;

Respectfully report that they have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report the same back to the Senate, and recommend that it be adopted, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

GEO. W. MOORE,

Chairman. The report was accepted and the committee discharged. The question being on concurring in the adoption of the resolution, The resolution was adopted.

REPORTS OF SELECT COMMITTEES.

By the committee appointed to investigate the accounts and conduct of the office of the State Game and Fish Warden:

The Committee on Gaming Interests heretofore directed to investigate the accounts and expenses of the department of the Game and Fish Warden and report the result thereof to the Senate, respectfully submit the following report:

First, Careful investigation of the matters connected with the Game and Fish department has been made so far as time would permit and in the judgment of the committee was necessary, acting in conjunction with the special committee appointed from the House. The purpose of the investigation has been to discover what abuses, if any, exist in this department under the present law and what deficiencies, if any, should be remedied and to prevent the occurrence in the future of any such abuses and remedy any such deficiencies as in the judgment of the committee might be necessary for the good of the department and of the State generally.

Second, The committee have examined and had before them Grant M. Morse, his chief deputy and clerk and several other witnesses. Two hundred and thirty typewritten pages of testimony were taken and the books and monthly expenses of the warden and his several deputies have been carefully examined and considered.

Third, The expenses of the department are shown by the monthly reports on file in the office of the Auditor General and such expenses are there given in detail and we find that these expenses exceed the expense of conducting the department to a large extent during the incumbency of any of the predecessors of the present Game Warden.

Fourth, From the reports upon file we find that the total expense account of Game Warden Morse for the year ending December 31, 1900, on file with the Auditor General show that the several sums have been allowed him for the purposes set forth:

The expense account of Chief Deputy Charles E. Brewster, for the same period of time, shows the following totals:

Railroad fare

$674 54

Which computed at the rate of two cents per mile, which he testified he charged the State, would indicate that he must have traveled during the year, 33,726 miles, making an average of 92 miles per day for each of the three hundred and sixty-five days of the year.

We also find from his bills presented that he made 389 trips on the railroads, rode in bus 387 times, and charged for use of parlor or chair car 182 times, making his expense account amount to $11.50 for every work day in the year. The accounts of some of the other deputies show practically the same class of bills. The increased expense of the office may be accounted for in a greater or less degree by the increased burdens for the enforcement of the commercial fishing laws, etc., imposed by new Acts of the Legislature, and in addition to this the demand for protection, necessitated by an increased population and the great increase in the numbers, not only from our own State but sister states who frequent our trout streams and enjoy our fishing privileges, and as well our forests and fields to enjoy hunting, which is made possible by this protective system. The enforcement of our commercial fishing laws, which certainly inures to the benefit of the whole people of the State, in that it is the only means of assuring to them the perpetuation of the supply of food fishes, could only be had through the enforcement of the same, must as it appears to the committee, have considerable to do with the additional expense of the department for the past year. The first close season law was passed in 1897, but very little was done however in its enforcement, for the reason that action was taken by the com

mercial fishermen by injunction proceedings restraining the warden from enforcement of the law, and before this was decided the close season was at an end. The Legislature of 1899, however, made provision that the whitefish and trout spawn for artificial propagation might be taken by the U. S. Fish Commission during the close season and requiring it to be done under the supervision and control of the Fish and Game department. This Legislature also prohibited certain species of immature fish to be taken in any species of nets in use by commercial fishermen. The enforcement of this law necessarily required. continual investigation and work by the department and moreover, the protection of the inland trout streams have all had a tendency to increase the work of the department, more or less. As it will be seen by the Game Warden's report for 1889 and 1900 which was before the committee and is as follows: "This department was created in 1887, and the Hon. William Alden Smith was appointed the first warden. It will, perhaps, be interesting to show the increase in the work from year to year since that time. For the years 1887 and 1888, there were 325 convictions, 54 acquittals, 8 dismissals, and $4,172.38 collected in fines and costs. For the years 1889 and 1890, 164 convictions were secured, with 59 acquittals and 9 dismissals, and $1,991.53 collected in fines and costs. In 1891 and 1892, 213 convictions were secured, 34 acquittals and 17 dismissals, and $2,568.00 collected in fines and costs. In 1893 and 1894 there were 316 convictions, 122 acquittals and 62 dismissals, and $4,706.00 collected in fines and costs. In 1895 and 1896 there were 814 convictions, 122 acquittals and 62 dismissals while $12,831.33 were collected in fines and costs. In 1897 and 1898, 876 convictions were made, 57 acquittals, 102 dismissals and $12,414.18 imposed in fines and costs. In 1899 and 1900 there were 1,125 convictions secured, 49 acquittals, 108 dismissals, with a total of $14,149.20 imposed in fines and costs. While it will be seen that there has been a gradual increase, not only in the number of cases handled, but in the amount of fines and costs collected, it must be borne in mind that the population of our State has very materially increased within the period of comparison, and furthermore, the percentage of hunters and fishermen to the whole population of the State as compared with 1887, we must all admit, has very materially increased. This being a fact, we conclude that although the number of cases handled and convictions made have increased from year to year, the percentage of violations as compared with the whole population has decreased, and this decrease we attribute to the gradual change of sentiment for the better observance of these laws." The testimony further shows that during Warden Osborne's time in office, covering a period of two years, there were 770 cases started, while during the two years Warden Morse has been in office there have been 1,419. The monthly expense under Osborne averaged $500.18 while under Morse it averaged $1,417.75. The present Warden's increased expenses may be largely accounted for by reason of changing the laws in 1899.

First, By the adding of a special deputy and a chief deputy and their salaries.

Second, The increase of the Warden's salary from $1,200 to $2,000 per year.

We believe, however, that while no evidence exists of malappropria

tion of public funds, that too little effort has been made by the department to reduce the expenses to the smallest available amount. The number of trips made by both the Game Warden and his chief deputy to large cities about the State and elsewhere, the fact that the most luxurious traveling conveniences are exercised and the best hotels patronized in all cases would indicate that the matter of economy is not considered in the transaction of public business.

Fifth, We find from the report from the Fish and Game Warden for the year 1900, filed in the office of the Secretary of State, that $6,000 worth of property as appraised by the Deputy Warden, was seized by the Warden and his deputies, but from personal investigation we are led to believe that this property was appraised much beyond its true value. From these reports we can find nothing to show the final disposition of this property, nor has the proceeds of such property been turned into the State treasury. The money accruing from its sale has not been accounted for in any expense account or voucher forming a part of the Warden's official report or other record of his office. From an account produced by Mr. Morse and kept by him in a private book, we learned that $1,300 worth of this property, consisting principally of fish nets, had been sold and money to a like amount realized therefrom. The only manner of disposing of this fund we could discover was gained from the testimony of Mr. Morse himself who testified that $1,000 of it had been used in hiring boats and paying the salaries and expenses of special deputies, $300 of it being still on hand. In this connection your committee would say that the present law relative to property confiscated is in no sense explicit. It leaves it entirely to the Warden to dispose of it as he sees fit and use the money received therefrom as he may deem proper and not making it compulsory to render any account to the State. We think, however, in the absence of such law, the Game Warden should keep a correct and detailed account of all goods confiscated and all money received from the sale thereof, and that the same should be in his office and open to the public.

The committee in view of the evidence taken and conclusions reached would recommend the following:

First, There ought to be, as a matter of protection to the department and the State, a better method of bookkeeping inaugurated by the department, and there ought also to be certain amendments to the law which would require a disposition of certain money received in a different method than is now employed and the committee would suggest that the law be amended in these particulars.

(a.) That the Game Warden be required in his public record to keep a record of the sales and disposition of moneys derived from the sale of confiscated property and that this money be turned into the State Treasury to the credit of the protection fund, and paid out only by warrants issued by the Auditor General.

(b.) That justices of the peace and other courts before whom prosecutions are conducted be required to report at the close of each case to the Game Warden the disposition of the case, the names of the witnesses, the amount of tines and costs imposed and the amount collected, and such other memorandum as will show the full history and the final disposition of the matter.

Second, The official records of the department should show the re

ceipt of any and all property coming into the hands of the department, the disposition of the same and to whom, the amount of moneys received and no moneys should be paid out by the Game Warden for any purpose except upon the warrant of the Auditor General and all money hereafter derived from any source should be turned over to the State Treasury to the credit of the protection fund.

Third, That there should be practiced by the department the greatest degree of economy practicable to a thorough enforcement of the laws relative to the protection of the game and fishing interests. All of which the committee respectfully report.

F. L. WESTOVER.
GEO. E. NICHOLS.
JOHN BAIRD.

J. O. MURFIN.

I concur in the foregoing report but believing the law creating the office of chief deputy for this department is unwise and unnecessary owing to the great expense to the State and, in my opinion the slight, if any, benefits derived therefrom I would further recommend that said office be discontinued.

The report was adopted.

By unanimous consent,

A. W. WEEKES.

Mr. Weekes moved that a respectful message be sent to the House, asking the return to the Senate of

House bill No. 1035 (file No. 113), entitled

A bill to provide for the holding of primaries in the County of Kent, and to punish frauds thereat, and by delegates elected thereat, and the corruption and attempted corruption of such delegates.

The motion prevailed.

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE.

The following message from the House was received and read: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Lansing, May 28, 1901.

To the President of the Senate:

Sir-I am instructed by the House to transmit the following bill: House bill No. 1354 (file No. 311), By Mr. Bland, entitled

A bill to authorize the City of Detroit to construct and maintain an additional bridge or bridges over the American channel of the Detroit river;

Which has passed the House by a majority vote of all the members elect, and in which the concurrence of the Senate is respectfully asked. Very respectfully,

LEWIS M. MILLER.

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

The bill was read a first and second time by its title and, pending its reference to a committee,

Mr. Holmes moved that the rules be suspended, and that the bill be placed on its immediate passage.