are taxed on bills of cost in criminal prosecutions, it does not appear, from all the evidence exhibited to your committee, that any considerable sums have been received by the attorney-general, during the long period in which he has exercised that office, from the sheriffs of the respective counties, or the several county treasurers, who have at different periods been charged with the receipt and disbursement of these costs; and it does not appear that any such sums have been received by the solicitorgeneral since his accession to that office; various small sums, amounting to two hundred and forty-six dollars forty-five cents in the whole, so received by the attorney-general, have however at different times been accounted for by him with the government in the course of settlements, as above mentioned. They have examined fully into all the cases wherein any competent evidence has been adduced of particular sums so received, and which it was suggested had not been accounted for. Upon such examination it appears that all such sums have been credited to the commonwealth, and accounted for by the attorney-general, excepting a sum of eighteen dollars, which, by a statement from the treasurer of the county of Worcester, appears to have been received from him before the year 1795. From the short period which the attorney-general has now had to investigate all his pecuniary concerns with the government, as well as from the length of time which has elapsed since the receipt of the aforesaid sum, your committee doubt whether justice requires that the attorney-general should be put to the burthen of revising concerns of so long standing for the sake of correcting a supposed error of so trifling an amount. If, however, upon more leisurely investigation, no evidence should be found of the manner in which that particular sum was accounted for, the attorney-general has at this time no objection to correcting this or any other error which shall appear to have occurred in the course of his settlements, should such investigation be thought by the legislature an object of sufficient importance. Your committee further find that the sums which have been received from the treasurer of the county of Hampshire by the attorney-general, for fees taxed on criminal prosecutions as aforesaid, exceed the amount which he has paid to the government, by a sum of twelve dollars and fifty cents, but which, in justice to the attorney-general, it ought to be observed, has arisen altogether from a former error committed by said treasurer. In the year 1802, the attorney-general had accredited to and accounted with the government for the sum of sixteen dollars and twenty-five cents, as received of said treasurer. In June, 1806, he exhibited to the committee of this house, appointed to adjust and settle his accounts, a further credit of one hundred and ninety-eight dollars and ninety cents, as received from said treasurer, which added to the sum so before credited, amounted to two hundred fifteen dollars and fifteen cents in the whole; which he con

sidered himself liable to account for with the government. At the time of the last mentioned settlement, a detailed statement of all sums said to have been received from said treasurer, on that account, was laid before the committee by one of its members; which statement was certified as a just and true one, under the hand of said treasurer, and amounting to only the sum of two hundred and two dollars; an amount less than that which had been credited to the government by the attorney-general by the sum of thirteen dollars and fifty cents. Upon a view of this certificate, and relying upon the superior accuracy of its details, the attorney-general, at the suggestion of the committee, varied and reduced the sum which he had thus credited, so as to conform the same to the amount certified by said treasurer. By a subsequent statement, said to be taken from the books of said treasurer, it now appears that his former statement was incorrect; and that the credit which had been at first given by the attorney-general was correct, and conformable to the statement now exhibited from the office of said treasurer. It therefore results that if any error has intervened in the premises, it has been occasioned solely by the erroneous certificate of said treasurer, as above mentioned, and not from the error of the attorney-general. By the certificate of the treasurer of the commonwealth, it appears that there is no account remaining in the office of said treasurer of any sums there paid by the attorney-general, in his said capacity, between the years 1790 and 1795.

There is one further transaction, which has been made a subject of inquiry by your committee, and which it is deemed material to state and explain, as, from the form which it assumes on the records of the government, it has been exposed to much misconstruction.

In the month of June, 1801, John C. Hauff, consul from the king of Sweden, resident in the United States, preferred his petition to the legislature of this commonwealth, stating that one Elias Norberg, a native of Sweden, had deceased in this state, leaving personal estate to a large amount in the hands of Ebenezer Dorr, of Boston, who had administered thereon; and that said Norberg had heirs in his native country legally entitled thereto, but who were unable at that time to pursue and establish their said claim; and praying the aid of government for the purpose of compelling the said Dorr to pay the same into the treasury of the commonwealth, there to be kept for the benefit and use of said heirs, whenever they should so establish their claims. Upon which petition a resolve of the general court passed, authorizing the attorney-general to take such measures as he might think proper to procure the amount of such estate, to be paid into the treasury, and there retained until some person should appear, legally entitled to receive the same. Pursuant to this resolve, it appears that the attorney-general did, after a protracted series of trials in the inferior and superior courts of probate, procure a decree that the

proceeds of said estate, amounting to more than eight thousand dollars, should be paid into said treasury, deducting first the expenses of administration, together with the costs of said attorney-general, amounting to two hundred and three dollars, in the procuring of said decree, as the same were allowed by said judge of probate, with the consent of said consul. The aforesaid sum has since been paid into said treasury, accordingly, and by a subsequent resolve of the general court is ordered to be paid to the heirs of said Norberg, whenever they shall establish their claims thereto in the manner pointed out by said resolve. So that this commonwealth can have no interest at all therein, except through a total failure of heirs on the part of said Norberg, who, as appears by official documents, have already established their title in the judicial courts of Sweden, and the necessary evidence to confirm it here is soon expected by said consul. It appears, therefore, that this commonwealth have ever been considered as only the trustees for the heirs of the said Norberg, for the sake of affording them a safe deposit for their property; that although said process was conducted in the name of the government, yet that name was permitted to be used merely from motives of courtesy to the agent of a foreign government, and was conducted entirely under his direction and advice; and that, as the attorney-general received said two hundred dollars by the express allowance of said consul, acting as the agent for those who are alone eventually interested therein, his receipt thereof was strictly proper, and his right to retain it cannot with propriety be questioned.

Upon a view of the whole subject, your committee ask leave to report, as the result of their inquiries, that there does not appear to be any reason for supposing that any public moneys have at any time been intentionally or improperly withheld from the government, either by the attorney or solicitor general, since their acceptance of these offices; and that, if any errors have occurred in the course of their accounting with the various departments of government, they are probably of inconsiderable amount, and as few as might reasonably be expected in so long a period, and in relation to concerns so various and extensive.

All which is respectfully submitted.

WM. KING, per order.

The investigating committee had the above subject before them from the twelfth to the twenty-fourth of February, when they offered their report. It was then read and laid on the table for inspection. On the twenty-sixth its consideration was entered on by the house, and, after mature discussion, was accepted, one hundred and one being for, and fifty-one against it.

INDEX.

Dana, Francis, 130, 162, 184. 218, 350; II. 63, Glover, General, 69.

Dearborn, Henry, II. 88, 110, 122, 130, 192, Greene, Nathaniel, 56.