Mr. MUNSELL moved that the House do now take up for consideration the Resolution for an inquiry into the conduct of Canal Commissioners at Lockport. Mr. M. said that as a friend of the work he had moved an amendment on a former day that the proposed inquiry should be entered into without delay; he did not think the House could know it too soon if the allegations were true; it appeared to him that the House was called upon to take up the Resolution and dispose of it in some shape or other. It was due both to the officers themselves as well as to the State that an investigation should be made immediately. He thought it should be had here and not at Lockport.

Mr. MURPHY of Cook gave credit to the gentleman who had just sat down for his candour it appeared to him that the only difference between them was as to time; the gentleman wished the enquiry to be immediate. Mr. M. on the other hand thought that to be impossible if the enquiry was intented to be effective and full.

Mr. M. stated that the documents and papers were so voluminous that it would require a span of horses to draw them; there would also be numerous witnesses on both sides whom it would be necessary to bring here. If the Committee were to proceed to Lockport to prosecute the inquiry they would obtain information there which could not be had here. Mr. M. did not appear in this case as the accuser of the Commissioners, he only represented the wishes of his constituents. Mr. M. would propose to change the wording of his Resolution so as to read that the Committee should report to the Governor and not to the next Legislature.

Mr. MUNSELL would appeal to the justice of the House to have the enquiry made without delay, all that he had heard proved the necessity of doing so. The officers charged by the constituents of the gentleman from cook were highminded and honorable men, it was due to them that these voluminous charges should not be kept hanging over them. Mr. M. concluded by deprecating the course proposed of reporting at a time when there would be no tribunal to take up the business until two years to come.

Mr. McCLERNAND was not prepared to give an opinion until he saw the report.

The gentleman from Edgar seemed to him to go upon an assumption which was not true in fact he urged the enquiry to be made at this session. Mr. McC. was satisfied that it would not be practicable for a committee to go to Lockport and report in time for the action of this legislature. He would support the gentleman from Cook on these grounds, not that he was adverse to the proposition of the gentleman from Edgar.

Mr. LEARY thought it was not possible to make the investigation at this time. It would be necessary for the Commissioners to be present at the enquiry, and they were not now at Lockport, and would not be there this session. He wished for an impartial candid and thorough investigation. The gentleman from Edgar seemed to think that the committee would report them gently of the charges. This was not what he expected, he hoped their chances were equally balanced.

(Mr. Munsell briefly explained.)

Mr. L. concluded by observing that having heard the opinion of the gentleman who had been Treasurer of the board, that the enquiry could not possibly be made here immediately, he should vote for the Resolution as it now stood.

Mr. ARCHER said that having been an acting Commissioner he was interested in desiring this investigation; he called for it, he demanded it, from 1836 up to this moment. He had no fears, he was convinced the commissioners had none, he wished the investigation to be made this session.

Mr. LINCOLN rose only for information he wished to know from some other gentleman what time the investigation would take, if it could be made in time he should go for it; if it could not, it was useless to undertake it.

Mr. LEARY said there would be sufficient time if it were to be only an examination of records, but the complaints from persons of high standing were so numerous that the time consumed would be great.

Mr. HENDERSON thought that as this was a National work, or carrying on which the General government supplied the means, if it were true that in the contract for lime alone so many thousands had been wasted the investigation ought to be made immediately. If it was necessary at all it was necessary now, especially as there was a resolution passed to call for more aid to this work from the general government. Mr. H. suggested that persons might be delegated to make this investigation who were not members of the house, which would obviate the objections made to taking members away from their duties here. Mr. H. further suggested that reports should be made as the inquiry progressed; he would sustain these gentlemen if they deserved it and if not let them be exposed. He would vote for taking up the resolution.

Mr. PECK was in favor of an investigation. He had not known of the resolution being introduced, but he knew that his colleague was governed by a sense of duty. He approved of the suggestion of the gentleman from Putnam. there were as good men out of this house as in it, perhaps better. He should go against taking up the resolution that these things might be arranged.

Mr. HARDIN was in favor of the investigation. It was a singular fact that no Board of Auditors had been appointed by law to examine the accounts and disbursements of officers who had control over and who disbursed such large sums of money. It was high time to investigate, but it could not be done here and immediately. Mr. H. then moved to instruct the committee on canals to bring in a bill appointing auditors to investigate and report. He hoped the resolution would not be taken up, and that this proposition would be considered.

Mr. MURPHY, of Cook, replied, whoever was appointed to make the investigation ought to proceed to Lockport to make it. Mr. M. thought it was contrary to all precedent to appoint a committee out of the Legislature; it was not doing justice to the mover of the resolution.

Mr. MURPHY, of Perry, thought it due to the State, and due to the officers in question, to make this investigation as soon as practicable. He approved of the suggestion of the gentleman from Putnam, as to appointing for this purpose those who were not members of the House. These gentlemen ought not be lie under such charges so long. It occurred to him that the investigation might be made at once; at a later period the witnesses might not be procured, as they were a floating population, here to-day and gone to-morrow.

Mr. LEARY urged several reasons why the committee should be composed of persons not members of this House.

Mr. WEBB wished to know the object of the investigation—if it was to impeach these officers, or to bring actions on their bonds? If so, the inquiry ought to be into specific charges, and not take a discursive range which appeared to him would be interminable. Mr. W. was opposed to going into an investigation of the complaints vaguely brought by disappointed contractors who had bids rejected, and very probably from wise and prudent motives on the part of the officers.

Mr. BENTLEY was surprised at this course of legislation; it was quite new to him. Here was a simple motion to take up a resolution, and on this question of taking up, the House had been carrying on a long debate on the merits of a question which it had not yet agreed to take up!

After a brief explanation from Mr. Munsell, the question was put and carried; so the House agreed to take up the resolution.

Mr. HARDIN then moved to amend the resolution, as follows:—By striking out all of the first resolution and inserting the following—“that the committee on canals & canal lands be instructed to report a bill authorizing the Governor to appoint a Board of three Auditors, who shall proceed to Lockport, &c.[etc]” adding “and make report of the result of their investigation to the Governor, which shall be published in the paper of the public printer,” adding also as follows—“Resolved, that said committee insert in said bill, that the said Board of Auditors audit, settle and adjust the account of said canal commissioners and treasurer of said Board, as well of those heretofore as of those now in office, and in case of any indebtedness that he require suit to be brought on their official bonds.”

Which amendment, after some remarks by Messrs.[Messieurs] Hardin and Murphy, of Cook, was agreed to.

The question recurring on agreeing to the resolution as amended, it was decided in the affirmative; so the House agreed on the resolution.

The House then on motion adjourned.