A knowledge of the science of war, arms and munitions of war, is much needed in Florida.

I would respectfully recommend to your honorable body to appropriate the Arsenal at Mount Vernon, and the lands reserved by the United States for its supply, to the following purposes, viz: a Military Academy, a State Armory and Arsenal of Construction.

The buildings and lands am the property of the State, and with slight changes to be made, and at little expense, will be admirably adapted to the purposes as recommended. There will be ample room to accommodate professors, instructors and three hundred cadets, with a beautiful parade ground, already embraced in suitable enclosures; and at this time, accomplished professors and experienced instructors can be procured upon reasonable terms.

Employed as a State Armory in connection with a Military Academy the arms can be used for instruction, kept in good order, and an expense will be saved of rent for a room, where they are insecure, and the labor and expense incurred to keep them in order, without use, will be avoided.

With an arsenal of construction attached to a Military Academy and Armory, the arms can be kept in proper repair, and new arms manufactured, and thus nine good forges now attached to the arsenal, with suitable tools and implements, be brought into requisition, which are now idle, and by prompt and energetic efforts wisely directed, the State may be supplied with arms. The location is remote from the coast, is not liable to surprise from the enemy and can be, if necessary, successfully defended from attack; is within two miles of Chattahoochee river, convenient to the commerce of Apalachicola and Columbus, in Georgia, and their tributaries, and is surrounded by a wealthy, densely settled and intelligent population. The Pensacola & Georgia Rail Road, it is believed, will be completed to Quincy by the first of January, and when extended to Mount Vernon, a distance of only eighteen miles, arms can be quickly distributed by Rail Road to Middle, East and parts of South Florida, and in ordinary times, can be transported by water to every county in West Florida.

The present condition of affairs has deeply impressed the public mind with the importance and necessity of military science, and no doubt is entertained that if suitable arrangements shall be made for accommodation and instruction, the number of cadets which will be received at the institution will be sufficient to defray necessary expenses, and to afford means of instruction free of expense to one young man from each county in the State, to be received upon the recommendation of the Judges of Probate and County Commissioners of the several counties.

The opinion entertained by the Executive, with regard to existing military organizations, and kindred subjects, and what is necessary to the defences of the State, will be made known to your honorable body by special message, suggesting to your serious consideration the necessity of prompt and judicious measures.

The General Assembly, in contemplation of the State seceding, by resolution approved December 1st, 1860, placed under the control of the Governor all available funds arising from stocks of the several States held by the Comptroller and Treasurer for the School, Seminary and sinking funds, as well as the unexpended balance of the loan made under the authority of an act of eighteen hundred and fifty-six, and amendments thereto, for the payment of the debts of the State.

The Governor was authorized to purchase arms and munitions of war for the use of the State, not to exceed one hundred thousand dollars. This, I presume, was expended by my predecessor in the manner prescribed. But as the ordinance of the Convention authorized the accounts of the Governor to be audited and allowed by the Comptroller, I would respectfully refer your honorable body to that office for such information relative thereto as may be in his possession, and may be necessary to the public welfare.

The attention of the General Assembly is also respectfully invited to an act approved February, 1861, entitled “an act to provide for the payment of the Florida Volunteers and others who have not been paid for services actually rendered the State of Florida in the last war with the Seminole Indians.”

You will see by the report of the Comptroller, that under this act he has issued warrants on the Treasury to the amount of one hundred and sixty-eight thousand five hundred and twenty-four dollars and eighty-three cents—an amount far exceeding, if the Executive is rightly informed, the contemplation of the General Assembly when the act was passed.

The Comptroller felt compelled by the law to issue the warrants, when the claims were made according to the provisions of the act. The General Assembly were actuated by the noblest motives in enacting the law, but doubtless frauds have been committed under its provisions, and the most rigid scrutiny, by legal enactment, is recommended.— Now is a favorable time, by wise legislation, to impress upon the minds of brave soldiers how justly they are appreciated, and to carry conviction home to the public mind, that wicked men, who would willingly defraud the Government, will not be permitted to do so, but will be prevented and exposed to punishment, scorn and contempt.

The reports of the Comptroller and Treasurer show that the expenditures of the State exceed the receipts, and the alternative is presented to the General Assembly of either increasing the taxes, or reducing the expenses. The embarrassed state of financial affairs renders the first inexpedient. When the war tax called for by the Confederate Government shall be added to the assessments now required by law for State and County purposes, the burthen upon the people will prove so onerous as to make a further increase, at the present time, in the judgment of the Executive, altogether improper; and the more especially is this case when the General Assembly have their power, by appropriate legislation, to relieve the Treasury of many of the drains upon it, and thus, with the existing rate of taxation, meet all the expenses of the State without any increase of taxes. If this be so, it would seem to be clearly the duty of the Legislature to adopt such policy as would produce so desirable a result.

Among the heaviest drains upon the Treasury are those connected with the administration of Justice, Civil and Criminal, in the Circuit as well as the inferior Courts.

The report of the Comptroller will show that the single item under the head of “Jurors and Witnesses,” amounts to the sum of twenty-seven thousand six hundred and forty-two dollars and four cents—nearly one-fourth of the net receipts of the Treasury for the present fiscal year; and the question presents itself, is there no method by which this expenditure maybe lessened, without impeding justice? In the opinion of the Executive there are several ways in which it may be accomplished, and the first step towards it is by making the principle pertaining to Jurors in Justices' Courts applicable to Jurors in the Circuit Courts. In Justices' Courts, Jurors are paid by the parties litigant: why should not the same principle obtain in the superior tribunals? If it be just to require litigants to pay the Jury called to decide their controversies in the one instance, would it not be equally just in the other? Litigation, so far at least as this can be done without obstructing justice, should be taxed with its own costs. But it is deemed no hardship or impediment to justice to require the jury to be paid in a Justices' Court by the losing party, and before rendering their verdict, nor should it be so regarded in a higher tribunal. The State makes provision for the Judge who presides in the Circuit Court, and litigants ought not to complain if the law requires them to provide for the other expenses involved in settling their difficulties.

If the suggestion to modify the existing law in this respect should meet the approval of the General Assembly, the saving to the Treasury in consequence thereof would be no inconsiderable sum. From the difficulty of obtaining correct data, it is impossible to distinguish between Jurors in Civil and Jurors in Criminal cases; but it may be safely assumed, that of the amount reported under the head referred to, at least ten thousand dollars has been expended for Jurors in civil suits, so that this much would be saved to the State by adopting the policy proposed. But a still greater saving would be accomplished by devolving the cost of “Criminal Prosecutions” upon the counties. Were this done, in connection with the measure already recommended, the annual relief to the Treasury would be upwards of fifty thousand dollars—the two items amounting, for the present year, to the sum of fifty-four thousand four hundred and thirty dollars and thirty-nine cents. Under the head of “Criminal Prosecutions” is embraced the expense of all violations of the criminal law of which cognizance is taken by the Justices as well as the Circuit Courts, and the stream of accounts pouring into the Treasury in connection therewith is incessant. An examination of some of these by the General Assembly could not fail of suggesting speedy reform, even if the plan of devolving the whole expense upon the counties should not be concurred in. As the law stands, there is an inducement for notice to be taken of trivial as well as grave cases, since the State is bound for the expense involved, without any reference whatever to the nature of the offence. If the counties, however, were required to meet this expense, while the law, in all its essential features, would be as rigidly enforced as it now is, the enforcement would be accompanied with much less cost. Justices of the Peace, as well as Grand Juries, would doubtless be more circumspect in their action, and there would not be found cumbering the dockets of our Courts that long list of petty cases, which, while they serve but little to vindicate the law and repress crime, are always attended with great expense.

To make the burden fall as lightly as possible upon the counties, all fines and forfeitures should go into their respective treasuries. Hitherto, the State has derived comparatively little from these. Seldom indeed is it that a fine or forfeiture is paid into the Treasury. The Comptroller's report shows that during the present year only the sum of five thousand one hundred and thirty-nine dollars and ninety-one cents has been received on these accounts—suggesting the idea that either Juries have been greatly averse to imposing fines as a mode of punishment—to some offenders the most dreaded of all punishments—or that they have not been collected. Besides, it is no uncommon thing for a jury, when a fine is imposed, to make it in utter disproportion to the offence, and then, in whole or in part, after leaving the jury-box, to unite in a petition for its remission. This, it is believed, would not be the case were the cost of prosecuting criminals to devolve upon the counties. Fines would be more generally imposed than they now are, and much more certainly collected, and, going into the county treasury, would, in many instances if not in all, more than pay the cost involved in the prosecutions.

More than this—as the law now stands it operates with great inequality. There is reason to believe that many of the counties, to meet their Jury, Witness, Justices' of the Peace and Criminal expenses, draw considerably more from the Treasury than they pay in, while in others these expenses, compared with the amount they contribute to the common fund, are proportionately small, so that in point of fact these more fortunate counties—more fortunate in having a class of population less disposed to violate the laws of the State—are taxed to aid in defraying the cost of prosecuting crimes not committed within their own limits.

Another reform in connection with this subject relates to the law authorizing a change of venue. That law provides, that upon affidavit being made by the party accused that he has reason to believe that impartial justice cannot be obtained in the county where the alleged crime was committed, the Court is required to transfer the case to some other county for trial. It may not be proper to advise the repeal of this feature of the law, but to recommend such a modification of it as would vest in the Judge a discretionary power either to grant or reject the application for the change of venue.

It not unfrequently happens that these applications are made more for the purpose of delay, (and perjury is committed, thus adding crime to crime,) than because of the real existence of any feeling in the county prejudicial to the case of the defendant. Within the last few years, two cases have occurred in West Florida—the one a white man charged with murder in Holmes county, when the evidence clearly established the most diabolical murder for the purposes of robbery. The venue was changed to Jackson county; the party was convicted, and upon a technicality of law, a new trial was granted, the venue changed to Calhoun county, where he was again convicted, and upon another technicality of law, an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court—the judgment of the Court below was confirmed, and the unfortunate criminal was executed under the sentence of the law. The costs incurred amounted to several thousand dollars, and were paid by the State. The other case alluded to was that of a slave, a vicious and almost worthless slave, charged with rape upon a white woman in Jackson county, where he was tried and convicted. The case was taken up by appeal to the Supreme Court—a new trial was granted, the venue was changed to Calhoun county, where, after a patient and impartial trial, the prisoner was again found guilty. The presiding Judge, for good and sufficient cause, agreeably to existing laws, granted a new trial, and upon application the venue was changed to Franklin county, where the prisoner was tried and acquitted. The costs in the case amounted to several thousand dollars, which were paid by the State. The opinion of one, who has practiced law many years in Florida, and critically observed the progress and results of many criminal prosecutions, is, that public justice demands the repeal of the law authorizing a change of venue; and not simply because of the cost which has been, and may be incurred, but as a preventive of crime. Those who are disposed to commit grave offences, aware of the opportunities of escape from punishment by a change of venue, and the many facilities the practice affords to exhaust the patience of witnesses and deter their attendance at Court, and by false witnesses brought into the presence of the Court, where all opportunity to discredit them has been cut off, do not hesitate, but perpetuate crime with a reasonable hope of avoiding punishment. It is not to be presumed that in any county in the State, a case can arise where it would be impossible to procure a jury to render a verdict according to the evidence. And it is respectfully suggested that the act granting the right of appeal in criminal cases should be amended so as to limit the right of appeal to questions of law, not embracing matters of fact, and be made to depend upon the sound discretion of the presiding judge.

The law authorizing this important office is defective, and should be modified. It is the great auditing department of the Government, and in it are deposited the tax books and all papers and documents relating to the revenue, as well as all evidence upon which warrants on the Treasurer are drawn. It is evident, therefore, that in the administration of its affairs, all the system consistent with the clerical force authorized to be employed should be introduced and inflexibly maintained; and to this end it is suggested that the law be so amended as to require the keeping of a debit and credit account with the several counties, by which all data connected with the amounts received from and paid to any county, whether for Jurors in civil or criminal cases, State Witnesses, &c., &c., may be readily ascertained. It has been impossible, for the want of this system from the origin of the State Government, to obtain satisfactory data upon some of the subjects presented in this message, and for that reason they have not been as fully discussed as they otherwise would have been. It has not been possible, for instance, to distinguish between Jurors in civil and Jurors in criminal cases, between criminal prosecutions in Circuit or Justices' Courts, or to arrive at the amount drawn from the treasury by the separate counties for each and all of these items. Had this data been accessible, the General Assembly could act more understandingly on the matters herein presented relative to the modes proposed for reducing the State expenditures. The modification may involve a small increase in the appropriation for the clerical force of that office, but this will be more than counterbalanced by the advantage to be derived from the change.

If the office be deemed of sufficient importance to be retained as one of the departments of the Government, and it is difficult to perceive how it can be dispensed with, the State ought not to withhold the means necessary to make it as efficient as possible.

The present Comptroller has been engaged, during several months past, in bringing up and balancing the book of his department since the admission of the State into the late Union, embracing a period of nearly seventeen years. The labor has been great, requiring the employment of an experienced accountant, at considerable expense, the payment of which is referred to the Legislature, with the recommendation that such an appropriation shall be made for its liquidation as may be considered a fair compensation for the service rendered.

The recommendations of the Comptroller on the subject of a modification of the laws relating to payments by the Treasurer, and a monthly comparison of accounts between the two offices, are also referred to the General Assembly for their favorable consideration.

I respectfully invite the attention of the General Assembly to the law concerning Lunatics. This law, founded on the highest principles of humanity and dictated by the best feelings of our nature, may be so amended as to lessen the expense incurred by the State without affecting injuriously the ends designed by its enactment. So various are the degrees of aberration occurring in our observation and experience, admitting in some cases of lucid intervals, as to justify the suggestion that you would so modify the law as to give a discretion to the Circuit Judge to direct the lunatic to be sent to an Asylum, or to appoint a guardian to whom his custody may be committed, or otherwise to dispose of the lunatic within the State for such compensation to be paid as in the judgment of the Court would secure the best good of the lunatic, whilst it would lessen the expense to which the State would be subjected. It is admitted that no fixed rule could well be established by the Legislature to this end, and hence an enlarged discretion should be vested in the Circuit Judges, to be exercised according to the circumstances and the character and degree of lunacy developed in each case.

Shortly after I entered upon the duties of the Executive office, I received from the Governor of Georgia a communication, accompanied by a resolution adopted by the General Assembly of that State, copies of which are herewith transmitted, in reference to the question of boundary between the two States. I informed the Governor of Georgia that I would, as I now do, submit to your consideration the resolution transmitted to me, together with all matters growing out of the differences on the subject.

The material points concerning the disputed boundary between Florida and Georgia, may be summed up as follows:

By the treaty between Spain and the United States of 22d February, 1819, Spain ceded to the United States the Territory which now constitutes the State of Florida, with the boundaries as they then existed. These boundaries had been definitely agreed upon by treaty stipulations made at San Lorenzo el Real on 27th October, 1795, between the two countries, and were solemnly ratified by both. The treaty of the 27th October, 1795, was acknowledged and referred to in the treaty of 22d February, 1819. To ascertain the true boundary, then, it is only necessary to refer to the treaty of San Lorenzo el Real. The second and third articles of the treaty define the boundary and provide for running and marking the line, as follows:

Article 2d—“To prevent all disputes on the subject of the boundaries which separate the territories of the two high contracting parties, it is hereby declared and agreed as follows, to wit: The Southern boundary of the United States, which divides their Territory from the Spanish colonies of East and West Florida, shall be designated by a line beginning on the river Mississippi at the northernmost point of the thirty-first degree of latitude north of the Equator, which from thence shall be drawn due East to the middle of the river Apalachicola or Chattahoochee; thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint; thence straight to the head of the St. Mary's river; and thence down the middle thereof to the Atlantic Ocean.”

Article 3d—“In order to carry the preceding article into effect, one Commissioner and one Surveyor shall be appointed by each of the contracting parties, who shall meet at Natchez, on the left side of the river Mississippi, before the expiration of six months from the ratification of this Convention, and they shall proceed to run and mark this boundary according to the stipulations of the said article. They shall make plats and keep journals of their proceedings, which shall be considered as part of this Convention, and shall have the same force as if they were inserted therein.”

From the Mississippi to the Apalachicola the boundary line was a certain parallel of latitude, which could at any time be definitely located, and so between those rivers, there is not now any controversy. The only point of difficulty now presented is the line from the junction of the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers to the head of the St. Mary's river, being the boundary line between Georgia and Florida.

In conformity with the stipulations of the 3d article of said Treaty, in May, 1796, Andrew Ellicott, was appointed Commissioner, and Thomas Freeman, Surveyor, on the part of the United States, for the purpose of running and marking the boundary line. The line was run and marked as far as the Chattahoochee river. On account of the hostility of the Indians, the Commissioners were compelled to desist from attempting to run and mark the boundary from the junction of the Flint and Chattahoochee to the head of St. Mary's river. Considering, however, the junction of the Flint and Chattahoochee as a fixed and permanent geographical point, they concluded to ascertain and designate the head of the St. Mary's as the Eastern terminus, in order that the line might thereafter be run and marked between those points when the difficulties then existing might be removed. Ascending the St. Mary's river, the Commissioners agreed upon a spot which was to be considered as “the head of St. Mary's river.” They erected a mound of earth, which is now known as “Ellicott's Mound.” According to the journal of Mr. Ellicott, “it was therefore agreed that the termination of a line supposed to be drawn N. 45 deg. E. 640 perches from the Mound B., should be taken as a point to, or near which, a line should be drawn from the mouth of the Flint river; which line, when drawn, should be final, and considered as the permanent boundary between the United States and His Catholic Majesty,” &c. The Commissioners closed their labors, and submitted their plats and journals to their respective Governments. They were approved, and thereby their acts were sanctioned.

It would seem, then, that the termini of the line now constituting the boundary between Georgia and Florida, were the junction of the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers and a point 640 perches N. 45 deg. E. of Ellicott's Mound. Were that agreed upon, the running and marking the line is not a matter of argument or theory, but a question of fact, to be determined by competent surveyors.

Upon the supposition that these are the two termini, the United States and Florida acted; but upon an equally just supposition that an ex parte survey might be erroneous, the United States refrained partially, and the State of Florida has wholly refrained from assuming any surveyor's line to be entirely correct, and therefore none of the fractional lands adjacent to what, by the U. S. surveys, was supposed to be the true boundary, were rendered subject to entry, except to pre-emptors under the United States laws. Such, however, has not been the course of our sister State.

It was insisted by Georgia that Mr. Ellicott mistook the head of the St. Mary's river, and that the Commissioners transcended their powers in agreeing upon a certain point as the assumed head.

The controversy, therefore, was based on one of two propositions—1st. Shall the point designated by the Commissioners be assumed, leaving the mechanical operation of running and marking the line to be performed by competent surveyors; or, 2nd. Shall the designated point be abandoned, and the true source of the St. Mary's be ascertained and established as the Eastern terminus of the disputed boundary.

It was insisted by Florida that the ratification by Spain and the United States of the proceedings of the Commissioners established the points as fully as though these points had been specified in the treaty. It was, however, generally supposed that Mr. Ellicott did not ascertain the true source of the St. Mary's river, but that had he done so, the Eastern terminus would have been located several miles North of the Mound. Florida, however, has always acquiesced in the action of the Commissioners, and has always been willing to recognize Ellicott's Mound as the head of St. Mary's river, so far as relates to the question of boundary.

In 1818, Georgia appointed Commissioners to ascertain whether Ellicott's Mound was at the head of St. Mary's river. They reported that Mr. Ellicott had not mistaken the true head of said river. The Governor of Georgia, on the 3rd of March, 1819, reported to the Secretary of War the result of the commission.

Subsequently, a bill was introduced in Congress by a Senator from Georgia, to provide for running and marking the boundary, and became a law on the 4th May, 1826, which provided “that the line so to be run and marked shall run straight from the junction of said rivers Chattahoochee and Flint, to the point designated as the head of the St. Mary's river, by the Commissioner appointed under the third Article of the treaty of friendship, limits and navigation, between the United States of America and the King of Spain, made at San Lorenzo el Real on the 9th day of Oct., 1795.” Georgia appointed a Commissioner and Surveyor to act in conjunction with those of the United States, to run and mark said line, in conformity with the Act of Congress. When the survey was almost completed, the Governor of Georgia required the Commissioner of that State to desist from further co-operation with the United States Commissioner, until the true head of the St. Mary's could be ascertained. The survey was never completed. The contest since, on the part of Georgia, has been with reference to the true head of the St. Mary's river, that State contending that the South or Middle Prong of said river is the main branch and is the true river.

There have been two lines run and marked from the junction of the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers to Ellicott's Mound on the St. Mary's, purporting to be in conformity with the treaty. One is usually known as the “McNeil line,” the other as the “Watson line.” The United States claimed the right to sell lands to the upper or “McNeil line,” and did accordingly dispose of lands to that line. Georgia exercised the right of disposing of the lands to the lower or “Watson line.” This has involved the question of individual title, as well as the right of jurisdiction within the disputed territory. In 1845, a correspondence was opened between the Governors of the two States in reference to this subject. Commissioners were appointed by the two States for the purpose of adjusting the boundary, but failed to accomplish that object.

At the fourth session of our General Assembly, the Governor called the attention of that body to the question of the disputed boundary, and transmitted a copy of a report and resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Georgia, in which a proposition was made to submit the question to the Supreme Court of the United States. The report concludes with these words: “Your Committee, in thus recommending a mode for the adjustment of this long standing controversy, would by no means limit the discretion of the Executive as to the points or questions submitted, with the concurrence of Florida, to the decision of the Supreme Court. We recommend that the Governor take any and all such steps, to close this controversy in an amicable manner, as his judgment may dictate; and with a view of furnishing to our sister Florida the evidence of our feelings in this matter, be it resolved that the Governor be requested to transmit to the Governor of Florida a copy of this report and resolutions.” In accordance with the suggestions of Georgia, the State of Florida filed a bill in the Supreme Court of the United States to confirm and quiet the boundary line. In the message of the Governor of Georgia to the Legislature of that State, the course of Florida in this matter was characterized as discourteous to the State of Georgia. This occasioned a correspondence between the Executives of the two States, in which Florida was ably vindicated and confessedly exonerated from the charge of “discourtesy.” It seems, however, that the State of Georgia still preferred that the matter should be decided without reference the Supreme Court. On February 11, 1850, the Legislature of Georgia adopted resolutions authorizing the Governor to make by negotiation, arbitration or otherwise, a full and final settlement of all points in dispute relative to the boundary line; and recommended the selection of one Commissioner on behalf of each State, with power to appoint a third Commissioner, to whom all points of difference should be referred, and agreed that the award or decision of said Commissioners should be final and conclusive. The Governor of Georgia suggested to the Governor of Florida the appointment of one Commissioner on behalf of each State, and in case of disagreement, that the Governor of some other State be chosen as umpire. This suggestion was not assented to by the Governor of Florida. He proposed the adoption of the “McNeil line.” This proposition was declined. During this correspondence, the suit in the Supreme Court was suspended. No means of adjustment being agreed upon, the case was reinstated.

By Act of December 31, 1850, the Governor of this State was “authorized and required to take such steps as may to him seem necessary and proper for expediting and forwarding the settlement of the controversy between this State and the State of Georgia in regard to their line of boundary.”

In 1854, by desire of the counsel for Georgia, a decretal order was entered, by consent, for the appointment of Commissioners, first, to run and mark a line from the junction of the Flint and Chattahoochee rivers to the point designated by the Commissioners under the treaty of 1795; and secondly, to determine the head of the St. Mary's river, and run a line accordingly—the action of such Commissioners not to prejudice the rights of either party. The time allowed not being sufficient to accomplish the purpose, the order was modified so as to authorize the Commissioners simply to determine the head of St. Mary's river. The agreement under which said decretal order was to be executed was as follows, to wit:

“By and with the consent of the Governors of Florida and Georgia, the undersigned, Solicitors for the parties respectively, have agreed as follows :

“1st. The Commissioners and Surveyors, in the execution of the interlocutory order of the Court, may begin by examining the point alleged to have been determined by Ellicott and Minor as the head or source of the St. Mary's river. If they find that to be the true head or source, then they shall run a line from thence to the confluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee.

“2nd. If they find that not to be the true head or source of the St. Mary's river, then they are to search for such head or source, and having ascertained and determined the same, they shall run a line from thence to the confluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee.

“3rd. The undersigned consent to waive all objections to any departure from the terms of the interlocutory order which shall be consistent with the terms of this agreement.”

This agreement was signed by the Solicitors of both parties.

Under these orders and agreement, the two States appointed Commissioners and Surveyors. These Commissioners entered upon the discharge of the duties assigned them, and proceeded in their work until the Commissioner and Surveyor appointed by Georgia were withdrawn by order of the Governor of said State. The cause of such withdrawal was that the two Commissioners could not agree as to the true head of the St. Mary's river, the Georgia Commissioner insisting upon Lake Randolph as the point, and that a line should be run from Lake Randolph to the Western terminus.

The Commissioners had agreed to run a guide line from Ellicott's Mound to the junction of the Flint and Chattahoochee rivers, and correct the line back. It was insisted by the Georgia Commissioner that another line should be run from Lake Randolph (or Ocean Pond,) to said junction.— To this the Florida Commissioner objected, upon the ground that the Commissioners had no right to run any line except the one first designated, and another from the point agreed upon as the “head of St. Mary's river.” During the time of the survey from Ellicott's Mound to the junction of the Flint and Chattahoochee, the order was received from the Governor of Georgia which suspended the work.

The correspondence upon this vexed question was continued between the Governors of the two States until December, 1857. The basis of settlement finally agreed upon by the Governors was: “To adopt the terminal points of the present recognized line as the true terminal points of the boundary line, to be re-surveyed, corrected and marked: Provided, it is shown by either party that the present line is incorrect, subject to the ratification of the respective Legislatures of Georgia and Florida.”

The Legislature of Georgia, on the 29th December, 1857, adopted resolutions ratifying the agreement entered into by the Governors, and resolving that Georgia would “regard, adopt and act upon the present line as run and recognized between those points as the settled boundary of the two States, or will so recognize and adopt any other line between those points which may be ascertained and established on a re-survey and re-marking of the boundary, provided said boundary correction is made by virtue of law and by the joint action of the States aforesaid.” The resolutions, provided for the appointment of a Surveyor on the part of Georgia, to act with a Surveyor on the part of Florida, for the purpose of running the line between the terminal points indicated.

On January 12th, 1859, the action of the Governors was ratified by the Legislature of Florida under resolutions identical with those of Georgia—such resolutions having been in fact copied from those adopted, by Georgia, fully and literally, except the necessary transposition of the names of the two States. Thus was a solemn agreement entered into, which gave promise of an early settlement of a protracted and perplexing controversy.

On November 22nd, 1859, a resolution of the Legislature of Georgia was approved by the Governor, providing for the appointment of a special agent to visit Florida to confer with the Executive of Florida and to enter into negotiations to restore quiet, &c., between the citizens of the two States, until the boundary could be adjusted and agreed upon.— The cause of disturbance of quiet among the citizens which Georgia wished to lull, was the anticipated conflict of title between purchasers and legal claimants of land upon or near the boundary.

In the meantime, Surveyors had been appointed by the two States for the purpose of running the line—Gustavus J. Orr on the part of Georgia, and Benjamin F. Whitner, Jr., on the part of Florida. These Surveyors proceeded to the discharge of their duties and recommended that the straight line run from the mouth of Flint river towards Mount B., should be adopted as the boundary line between Florida and Georgia, provided said line does not depart more than one-fourth of a mile from Mound B. Should the departure exceed that distance, the Surveyors recommended the running of a correction line back from Mound B. to the mouth of Flint river.

On the 22nd December, 1859, an act of the General Assembly of Florida was approved recognizing and approving the line then being run as the permanent boundary line, provided its Eastern terminus should not depart from Ellicott's Mound more than one-fourth of a mile. Said act confirmed to bona flde holders of lands, under any grant from Georgia, their titles to such lands, except where such titles would conflict with those of citizens of Florida South of the McNeil line.

The Legislature of Georgia passed a similar act confirming individual titles, but containing no reservation. The United States, by act of Congress, also confirmed the title of the purchasers from Georgia.

The Surveyors run the line, which was so accurately drawn as to be almost perfect. On February 8th, 1861, the State of Florida recognized such line and declared it to be the permanent boundary.

The only official communication I have received which would indicate that the established line is not the true boundary, is contained in the letter from the Governor of Georgia, and the resolutions to which I first referred. I would request that your body will take this matter into consideration, and adopt such measures as you may deem expedient to bring this controversy to an end.

I have given a succinct history of the material facts connected with this controversy, not that I consider it material to trace the record further back than the adoption by both States of the terminal points, but because I desire that reference may be had to such points as show that Florida has never exhibited a disposition to protract the contest.

It was contended by Florida that the point designated by the Commissioners should be regarded as the Eastern terminus. It wa never insisted by Florida that such point should be so considered. If that point was rejected, and it was insisted that a just settlement of the dispute required an ascertainment of the true head or source of the St. Mary's river, Florida was always willing to acquiesce. When requested, to bring the matter for adjudication before the Supreme Court of the United States, she filed a bill accordingly. When that proceeding was objected to, orders were given to suspend further proceedings in the suit. When an order by consent was issued by the Court to appoint Commissioners and Surveyors to ascertain the true line, &c., Florida gave obedience to the mandate. When, after disagreement, certain termini were agreed upon, she appointed her Surveyor and ratified the survey as marked by the Surveyors of Georgia and Florida, as they had recommended. When called upon to confirm the titles made by Georgia to any lands which might fall within the limits of Florida, she responded as far as she had any power. She confirmed all titles granted by Georgia, except where they conflicted with the rights of citizens of Florida under acts of the United States or the State. This exception amounted to nothing in law. Our State cannot deprive a citizen or foreigner of his vested rights. The exception, in point of fact, is in favor of Georgia, virtually declaring that Florida did not and does not recognize as legal any title given to land (either by the State or General Government,) lying North of the McNeil line, and at the same time recognizing the titles granted by Georgia South of that or any other line, so far as the State could recognize them.

With this message, your honorable body will have submitted to your consideration the reports of the Comptroller, the Treasurer, the Land Register and the Attorney General, and I would respectfully recommend the appointment of Committees to investigate the condition of the several departments, and especially that of the Executive and the offices immediately connected therewith—the Adjutant and Inspector General's office and that of the Quartermaster General. I desire, and in justice to myself as Executive of the State urge upon the General Assembly, to ascertain and report the true condition of affairs, and especially in reference to financial matters, that the administration of the State Government, during the term of office for which the present Executive has been elected and qualified, may depend upon its merits or demerits for character in the future history of our State affairs.

The suggestions of this message have been limited to subjects which, in the judgment of the Executive, require action by the General Assembly in the present condition of our State and national affairs, without calling attention to such other matters of less general importance, which, in more settled times, might have engaged your deliberations.

In conclusion, permit me to state that I am ready and anxious to co-operate with you in every effort which your wisdom may suggest to sustain the noble cause in which the people of the Confederate States of America are engaged, and to render the name of Florida glorious in the contest now being waged between freedom and tyranny. “IN GOD IS OUR TRUST,” and humbly invoking the Divine blessing upon your deliberations, and upon the brave and generous people you represent,