HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, February 15, 1861.THE HEFFREN AND MOODY AFFAIR.
Mr. FISHER moved to pass over informally the special order, to enable him to introduce his resolutian for the expulsion of Messrs. Moody and Heffren, and demanded the yeas and nays thereon, which being ordered and taken resulted-yeas, 41, nays 39. Upon explanation of a misunderstanding between Mr. Fisher and the Chair, as to the terms of this motion, the question was annoueced again, viz: Shall the order of business be suspended for the purpose indicated ? and the yeas and nays were ordered to be taken.
Mr. SMITH, of Bartholomew, thought it was notorious that there was a personal difficulty ty between Mr. Moody and Mr. Heffren, when their friends asked their leave of absence for the Thursday morning of last week. They were both gone then. He knew that Mr. Heffren left town a week ago last Wednesday night. On Thursday morning the leave was asked for Mr. Heffren. and granted-he did not say it was unanimous-and at the same time leave was asked and granted to Mr. Moody, with the fact of their having left to settle a personal difficulty generally known. If both these gentlemen were Republicans, upon a resolution to try them without their presence here, he would vote No all the time.
Mr. STOTSENBURG did not understand, that in voting to consider this resolution, he was voting in favor of the resolution. He agreed with the gentleman from Bartholomew, that these gentlemen should have a fair hearing. It was plain enough that this question would be brought before the House, sooner or later, and he could not see why it might not as well be considered now as at any other time. Action on this case was demanded by the feeling of our constituents, and he was for meeting it now-getting it properly before the House, so as to give time for a fair trial.
Mr. JENKINSON thought the least said the soonest memded. He wanted to go on with the business of the House. This was outside business-outside of the State. He vote against suspending the order of business.
Mr. WOODHULL was in favor of suspending the orders, because he did not believe the resolution would ever be readied in the regular order.
After debate, &c., in which several members defined their position-
The yeas and nays were taken and reported-yes 63, nays 29-as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Atkisson, Boydston, Branham, Bryan, Bundy, Cameron, Campbell, Cason, Collins of Whitley, Collins of Adams, Combs, Cooprider, Crain, Dashiel, Davis, Epperson, Erwin, Feagler, Ferguson, Fisher, Fordyce, Fraley, Frasier, Gifford, Gore, Hall, Harvey, Haworth, Hayes, Henricks, Holcomb, Hopkins, Jones of Vermillion, Jones of Wayne, Kendrick, Kitchen, Lods, Lane, Lee, Lightner, Moorman, Nebeker, Newman, Orr, Parret, Polk, Randall, Sloan, Smith of Miami, Stevenson, Stotsenberg, Trier, Thomas, Thompson, Turner, Underwood, Veatch, Wells, Williams, Wilson, Woodhull, and Woods-63.
NAYS- Messrs. Bingham, Black, Brett, Burgess, Fleming, Ford, Gresham, Grover, Horton, Howard, Hurd, Jenkinson, Jones of Tippecanoe, Knowlton, McClurg, McLean, Moss, Mutz, Owens, Packard, Pitts, Prosser, Prow, Robbins, Roberts, Sherman, Smith of Bartholomew, Warrum, and Mr. Speaker-29.
So the rules and orders were suspended.
The resolution was then read and considered. It is as follows:
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the State of Indiana provideth that every person who shall give or accept a challenge to fight a duel, or who shall knowingly convey to another person such challenge ; or who shall agree to go out of the State to fight a duel, shall be ineligible to any office of trust or profit: and whereas, it is notorious that a challenge has been given by G. C. Moody, Representative from the county of Jasper, to Horace Heffren, Representative from the counties of Washington and Harrison to fight a duel, and that said challenge was accepted by said Heffren, and that said parties went out of the State for the purpose of fighting a duel ; therefore,
Be it Resolved, That the said G. C. Moody, Representative from the county of Jasper, and the said Horace Heffren, Representative from the counties of Washington and Harrison, be and they are hereby expelled from this House.
Mr. VEATCH. Being satisfied that the House could not proceed with the consideration of this resolution without taking up time; and seeing that business more important was pressing for action, and the session being more than half spent, he would move to refer the resolution to a select committee of three, before whom the parties could appear for the purpose of defense.
Mr. HOLCOMB proposed to amend this motion by substituting a resolution, setting forth, that whereas, certain of the members and officers of this House have been engaged in giving, bearing, and accepting a challenge to fight a duel, and did go out of the State for that purpose, in violation of the Constitution; therefore resolved, that a committee of five be appointed to examine into, and report the facts in the case; and that they have power to send for persons and papers.
Mr. BUNDY was in favor a committee of five, and intended to have moved to so amend the motion of the gentleman from Spencer.
Mr. VEATCH. I accept that.
page: 229[View Page 229]Mr. BUNDY. But I am opposed to this amendment of the gentleman from Gibson, and move to lay it on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. HAWORTH proposed to make this subject the special order for Thursday, 10 o'clock.
The SPEAKER. The motion to eommit has preference.
Mr. McLEAN moved ineffectually to lay Mr. fetch's motion on the table.
Mr. STOTSENBERG. The people of the State, in their capacity of acting as jurors and judges, do not treat even the meanest criminal as this resolution proposes to treat two members of this House. Let us have a committee of investigation. He doubted whether it was competent for the House to act in the case without a record of conviction. When we act in such a case, we must know what has been done. Let us give the case into the bands of dispassionate, disinterested men, who shall all have all the evidence before them. Such has been the practice in Congress, and is the proper practice for all time; and it is proper and right, and in accordance with the law of the land. He was in favor of the resolution for the appointment of a committee. He did not want to see the resolution of the gentleman from Wabash postponed, without something effectual in its place.
Mr. FISHER did not feel disposed to offer any opposition to the motion of the gentleman from Spencer. But he could not understand the gentleman from Floyd, when he seemed to say that we have no power to expel a member without a verdict against him. When the Constitution provides that by a vote of two-thirds we may expel a member, it does not mean to say that we shall first go through a formal trial to conviction. All we want is to be satisfied in our minds that the individual is worthy of expulsion. He had no objection, however, to these parties being hoard. His only fear was that time would be delayed and frittered away, so there would be no opportunity for action. Whether the House would see proper to expel them or not, was a matter in which he felt no more interest than others. He thought he could see a disposition on the part of some to avoid a direct vote here, by putting the matter into the hands of a committee. He did not say this of the gentleman from Spencer.
Mr. VEATCH. His motion was to facilitate action. He supposed the committee would act promptly.
Mr. STOSENBERG read an authority: "In some of the States it is the commission of the crime, and in others conviction is necesoary."
Mr. FISHER. That was not satisfactory to him.
Mr. CAMERON demanded the previous question, and, under its force, the resolution as referred to a Select Committee of Five.
NEW COUNTIES AND COUNTY BOUNDARIES.
The SPEAKER now announced the special order, viz : the consideration of Mr. Nebeker's county boundary bill [39] and according to order the House resolved into Committee of the Whole thereon-Mr. McLean in the Chair.
On motion by Mr. CAMERON, the Committee rose and reported a recommendation that the bill do pass.
The question being on concurrence-
Mr. STOTSENBERG. He laid it down as a fact, that the innocent people of Indiana are not responsible for the blundering or the fraud of the last Legislature. When the acts come in their printed form to the people, they are to be noticed and recognized as the law of the land. We are all interested in the repeal of the acts of 1859 and 1857-all were agreed on that. But there was a point of difference as to a saving clause. After listening to the debate, he declared he had heard nothing that could have weight with him against such a clause. He rehearsed the provisions of those acts granting rights to go on and organize new counties. Those who in good faith, had taken proceedings under this law should be protected. He submitted examples, and spoke at some length.
Mr. JENKINSON demanded the previous question.
Mr. CAMERON desired merely to say, that the gentleman from Floyd had made two speeches against the saving clause, and no one had been permitted to answer him.
There was a second to the demand, the main question was ordered, and the report of the Committee of the Whole was concurred in.
Mr. FISHER proposed to amend the bill, by adding to the 10th section : " Provided that all proceedings commenced to change county boundaries, under the act of 1857, shall be continued and determined according to the provisions of said act." All the eloquence here that has been expended against a saving clause had been directed against the act of 1859, which is alleged to have been passed wrongfully. He wished now to save and protect the interests of those who have proceeded under the act of 1857, which was passed constitutionally. Rights that have accrued under that act should certainly be protected.
Mr. PROSSER moved to lay the amendment on the table; but withdrew it for-
Mr. CRAIN. If you save proceedings under the act of 1857, you save all proceedings; because the act of 1859 is but an amendment engrafted upon it. He renewed the motion to lay the amendment on the table.
The amendment was laid on the table-yeas 62, nays 27.
On motion of Mr. NEBEKER, it was ordered that the bill be considered as engrossed, and read the third time now.
Mr. FRALEY had said nothing on this question, owing to his position in the election campaign, in which he felt himself instructed to keep quiet in this matter. He had been requested simply to state the facts. The upper page: 230[View Page 230] part of his county (Fountain) was within two miles of the county seat of Warren county, and there the people desired to divide. But in the lower part of the county they they were about two-thirds opposed to division. They had been unfortunate in his county-had burnt down two court houses; and they were burdened with the tax for rebuilding. The upper part of the county were a large tax-paying people, and therefore the lower part were unwilling to let them go.
Mr. LIGHTNER. There were other counties interested in this bill besides Fountain and Warren. Howard was interested as well; and there was a portion of their territory in controversy at this time; and their people would feel very much aggrieved to be estopped in this summary way. That portion of territory was originally a part of the Miami Reserve; and as soon as the Indian title was extinguished, the people there, then a portion of Clinton county, desired to be included in Howard. They were 20 miles from the county seat of Clinton, (Frankfort,) with a swamp intervening; and they were but 7 3/4 from Kokomo, which had become a railroad town, and there they did all their business. They could have no business at Frankfort, except that connected with the county seat. He himself had $380 in costs due to him there, which were not worth the trip to collect to-day. Well, they had availed themselves of the act of 1759, and attached themselves to Howard county. But a portion of this territory (six sections) so attached was still in litigation. In that case the people were deeply interested. They wanted this saving clause.
Mr. COLLINS, of Whitley, said his constituents were interested in the law remaining as it was enacted in 1857. He thought the law of 1857 sufficiently guarded; he earned not for retaining the act of 1859. He referred to the case of advantage which it had worked in attaching a portion of Noble to Whitley.
Mr. McCLURG said his county had suffered from this law. He was interested in this question of a saving clause-he referred to the contest about the six sections mentioned toy the gentleman from Howard, by which it shad been attempted to reduce Clinton county below the area of 400 square miles. He was unwilling to lose those sections, and therefore opposed to the saving clause.
The bill was then passed the final reading in the House-yeas 73, nays 14.
Messrs. Mutz, Epperson, Cameron, Orr, Prow, Owens, Robbins, Jenkinson, Ragan, Henricks, and Randall had leave of absence till Monday and Tuesday.
On motion by Mr. FRASIER, the order of business was suspended for-
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
Mr. BUNDY, from the Judiciary Committee, returned Mr. Kendrick's bill [172] to amend sections 1 and 2 of the Constables' act of May 27,1852, and reported further legislation inexpedient ; and that the bil lie on the table, which was concurred in.
Mr. BRANHAM, from the Committee on Ways and Means, returned Mr. Bryant's bill [132] to amend the 37th section of the Valuation and Assessment act (to admit deduction of intebtedness from personal property), recommending that it be indefinitely postponed, which was concurred in.
Mr. JONES of Wayne, returned Mr. Davis's bill [164], to allow the Auditor of State to loan funds derived from estates without heirs, and reported a bill in lieu, entitled, a bill [237] to authorize the Auditor of State to pay all funds from estates without heirs to the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund : which was passed to the second reading.
Mr. FISHER returned Mr. Smith of Bartholomew's bill [145] to amend the Assessment, act (it adds a provision for township and special school tax), recommending passage.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. GROVER, from the Committee on Education, returned the joint resolutions [S. 5] proposing to amend article 8 of the Constitution so that cities, townships, and towns may have power by taxation to raise additional funds for the support of common schools, with amendments (verbal), recommending its passage.
Mr. FISHER was opposed to the resolution. If the proposition embraced the rural districts, I would vote for it most cheerfully.
Mr. GROVER. It does.
Mr. FISHER. Then I withdraw my opposition.
The amendments were concurred in, and the resolution was then passed-yeas 77, nays 13.
Mr. GROVER also returned the joint resolution [12] proposing to amend the 23d subdivision of article 4 of the Constitution, so as to enable cities, townships, and towns to raise additional revenue for the support of common schools, recommending passage (the provision occurring twice in the Constitution, it requires a separate resolution to amend in each case).
The resolution was passed-yeas 70, nays 16
Mr. HOLCOMB returned Mr. Kendrick's bill [10], authorizing the township libraries to loan certain funds, with a motion that it bo referred to the Committee on the Judiciary; which was agreed to.
Mr. STOTSENBERG, from the Committee on Organization of Courts, returned his bill [118] to authorize the judges to make certain orders in vacation, recommending passage. [The judges may make orders for the benefit of parties residing in another county, allow depositions to be taken, &c.]
The bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. PARRETT retunred Mr. Gifford's bill [127] to give the custody of old probate papers to the clerk of common pleas, recommending passage.
It was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. NEWMAN returned Mr. Jones of Tip page: 231[View Page 231]pecanoe's bill [101] to repeal two sections of the circuit court adjournment act, with a motion to refer it to the Judiciary Committee, which was concurred in.
Mr. McCLURG returned the resolution for non-resident parties litigant to pay $5 docket fee, reporting legislation inexpedient: which concurred in.
Mr. BINGHAM returned Mr. Underwood's bill [155] fixing the circuit court in the Thirteenth Circuit, recommending passage:
Also, Mr. Henrick's bill [185] numbering the pleas districts, recommending passage.
They were severally ordered to be engrossed :
Mr. GROVER (by consent) submitted a resolution, which was adopted, directing the Auditor of State to report to this House the Respective amounts of the following funds, showing when they accrued to the State, and were paid into the Treasury, viz.: funds arising from Estates without Heirs; Military fund; Surplus Revenue Fund; Bank Tax fund; and the fund arising from the proceeds of animals running at large.
Mr. PROSSER, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, reeturned Mr. Woods's bill [179] relative to estrays. &c., with a motion to lay it on the table.
Mr. WOODS said the bill was merely to simplify the estray laws, so that estrays could be taken up and recorded in the Clerk's office, where the owner could be sure to find, in five days after taking up, a description of his property. He desired to avoid all that expensive programme of appraisement and advertisement. He moved to recommit the bill.
Mr. Prosser and Mr. Parrett opposed ; but the motion was agreed to, and the bill recommitted.
On motion by Mr. PACKARD, Mr. Heffren's Public Printing bill [17]-the special order for this day was postponed till Thursday 10 o'clock.
Mr. ORR, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Black's bill [157] to repeal district and State boards of equalization, reporting legislation inexpedient.
Also the petition of H. McDice for amendment of the road laws, so as to admit land owners to change highways on their own land at their own expense, &c., with a motion to lay it on the table.
Also Mr. Williams's promissory note bill [171], reporting legislation inexpedient, &c.
Mr. HURD returned Mr. Parrett' s criminal limitation bill [148], with a motion to lay it on the table:
These several reports were concurred in.
Mr. SMITH of Bartholomew, from the Committee on Rights, returned Mr. Bundy's Married Woman's bill, [32] with a motion that it belaid on the table.
On the motion of Mr. BUNDY, by amendment of the report, it was referred to the Judiciary.
SURVEYORS' BILLS.
Mr. FRASIER from the Committee on County and Township Business, returned Mr. Jones of Tippecanoe's Surveyors' bills, [145, 150] with the opinion of a majority that they will systematize the surveying of the State. The Committee learn that they are the result of the deliberations of a Convention of Surveyors. They propose a Surveyor General of the State, (without salary) for appeals, and to secure uniformity of action. They propose to legalize acts in subdividing lands, determining boundaries, making records, &c., rsquiring standard measures, true meridians, &c.; and providing penalties for negligence, &c. The Committee recommend the pasaage of both bills.
Mr. F. said those who had investigated, knew that there was almost a total want of regulations governing the subject of surveying in this State. The statutes simply prescribed regulations for county surveyors-for filing their bonds, and a few items in regard to their fees. There was nothing in the way of rules to govern them, and very little in the legislation of Congress on the subject.
Mr. PARRETT suggested a question whether it was competent for the State to legislate at all on the subject.
Mr. FRASIER was not aware of any constitutional obstacle-did not know why the State should not regulate the surveys of her own lands; of course she would not regulate the surveys of the lands of the General Government. He had had occasion frequently to observe this fact; but more especially since he has been in this city, he had been made acquainted with the confusion of surveys as amongst the different counties. There was a perfect Babel with regard to the rules observed amongst the county surveyors; they followed rules for which no reason could be given, only that it had been the practice. One surveyor will use a chain of 66 feet, and another will use a chain of two poles length. And in the deeds the line is described as running so many chains, &c., when really they are but half chains, and when the real truth of the case gives the holder double the amount of land described. Hence the necessity for a system, and especially in the subdivisions of sections; in the length of chains; in the variations of the needle, requiring the establishment of a true meridian in every county, by which the surveyor shall be governed in his bearings. There was no reason that there should be variations of a degree or more in the direction of the lines in two adjoining counties, which must be the case, more or less, so long as these things are suffered to remain as they are-lying round looseevery surveyor operating on his own hook. Herein consisted the necessity for a surveyor-general. In this system, ho would be required to render his public services as director of the county surveyors, without any compensation-the bill providing him page: 232[View Page 232]simply fees, which he will not get if he does not work. It allows him $6 a day and mileage, for running county and township lines. He gave an example of a disagreement of five rods in the lines along the boundary of Tippecanoe county, which had to be compromised. All such difficulties would be avoided, or more readily and satisfactorily settled, by reference to the head of the department of surveying. Another reason why there should be such an officer was found in the unsatisfactory condition of the original field-note in the office of the Auditor of State. It was not to be expected that we could always have a State Auditor who shall be also a surveyor. Some of these field-notes were not full. In some townships they were defective, and in some there were none. The proposed system provides that these field-notes shall be placed in the hands of an experienced lawyer, who shall be able to see what, additions are necessary, and be required to keep them in such condition that whenever the people of the State desire to refer to them they can do so; and certain fees are provided for this service. He was satisfied that we needed a Surveyor General more than we needed an Agent of State; and this bill provides for one, with no other expense beyond simply furnishing him an office for his papers.
Mr. WOODHULL showed that the latter bill required that the county surveyor was to be provided with an office.
Mr. FISHER called for a division of the question-one bill at a time.
Mr. FRASIER. The system depends upon both-one would not be complete without the other. He moved to lay both on the table, and that they be printed.
Mr. FISHER was willing to vote for the bill [150] to regulate county surveyors, but not for an additional State officer.
The SPEAKER, The question will be first on printing the bill No. 149.
Mr. WOODHULL. It would be like the creation of the office of Attorney General to save expense. The State now paid more attorney's fees than before.
Mr. SMITH, of Bartholomew, would rather reduce than increase the number of State officers.
Mr. LANE was satisfied this system would saddle another State officer upon the people. Six dollars a day and mileage, and $10 for platting a township were pretty good fees, these bills were gotten up by a convention of surveyors; and he gave a surveyor's opinion when he said that in the aggregate the fees were increased 30 per cent.
Mr. HOLCOMB moved to lay the motion to print on the table.
Mr. FRASIER desired to explain, but Mr. H refused to withdraw the motion.
The motion to print was laid on the table, and then-
On motion of Mr. FRASIER, his motion to print the bill, No. 150, was also laid on the table.
On motion of Mr. CRAIN, the two bills were laid on the table.
Mr. PROSSER moved to reconsider this vote and to lay the same motion on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.
EXPENSES OF THE LEGISLATURE.
On motion by Mr. BRANHAM, (by unanimous consent) his engrossed bill [190] to provide ($30,000) for the expenses of the present Legislature, was taken up and passed the final reading-yeas 82, nays 2.
The House then adjourned.
