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.
