NICHOLAS MOREBACK AND HIS SURETIES.
On motion of Mr. CHITTENDEN, the Committee's bill, [H. R. 139] originally introduced by Mr. Wilson, for the relief of Nicholas Moreback, of Ripley county, Jackson township, and his sureties, was taken up out of order, and ordered to the engrossment.
Mr. OSBORN opposed the passage of the bill. It would be opening the door for many such claims from the custodians of the public moneys, and besides, it recites statements about which the House knows nothing.
Mr. CARNAHAN said there were more palliating circumstances in the Moreback case than any which had come under his observation in the General Assembly. This relief was asked for by sixteen out of every seven teen of the people of the township to whom the lost money belonged.
Mr. STEWART of Rush, opposed the bill; but was informed by--
Mr. COFFROTH and Mr. FURNAS that these stolen funds--about seven hundred dollars--belonged to the Township school house fund.
Mr. BUSKIRK said that in addition to the fact that the failure of the bill would work a hardship on the officer who lost the money, he thought the relief might be granted without establishing a bad precedent. The people who lose the money petition for the relief of the officer, and the relief asked for can be secured from no other source than the Legislature.
Mr. BARRITT also favored the bill.
Mr. KERCHEVAL said that when a man puts himself up for office, or accepts an office which makes him the custodian of public funds, he takes that office with a full knowledge of its responsibilities, and if while holding the office, the funds placed in his hands are lost, he knows that it is his duty to replace the amount lost. Sureties are demanded by law for the purpose of securing the reimbursement of the people when such losses occur. He thought gentlemen were wrong in making Moreback an exception amongst all the honest sufferers in similar cases all over the State. Two honest, and very respectable Township Trustees in his county had been robbed--and he referred to many such cases of demand for relief which could be just as strongly supported by petitions as this case of Moreback. To grant this relief would rob the children of that township and would open the door for a flood of similar claims from all parts of the State. He objected to setting page: 422[View Page 422] any such precedent on the ground that its effect would be to make the custodians of public securities careless.
Mr. MILES demanded the previous question, which was seconded.
Mr. WILSON being the author of the bill, and the parties asking relief being constituents of his, was permitted to set forth again the merits of the case at some length. He recited the facts in the case, saying that ninety-six out of every one hundred citizens of the township had signed a petition for the relief of the parties named in the bill. He could not see why gentlemen from other parts of the State, whose constituents would in no way be affected by the bill, object to its passage, since the people affected by it petition for its passage.
The main question was then ordered; and the bill was finally passed the House of Representative--yeas 58, nays 31as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Admire, Barnett, Barritt, Bates, Beatty, Bobo, Bowen, Britton, Breckinridge, Buskirk, Calvert, Carnahan, Cave, Chapman, Chittenden, Coffroth, Cory, Cox, Dittemore, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Furnas, Higbee, Hatchings, Hyatt, Johnston of Montgomery, Johnson of Parke, Jump, Lawler, Lamborn, Logan, McDonald, McFadin, McGregor, Millekan, Miller, Miles, Monroe, Montgomery, Neff, Odell, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Ruddell, Shoaff, Shoemaker, Sleeth, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Sunman, Tebbs, Underwood, Welborn, Wile, Williams of Union, Wilson, Zenor and Zollars--58.
NAYS--Messrs. Addison, Baker, Beeler, Britton, Cunningham, Davidson, Davis, Field of Lagrange, Fuller, Gordon, Green, Hall, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Marshall, Kercheval, McBride, Mock Osborn, Ratliff, Sabin, Skidmore, Smith, Stewart of Rush, Tabor, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of St. Joseph; and Mr. Speaker--31.
So the bill passed.
