NICHOLAS MOREBACK.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a message from the Governor vetoing the bill, [H. R. 139,] reported from the Committee on Rights and Privileges on the 13th of February, 1869, entitled, an act for the relief of Nicholas Moreback, Joseph E. Lang, and Francis Joseph Wetzler, (of Jackson township, Ripley county, to save said Moreback, and said Lang and Wetzler, his securities, from a judgment for township school money stolen from Trustee Moreback's custody.) -the question being: will the House pass the bill, the veto to the contrary, notwithstanding?
page: 123[View Page 123]Mr. WILLSON said the ground of the veto was that the General Assembly can not release this judgment. He was not satisfied with the reasonings of His Excellency. There were precedents of legislation of this kind all over the country. There was no authority in the bond of the Trustee, except that conferred by the legislature. Whence then, but in the Legislature, is the power to revoke and release this judgement? He opposed the opinion of eminent lawyers to that of the Governor, and defended the General Assembly from His Excellency's imputation that the passage of this bill was an act of inconsiderate and hasty legislation.
Mr. COFFROTH did not discuss the question, but submitted the opinion that the Governor in the veto is clearly wrong. He hoped the bill would pass, notwithstanding the veto. He recited the facts on which the bill is founded. It was an act of simple justice and humanity toward Moreback.
Mr. OSBORN answered the plea that this bill was made a matter of petition from Jackson township, by showing how readily such petitions are gotten up. The Judiciary Committee, he said, passed upon the propriety and justice of the bill more than upon the question of the power to pass it. He opposed the bill because it would set a bad precedent which would bring up here hundreds of claims as meritorious as this. The application for this bill here was not for legitimate legislation, but to render a decree to set aside a judgment.
Mr. COFFROTH. The State is guardian of the people, and the township but the agent of the State.
Mr. OSBORN. The people were the State, the General Assembly but representatives of the people-the State. He discussed the question at length. He insisted that the Governor's suggestions were good, and hoped they would receive due consideration.
Mr. PIERCE, of Vigo, confessed that the case of Moreback was of a class that always awakened his sympathies. Moreback was a faithful custodian, and the loss of the money was by burglars; and the question was, whether the State will sweep away this man's home for no wrong of his own? He replied to the plea, that there is a judgment of the Court in the case, and to the reasoning in the veto. No man questioned the right of the Governor to exercise the Pardoning power.
Mr. OSBORN. That power was conferred by the Constitution.
Mr. PIERCE. But the people made the Constitution. He continued, insisting that bill is right, appealing to every man's sense of justice. This same principle of Justice, equity and law obtaining also between individuals, where loss is sustained without the fault of the agent. If this man was guilty of no wrong, it was the duty of the Legislature to say to him: You shall pay no damages, etc.
Mr. DAVIDSON replied to Mr. Willson and Mr. Coffroth, and proceeded to look at the question from the stand point of law. If officers were not to account for their custodianship, where was the necessity for official bonds? Let the people of Jackson township put their hands into their own pockets and relieve this man, instead of asking the Legislature to relieve him by setting a precedent that would be ruinous to the State. The House should not open a door for successful rascality in office. He recited three cases of robbery of public money in the hands of county officers, Treasurers and Trustees in his region, equally as meritorious as this, who sought no relief in this direction.
Mr. WILDMAN demand the previous question, and under its force, the vote on the question resulted-yeas 36, nays 47-as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Barnett, Barritt, Bobo, Bowen. Carnahan, Chittenden, Coffroth, Cory, Dittemore, Fairchild. Hamilton, Hyatt, Johnson, of Parke, Lawler, Lanborn, McBride, McDonanld. McFadin, McGregor, Miles, Mitchell, Neff, Odell, Palmer, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Shoaff, Sleeth, Stewart of Ohio, Sunman, Tebbs, Underwood, Wile, Wilson, Zollars and Mr. Speaker-36.
NAYS-Messrs. Addison, Admire, Baker, Bates, Beatty, Britton, Breckinridge, Chapman, Davidson, Davis of Floyd, Dunn, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Fuller, Gilham, Gordon, Greene. Hall, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Kercheval, Logan, Long, Mason, Millekan, Miller, Montgomery, Osborn, Overmyer, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Skidmore, Smith, Stewart of Rush, Taber, Vardeman, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of Knox, Williams of St. Joseph, Williams of Union, and Zenor-45,
So the vote was sustained-Mr. DUNN explaining. He had from the beginning been opposed to making allowances of this character; but up to this time he had sustained this bill. But now, believing that if the Governor's veto be sustained it will put a stop to the bringing in of these claims, he voted no
Mr. CHITTENDEN submitted the following:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring). That the two houses will meet in the hall of the House of Representatives at 2 o'clock on Thursday, the 28th instant, and proceed, without delay, to ballot for the location of the Agricultural College; and that the point receiving the lowest number de dropped at the end of each ballot, until a location shall be obtained.
Objection being made, the resolution could not be entertained.
