RELOCATION OF COUNTY SEATS.
Mr. BRAZELTON'S [H R. 91] concerning the relocation of county seats.
Mr HEFFREN moved to recommit this hill to the Committee on County and Township Business.
Mr BRAZELTON said: I hope, sir, that the motion will not prevail. I think that the Committee on County and Township Business carefully considered this bill before submitting its report. As to-the merits of the bill I am prepared, I think, to say that it is an honest and fair bill. It is a bill adapted to all the Counties of the State. It provides that 65 per cent. of The voters of the County shall vote for the relocation. Now take the County where I live, with 4 000 voters, it would require 2,600 of the voters to relocate the County Seat, and I think that if two-thirds of the voters in a County desire to change the County seat of the County they ought to be allowed to do so. Now I trust, gentlemen of the House, that the bill will not be recommitted.
Mr. JEWETT considered the only question before the House to be the one to recommit. He thought the Committee was a good one and believed that the members of the Committee had given this bill sufficient consideration before they submitted the same to the House. He felt that the Committee had done its duty. He thought that the bill should be engrossed, and when it came up for final passage the merits of the bill could be discussed.
Mr. HEFFRFEN spoke in favor of his motion to recommit. He was in under the impression that the bill had been formed for the relocation of the County seat of one County, and that in the consideration of the bill the Committee had only heard one side of the question. He was informed that there were persons present who desired to go before the Committee and represent the other side of the matter. He considered these sufficient reasons to recommit the bill,
Pending the consideration of the motion to recommit-
The House adjourned until 10 a. m. January 25.
