St. Charles Republican intelligencer. (St. Charles [Charles City], Iowa) 1856-1857, 1857-02-12

The petitions filed at the regular January
Session. 1857 of this Court, ask I" for the sub
mission to the legal voters of said County,
at the April Election, to be held on the first
Monday of April next, in and for said County,
the question of the removal of the County
Seat of said County from st. Charles, the place
of its present location, to Floyd in said Coun-
ty.'
There are two petitions filed at the same
time and asking the same thing, and may be
considered as one for all practical legal pur-
poses. The affidavit attached to the petition
with the greatest number of names attached.
is as follows:
STATE OF IOWA, Moses Conger, of the
FLOYD COUNTY. { County of Floyd and
State of Iowa, being duly sworn, deposes and
| says, that the persons whose names are sub
sclibed to the above petition are legal voters
| of the County of Floyd and State aforesaid as
this deponent verify believes. And this depo-
nent further says, that in the month of Novem-
Der last, II notice of the presentation of the
above petition was duly published in the ST.
Charles Republican Inteligencer, paper pub
lished at st. Charles. in the County Of Floyd
and State of Iowa And this deponent further
| II
County called Floyd, and so recorded i'm the
Recorders Office in said County of Floyd State
aforesaid. And this deponent further says.
that 1T appears from the last census of the
County of Floyd that there are G1O voters in
the said County of Floyd at the time the last
census was taken and that there are the names
of three hundred and forty legal voters of the
said County of Floyd, and State of Iowa, sub
scribed to said petition. MOSES CONGER.
Sworn and subscribed to before me on the
9Th day of January, A. ID. 1857
A. l.. COLLINS, County Judge.
The affidavit attached to the other petition
only states % that the persons whose names are
affixed to the above petition are legal voters OF
the said County of Floyd and State of Iowa
as this deponcnt verify believes" is sworn and
subscribed to by David Ripley, and has but ?
names affixed to it,
At the January session Moses Congcr ap-
peared and presented the petitions, and G. G.
Reiniger appeared for demonstrators, and
moved that the whole proceedings be contin-
ucd until the next regular February Session,
for the purpose of giving time to investigate
the merits and validity of the petitions and tc
file remonstrancc. Conger objected, and be,
ing satisfied that the rights of the petitioners
could not be impaired, or in anywisc compro.
missed by granting the motion, and believing
that justice demanded that all parties interest
ed should have fair opportunity of investiga
ton in the premises, and to file a rcmonstrancc
l granted the motion.
At the February Session Moses Conger ap
peared for petitioners, and G. G. Reinigcr and
S. B. Starr for demonstrators. The ATTORNEYS
for demonstrators objected to the suficicncy OF
the proof of the notice of the presentation OF
the petition, (the only proof being in the aft
davit attached to the petition, on the ground
that there is no proof what notice was publish
ed; neither was there any proof Of the facts
attending the publication of the notice, and
that notice twas duly published" was mere
matter of opinion, and that the fact attending
the publication of the notice, and the notice
itself should be proved, SO that the Court
could decide whether notice twas duly pub
lished - or not-(being objection first.
But in order that decision might be had
on the merits of the petition, gave the strong.
est possible construction to the proof of notice
and adopted the opinion of the afiiant, that
notice " was duly published, although hav,
been unable to find any precedent in support
Of my decision.
s. B. Starr then made further objections
together with charges against the validity O
the petition, and offered aiiidayits in support O
such charges, some of which were read, and al
SO rcmonstrancc with affidavit attached, all O
which papers were filed 10y the Court The
objections and charges were as follows, which
haveconsideredi in detail in the order in whicl
they We're presented.
Second The petition does not ask for tn.
relocation of the County Seat, at any on
place therein named. There is within the
County of Floyd, the village of Floyd, the sc
ographical centre of Floyd, the township o
Floyd and other places to which the petition
may refer Again, petition only asks for the
submission to the people of the question of re
moval of the County Seat and it does not APP
pear from the petition, that petitioners are il
favor of, or ask for the removal OF the Count,
Seat
1t was claimed by the counsel for petitioner
that the petition was under and in conformt,
to the act of the General Assembly of 1855
entitled "an act in relation to County Seats,
page II, the 4th section of which provides tina
upon petitions being presented at any tern
, Of the County Court, signed by at least one
half of all the voters of the County, as shown
by the last preceding census, asking for a re
, location of the said County Scat at any one
, place therein named, said Court shall order :
, &c.
1t will be perceived by reference to the abov,
petition that a submission to the legal voter
of the County of the question of removal O
, the County Seat from St. Charles to Floyd il
the prayer Of the petition. 1t will hardly b,
: contended that the petition expresses prefer
ence for Floyd over st. Charles, much less tina
it asks for a elocation of the County Seat; tn,
prayer is for vote upon the question. 1t ma,
be contended that petitioners would not asl
for vote unless they were in favor of rc-lo
cation on the other hand it was strongly con
tended that sec. 4, above quoted, is expressly
that the petition must ask for relocation
and that the fair construction Of the law il
that the petitioners should express themselvc
in favor of relocation of the County Seat
and that many may have been induced to sigl
the petition who were in favor of vote upol
the question, and were not in favor of a re-lo
cation and if petitioners arc not in favor tn,
relocation, it would be useless to grant thu
vote. 1t seems to me that the petitioner