The Nevada Democrat., 1859-08-31
Another Assemblyman,s Record.


the last Legislature. We propose now to in
vestigate the record of the Hon. Phil. Moore,
who was also member of the last Assembly,
and has been nominated for reelection, and
shall eudeavor to do him no injustice. Moore'f
great forte was to move the previous question
and rise to points of order. Asspeaker pro tenn
be occupied the chair considerable Of the time,
and in that position is said to have done very
WE'LL During the session, he introduced three
bills: One to legalze certain acknowledge
ments to conveyances in this county; another
to change the name Of certain parties; and the
other for the benefit Of the Secretary of State
providing that he need not keep bis Office open
longer each day than the other State officers
The FIRST was defeated owing to its unconstitu-
tionality; the second passed the Assembly-we
do not know whether it passed the Senate or
not; the third became a law. As Chairman Of
the State Prison Committee, Mr.. Moore intro
duced substitute for Senate bill No. 146-an
act to provide for the government OF the State
Prison and to repeal the act passed during the
session Of 1858. The bill passed the Senate
March 4th and was sent Immediately to Mr.
Moore's committee, but from some cause prob
ably known to the chairman, they did not re-
port back the substitute until the 26th Of the
same month. II passed the Assembly April
I4th, just five days before the Adjournment, but
the Senate, not having time to consider the bill,
even had it been meritorious, it failed to be-
come law.
When Assembly bill No. 223, "an act grant
ing the consent of the Legislature for the for
nation of different government to the south
ern counties of the State," came UP on its pas
sage, March 25th, Moore "dodged" the ques-
ton. On the following day motion was made
to reconsider the vote by which the bill passed;
and another to indefinitely postpone the motion
to reconsider, which was lost by vote OF 20 to
26- Mr.. Moore again not voting. No further
action was had on the bill until April 9th, when
Mr.. Moore voted against the motion TO recon-
sider-see Assembly Journal page 53S. The
motion to reconsider was lost by vote OF "a
to 32; and thus were the southern counties
granted the right to sccedc, and form sepa-
rate government, without consulting the voters
of other sections of the State. The bill was
clearly unconstitutional, and Mr.. Moore assist
ed in its passage. Mr.. Armstrong also voted
throughout for this bill.
On the 18th of April, Assembly bill No. 225
was reached on general file, being "an act to
provide for the pay Of troops called out to quell
the insurrection in the year 1885," commonly
known as the "Bummers' Bill" Mr.. Laspeyre
moved that the House 60 into Committee Of
the Whole for the purpose of considering the
bill, which was refused by vote of rs to 81
Mr.. Moore not voting The bill was then in
definitely postponed by vote of AZ to 20-Xr.
Moore again not voting-see Assembly Jour-
nal, page 57s. This bill proposed to appropri-
ate fifty thousand dollars, and why it was that
Mr.. Moore "dodged" the matter, we do not
know, except that he had not the moral courage
to meet il. 1t certainly was not for the reason
that it was Of little Importance, for bill pro-
posing to appropriate the sum of Fifty thousand
dollars ought to command the careful action
and consideration of a representative who de-
sired to act for the best interests OF the State
and his constituents.
Mr. Moore voted to indefinitely postpone As
sembly bill No. 275, to reduce the pay Of men,
bers Of tie Legislature; he neglected to vote
on the resolution to pay an official reporter
fourteen dollars day; he voted against the
bill to reduce the fees of the Supreme Court
Clerk, and also against the bill abolishing the
useless Office of State Guager. He was the
member who moved the rejection of this latter
bill, and also its indefinite postponement. He
also voted to allow Mr.. Walkup extra compen-
sation for services as Warden of the State Pris
on. The bill provided for paying Walkup
twenty-three hundred and thirty dollars, when
he was entitled by law to receive only SIX hun
dred and eighty dollars. This the law allowed
him in addition to seventy.fve dollars q month
as Director Of the State Prison. Walkup's
friends contended that he was entitled to ten
dollars day from the date of his appointment
as Warden, in addition to SIS a month as Di-
rector, which amounted to 81, $50; while it'was
clearly the intention of the law of 1858 that he
should receive ten dollars a day only for the
time he was actually employed besides the $75
month. The Attorney General gave it as his
opinion that Walkup was only entitled to $3.50;
and had it been the intent Of the law to allow
him So $3.50 there would have been no necessity
of bringing in bill making the appropriation,
as the law appropriated all that was necessary
to carry out the provisions Of the act. We
were mistaken last week, in giving Armstrong;
record, in stating the amount allowed Walkup
at eight dollars day-it should have been ten.
There is one act of Phil. Moore's during the
session which entities him to a credit mark.
In the contested election case Of Hoyt VS.. Tip
ton, he voted with the minority In favor of the
contestant, who was justly entitled TO the seat,
for the reason that he had received the highest
number of votes In all other respects Moore
was bitter and unscrupulous partisan, tram.
pling without hesitation upon the rights Of the
ruinor;fv vyhanavar IN onnorlunitv nFFarad