The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-02-08
The Question Involves the Future Lo-
cation of "a Courthouse. Which Is
Now at KentIand.
SOME BROAD lNSINUHTIONS
CHARACTERIZED THE ARGUMENT
AND MADE SESSION VERY BRISK.
Both Sides Are Claiming a Victory
Senator OsbOrn's Election Bill
Passed.

The last two hours of the House session
yesterday afternoon were consumed by a
renewal of the contest over the relocation
of the county seat of Newton county, and
i'm the course of the discussion insinuations
both broad and long were made.
The day before the bill providing for a re-
location of the county seat was passed to
third reading with two amendments. The
first provided that So per cent. of all the
voters should vote for one place before the
county seat should be moved there. The
second provided that a courthouse must be
built when the county seat should be so
located. and prescribed the amount of the
tax levy that should be made for that pur-
pose. The contest is regarded as between
Kentland, the present county seat, and
Morocco, which aspires to be the seat of
county justice.
The bill providing for the relocation was
introduced by Mr.. Hall, and every step of
the way has thus far been bitterly con-
tested. The ordering to engrossment of the
bill on Monday was considered in the nature
of a victory fer Morocco. as it was the de-
sire of the citizens of that place that but So
per cent. of the voters should be compelled
to favor the election of one place.. The
amendment making the erection of a court
house mandatory was desired by Kentland,
so that the bill as passed was possibly in
the nature of a victory for both sides.
On Monday evening reinforcements ar
rived for the Kentland faction, and the re-
suits of the work of this faction appeared
yesterday when Mr.. Stevens arose and
moved to reconsider the vote by which the
bill had been ordered to engroSSment. Mr..
Holcomb seconded the motion and Mr.. Hall
moved to table the motion. Mr.. Eichhorn
demanded the yeas and nays, and the mo-
fiOn tn IA HE wa lost nv III yeas fn II ma w
1t was explained that the bill had been or
dered to engrOssment under a misunder-
standing, as the members understood that
90 per cent. would be satisfactory to both
parties to the controversy, when it was not
satisfactory to the KentIand faction. The
motion by which the bill had been ordered
to engrOssment was next reconsidered, and
this brought the bill before the House on
its second reading.
MIR. HALLS DENIAL.
The first recommendation of the commit
tee report was that the per cent. be made
s., and this had been rejected by the House
and the per cent. left at 50. Mr.. Stevens
next moved that the vote by which this had
been done be reconsidered, and Mr.. Artman
moved to table Mr.. Stevens's motion. Mr..
Artman's motion was lost and the vote was
reconsidered by a vote of 81 to 80. Mr..
Stevens next moved to concur in the recon-
mendation of the committee that IS per cent.
" viz CANA E4AOOANA b6ARC I'LL NAAC CdNA
of the county seat. Mr.. Hall spoke at length
against it and claimed that the majority
rule should be followed in this case. He
denied having tried to convey any false i'm
preston and said that so far as he knew
there had been no misunderstanding of the
question when 1t was considered on Monday.
Mr.. Noel cut off further debate on this
question by moving the previous question,
and a strong protest went up against such
gag rule" The House seconded the mo-
ton for the previous question by A yeas to
80 nays, and when the roll was called many
of the members took advantage of the min
to make a few remarks.
Mr.. Altman, one of the first names called,
said he had not received any of this mis-
no" Mr.. Durham said that in the dis
tribution of misunderstanding" he had
been left out, and, as he could see no reason
TO vote for a change, he would vote no"
Mr.. Stevens said that he had been told that
the SO per cent. was a compromise and was
satisfactory to both parties, but as he had
found it was not satisfactory he had made
these motions. The recommendation of the
committee that the per cent. be fixed at 60
was adopted by IS yeas to 80 nays.
Mr.. Hedgecock moved to engross the bill
and Mr.. Hall moved to table this motion
and protested vigorously against all debate
being shut off in this manner. Mr.. Halls
motion carried by As ayes to 80 noes, and
Mr.. HedgecOcks motion was tabled. Mr..
Artman moved to reconsider the vote by
making the erection of a courthouse manda-
tory had been concurred in, and it was on
this question that the unlimited oratory was
caused. The same question had been thor
oughly discussed several times on the floor,
but the MEMBERS fought as vigorously as
though it was Up for the first time. and at
times the debate became acrimonious. Mr..
Bonham argued that accol ding to the deci-
siOnS of the Supreme Court, the right to
relocate a county seat is vested in the coun-
ty commissioners only, and he cited cases
to support his claim. The same arguments
that the House has heard so many times on
this question were made. Those who dis
nTTCCn1 II urnpn Mr. Linhhnrn Nv ITarrn11
Mr.. Huff, Mr.. Barlow and Mr., B~lankenship.
The last named gentleman stirred up a hor-
nets nest. He charged that those who ia
vored the bill two years ago were opposed
to it now. He further said that every mo-
ton that had gone in on this bill had been
prepared by a lobbyist who sat right close
to his seat and that the motions had been
given to Mr.. Stevens in such numbers that
1t was necessary for a to come
and help him ~straighten them out. He
charged that the speaker was voting con-
trary to the way he voted two years ago,
and Speaker Littleton caused a great laugh
by replying that he voted as he did&tWo
years ago for the sole purpose of securing
a vote on a caucus measure which otherwise
could not have been held. Mr.. Blankenship
said that he did not know the kin or the
quantity of the misunderstanding" that
had prevailed, but it was evidently effective.
Mr.. Burkhardt moved the previous ques-
ton, and Mr.. Eichhorn rose to a question
of personal privilege. He said he desired
to say in reply to the i%nsinuations against
him that he had been approached with an
OIlGI 10 lAlH DIS al dAlOIICN. ana lot IDdI
reason he was opposed to those who had 20
appl cached him. as he understood what was
meant. The motion to reconsider this rec
ommendation was lost by 80 ayes to 80 noes.
BILL WILL BE E~NGROSSED.
Mr.. Hayes offered an amendment to make
the number 60 per cent, and Mr.. Marshall
moved to table it, but the speaker declared
the amendment out of order. Mr.. Eichhorn
moved to make the number necessary TO pc
tition the commissioner to secure the spe-
cial election 500 instead of 200, and Mr.. Huff
tried to have this tabled, but failed. Mr..
Hall offered an amendment to make the nee
essary number 1900. Mr.. Echhorn accepted
this, and in this form the amendment was
adopted. Mr.. Marshall moved that the bin
be engrossed and this was done after a dis
cussion lasting but three minutes short of
two hours. on a subject that the House had
heard every word Of the argument before.
The total cost of the afternoons considera-
ton Of this question 10 the State was $422.o9.
There was much suppressed excitement
over the insinuations regarding the use of
money. and one member who yesterday was
opposed 10 his position on the same question
two years ago said: If our motives are
questioned much more, a volcano will break
loose. The fact of the matter IS that nearly
every man who was here two years ago has
been approached on this bill, and that is the
reason there has been a general change
against those approaching us"
Senator Culbert's bill regarding convict la
Dor and It's employment was the special or
~Ian COT FAr fha "a araa hYaf 2 moe wnanaV