The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-11-06
THE COMMON COUNCIL.
a Resolution Continuing the Terms
of officers Until Jan. 1, 1885,
In Accordance with an Opinion of the City
Attorney and Judiciary Committee
The Usual Routine Business.
The regular meeting of the Common Council

proposition from Chris. KngenberS TO pay
$4,000 for two houses belonging to the Tom
linson estate, Nos. % and 81 West Ohio street,
was accepted. The terms of sale are $1,000
cash. 50, 900 in six months, and $1,000 every
SIX months thereafter until tho full amount is
paid, with interest at per cent
The city civil engineer was instructed to or
der the contractor of the Washington-street
sewer to extend the sewer to Pogues run, so
as to relieve the run in times of high water.
The city clerk reported that orders were drawn
on the city treasury during OctOner to the
amount of $45,459.40. The report of the city
treasury showed balance to the credit of the
general fund of sec, 583.1s; TomlinsOn estate,
$55,S66.21; additional oity-hal fund. $685.,
368.9O, sinking fund, S15, 039.45.
In reporting upon the condition OF the high
school building, the chief fire engineer said he
could "see no cause for alarm, judging from
what can be seen by close inspection"
The city attorney reported that the volume of
revised city ordinances, which had been in pre-
paratlOn for several months, has been printed,
ana Will be ready for delivery in a few days. The
volume will contain every ordinance OF a gem
eral character now in force, and all State laws
relating to Indianapolis specially
The city civil engineer reported an estimate
fOr X Z. Dunu1ng, on account or street improve
ments, for So, 5S3.78; George W. Sebert, for ST.
949.54; and s. w. and X. II. Patterson, Washing
The following important opinion relating to
the election of officers by the Council and Board
of Alderman was submitted by the city attor-
ney and judiciary committee:
To the Mayor and Members of the Common Council
of the City Of Indiana polis
GenJemen-By your reference to us of the
resolution introduced by Mr. Morrison at the
last meeting, we understand that our opinion Is
desired rs To the construction which should be
given to that part of the act OF March 5, 1884,
known as the Ivan Vorhis bill" which provides
n a
the city and fixes their tenure.
The act in question made many important
changes in the political and governmental af
fairs of this city The first part of section L. of
this act, provides that the members of the
Council and Board of Aldermen shall meet in
joint convention on "the first Friday evening
after the first annual meeting of the Common
Council" and elect the members of the official
boards, and such other officers as ara required to
he appointed from among the members of the
Council, and fixing the term of such officers to be
curing their term of office cOuneilpen." By
this language, it is clear that the phrase first
annual meeting OF the Common Council means
the first meeting in January of the first wear of
the two years term of cOuncilmen and aldermen.
The last half of said section, and that which
we are to specially consider, reads as follows:
And for the appointment of all other officers,
commissioners, trustees and boards required or
authorized by act of the General Assembly or
ordinances of the city, the Common Council and
Board of Aldermen shall meet IN joint conven-
ton in the Council chamber, on the second Mon
day evening in November after the first annual
meeting of the Common Council and shall pro-
coed to the election of such officers, commission
ers, trustees and boards by ballot, and such
Joint convention may adjourn from time to time
until its work is completed. All sucn officers,
commissioners, trustees and boards, so elected,
shall serve for two years from the first day of
January after their election, aud until their sue
cessOrs are elected and qualified, unless sooner
removed according to law"
Under this statute, the appointYe officers now
serving were elected by joint convention held
by the present Council and Board of Aldermen
on the second Monday in November, 1881.
The questions called to answer, un-
der the law and facts above set out. are these:
Flret-Can another joint convention be lawfully
held by the present Council and Board OF Alder
men2
Second-If not do the officers appointed in
November, 1881, hold over?
Third-If they do hold over. till what timel
The statute under consideration makes pro
vision for any one Council and Board to no Id
more than one JOINT convention, and it is clear
from the language used, as above intimated. that
the Legislature intended that but one such CON
venton should be held during any one COun-
Gil term. No provision is made in this law for
the selection OF the officers in question, except
by joint convention Of the two legislative
bodies. No shorter term than two years is pro-
Vided for in any case. If, therefore, the present
Council and Board of Aldermen should hold an
other joint convention on the second Monday of
the present month, they could not elect Off
GERS for less term than two years. To do
this would be 30 select for the entire term OF
the new Council. This, of course, cannot be
done. 1t was clearly not the legislative intent.
We are forced to the conclusion, therefore, that
the members of the Council and Board, now
serving, cannot, under the law, hold another
joint convention,
In answering your first question in the mega
tive, we practically answer your second i'll the
affirmative.
Having concluded that the present officers
mold over, we are next to inquire, how long7
The members-elect to the Council and Board
take their places on the 1st of January next,
and the first annual meeting of that Council will
be held IN that month, consequently they cannot
select officers except those for their own gov
ernment) until the second Monday in November,
1884 and the terms of such officers cannot
under Wa
therefore conclude that the present appoinuive
officers continue in office until Jan. 1, 1885.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES A. PRIrCuARD,
NELSON YOKE,
Judiciary Committee
c. 8. DENNY, City Attorney
1 do not concur with the gentlemen in the
above opinion, for the reason that believe that
each Council shall have full power TO elect all of
their own officers, and that it is right that the
terms of all officers should expire on the last
meeting of this Concll in December next
JOHN w. FULTZ.
In addition to the foregoing 1 beg leave to
state that preferred not to express opinion
on the questions in controversy, hoping that the
same would be referred to some other attorney
mitUed the same to number Of able lawyers of
the Indianapolis bar, all of whom concurred
In the conclusions arrived at by your committee,
c. S. DENNY.
The previous question was moved by Council
man Dean, and, after the defeat of a motion TO
lay on the table, the adoption of the following
resolution was moved:
"Resolved by the Common Council and Board
of Aldermen of the City of indianapolis. That
ali the officers of said city elected in November,
1881, by the joint convention of the Common
Council and Board OF Aldermen, not heretofore
removed, be- and the same are hereby, contin-
ued until Jan. l, 1885, or until their successors
elected and qualified"
The vote on the resolution was as follows:
Yeas-Messrs. Brundage, Bryce, Dean, Egger,
Mauer, Morrison, PriIchard Stout, Thalran,
Ward, Weaver and YOke-12. Nays-Messrs
Caylor, Cole, Coy, bowling, Fultz, Harold,
Hartmann and Rollers.
The purchase of the Mlddlebrook Il Park ele-
vator, for the new City Hospital building, for
$1,000, was ordered.
The action of the Board of Aldermen in allow
ing the mayor 81, 103 80, the amount collected
on fees and fines, which he had deposited with
the Indiana Banking Company, prior TO its fail.
ure, was cOncurred in by the Council. The
money. IL was claimed in advocating the allnw-