The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-05-29

In leading article published in yesterday
mornings Journal you say that there is con-
fict between opinion given by me to the
Council November last, and given to Coun-
Gilman Spahr a few days ago, in reference to
the powers of the Council and Board,
of Aldermen in holding joint con
ventions at other times than those
specifically named in the statute 1 beg few
lines of your space in which to refute, if can.
this statement
The question submitted for my opinion in
November by the old Council was this Hav-
ing met two years ago and elected the appointive
officers of the city, is it, under the law, our
duty to meet again on the second Monday of
this month. and proceed to elect such officers for
another two years term, commencing January
1, 1884.
After an examination of the act of March s,
1881, commonly called the Van Vorhis bill, 1
arrived at the conclusion that it was not the
duty of that Council and Board of Aldermen to
again meet on the eve Of their term, in joint
convention. have had no reason to change my
opinion on that subject, and have said nothing
since in any opinion, oral or written, which con-
hicts with it. 1t so apparent from the Ian
did not intend that one Council should elect city
officers TO serve during the whole of a succeeding
Councils term, that had no difficulty in arriv
ing at the conclusion reached in that opinion,
and that ii was the legislative intent therefore,
for the officers then serving to hold over for one
year, after which time there would be no lerrgu-
larity in the terms. The author of the law, to-
gether with many other good lawyers
with whom consulted, eeneurred with me
in this view and none differed But not
withstanding it was the clear intent of the law
makers that the first set of officers elected under
the act in question should hold for three years,
which was the only question presented for my
consideration in November last yet | never
doubted the power of the Council and Board of
Aldermen then serving to coDeurFently declare
the Office of city attorney, street commissioner,
etc., vacant, and when this should be done that
am emergency would then exist forthe eonvening
of the two bodies in joint convention to fill such
vacancies. l stated this repeatedly to all the
members of both bodies, and put sentence to
that effect in the original draft of the opinion;
but the members of the Judiciary committee,
who formed the majority OF the committee con
sidering the matter, directed me to strike it out,
because that question was not before US. There
were 10 vacancies existing at that time, and hence
there was no emergency for the holding OF
joint convention as there was in the case last
week.
The provision of the statute in reference to the
appointment of the official boards is separate and
distinct from the one in reference to the election
of the city officers. The first named are purely
the creatures of ordinance, while the latter exist
by virtue of statute The first are nowhere pro-
vided for Or required by any law, and may or
may not exist as the Council and Board OF Al
dermen please. Where an ordinance exists, ere
ating such board as the fire board. for example,
on the first Friday in January of the beginning
of any councilmanie term, then it is the duty of
the two municipal bodies TO meet in joint con-
rention on that day and appoint such
board to serve during said term That
is all there is in the law. There is
nothing in any law requiring that such boards
shall be provided for, or that il, existing by
virtue Of an ordinance of the city, that they may
not be abolished at any time by the repeal OF
such ordinance. What if the fire board had
never been provided for by ordinance until the
passage of the QUE last week under which the
present fire board existS-would il be contended
that no joint convention could be held by the pres
ent Council and Board of Aldermen to elect such
board, simply because 1.-THE first Friday after the
first'annual meeting of the Common Council"
had passed. think no one would so hold. The
case under consideration is precisely that case.
No fire board existed on May 20. On that
day one was provided for by ordinance duly
passed, which also provided for joint
convention to elect the members thereof. In
addition thereto a formal call for such
joint convention was made by a majority of both
bodies, and in the room where and at the time
when every member of said bodies was present
The acts done by them in said joint convention
had sole reference to their own government and
official duties. The boards there selected are
Council committees, having, in some cases, per-
haps, more work to do and more important
questions to consider, than the other committees,
but whose acts must come before and receive
the sanction Of the full Council, except where
certain duties may be delegated to them with
power to act as may be done with the ordinary
committees, also.
But whether it is right or not it will be appar
ent TO any one who will take the trouble to exam
inc the two opinions referred to in your editorial
with reference to the separate provisions of the
statute under consideration and the character of
the questions presented that there is no conflict
between the two, as is broadly stated by the au-
thor of that article 9. s. DENNY.