The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-08-17
THE BOWLING INQUIRY.
The Committee Meet to Frame Report
What May Be Done in Future.

The Council committee of inquiry relative to
the Bowling matter, met yesterday afternoon to
consider the character of the report thereon to be
submitted to Council this evening. 1t was agreed
that nothing more than presentation of facts,
as the testimony of several witnesses and
Dowlings statement before the committee made
them appear, could be done. The proceedings
the committeeman consider were purely those of
inquiry, and, according to the decision of City
recommendation of the committee as to future
action could be accepted by Council. Hence the
report will consist solely of the evidence taken,
but its rejection or adoption will not relieve
Councilman Bowling from subsequent proceed
ings under the city charter, ordinances and
revised statutes referring to the trial of council
men and other city officials when charges are
made against them 1t was under these legal
provisions that Dowling's attorneys so persist
emily sought cover, claiming that their client as
one accused, should have been brought to trial
according to the form expressed in
the ordinance and charter. Council,
they argued. had no right to bring
him before any committee to answer questions
which might lead to charges being preferred
against him in legal and regular way by any citi-
zen councilman. They claimed that there
nothing to justify preliminary proceedings
in the way of inquiry for this purpose, Bowling,
if he wished, could have ignored the committee,
but he and his council are not reluctant to
characterize the explanation he made as one of
candor and honesty of purpose.
AS the committee Will report as above stated
the Bowling attorneys may make another strug
gle on techncalites, in the event some one pro-
A. 49, .lzl
is disposed of. or even without reference to that
action can be taken under section of four the
ordinances of 1864, as they appear in the latest
revision which reads as follows:
ANY member of the Common Council, or any
voter of said city may prefer a charge OF charges
against any officer thereof and shall present
such charge or charges in writing to said council
charge or charges. preferred by q member of
the Common Council, shall be signed by him
officially; and charge or charges so preferred
by any other person shall be verified by oath or
affirmation that the same is true, as the ,rson
making such charge charges verify believes
Such charge OF charges shall be referred to a
committee of three members of said Council
who shall examine into the same, and if in their
opinion there be good grounds for such accusa-
ton, they shall present such charge or charges
to said Council in proper form for trial. but if the
said committee reports against such charge or
charges, no further action shall be had thereon,
unless said Council shall refuse to accept the re-
port thereon of such committee, and refer such
charge or charges to another committee of the
same number; and if such second committee
report that the accused ought not to be put on
his trial therefor, such charge or charges shall
be no further entertained"
II trial is had and conclusions adverse to
the accused are reached, then Council can pro-
coed under Section 101, Revised Statutes, which
is as follows: ANY member of the Common
Council may be expelled or removed from office
by two-thirds vote of the whole number elect
ed but not a second time for the same offense.
The Common Council shall make pro-
visions in their bylaws or ordinances in regard to
the mode in which charges shall be preferred,
and the hearing of the same had" In accord
ance with the last clause there are other ordi
nances relating to the manner of proceedings,
which are described as those of suit at law,
the committee of trial being empowered to com
pei the presence of witnesses and the production
of papers. The accused is denied the right to
vote on anything relating to his trial, and if ex
pulsion is ordered the mayor is required to pro-
nOunce that sentence upon the offending member
within ten days after such order. But the city
attorney says expulsion does not prevent the one
expelled seeking reelection. and if he is sent
back to Council he cannot be tried a second time
for the offenses that led to his punishment.
Therefore, if Bowling is tried and expelled and
the voters Of his ward return him TO Council,
that settles the question SO far as his alleged
bribery of councimen of 1882 and 1883 is con-
cerped