The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-09-06
THE BOWLING INVESTIGATION.
Fhe Session Taken Up by the Aimless Ora
tory of the Attorneys.

tory OF the Attorneys.
The Bowling committee, with Chairman
Newcomb Councilman Mack, City Attorney
Denny and Dowlings lawyers present met last
night At the beginning Mr.. Newcomb reviewed
the object and purpose Of the committee, saying
to the accused's attorneys that, after careful
consideration, the conclusion had been reached
that the committee could only report its pro-
eeedings and findings to Council, leaving the
matter of legality relative to the committees
creation to be brought up if the attorneys
thought proper, in that body. Attorney Eve
rett insisted or the right of his position to argue
the question before the committee, referring to
precedent in the investigation Of members in
Congress Mr.. Mack Endorsed the views Of his
colleague, Mr. Newcomb, the latter stating that
he could not gee how they could do more than
report upon the facts adduced as being sufficient
Or not sufficient to place Mr.. Bowling upon trial
IN Council
Attorney Everett then read the following as
the answer of the accused to the honorable, the
committee appointed to investigate the charges
Of bribery preferred by Robert McClelland a
member of the Common Council of the city Of
indianapolis against James T. Bowling mem
Der thereof:
Comes James T. Bowling and for special plea to
the charges in said resolution contained says
First, That the Council, by whom this honorable
committee appointed, has jurisdiction either of
the person or subject matter therein charged
already been heard and determined by the present
City Council through their committee appoined for
committee have made full report of the matters in
Vestgated by the stating facts rather than conclu
sons that the Council may take such further action
thereon as it may fit and your committee having
completed their labor, now ask to be discharged
John K. Pearson, Fred j. Mack,
Robert McClelland, Julius T. Reinecke,
Preston c. Trusler, Committee"
That said action and report involved the exact
charges contained in the resolution and motion of the
Eaid McCeland; that said report of said committee
WAS received and adopted by unanimous vote of the
said Council.
And this respondent that the action on said
report has not been overruled reconsidered held
FOR naught by said Council but the contrary fully
shown by the record of said body at their regular
sion August IL, 1885, and on page 511 Of their
printed proceedings.
Wherefore the respondent says that he has already
substantially been placed his trial. and ought
alleged oense being contrary to Section Moss in
the charter of said city And for the aforesaid
This eommitte has right further in this be-
balf and the accused should go hence without day.
JAMES NJ CRoPsEY,
HARMON j. EVERETT,
Attorneys for James T. Bowling.
Attorney Everett claimed that he did not wish
to attack the legality of the committee but at
The same time implied that it was not his pur
pose to argue the testimony produced He
however, felt confident of convincing the COM
mittee, if he had chance, of the illegality of
these proceedings by prccedents one hundred
years old.
Mr.. Newcomb insisted upon his decision that
the committee had no right to hear arguments
relative to the legality of their appointment and
their work He was sustained in this by the
opinion of the City Attorney when Mr.. BOWL
ings attorneys, after other Intellectual efforts to
change the rule against them, tried another
course This was developed by Mr.. Everett,
who discussed the weight of the testimony pro-
duced, claiming that no witness sustained the
charge of bribery against his client. He told
the committee that they were not there to be
controlled by public opinion, or any newspaper,
to drive Mr.. Bowling from Council. They could
only report back to Council the facts, which did
not establish case against Mr. Bowling and if
they did not they would be guilty of perfdy
more detestable than the charges against his
client
Mr. Cropsey asked that before the decision of
the committee is made the City Attorney would
Council to consider. try and expel member for
an alleged offense occurring years ago and in
another Council, of which Mr.. Bowling was not
q member. He claimed that the committee had
nothing to do but to inquire into the question of
jurisdiction. To sustain this he referred to
Carpenters argument in the Belknap investiga-
ton, when it was decided that no jurisdiction
existed Reference was also made to other con-
gressional Investigations when the same issue
was raised and decided in favor of the defendant
that no Congress could try member for offenses
he committed while member of a preceding
Congress.
City Attorney Denny said he did not think the
committee, Mr.. Cropsey, or Mr. Everett wanted
Rny further opinion from him. The arguments
offered would not lead him to modify the opinion
that the committee had only to report upon the
facts brought out during the investigation. They
cannot set themselves up as judges of the valid
ity or the invalidity of the ordinance under
which they act That ordinance is clear and
explicit, and if he was member he would not
occupy further time in considering points which
Mr.. Dowlings attorneys have raised. The place
for them to make their argument is in the
Council
Messrs Cropsey and Everett claimed that they
had no opportunity under the rule of the com
mittee to offer evidence, which they understood
was the purpose of this meeting. but they were
met by Mr. Denny and Chairman Newcomb
with the denial that such was the understanding
ut the last adjournment of the committee, and
further they said that the defendants had during
the investigation abundant opportunity to pre-
sent the witnesses which they say they can
summon. This closed the matter, and with an
intmation that the question would be taken to
higher court in an attempt to enjoin Council, the
attorneys withdrew. The committee then went
into secret session to consult on the matter and
form Of their report, which will not be made
known until the meeting of Council on Monday
night
Frazier's Case.
Yesterday the attachment suit of S. NJ. Bruce
against Marcus L. Frazier, late secretary and
treasurer of the Globe Mutual Assessment Life