The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-11-11
PATTISON'S PROPOSITION.
The Views of Leading Taxpayers Regarding
the Adjustment of the Treasurer's Loss.

The action of the court in relation to the Pat
tison injunction case has been generally misun-
derstood. The main questions involved in the
application for injunction against the mu-
nicipal officers have not been decided, the court
having merely discontinued the temporary re-
straining order, without expressing any opinion
as to its power to prevent the Council and Board
from releasing the treasurer if irreparable injury
would result The main questions will come up
for decision on the 10Th instant
A number of taxpayers were interviewed yes
terday. by Journal reporters, regarding Treas
urer Pattison's proposition, and below is given
some of the expressions of opinion gathered from
different citizens
Henry Severin-My opinion is that the city
should not take it.
W j. HoIliday-I am not in favor of it.
Frederick Ostermeyer-I think the city has
no right to do anything of the kind. believe
the law is decided enough on that point and that
the bondsmen should be held.
w. B. Burford-Excuse, me for personal rea-
sons.
S. T. Bowen--I do not think the city ought to
do it, 1t is unbusinesslike and would establish
an unsafe precedent.
H. III. Lee-I am opposed to the proposition
submitted to the Council. I think we'll of Mr..
dtClSOD; ne is a POOQ personal Irlenu OIL mine,
but think it a bad precedent.
w. ID. English-I am very sorry for Pattison;
l am for all the losers by the bank failures; but
think the principle involved in the pending
proposition bad, and its adoption might make a
dangerous precedent. I have not, however, taken
and l do not wish to take, any active or con-
spicuous part in the controversy, and l have no
interest in it except the general interest common
to all citizens and taxpayers.
Christian F. Brink do not think the Council
a @ Jvhf 70
w. f. Fenton-I believe if anybody is to take
the tile works stock it should be the bondsmen
and not the city
Austin HI. Brown should vote for it if I were
in Council.
George w. Stout signed the petition in ia
vor of accepting it.
W. p Gallup do not agree with hardly
ybody else have seen on the subject. / look
at it this way: If Mr. Pattison had deposited that
money In place the city furnished him to put
1t In. and 1t had been lost, if he had taken it
home and it had there been burned or stolen,
everybody would have said he ought to have put
it in a bank. Well. he did put it in a bank, and
the bank failed If he put it in what he and the
public considered the best place for the interest
OF the city, think that is all that could reason
ably be asked Of him.
Henry Schnull-I do not think it would be
right to release Mr. Pattson. would even say
so if were on his bond. / do not think we
ought to make such precedent The treasurer
was az ilucTty uepOSiI aC any DanK In the CITY,
and he chose one paying high rate of interest
where he ought to have known that any bank
paying such rate of interest as l understand
he received, was not very sound. feel much
sympathy for Mr.. Pattison, and. as far as my
individual interest is concerned, would cAeer-
fully pay my proportion of the loss in tax.
Oscar b. Hord-If such a principle is estab-
llshed, the treasurer would seek the bank that
pays the greatest rate of interest and the weak
est bank always does that. If the case now in
fhn olx,s.,N e
the tile works, is sustained, the property will be
distributed to the creditors of the
works, and will not pay fifty cents on
the dollar Consequently. nothing will
ever come to the stockholders. On the
other hand. if the appointment of the receiver in
vacation is declared void judgments against the
company will absorb all of this property, and there
will not only be nothing left for the stockholders,
but there will be nothing for the creditors. I
am, of course opposed to the proposal
Augustus kiefer-I signed the paper upon
which appear the names of Mr.. Conduit, Mr..
English and Others and that fixes my position.
l would simply ask what was the bond taken for
if not to secure the city against any loss. no
matter how it may occur9 We propose to pay
our money to prevent it, if that can be done by
employing attorneys. l have nothing personal
against Mr.. Pattison. Though Democrat if
my memory serves me rightly voted for him.
John S. Spann--Can 1t be possible that the
City Council would grant this petition9 What !!
for the benefit of Republican party favorite
thowevef worthy personality, without law, and
contrary to equal justice2 1t is monstrous
Think OF the thousands of pie who are deny
ing themselves every luxury and most of the
necessares of comfortable life to feed, and clothe
and school their children and keep their homes
from the creditor, that this party favorite may
60 scot Free For myself only value the Re-
publican party as an efficient agent through
whom to transact the public business. The
party has the power If it does this thing or
allows it to be done by any half hearted resistance
have no further use for the party Let not our
party managers think such a wrong will be for
cotton or forgiven by the time our votes are
wanted again. Hundreds of people like myself
who want no Offices. and upon whom party obi
cations rest more lightly every year, will take
theeame view that | do.
Will Fl. Smith tof Kefer & COIL am de-
cidedly opposed to saddling this loss upon the
city. The object of the bond was to indemnify
the city against loss. Ii the bond is not for that
purpose there is no use to have bond and
bondsmen at all.
Vice-president Hendricks-I do not think the
Council has any right to relieve public officer
at ALL There are hundreds, perhaps thousands
of people in this city, who placed the same conf
dence in those banks that Mr.. Pattison did
Why ought not all these be relieved, too? There
is as good reason for paying all of those people the
money they lost as there is for paving the city
treasurer. and many Of those people were de-
pendent upon their deposits for the education of
their children and providing for the wants of
their families.
Yesterday morning Councilman Wharton was
approached in the Union Depot by stockyards
man, who said: do you know what think of
man that will vote to accept the proposition of
Treasurer Pattisonl" No. answered Wharton
well" was the reply. II think he Is - thief. {"
Mr.. Wharton inquired if any such opinion would
be held regarding himself if she should vote in
favor of accepting the proposition. An affirma-
ans wa riv md
struck the stockyards man. The fight was a
very brief one, however, and neither of the par
ties were injured.