The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-08-15

investigate which did not belong to the province
of the committee. He restated his opinion that
the committee could not go any further; that his
client had made full and complete answer. and
unless the legality of the inquiry could be
established he thought Mr.. Bowling released
from any other statement than that already
made. Besides were not the questions at issue
fully answered in the paper Of his client just
readl
Chairman Pearson said Mr. Bowling had not
given any reason or ground for the assertions to
which he had made answer To take the matter
back to Council, in its present shape, is not doing
justice to that body to the committee.
Mr. Trussler believed that the statements
rejecting on the old Council came to the public
with greater authority than the Times. There
may be a question as to the legality
of the committees authority, but 1T is
remembered that Mr.. bowling was not only
anxious for an investigation, but voted for the
resolution creating the committee. He had al
ready been summoned before the grand jury
and the questions asked by that body he had re-
fused TO answer because he claimed he would
criminate himself If he did not answer the
questions ignored it would give the public
an inference that the committee was too friend
ly to Mr. Bowling. Aspersions would be
cast upon the members of the inquiry.
While he did not want to prosecute Mr. Bowling
for he had a friendly feeling for him, he at the
same time wanted to have the investigation
carried to its proper ends. He did not want to
be hurt by half doing the work There is moth
ing left for Mr. Bowling but to answer or refuse
to answer. This is due the Council and the
committee.
Chairman Pearson did not care how the re-
spondent answered the Observation-Disclosures by
yes no. a refusal However, it should be
done, for as the matter stood now, the commit
tee could take no satisfactory report to the
Council.
Attorney Everett in behalf of Bowling, main
tanned that the committee had no right to in
qure as to the truth or falsity of his clients
statements. When he had answered whether
or, not he had made charges about
then his responsibility ceased. He thought
the answer before the committee full
and complete, not only as to the first and second
questions, but as to all others
From this the talk became burdensomt
following tie line indicated above. and consisting
in repetition after repetition why Downing should
be excused from further answers. Attorney
Cropsy exhibited little heat toward the close
by saying that Bowling does not propose to be
made to bear the burden of all
the odium. HE will not and shall
not, said the attorney, striking the desk
with his hand 'be held a sole responsibility
IN this matter" The newspapers that published
these charges ought TO be held to account
ability, and the committee had just as much
right to question that newspaper as to the truth
or talslty of the statements as to require an
answer from his client Mr. Cropsey
talked vigorously. and for while the possibility
OF libel suit was suggested to his hearers,
He thought the proceedings had gone to the line
of persecution. Attorney Everett had another
bout, which led to a call upon assistant city
attorney Elliott for his opinion relative to the
power of the committee to put Objectionable
questions But in the meanwhile Chairman
Pearson, DESTROYS of making affairs as easy as
possible for the respondent, suggested that Mr..
bowling might be willing to answer
of the questions that had been cancelled
are which similar to the questions asked
Bowling by the grand jury. Mr.. Cropsey took
the paper of interrogatories to consider what
should be done, but he became interested in At
torney Everetts speech and forgot to tell the
committee whether not they were willing to
answer question which Bowling had heretofore
refused TO answer because it would crimnate
him.
Again Chairman Pearson came to the assist
ance of the Interrogated by offering substitutes
for questions three and four, which led to more
opposition from Dowings attorneys. They
offered nothing new, but rehearsed the questions
of legality and maintained that their client had
done enough.
Assistant City Attorney Elliott decided that
the committee had the right to ask the ques-
tons.
Mr. Trussler then moved that Mr.. Bowling be
required to answer the substitutes offered by
Mr. Pearson. vote was taken and all of the
committee but Mr. Reinicke voted for the
motion. He gave negative because he thought
the committee could do no more than 1t had
done. The questions were asked by Chairman
Pearson as follows:
MIR Bowling did you, during the years 1882
or 1883, brlbe any member of said Council or in
any way influence him to cast vote in favor of
the Citizens Street Railway Compauy2'
do you know Of Colonel johnson or Tom
Johnson, any agent of said street-ear company
in any way bribing any members of the Common
Council during the years 1882 and 1888 TO cause
them to cast their votes in favor of said Citizens
Street railway CompanyP
To these questions the following answer was
made
honest judgment he has fully and truly answered
all the matters of which this committee has au-
thority to inquire and he respectfully asks to be
excused from further response in this behalf.
I'll. J. EVERETT,
~. NJ CRoPsEY. Attorneys"
The committee then adjourned to meet Sunday
afternoon at o'clock, in the city attorneys
office, to prepare report to Council.