The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-02-06

The motion to adopt the resolution was lost By
tie vote, the commissioners voting in the af
firmative being Messrs. Conner, Greenstreet
Merritt and Vonnegut. while those who voted in
the negative were Messrs. Bingham, Frenzel,
Kuhn and Thompson.
Mr.. Conner raised the point of order that the
failure of the board to approve the finance com
mittees action would have the effect to make
the validity Of the loans which they had ne9n-
tiated doubtful, as the law required that the &C
ton of the finance committee in such cases
should be approved by the board Mr.. Frenzel
contended, however that the vote simply ex-
pressed disapproval of the irregular way in
which the committee had proceeded. The fol-
owing resolution was offered by Mr.. Bingham:
Resolved That the board recognize the obligations
OF all loans made by the finance committee and viii
faithfully provide for their payment they become
due.
In the course of the rather animated discus
sion which followed, Mr. Kuhn remarked that he
was authorized to say that the board could get
all the money it wanted at Al per cent
Mr. Bamberger replied that the finance COM
mittee would be glad to avail itself of this offer
and would be ready to take some of the money
in about month MIR. Bamberger said he was
glad that record had been made on the finance
committees action. When the public comes to
know the details of the matter it will learn that
satisfied with the record that had been
made. 1t is before the people, and
they are the judges. Mr.. Kuhn became
greatly excited over Mr.. Bambereer's re-
marks and called him to order for casting
reflections on the votes of the commissioners.
He had some difficulty in expressing what he
really wanted to say, but excitedly characterized
the remarks of Mr.. Bamberger as slanderous and
impudent The president said that he did not
understand Mr.. Bamberger's remarks as reflect
ing In any way upon any member of the board,
and did not believe he was out of order. He
thought the offense more from Mr.. Kuhn's infer
ences than from the language really used by Mr..
Bamberger.
Mr.. Conner insisted that, as the matter stood,
the board had no knowledge of any loans having
been made, or of any action of the finance COM
mittee in negotiating loans The records
showed nothing of the kind. He thought,
therefore. Mr.. Binghams resolution was out of
order. The only way to reach the matter would
be to recommit the finance committees report.
The board only comes into knowledge of COM
mttee transactions by acceptance of its reports.
Mr.. Frenzel thought the resolution authorizing
the loan and directing the president and secre
tary to sign the warrants, was sufficient record.
1t might not apply to all loans, but he thought it
would to this one. The resolution was offered
simply as an evidence of good faith. Mr. Bingham
said that he had only introduced it to reassure
the people who hold the loans.
The president ruled that the resolution was in
order, as he believed the action of the finance
committee was authorized. The vote on its
adoption was unanimous.
After the adoption Of the resolution Mr..
Greenstreet, chairman Of the committee on
finance remarked that the information having
been volunteered that money could be obtained
by the board at Al per cent, the committee
would be glad to avail itself of the offer The
response OF MIR. Kuhn was motion to adjourn.