The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-07-17

land we may all construe IL differently.
Now l contend that neither the Mayor nor
any head OF department has the right TO
create new offices or clerkships without the
consent of the Council" He read Section
so providing that the controller must sub
nit detailed estimates of expenses to the
Mayor, and the Mayor must transmit
this report TO the Council. Mr..
upon which was $3.50 for an extra clerk in
bis office three months. Mr.. Pearson said
the Mayor had not presented this report To
the Council, or. If he had, IL had never
been read Mr.. Rassmann started to say
that he had passed it up with the ordi
nance. but stopped. Certain it is the de-
tailed statement never came be-
fore the Council. The whole sala-
~ appropriation was punched together
and passed without inquiry, and this
Mr.. Woollen chsracterizes as authority
given by the Council. In the course of his
argument on this point he said the same
practice was followed in other departments,
and he did not see why his should be
singled out. Mr.. Pearson said the charter
had to be Interpreted and they might as
well be right as wrong about it.
tie believed Mr.. WoOllen was honest and
conscientious but he was firmly of the
opinion that the heads of departments had
no right TO employ extra clerks unless the
Council knew of IL and fixed their salaries,
and he quoted portion of Section %. de-
inning 1T as the duty of the Council Ito Tx
the salaries or compensation of the
various officers and employees or
the city except where different
provision 10 made in this act" Messrs.
Rsssmann and Woollen both claimed that
Section IS was such q "differen. PROVISION
If this be true then the clause in Section %
Is of no force whatever. for Section Is is a
general provision applying to all depart
ments.
THE question:" said Mr.. Pearson. lis
whether these departments have the un-
limit Tad oh To To- nffi
"unQuestlOnably they have.D said Mr..
Woollen. $50 long as the Council appropri-
ates enough money to pay Them"
DIRECTED TO MIR. TRUsLER.
Councilman Trusler had come INTO the
room some minutes before. end Mr.. Pear
son now asked him if there was anything
he had to say.
II object to Mr.. Trusler having anything
10 TO with it," cried Mr.. W oollen. HE is
my accuser. and will bs 1iy Judge in Coun-
tainly not TO prosecute me. i should think
delicacy would have kept him away"
Messrs Rassmann and Gauss both put in
objections.
'sThe accused is here" said Mr.. Pearson.
land is doing most of the talking. In
ordinary cases of this kind both sides are
given hearing but that is not material"
There was no indication that Mr.. Trusler
WanJtu 10 say any lnlnk. anu the maCler
WAS dropped. Mr. WoOllen wanted to 90
into figures on the dog-license question.
and this again opened up the early DIS
cussion. which was repeated in part. In the
course of this Messrs. Pearson and Cooper
discovered for the first time that the whole
dollar for q dog license is collected by the
controller. instead of all or any of it being
paid directly to the treasurer. When ques-
toned on this, Mr.. WoOllen said he folio ed
the dog license ordinance. permitting
the clerk 10 collect this whole fee
and requiring him to settle daily
with the treasurer. He read this
provision again, adding: I'VE follow tha.
ordinance literally. and take the IS cents
for each fee daily to the treasurer" Mr..
Woollen will have to pardon facts. but he
does not settle daily. His books show that
be settles for dog-license fees weekly. Ap-
parentiy he follows the ordinance in col
iecting and the charter In settling. using
whichever best suits his convenience.
After this the committee held brief con-
sultation and the controller opened box
of cigars. Mr.. Cooper said there would
probably be two reports. though both would
agree in not imputlng any dishonesty either
in action or intention on the part of the
controller.