The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-02-20
srHUGH BILL DENOUNCED.

The People OF Lafayette Regard It an
Outrageous Piece of Legislation.
Special TO the Indianapolis Journal.
LAFAYETTE, Ind, Feb. 19.-The more the
people here. regardless of party, realize the
full force and effect of the McHugh bill. the
more outspoken and pronounced are their
denunciations of the measure. This feel
Ing is intensified in part by the recent riot.
wherein ex-prIest Rudolph was not only
assaulted and his public meeting broken
up. but he was actually shot, the bullet
afterward being removed By physician;
and although the riot and disturbance that
followed was kept up at the opera house
for an hour or more, and twenty indiot-
ments have since been returned. no at
tempt was made by the city authorities to
arrest any of the rioters or Quell the dis
turbance. The only effort made to secure
quiet was that of County Sheriff Gaddis.
who was sent for. A great many people
here would improve an opportunity to cast
vote for q change In city man.
aRement. but this bill cuts them
out of any chance to express
disapproval of the way the municipal Of
ficers handled Tor failed to handlol that
riot There are some who would like to
see an organized effort made to get the
question OF the constitutiOnality of the act
into the Supreme Court, for they contend
appoint the municipal officers for sixteen
months. as is done by the McHugh bill.
they can appoint them for sixteen years.
and thus usnrD the rights of the people to
vote altogether.
Courts are slow-moving-or used TO
be. Lafayette had good illustra-
ton of this several years ago. That
was a contest over the trustees of the
ready served two terms, and it was
claimed he was ineligible. He stuck to the
office after the election. and an appeal was
made to the courts. Gallagher. the third
term of t%o years. an 0 anS about tu
year after he retired from offislai life
the Supreme Court reached the case
and decided that he was wrongfuily in
office. But the decision came too late to
be Of any benefit. If the present case
should get into court and be advanced q
decision might be had earlier.
There seems to be some doubts about
whether the new bill makes provisions for
the election of city waterworks trustees.
for three years, one being chosen each May.
The term of one trustee will ex-
pire in May of the year. There will then
be no election. If his term is also extended
under the law. his term would expire in
September. 1894 This would bring the
second trustee 10 the expiration of his term
Of service. then we would have TO
choose two In May. 1894. unless the trustee
whose term expires in 1891 would also be
given an additional sixteen months lease
of official lIfe The regular term of the
third trustee would end in 1885, but that
year there will be no city cleo
ton. The present Board of Trustees stands
two Republicans and one Democrat, the
term of the latter expiring. under the old
law. next May. These trustees make the
selection of the several employees in the
waterworks department.. Ii the present
law docs not provide for the election of
trustees. it will have to be amended, or
some method adopted in regard thereto.
The terms of trustees. too, viii have to be
changed and made four instead of three
years. in order to have their terms expire
IN regular election years.