The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-07-12

tempted to bribe another member. pre-
sumably Mr.. Rassmann, to advocate the
Banfill proposition. 1t was a falsehood,
but it served its purpose.
AT a meeting of the Council, Oct. IL,
to consider the propositions, Mr.. Rass-
mann presented a majority report, rec
ommending that the ordinance carrying
the Banfll proposition into effect edo
not pass" Three members of the COM
mittee reported that the ordinance
should pass. A parrot-and-monkey sea-
son Of an hour followed, in which every
thing else was lone than to discuss the
merits of the question. Mr.. Rassmann
made a fruitless attempt to substitute
in some way the FrenZel proposition,
but when he and the other opponents of
the Banfill proposition saw that there
were not enough members present to
pass the measure they allowed the ordi-
nance to 90 to a vote to be defeated.
That was the end of the first chapter.
| Alone, the Controller fought the Fren-
Eel combine, with its two newspapers,
the Mayor ~relapsinR into that comatose
state, as is his won't in seasons when
virility is required.
Nothing more was done until April,
when the defeated Controller mildly
suggested to the Councilthat over $780,
600 of city bonds would mature July 1
and that come action should be taken.
1t was decided to advertise for bids for
a four-per-cent. bond. When the pro-
posals were opened it was found that
the house represented by Mr.. John P.
Frenzel had offered to give 90 cents for
n bond which, five months before. the
Council had refused to sell for what was
practically 103l4. Most of the other bids
werefor Observation-Disclosures. bonds.
The Frenzel offer, it appears. was not
intended as a bona .Jtde proposition, AS
he advised the acceptance of a partlcu-
lar Observation-Disclosures PROPOSE
ton. As q Observation-Disclosures.
bond could not be accepted under the
fOur-per-ccnt. advertisements the Mayor.
Controller and their advisers proposed a
~twenty-four hours advertisement for
acknowledgement. bonds. Several
propositions were made. The Mayor,
Controller and other officers were pres
ent, but Mr.. Frenzel was evidently pre-
siding. At least, just as the hour ar
rived. an6 before q seal had been brok-
en-. Hon. w. III. English expressed a
purpose to put In n bid, whereat Mr..
Frenzcl cried out, You can't play that"
The Mayor and his associates quietly
acquiesced in the refusal of MIR. Frenzel
to allow Mr.. English to bid. and the
proposal of Coffin 81 Stanton, in which
Mr.. Frenzel seemed deeply interested,
was accepted. Coffin 81 Stanton, it was
stated at the time, were not a firm ca
pable of handling SD larReSa lOan-a
statement which subsequent events
proved to be true. The firm has not
only practically refused to carry out it's
contract, but, through Mr.. Frenzel, it
has stopped the payment of the forfeit
fund put NJ by it..
And there the matter stands. The
matured bonds have not been redeemed,
nor are they likely to be. The city is
paying nearly 3l2 per cent. interest more
than 1t would have been paying if the
Controller had been sustained by the
Democratic Mayor and the Democratic
Council last August. If the credit of
the city has been injured these parties
and the pervasive Frenzel interest. with
it's organs and it's subservient officials,
are responsible. The Journal does not
assume to decide whether the present
bond JfascO is the result of sheer stupid
ity or subserviency to boss dictation
which may be cowardice or rascality. or
a compound of both. All that the jour
nal has done is to state the facts; if the
facts injure the credit of the city, the
Sentinelis Mayor, Council and it's party
boss are responsible for the injury.