Marshall County independent. (Plymouth, Marshall County, Ind.) 1894-1895, 1894-10-26
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS.
The Position Assumed i'm Regard
to PlymOuth's Political
Middle.

TO take an active part In controversies
between the democratic and republican
parties on local questions arising before
its establishment in this community,
and therefore will do no more than to
call the attention of its readers to the
bone of contention between the two
parties in reference to the creation of
the fourth ward in the city and the ap-
pOintInent of two cOuncilmen for that
ward.
The facts appear to be, that at the
election il May last, the republicans
carried the city by handsome major
ity, electing all the city officers, and af-
ter the election had one half of the city
council. The mayor having a right to
cast a deciding vote in all cases where
the council was evenly divided, the eff
feet was TO give the republican party
entire control of the city government.
Before the democratic mayor and city
officers turned over the affairs of the
city to their republican successors, on
the last meeting night of the council
under the former administration, it ap-
pears that the mayor and common coun-
Gil abolished the rules governing their
procedure and proceeded by ordinance
to create new ward in the city-the
much talked about Fourth ward. They
also proceeded to appoint two demo-
cratic cOuncilmen to represent this ward
in the city council, evidently expecting
thereby to retain control of the city
government in this manner, from which
control the democrats had been Ousted
by the voters of the city few months
before.
The republican mayor and city Off
GERS claimed that the action of the dem,
ocratic mayor and council referred to
was illegal, and refused to recognize
the two democratic appointees as law
ful members of that body. In order to
compel the republican mayor and clerk
to recognize the newly appointed coun-
cilmen, the lawfully elected and quail
fled councilmen, have ever siuce the
change of administration, purposely alb
sented themselves from the council
meeting. The result of this was, that
no quorum existed unless the two coun-
cilmen appointed for the Fourth ward
were recognized. This the republicans
refused to do, and no business has been
transacted on account Of this political
warfare between the two old parties,
and it seems that the interests of the
city are suffering thereby.
The legal controversy between the
two factions is, as we understand it,
this:
In 1881 the Legislature of this state
enacted law providing that whenever
petition, signed by thirty or more res.
ident free holders of the wards to be az
fected, etc., shall petition the common
council praying for the creation of new
ward or wards, etc., that the question
should be submitted to the legal voters
of the city at the next annual city cleo
ton, and that the question should be
decided by ballot-yes or according
to the provisions governing elections
held to determine the question of incor-
pOrating city.
In 1891 the legislature enacted law
providing among other things for the
division of the territory of cities into
wards, to change the boundaries of ex-
listing wards, and to re-district the same
for ward purposes. This latter act gave
the common council authority to divide
the city into wards, to change the bound
aries of existing wards and to re-dis-
trict cities for ward purposes whenever
in their judgment it shall be deemed
expedient so to do.
The democratic mayor and council
men claim that under this act of 1891
they had authority to do what they did.
The republican position is, that the
act of 1891 was intended to apply, not
to the question of creating new wards,
but merely to the question of re-district-
ing the city.
The democrats claim that the act of
1891 repealed the act of 1881, while the
republicans contend that the act of
1891 did not repeal the act of 1881 be-
cause the fourth section of the act of
1891 states positively that there is now
no law in force governing this matter,
and the republicans say that the legis-
lature that passed the latter act ought
to know whether they intended to repeal
the act of 1881 better than the demo-
Gratis of Plymouth. The republicans
contend that if there were no laws in ex-
istance covering the scope of the act of
1891, as the legislature itself declares in
section of the act of 1891, then the
act of 1881 was not inconsistent with
the act of 1891 and that, therefore, the
latter act did not repeal the former one