The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-07-03
ELI LILLY'S ANSWER
ARGUMENT IN THE SUIT GROWING
OUT OF G. A. n. ENCAMPMENT.
Special Judge Rupe Will Rule on
Cfty's Demurrer to the An
swer To-day.

John L. Rupe. of Richmond. special Judge
William Fortune. was on the bench OF
court room No. / yesterday for the pur-
pose of hearing argument in the case The
answer of the defendants to the COM
plant, which was filed last November, was
for the first time made public 1t had been
in possession Of City Attorney Scott, who
yesterday filed a demurrer to the COM
plant, and proceeded 20 argue it. Col.
Lilly's answer to the complaint of the
city attorney. which was substantially the
same as MIR. Fortunes, was to the effect
that he QIlly) had been by the Grand
Opera House convention requested to be-
come the chairman of the executive board
In charge Of the arrangements for the en-
campment. with full power TO select other
officers, appoint committees and control
absolutely its affairs; that he had con-
sented TO assume these responsibilities only
on the condition that William Fortune
would, as his chief assistant, take charge
of the executive work and look after de-
tails, and that he promised Mr.. Fortune
that he should be properly compensated
for this service; that in accordance with
this promise Mr.. Fortune relinquished other
valuable contractual engagements in order
to give to the encampment work the re-
quired attention; that Ii was his opinion
that the services Of Mr.. Fortune were very
valuable, as through them the arrange
ments for the encampment were we'll car
ried out, and had resulted in a very large
saving Of money both TO the city and the
citizens. and in the exercise OF the powers
vested in him ordered the payment to Mr..
Fortune of 5000.
This money, the answer states, was
drawn from the assemblage committee Of
the Commercial Club for this purpose. and
would not have been drawn had it not
been for this obligation, No part of 1t was
from the city appropriation it
even in the city funds, which were kept
separate and distinct The answer states,
however. that the payment to Mr.. Fortune
was certified to as properly authorized by
four of the seven members of the city en-
campment committee. acting as an auditing
committee, and that at no time had any
objection been made by them, and they
were the authorized representatives of the
city.
Mr.. Scott, representing the city. reviewed
the answer paragraph by paragraph. He
argued that Eli Lilly and William Fortune
We're in fact trustees under the articles OF
organization, and that in the absence of
any specific mention of compensation to be
paid to the trustees. nothing could be paid
struments creating trusts are silent to
compensation that they have no power to
that there was any. power in Colonel Lilly
as chairman to make any payment to Mr..
Fortune. He contended that Mr.. Fortunes
services were voluntary
Mr.. Daniels. of the counsel for the de-
PENDANTS, in replying TO the argument of
City Attorney Scott. said that. under the
Lilly, as chairman, was intrusted with alb
solute control Of the encampment organiza-
ton There could be no expenditure with,
other persons were subordinate TO him.
The executive director was the man who
details, gave to the undertaking the con-
slant attention which could be expected
from a man. who was to be remunerated
subject to the chairman, Mr.. Daniels said,
or were derived from the chairman He
not to e the pubIic and was mot public
trustee. He was promised compensation,
continued Mr. Daniels. was entitled TO it
said Mr.. Daniels. which was paid TO him
was not drawn from the city. but from
another source solely for this purpose, and
IN any event the city had no just claim
on the money.
Mr.. Charles w; Smith. also of counsel
under which Colonel Lilly had undertaken
the great responsibilities for which he had
been chosen. as the one man in the city.
TO assume, saying that he had wisely in
sisted that his powers should be equal to
his responsibilities. This had been given.
1t was absolute and autocratic, he said
necessarily so. The executive director was
the chief aid of the chairman, and Mr.
Fortune, he said, had performed those
services with the greatest success. as a
result of which there had been saved and
handed back to the city the sum of nearly
$4,000. and to the Commercial Club sl2-
coo. He asserted that IL was a legitimate
and proper expense, that IL was the obliga-
ton OF the chairman TO make the payment
and that in any event. the money did not
come from, did not belong to and could
not be recovered by the city, while as a
matter of fact, the officers and representa-
tives OF the city had at the time acqu-
esced I'm the payment.
City Attorney Scott closed by again re-
viewing his points, contending that Col
Lilly did not have authority to make the
payment and that the rules of the en-
campment organization did not provide for
payment for the services of officers
The case will be taken up again this
morning. when Judge RUPEES ruling in the
citX.s demlIrrer will raraha bly, he al