The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-10-10

matter is now under the Circuit Court
jurisdiction. While the entry made yester-
day shows that the entry Of April 16 was
not intended to take the mayors land in
again. as matter of fact the mayors land
be dropped. An application can be made
to the judge of the Circuit Court for leave
to amend the application for appraisers for
the mayors land made in court April ~.
four days after the boards meeting. The
application that will have to be made must
go on record in court as OF April &C. and
must show that there was an error made
in including the mayors land on that date
and ask that all reference to 1t be stricken
be ltrick IN out except by leave of court.
That is the only way the board can
e. rid rid of otthe mayors land land in IN
not compelled to buy the land simply be-
cause steps were taken April 16 to have 1t
condemned and appraised, but until all ref
erence of It is stricken from the court rec
courts leave, it is the boards expressed
intention to take the land and pay the APP
praised price for it. No amount of denial
and explanation can change this fact
Deputy City Attorney Bells statement
that he and Mr.. Curtis decided that the
whole ground might as well be gone over
again Just the same as if nothing had ever
been done" is borne out by Mr. Curtis him
self, who was interviewed in the News
last night. He there said:
When the matter OF appointing apprais-
ers for lands desired for park purposes was
referred to the department of law, an ex-
animation developed the fact that the mat
Ter nad not been properly presented 10 the
judge of the Circuit Court. and the depart
ment recommended that the proceedings be
begun again before the Circuit judge, as
large expenditures were contemplated and
II was not thought wise TO have any irreg-
ularities that would be subject to attack.
II was on this recommendation that an ap-
| plcation, de novo, was filed with the Judge
of the Circuit Court; and this application,
upon the recommendation of the law de-
| partment contained a description OF all
lands contemplated in the park system,
| when the first irregular application was
| fled by Colonel Holloway, who was at that
| time clerk of the Park Board. 1t was in
this way, and in this way only, that Mayor
| Taggarts land was again included, after
| he had positively stated to the Park Board,
and after it was absolutely understood by
| the Park Board. that his land was no longer
to be considered
ONLY KNOWN ON INSIDE.
Neither Mr.. English nor Mr.. Perry under
stood that an application, de novo (anew)
was intended when they were informed in
vague sort of way that something will
have to be done to correct Colonel Hollo-
ways error" Nobody else knew it except
those who were on the inside. 1t was care
fully kept from the public. Right here it
is proper to say that the application, de
novo," was made April 90 just after the
| excitement attending the nonenforcement
of the 3-cent-fare law was at its height,
| and when court reporters We're watching
| the Federal Court. A more apt time could
| the proceedings to take in the Taggart land.
| Even If reporters had seen the application,
| the fact that it contained Mayor Taggarts
| land would not have appeared except COM
| pairing its description by metes and bounds
| with plats in the assessors office, as Jolr-
| nal reporter did a week ago last Friday
| If the mayors land had been dropped out
| and it was absolutely understood by the
Park Board that his land was no longer
| to be considered" what need to drag it into
| the records again in the application de
novo?" The fact, that il had originally
| not affect it in any way, according to Mr.
| Bell, who yesterday told the board that
| because Of the irregularities in the appoint
ment of the assessors in the first instance
| 1.-The acts of the appraisers were, therefore,
| void" If the acts of the appraisers were
| therefore void the fact that they had
| their records as worth 5000 acre could
not affect it in any apparent way. Why
| then should it be considered in the appllca-
| ton ode novo?" There can be but one an
| swer. AS late as April 16 it was the inten-
Holt and Lieber who had bound themselves
| by an agreement now in the possession of
Duncan Dewar. which appeared in the Jour
| nal yesterday. MIR. Dewar exhibited 1t to
| Journal reporter and permitted a copy
| made. Knowing this Messrs. English and
| Perry were opposed to the purchase of this
ground, what was more natural than to
create the impression in their minds that
| a correction of the record was necessary,
| rangement and then spring the application
| de novo? 1t was only by accident that
| the facts could ever be discovered by the
| public. 1t was discovered
AFTER FACTS LEAKED OUT.
| Then there were protests that the land
| was not in the records. When the truth
| could no longer be concealed the deputy
| city attorney proceeded to inform Mr.. Eng
| lish that the park records could be correct
| ed OF course After Mr.. Austin's connec-
| ton with public contracts was discovered
| he was dismissed. When Mr.. Colbert S
| conduct became public he was permitted to
| resign. When Mr.. Hollis shady transac-
| ton came to light he was dismissed. AL
! ways rectify errors after they have been
| discovered, always dismiss unfaithful servi-
| tors after they have been found OUT has
| been the policy. Now it is correct the rec
| ords. Mr. English and Mr.. Perry were de-
| ceived-not by Justification of the records,
| it appears now, but by misrepresentation
| to them as to what the real significance of
| their official action would be. The dia-
| logue. ought to have been recalled about
Correct the records of Colonel Hollo-
| way some way some one" told the
| board.
/ "How?"
| ooh, we know how. You put the Taggart
| land back in the park record and We'll do
| the rest. We will make an application to
| the court sir"
| Even if it had been explained more fully
| the commissioners, having no reason TO
| suppose that they We're being hoodwinked
| would have taken ii for granted that every
| thing was all right.
Yes we know how one can ina CINE
| he hears said, perhaps in the little room"
p i'is de novo,' We viii begin the
| whole thing over again, just the same as
| If nothing had ever been DONE.
| 1t does not appear in evidence who it was
| that first told the board that errors in the
| park records would have to be corrected.
| 1t was just so understood in vague in
| definite sort of way Neither Mr.. Perry
| at what meeting this was first suggested.
| After being assured yesterday that il was
| at the meeting of April 16 that this ques
| ton was discussed. at any rate, If not for
| the first time, the commissioners were sat
| iStied that Ii was on that day. Perhaps If
| they had taken a day or two to look little
| closer into the record, written or otherwise,
| their action might have been different yes
terday, when it came to making a 'correc-
| ton of the alleged former correction.
urged immediate action. Mr.. Perry con-
sented in order not to have the young man
under cloud longer than unavoidable.
Regret was expressed yesterday that the
board had not insisted last spring on hav
ing. a special attorney apponred to sit
at one time employ Messrs. Smith &
Korbly, but their presence at the
boards meetings would have proved q
serious impeachment to the plot that was
then progressing most beautifully.
At the meeting in the Grand Hotel Messrs
agreement which is now in the possession of
Duncan Dewar. That was Feb. 26, nearly a
month after the Taggart land first dropped
out, or appeared to drop out 1t never did
drop out in fact At any rate it was not
gone long enough to make its absence felt.