The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-11-13

man. but against the member, who, after
he is elected and qualified, enters into or
becomes interested in contract with the
municipality.
AS TO SURETIES ON BONDS.
1T would be absurd to say that man
who is surety on BOND executed to the
city could be convicted and fined and i'm
prisoned because he became a councilman
by election or appointment while the bond
was stil in force. OF course the execution
of the bond long prior to his election or
appointment would not be a crime, so that
if he were convicted at all, it would be
for becoming a councilman while the bond
was yet in force. This provision of the
charter is by no means new. A similar
statute applying to all the cities in the
State has been in force since 1867 (Sec. 3104
L horners Stat.), and in the statutes of
nearly every State are to be found pro-
visions almost Identical. The books are
fulI or cases constituting these statutes, but
after a very thorough examination, l have
not been able to find one wherein it was
claimed that the provisions referred to had
any reference whatever to the eligibility of
the members of the Council Section 2049
Horners Statutes, makes it a pententiary
o1fense for any state officer, county COM
missioner, township or town trustee, mayor
common councilman of any city, etc, to be
interested directly indirectly in any con-
tract for the construction of any state
house, courthouse, schoolhouse. bridge, pub
lie building or work OF any kind erected or
built for the use of the State or any county,
township, town or city in the State in which
he exercises any official Jurisdiction
Let us suppose that prior to his election,
Governor Mount had become surety on the
bond of some contractor who was engaged
in public work of the kind described and
had been unable to secure his release be-
fore the day fixed by the Constitution for
his inauguration as Governor. According
TO the theory urged here by some he would
have had presented the alternative of CIV
ing up the office of Governor or going TO
the penitentiary."
Mr.. Kern then quotes the general law of
the State which has been in force thirty
years and which has a provision similar to
Section of the charter applicable to other
Councils of Indiana. This question, he says,
has been passed on many times, and while
the court has held that contracts entered
into between city officers and the city were
void there was, in no case a suggestion
that the violation of this section of itself
operated to vacate the Office
In conclusion he says
1.-The purpose of this and similar statutes
has been over and over again declared by
the highest courts of the country to be to
prevent city officer from reaping any adj
vantage his position may give, or from
specializing while in office at the expense
business of the city an object or source of
pecuniary profit to himself. In no case
which has come under my observation has
any attempt been made to apply such a
statute to the eligibility of a person to hold
office. L do not deal with questions sub
mitted to me from any standpoint save that
ton of law, that there is nothing in any
of the bonds on which Mr. Little is surety
that would in any way interfere with the
proper discharge of his duties as a member
of the Council These bonds are to secure
contracts made with the Board of Public
Works. and any liability accruing the
same would have to be enforced by that
board. The Council could not release him
from liability, nor in any way interfere with
the enforcement thereof.
my investigation of the question present
ed compels the conclusion that there is no
legal obstacle to Mr.. Littles election and
that he is entirely eligible under the Con-
stitution and statutes to hold the office of
councilman at large"