The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-10-10
PARK ORDINANCE ERROR
MAY CLOUD TITLE TO CONSIDER
ABLE LAND RECENTLY BOUGHT.
City Clerks Deputy Thinks Page May
Have Been Disarranged I'm Draw
ing Up the Document.

An alleged grave error has been discov-
cred in the ordinance passed by the Council
July 8 authorizing the Board of Public
Works to purchase the park lands in the
Miller-Cooper park system. Under the
charter the board cannot spend to exceed
81 900 for real estate without the consent of
the Council. The ordinance that purported
to give this authority contained a number
of serious errors. There are several cases
in which, as it stands and was passed. the
ordinance does not name the price that the
board was to pay for the land. On Page
332 Of the printed proceedings Of the Council
July s. 1898. one of the tracts described is
the 61.7S-acre tract owned by Hiram Miller.
No consideration is named for this tract.
A similar error was made with reference
to a number of lots conveyed to the city
by Hiram w. Miller and Joseph f. Gent,
trustees. There are four tracts conveyed by
the Richardson's in which the same defect
appears
August Tamm, deputy city clerk, was
much surprised when he was asked for an
explanation of the errors in the printed pro-
ceedings. An examination disclosed that
they were simply Implications of errors
made in the original ordinance as intro
duced. 1t was written in the city engineers
Office, but was passed on and approved by
the law department before the Board of
Works sent it TO the Council This ordi-
nance was rushed through 1t was intro
duced one night at special meeting and
passed at another special meeting the next
night. The error is susceptible of an ex-
PLANTATION. Two of the Miller tracts are de-
scribed in the ordinance, one following the
other. Following the first description is a
paragraph reading: 'Al land included in
the above two descriptions of lands owned
by H. w. Miller, containing 1908 acres,
for the sum OF $50,O12." 1t is possible that
it was intended for this paragraph to fol-
low. the second description instead of the
first The next transaction in which there
is error is in the Miller-Gent lots, the de-
scription of which follows lots transferred
by Hiram w. Miller and James r. Henry.
Between the two descriptions is a paragraph
reading: "All of said lots in Marion Park
in the names of H. w. Miller and ]. F. Gent,
trustees, and Hiram w. Miller and James
r. Henry, for the sum of $4,9l2." The fol-
lowing paragraph follows the description
of the first Richardson tract, owned by
jamie Richardson: "All of said property
owned by Ida f. Richardson, jamie Rich
ardson and Thomas M Richardson for the
sum of $3,92S.' The names of Ida and
Thomas M. Richardson appear in this para
graph for the first time. Mr.. Tamm was of
the opinion that the typewriter pages of
the ordinance had been incorrectly num-
bered and had thus been diSarranged. Each
description is on a separate sheet, with the
number of the page at the bottom. 1t is
possible that the sheets were incorrectly
placed in the ordinance and then numbered.
The sheets were numbered originally so as
to cause the errors mentioned. Mr.. Tamm
was relieved when he discovered that the
error had been made before the ordinance
reached the Council
Several lawyers have considered in a hur-
ried way what the effect of this error would
be Admitting that the errors were simply
clerical, they say that even then there is
a serious question as to whether the ordi-
nance properly authorized the Board of
Works to buy the land. If it did not 1t is
asserted there is a cloud on the title. Some
of the attorneys say that an action to have
the conveyanceS set aside as ultra wires
would undoubtedly lie They say that there
the ordinance TO correct the errors. 1t
seems strange that the errors were not dis
covered before 1t was too late and most
likely they would have been If the 0rdi-
nance had not been railroaded through be-
fore the members of the Council had an OPP
portunity 10 see the printed proceedings.
The ordinance was read in full by the
clerk but most of the councilmen were in
the lobby and paid no attention 10 the read
ing. III is supposed 10 have been carefully
examined by the city attorney or his deputy
and then by the mayor before it was
signed If anyone knew OF the error the
knowledge was kept bottled UP until now,
when 1t was discovered by accident.