The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-02-12
A WATER WORKS SCHEME
TWO BILLS LOOKED ON WITH sUsPI-
CIoN BY SOME MEMBERS.
indianapolis May Have IL Deal Foisted
on 1t Through One
OF Them.

A bill which was passed by the House dur
ing the past week is now being looked at
askance by some of the members who voted
for it. When the bill was under coHsidera-
ton. it was understood to apply only to Sey-
mour and to provide for the purchase of the
water works there by the city. The bill was
introduced by Mr.. Marsh, and, now that it
has been passed, the number of members
who do not hesitate to say that there Is
decided brunette concealed in the vicinity of
a wood pile, is increasing, and before 1t goes
to the Governor for signature it is probable
that there will be an investigation into the
bill
The bill, as originally introduced, author
ICED ANY city within this State having
population less than twenty thousand by the
census Of 1897 to purchase the water works
plant and prescribed the manner in which
the appraiSement should be made. Section
says: THAT any city may purchase any
such water works, subject to any part of an
existing mortgage debt upon the same, and
in such case such city shall not assume or
become directly or indirectly liable for the
payment of such incumbrance, but such debt
shall not be affected by the transfer; pro-
vided, That such city may pay and is hereby
empowered to pay, in the discretion of its
Common Council, the interest upon sucn
mortgage debt in lieu of fire hydrant rentals
now paid, and pay at its option any part
of the principal of such debt out of any
moneys remaining in the treasury and not
otherwise appropriated
When the bill was first introduced it was
stated that it was TO apply to but the one
city but on it's second reading, it was
amended by the House so that 1t applied to
any city or town having a population of
less than thirty thousand" and the eXplana-
ton for these amendments was that Ander-
son and New Albany desired to come under
the benefits of the act. There was a strong
influence back of the bill, but the only ones
who appeared in its behalf were the mem
bers of the councils from the places named
and in particular from Seymour. At that
time there was some surprise expressed
that those who appeared for the bill should
exercise such a strong influence and the
suspicion that this bill is being used by
others than those appearing publicly to fur
Their their ends, is growing.
THE PATTEN BILL.
A bill was introduced into the Senate by
Senator Patten which is claimed to be
identical with the one in the House, only
that the clause prescribing the population
was omitted. Be that as it may, and a
copy of the bill could not be procured last
evening, the Senate substituted the House
bill and passed 1t as it had been amended.
After the bill had passed that branch Sena-
tor Hugg discovered that the bill was gen
eral in it's effects, and he recalled it for
amendment. On his motion the beginning
Of the second section was amended by the
insertion of the word such" before city
so that it reads that any such city," ETC.,
and thus specifically applies its provisions
in all sections to those cities having 0,000
population or less The bill will now come
back to the House for concurrence in the
Senate amendments, and for that. reason
the members of the House are examining 1t.
The title to the bill introduced read, "A
bill for act authorizing certain cities,
and failed to specify in any way what cities
were to be affected. AS introduced the bill
would have been general in its operation,
and would have applied to indianapolis as
well as to Seymour, but as amended by the
Senate it's provisions will apply only to
those cities specified. The question which
some of the members of the House are ask
ing is whether it was oversight on the part
of those who framed the bill that it should
be so general in its application, or was this
bill used as a means to authorize the pur-
chase of water works by those who did not
care to prescribe a specific bill to apply to
the particular case? When the bill was be-
fore the House it was denounced a
scheme to unload many old and wornout
water works plants on to cities, but not
withstanding this objection it was passed
by vote of 81 ayes to noes. When it now
comes back it will be carefully scrutinized.
INJUSTICE TO GLOSSBRENNER.
An injustice was done Mr.. GIossbrenner,
Of this county, by the Sentinel yesterday
morning in an editorial paragraph, which
charged him with having voted against the
first reform bill that came up before the
House during the week. The records show
that on the motion to adopt the minority
report Of the committee which recommended
killing the bill Mr.. Glossbrenner voted mo-"
and stood with the friends of the measure.
When the motion to reconsider came up on
Friday, Mr.. Glossbrenner was not present
and is not recorded voting either way.
The minority report on the reform bill was
signed by Mr.. Reser, Mr. Green and Mr..
Null. The last name was not read by the
clerk and it was generally understood
among the members that the minority re-
port was signed by two members of the
committee only.
has not had a smooth path with Mr.. Kirk
patricks bill to prevent judges and mem
bers of the General Assembly from accept
ing passes. When the bill was reported the
first time it was with the recommendation
that it be indefinitely postponed. This re-
port the House refused to accept and recon-
United the bill TO the committee with in
structions that it should be reported favor
ably The committee next brought in the
committed to the judiciary committee, and
this report was accepted by the House be-
fore it was discovered what the bill was.
Attention was called to the DILL and Speaker
Littleton ordered the report withdrawn, and
the bill was then recommitted to the COM
mittee on rights and privileges, with explicit
instructions that the orders of the House
should be obeyed, and the committee now
has charge of the bill. A facetious member
the other day dubbed the committee THE
committee on white elephant"
Many of those who were surprised by the
defeat of the first reform commission bill
in the House have not considered the great
pressure which has been brought to bear
on the members to vote against these bills.
The opposition to them Is well organized
that it does the greater part of the work
from the homes of the members. There is
not a day that county or township officers
have not been here to work against the
bills, but the most effective work is done
in the home counties of the members. Had
the work of the friends of the members
been half so thorough and well organized,
it is not unlikely that the result would have
been different. One of the members said
on Friday: L have heard absolutely moth
ing from my county on these bills except
in opposition to them. No one seems to be
taking any interest in them except the Off
Gals, and they are against them. Every
day I get newspapers from all parts of the
State against them, and the country press
seems to be almost a unit against them
EDWARD HAYES RELEASED.