The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-07-03
THE MAYOR AND ELECTION
INSPECTORS.

The question of appointment of city cleo
ton inspectors is one of strict compliance
~ith the election law and the city charter.
Il is unfortunate when a law relating TO
elections or election machinery is so vague
in phraseology or application as 10 justify
a double construction as the supposed in
terests of either party may require. Polit-
ical advantages obtained in hat way are
apt TO beget retaliatory measures and are
never OF sufficient value TO justify a plain
violation of law. 1t must be remembered.
however, hat no construction OF law is
authoritative until IL has been passed upon
by the courts, and in constituting laws re-
Iating to election methods neither party is
bound by the views or the practice OF the
other until a decision Of the courts is had
that is equally binding on all.
Mayor Taggart has seen fit TO veto the
order Of the Council naming inspectors
for the special election in the Fifteenth
ward. to be held on the 18th inst. The
question is whether the Council has a right
to appoint such inspectors without the
approval Of the mayor or whether such
action is subject to his veto like an ordi-
nance or resolution. This is a question of
law concerning which the action of one
Council or city administrator Is not bind
ing on another. The election law provides
that:
Where any city shall hold an election at
any time other than a time OF a general
election, such election shall be held IN con-
formity with the provisions or this act. ex-
cept the duties herein required of the
Board of County Commissioners shall be
performed by the City Council.
This provision makes it obligatory on
the Council in every city election to per-
form all the duties required of the County
Commissioners in general elections. This
includes the appointment o. inspectors OF
elections. This duty is devolved on the
Council as a special one in addition to those
imposed by the charter. 1t is not a legis-
lative duty. but a ministerial and political
one. The Councils designation OF inspec-
tors is not in the nature Of an ordinance
or resolution affecting the government of
The city which the mayor may veto. 1t is
undoubtedly true that no ordinance or reso-
luton for the government or regulation OF
the Guy can DeCOH1t operative u4llll III ndS
been approved by the mayor or passed
over his veto. But there is nothing in the
election law to indicate that it was con-
templated that the mayor of a city should
nave any part in the appointment of cleo
ton inspectors or that he should have the
veto power over the action of the Council,
which in this regard is the result of a
special grant Of exclusive power TO thai
body. There would be obvious improperly
in giving TO a mayor. who might be a can
dldate for reelection. as Mayor Taggart
has been twice. the power of debating
officers of the election. The fact that he
has exercised that power in a previous
election or with a former Council is nc
reason why he should continue to do Sc
unless the law ~contemplates and authorizes
il. The evident intent of the election law
was to transfer to city officers in city cleo.
lions the duties imposed on county com
missioners and county officers in county
elections, and the fact that the law names
the city clerk. the City Council and the
chief OF police as officers charged will
certain duties in city elections and does MOI
mention the mayor at all shows it was no
~ntemplat that he should have any par
i'll controlling the machinery of election.
in which he himself might be an candidate
The mayors reference to the action o.
previous city administrations is not IL
point, as the present question could no
arise between a Council and a mayor who
were agreed in politics. 1t would be mor'
10 the point if ne would cite some provision
dictate the appointment of inspectors il
city elections.