The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-01-26
aoIsTEatSG Up nAp BILL.

The concessions, explanations and prom
Uses which the supporters of the Goodwine
Reformatory bill are now making are in
marked contrast to the uncompromising
spirit shown at the beginning. They indi-
cate recognition of the strong public senti-
ment against the bill and the necessity of
placatng it. Among the latest apologies
offered for the bill are Senator Goodwine's
statement of alleged irregularities in the
management of the institution and alsc an
official promise that If the present board
of managers is removed, an investigation
shall be ordered that it is believed will fully
justify the action of the Legislature. Sem
ator Goodwines statement is understood to
be based on information obtained during an
official visit TO the institution in December
last by a committee of which the senator
was chairman. Without directly charging
IT insinuates irregularities in the awarding
OF contracts, the purchase of supplies, the
construction of dollhouse and cruel treat
ment of prisoners. The report of this COM
mittee was in the hands Of the Governor be-
fore the Legislature met. and If he had
believed the charges to be true he had the
power under the law to remove the Offend
ing members Of the board, or all Of them.
The fact that the law provides a way for
the removal of the managers "for miscon-
duct or neglect of duty" shows it was not
contemplated that 1t should be done by leg
islating them out of office.
The promise that an investigation of the
affairs of the institution shall take place
after the present board is legisated out and
a new one appointed is a concession TO pub
lie sentiment which 1t is not asking. 1t is
a novel idea of justice that would convict
and punish man first and try him after
wards. The present law says: "The Gov
ernor may remove any of the managers for
misconduct or neglect Of duty after an OPP
| portunity to be heard upon written
| charges" This implies the filing of charges
and the granting of hearing. To remove
| the managers without charges filed and
| without giving them an opportunity to be
heard would be violation OF law which no
subsequent ex parte investigation by a new
| board could cure.
Il
best way. II it is important to get the
present managers out of office before their
terms expire it should be done in the way
the law provides. The law does not make
| the Governor ex officio a member of the
| board of managers of the Reformatory, nor
to investigate the administration OF its
predecessor. 1t does, however, make him
| ex officio president of the Board of State
Charities. and that board has authority to
make investigation by the whole board
or by committee of its members of the
management of any penal. reformatory or
charitable institution of the State, with
| power to send for persons and papers. and
administer oaths. and to report to the Gov
ernor. There is the machinery at hand for
an investigation of the Reformatory before
removing the present board. The president
of the Board of Charities, Timothy Nichol-
son, of Richmond, said few days ago:
am most emphatically opposed to the
bill. l so told Senator Goodwine two days
before the bill was introduced; that il was
| the wrong thing and would prove poor poll
| tics; that If anything was wrong with the
| the legislators to make a thorough investi-
| cation. Then, if they find out that any
thing Is wrong, and who is to blame, LEI
| them be removed.
If there is any reason for preferring q
committee of the Legislature to the Board
of State Charities to make the investiga.
ton let that mode be adopted. but the in.
vestigation should be made before final &C.
ton Is taken and the present members OF
the board should be given a hearing. The
people have right to expect that public
affairs. which are their affairs. shall be con
Quoted in an open. legal way, and not by
methods that require apologies, explana
tons and promises of future justification
bolstering-