The Lake County times. [volume] (Hammond, Ind.) 1906-1933, 1910-03-30
VOICE OF
A THE -
p e Q p l. e
ANNEXATION VS.. AMALGAMArroN

ANN AS<1n MN De AMAL0AMA,EAOAs
Hammond. Ind. March 80
Editor TIMEs:-Owfng to the fact that
there is a misunderstanding by most of
our people as to the legal meaning and
effect OF annexation by one city of an
other, and amalgamation a union Of
cities by vote of the majority, a brief
presentation thereof ma ynot be out of
place.
There are two ways by which this
may be done under the statute. One
is by amalgamation which is union
by vote of the majority Of the qualified
voters Of such cities voting, and the
other method Is by annexation
Amalgation. a union, by majority
vote of the qualified voters voting on
such question in each of the adjoining
cities. the common councils of such
cities shall by resolution passed by
each. first agree the terms upon
which such union shall take place. in,
GLIDING the name by which the united
corporations shall be known, an dthe
day upon which a ne1ection for the pur-
pose shall be held in each of the adjoin-
ing municipalities
Annexation is simply the passing Of
an ordinance by a CITY and giving notice
thereof by publication. without con-
sent OF. the majority of the qualified
voters of the city sought to be absorb
ed. or gobbled up. without any terms
being first agreed upon in reference
thereto.
The Acts of 1857 provided for the
amalgamation Of city and town, as
two cities, or two towns adjoining each
other by such vote and terms being
first agreed upon. which provision is
now a part of the Cities and Towns
Io~. t,{- 4
the highest court of this State to be a
legal method OF procedure. while an
nexation has been questioned, and the
Supreme Court of our State has never
passed upon this question
There is an honorable and equitable
way of transacting such important and
vital affairs Of cities where they neces-
sarfly have many fixed and vested
rights which neither should be deprived
of without the consent of the majority
and without proper terms" having
bee first agreed upon to protect the in
terest OF both.
Is 1t honorable and equitable to per-
NIT Hammond to be physically absorbed
and gobbled up by East Chicago by 1t
simply passing ordinance and giving
notice by publication thereof wfthouy
any legal and enforcible means of as
ceeding which undertakes to deprive q
municipality like Hammond of it's right
as a corporate body without first Sc
curing the consent of the majority OF
the voters and fixing the terms thereof
by proper ordinance passed by the
cities to be united amalgamated. IL
questionable. obnoxious and contrary tC
the principles of laws.
One is with the consent by a majority
vote of the qualified voters of both
cities upon the terms being first agreed
upon and incorporated in a properly
passed ordinance by each. and the other
without such consent, terms and vote
In other words. annexation is the alb
sorbing and gobbling up by one city o.
another without any legal and enforci
BILE guarantee that the general welfare
and vested rights of the latter shall b.
properly prescribed and provided fol
which may be enforced in court, ant
at most a mere verbal or oral promise
which is wholly without legal focre anG
authority
1t would be unwise, If not an insan.
thing, for one city to take the loos'
verbal promise OF certain officers of an
other city in reference to matters o
such vital Importance, when there Is alb
soluteIy no necessity or reason there
for.
Surely the rights OF the people OF
great city are not to be jeopardized ant
dealt with so lightly.
What does this annexation mean t
Hammond?
L. 1t simply means that she is to b.
gobbled up and surrendered over Z
East Chicago on the same terms an
conditions as a conquered foe; to re
ceive onthing more or less than wha
the conscience OF the common council