History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916, Part 48

Author: Stoll, John B., 1843-1926
Publication date: 1917
Publisher: Indianapolis : Indiana Democratic Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 1104

USA > Indiana > History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916 > Part 48

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

John Worrell, Republican. 16,640

-Sixth District

H. U. Johnson, Republican.

.20,444

8,724

L. M. Mering, Democrat

11,720

-Seventh District-

William D. Bynum, Democrat.

28,267

1,316

Charles L. Henry, Republican.

26,951

-Eighth District-

E. V. Brookshire, Democrat.

22,949

1,622

W. S. Carpenter, Republican.

21,327

-Ninth District-

Daniel Wangh, Republican

23,416

4,125

Eli W. Brown, Democrat

19,291

-Tenth District-

Thomas Hammond, Democrat

18,298

William Johnston, Republican

18,256

-Eleventh District-

August N. Martin, Democrat.

21,893

753

William T. Daley, Republican.

21,140

-Twelfth District-

William F. McNagny, Democrat.

.19,991

3,065

Adolph J. You, Republican.

16,926

Charles G. Conn, Democrat

.21,627

1,940

Robert W. McBride, Republican. .. 253,761

-Thirteenth District

James S. Dodge, Republican.

19,687

THE INDIANA MUNICIPAL CODE. (By Hon. Timothy E. Howard.)

On January 12, 1891, Representative James E. Mccullough of Marion county, Indiana, introduced into the lower House of the Legislature "a bill for an act con- cerning the incorporation and government of cities having more than one hundred thousand population." This was the first step taken in the General Assembly for the reform of the laws relating to the govern- ment of cities in this State. The bill had been for two years or over under consid- eration and in preparation by a committee of citizens of the city of Indianapolis, ap- pointed by the Commercial Club of that city.

The draft of the bill as introduced by Mr. Mccullough was prepared almost en- tirely by Mr. Augustus L. Mason of In- dianapolis, under direction of the com- mittee. As stated by W. W. Thornton, in the preface to his work on the municipal law of Indiana, the bill so prepared "was the result of careful and painstaking

( 348 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

examination of all then recently advanced legislation concerning the government of municipalities." Or, as said by Senator Rufus Magee when the bill came before the Senate, "It was the result of the best thought of the best minds of the city of Indianapolis."

Indiana cities up to this time were gov- erned by what has been called the "coun- cilmanic system." The city was under the control of a Common Council, or of a Com- mon Council and Board of Aldermen. These bodies were chosen by the voters of the several wards into which the city was divided; they enacted ordinances for the government of the municipality and elected all officers not elected by the people. The office of Mayor was rather ornamental than responsible. He was, ex officio, pres- ident of the Common Council and held a city court, in which he exercised the pow- ers of a justice of the peace. This sys- tem had served very well in the early history of the State and while the cities were small, but when a city grew large the councilmen represented the wants of their several wards rather than the needs of the city at large. The creation of a Board of Aldermen, who shared with the Council the government of the city, served in some degree to check the loose govern- ment exercised by the Council. But the aldermen were also elected by the union of wards and also represented their wards rather than the city.

The chief object of the new legislation was to separate the powers of government into their constituent parts-legislative, executive and judicial; to confine the duties of the Council to the enactment of ordinances and the control of the rev- enues; to make the Mayor the executive officer of the city, and to assign judicial functions to a city judge.

There was little opposition to the Mc- Cullough bill in the House, and it passed that body on February 16 by a vote of six- ty-five to thirteen. In the Senate, how-

ever, an active spirit of opposition at once manifested itself. On February 28 the Committee on the Affairs of the City of Indianapolis, to which the bill had been re- ferred, brought in a majority report, by the Democratic members, and a minority report signed by the two Republican mem- bers. Several amendments were proposed in the majority report and three in the minority. The members of the citizens' committee who had prepared the bill were decidedly opposed to the majority report and in favor of the minority. The voice of the majority report was substantially that it favored the retention of many of the features of the old councilmanic form of city government; it would leave the con- trol of the executive department still in the Council. The bill, as presented, placed the appointment of all executive officers and boards in the hands of the Mayor and made him solely responsible for their acts, thus centering the administration of the affairs of the city in the hands of the chief executive and making him directly respon- sible to the people. An amendment in- sisted upon in the majority report would give only a very limited power of appoint- ment to the Mayor, namely: "To appoint the heads of departments, by and with the consent of the Common Council." The Citizens' Committee were of opinion that this amendment alone would defeat the real purpose of the new legislation, and they preferred that the bill should be de- feated rather than that the amendments proposed in the majority report should be adopted.

There was, however, a practical diffi- culty in carrying out the wishes of the friends of the reform legislation. The Democrats in the Senate were in a large majority, and this majority appeared to be represented by the majority report of the committee which was so decidedly in opposition to the reform. Besides, every Senator from Indianapolis was against the bill, unless it should be amended as indi-

( 349 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

cated in the majority report. Would it do to attempt the passage of a measure which was opposed by the majority of the committee to which it was referred, and opposed also by every senator of the city for the government of which the bill was intended; while it was favored only in the minority report signed by the two Repub- licans on the committee? But the Citi- zens' Committee, composed of members of all political parties, contended that in the other legislation of the Senate at this ses- sion-the Suburban Street Railway bill, the far-reaching Tax law, the Appellate Court act, the amended School Text-Book law, the amended act for the establish- ment of a Board of Children's Guardians, and other like liberal legislation-this Democratic body had shown itself devoted to the most decided reform legislation, and they were therefore of opinion that if an appeal could be made to the patriotism of a majority of the Senate this act for the reform of the law of city government would also be carried by a decided vote of the Senate. The Citizens' Committee, as was necessary, exercised much tact in this crisis. They selected two of their num- ber, both Democrats of high standing, to look after the bill, with directions to select a Democratic Senator to take charge of it in the Senate. The writer had recently, under some difficulties, succeeded in secur- ing the passage of a suburban street rail- way bill in which the city of Indianapolis was greatly interested. He was therefore selected now for this delicate task of se- curing the passage through the Senate of this reform city legislation in the face of the majority report against it, and with all the Senators of the city also opposed to it. The event justified this confidence. When the questions involved were fairly and candidly presented, those great Sen- ators of 1891 were quick to see that the proposed reform legislation was in the line of good government; and on March 3 the bill, with the amendments favored in the

minority report, passed the Senate by a vote of forty-two to three. On March 6 the bill was signed by the Governor and became the law ..

The Indianapolis Charter, as it was called, was thought by many to give too large powers to the Mayor, and at first had some honest opposition, even after it be- came a law. In time, however, those fears were found to be groundless. The direct responsibility of the executive to the peo- ple saved the city from any danger of un- due exercise of power by that officer, and the people had good cause to rejoice that the councilmanic form of government was done away with, and that hereafter the administration of city affairs would be for the welfare of the whole city and not for that of any particular ward or section. The Council itself was liberalized by the election of some of its members by the city at large. The separation of executive from legislative functions was the central idea of the new system; while the direct responsibility of the Mayor was a grateful change from the uncertain and irresponsi- ble government of a Common Council elected from the several wards. The lat- ter body was relegated to its proper func- tion of making laws for the city and keep- ing watch over the funds of the govern- ment.

By degrees, this form of city govern- ment became popular in the larger cities ; and in the General Assembly of 1893, Evansville and Fort Wayne procured so- called "charters," which were, in sub- stance, copies of the Indianapolis law. Terre Haute received a like charter in 1899; South Bend, in 1901; and Muncie, in 1903 (rejected by popular vote). These charters consisted of about one hundred and fifty sections each, and were prac- tically repetitions of the same provisions. There began to be some fault-finding that the statutes of the State were encumbered by these repetitions of the same or similar enactments, and people raised the question

( 350 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

as to how far this multiplication of city charters was to extend. There seemed, indeed, to be no reason why each city should not have its own special charter, one city being as much entitled to its char- ter as another.

This was the condition of city govern- ment in Indiana in 1903, when the same Legislature that granted the last of the foregoing charters, that of Muncie, pro- vided also for the creation of a commission for the revision and codification of the laws relating to public and private cor- porations, "and such other statute laws of the State of Indiana as such commission shall deem proper." Through the favor of Governor Winfield T. Durbin the writer was appointed the minority member of this commission. The other members were the Hon. Marcellus A. Chipman, Chairman, and the Hon. Daniel E. Storms, the Secretary of State. The Hon. George Shirts was selected as clerk of the commis- sion.

One of the first matters that engaged the attention of the commission was the confusion that existed in the laws relating to city government. The "charters," al- ready referred to, provided, by separate enactments, for the government of cities of more than one hundred thousand in- habitants; for those of more than fifty and less than one hundred thousand; of more than forty-three and less than forty-nine thousand; of more than thirty-six thou- sand five hundred, and less than forty- three thousand; of more than thirty thou- sand and less than thirty-six thousand five hundred; and of more than twenty thou- sand nine hundred, and less than thirty thousand. There was, besides, the "gen- eral law" for cities; also special laws for various cities : For those of seventy thou- sand or over; seventy thousand or less; fifty thousand; forty-five thousand; twen- ty-nine thousand; between twenty thou- sand two hundred and twenty thousand nine hundred ; seventeen to eighteen thou-

sand; fifteen thousand; ten thousand; be- tween six thousand and seven thousand; between fifty-three and fifty-eight hun- dred; between forty-five hundred and for- ty and forty-five hundred and forty-five; between four thousand and twenty-five and four thousand and fifty; between seven thousand eight hundred and seven thousand eight hundred and twenty; be- tween thirty-four hundred and ten and thirty-four hundred and twenty, and many others. There were corresponding varia- tions in the laws for the government of towns.

On the organization of the commission the minority member was assigned the task of bringing into some order or system these various enactments. The task at first seemed a hopeless one. After some days' study he suggested to the commis- sion that it might be possible to frame a single code for all cities and towns. To do this it would be necessary to classify the cities according to population and modify provisions in many cases in ac- cordance with the classifications. In an- swer to the suggestion the other members of the commission, while of opinion that a single code, adapted to all the cities and towns of the State, was greatly to be de- sired, yet believed that it would be most difficult of accomplishment. However, the plan proposed was approved and the work authorized.

The town being the primary municipal corporation, the law in regard to towns was first developed, beginning with the survey of the proposed corporate territory, the census of its inhabitants and the cor- porate election necessary to create the body corporate. The form of government provided was in effect a simplification of the city government which was to follow. This was supplemented by regulations ac- cording to which the town might become a city.

The cities of the State were divided into five classes: Those having one hundred

( 351 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

thousand population or over; those having forty-five thousand or over and less than one hundred thousand; those having twen- ty thousand or over and less than forty- five thousand; those having ten thousand or over and less than twenty thousand; and those having less than ten thousand. The general plan of government already adopted in the various charters was taken as the basis of the new code. The separa- tion of authority into the legislative, ex- ecutive and judicial branches was strictly adhered to. But the different provisions, wherever it seemed necessary, were modi- fied in their application to the five differ- ent classes into which the cities were di- vided. These modifications had to do chiefly with the number of officers; their salaries; the amount of the tax levy; the union of the functions of two or more offices in the hands of one official ; the num- ber of deputies; the assignment to com- mittees of the Council, in small cities and in towns, of the work of boards in larger cities ; the requirement that the duties of city treasurer, in certain cities, should. be performed by the county treasurer; the re- quirements as to parks, playgrounds, boulevards, levees and harbors ; provisions for fire and police pension funds. In re- gard to these matters, and in other cases also, when deemed necessary, the require- ments were varied to suit the class to which the city was assigned. But the un- derlying principles of government were made uniform for all cities throughout the State. This was also the case as to towns so far as possible.

In many important details there was a wide departure from the procedure fol- lowed in the charters. The terms of offi- cers and the periods and dates of elections were radically changed. The elections were fixed for "the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in the year 1905, and on the same day every four years thereafter." In this provision city elections would be held in the "off year,"

and so not come in the year of general po- litical campaigns and elections. The aim in this was to enable voters to look out for the welfare of the city, and, so far as pos- sible, without being swayed by political considerations. The elections were fixed for every four years instead of every two years, thus saving the expense of one elec- tion in each four years, and also giving the officials time and experience to carry out any policy which might be for the good of the city. To counteract any evil that might result from so long a term, it was provided that no city officer should be eli- gible to succeed himself in office. As city elections had previously occurred at differ- ent dates, so the terms of officials had be- gun at different times. The bill fixed the first Monday of January, every fourth year, as the date when the new officers should begin their terms. This gave them time, from their election in November to the first of January, to acquaint them- selves with their duties. Many other im- provements on the former laws were in- troduced into the code. The numerous statutes on the books in relation to city and town government had consisted of nearly eighteen hundred sections. The code, as it was finally adopted by the Leg- islature, contained but two hundred and seventy-two sections.

The essential principle of the Indiana Municipal Code is the fixing of responsi- bility. The Council is restricted to the en- actment of ordinances and the fixing of annual appropriations and tax levies. The executive duties, the administrative func- tions, are fixed in the Mayor, who appoints all boards and officers who are charged with the actual duties of city government. The affairs of the city, the care of the finances, the public works of all kinds, the peace and good order of the city, all are in the hands of the one man, the Mayor him- self. To him the people look for good gov- ernment; in his hands they have placed

( 352 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

the welfare of the community. If he fails them. if he is untrue to his responsibili- ties, they have the remedy in their own hands.

It is said that the code forms a strong central government-not by the people, as in a democracy, not by their representa- tives, as in a republic. This argument was strongly presented in the Legislature and in the press, during the whole period from the time when the first reform was proposed and inaugurated in our munici- pal affairs, until the culmination was reached in this code. But the sufficient answer was then, as it is now, that our cities can no longer be well governed by the simple old plan, which served so well when the communities were small and the population of the country sparse. "Safety first" is a maxim not confined to the use of machinery or the various modes of public travel. It applies also to our dense cen-

ters of population, to modern city govern- ment. The Indiana Municipal Code se- cures safety first, but it secures this end with the least possible yielding to arbi- trary government. The "checks and bal- ances" which for over a century and a quarter have proved so serviceable in our national and State governments is here happily adapted to our city government. We have set up no irresponsible dictator, but one charged with the administration of the law and subject to its control, at the same time that he is set up in the sunlight, in the presence of all the people who can thus hold him responsible for the enforce- ment of the law, the good order of the com- munity and the public welfare. Liberty within the law must be his motto and it must be theirs. This end, sought in every good form of government, is in none more safely and sanely attained than in the In- diana Municipal Code.

12-History

( 353 )

[CHAPTER XLV.] DEFEAT STARED THEM IN THE FACE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE 1894 CONVENTION WAS A TAME AFFAIR

HE date fixed for holding the T Democratic State Convention, August 14, happened to be in the midst of the heated term. There surely were hot days in the month of August that year, and the assembled delegates felt it. They felt something else, and that wasn't to their liking, either. The signs of the times were ominous. They pointed unerringly to Democratic defeat in the melancholy days of November. But with admirable courage they faced the music and made their nominations just as if they thought the nominees had a fair chance for election. No other course was open to them. It is always good policy to present a bold front when engaged in any sort of a political fight.

Governor Claude Matthews was unani- mously chosen to preside over the conven- tion. It was a wise selection. His man- ner of conducting the proceedings of the convention proved that he had had previ- ous experience in handling the gavel. Be- sides, upon taking the chair he delivered a spirited address that greatly enlivened the appreciative audience before him.

Senator S. M. Briscoe of Hartford City served as principal secretary. He had as assistants Joseph Blase, Samuel B. Boyd, J. H. Matlock, Nicholas Cornet, Thomas E. Coyle, W. H. Hamilton, Leon O. Bailey, Charles McCulloch, Jasper P. Davis, John Rothrock, H. B. Bannister, A. A. Adams, and Daniel Ford.

STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE.

(Elected at District Conventions in January.)

1. John G. Shanklin, Evansville.

2. Thomas B. Buskirk, Paoli.

3. Isaac N. Leydon, New Albany.

4. William H. O'Brien, Lawrenceburg.

5. W. C. Duncan, Columbus.

6. John M. Lontz, Richmond.

7. Thomas Taggart, Indianapolis.

8. Thomas J. Mann, Sullivan.

9. William M. Blackstock, Lafayette.

10. M. M. Hathaway, Winamac.

11. Jere A. M. Kintz, Huntington.

12. Judge Allen Zollars, Fort Wayne.

13. William Conrad, Warsaw.

There were no contests for any of the positions on the ticket, hence all the nomi- nations were made by acclamation, as fol- lows:

For Secretary of State-Captain William R. Myers of Anderson.

For Auditor of State-Joseph T. Fanning of Indianapolis.

For Treasurer of State-Morgan Chandler of Hancock county.

For Attorney-General-Francis M. Griffith of Switzerland county.

For Superintendent of Public Instruction- Charles W. Thomas.

For Clerk Supreme Court-Charles W. Well- man of Sullivan.

For Chief Bureau of Statistics-Eli T. J. Jor- dan.

For Judge of the Supreme Court-George L. Reinhard of Rockport and Joseph S. Dailey of Bluffton.

Judge Robert Lowry of Fort Wayne, who had attended every Democratic State Convention held since 1852, was dum- founded in sizing up this gathering. "Appalling ! appalling !" he exclaimed. "It portends but one thing-overwhelming defeat."

And such it proved, although untiring efforts were put forth by the Democratic State Committee, under the inspiring lead- ership of Thomas Taggart, to put ginger into the campaign and to impress upon members of the party the importance of exerting themselves to the utmost to keep afloat the banner of Democracy. A day was fixed on which to open the campaign

( 355 )

HISTORY INDIANA DEMOCRACY-1816-1916

simultaneously in every county of the State. Some of these meetings were well attended and awakened hope of a fair showing being made at the polls in No- vember. But as the day of election came, and the yeomanry exercised the preroga- tive of citizenship, it became painfully ap- parent that Judge Lowry's forebodings were well founded. When the smoke of battle had cleared away it was found that the Republicans had elected their entire State ticket by the then unprecedented majority of 46,000; that every successful candidate for Congress was a Republican, and that the Republicans were overwhelm- ingly in the ascendency in both houses of the Legislature. Nothing anywhere ap- proximate to this landslide had ever before occurred in the State of Indiana. It ex- ceeded by far the most extravagant fore- casts of the Republican party leaders and campaign managers.

COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS.

1. G. V. Menzies, Posey county.

2. M. J. Niblack, Knox.

3. George H. Voight, Clark.

4. K. M. Hord, Shelby.

5. Willis Hicam, Owen.

6. J. W. Henderson, Wayne.

7. J. J. Netterville, Madison.

8. J. E. Lamb, Vigo.

9. Samuel M. Ralston, Boone.

10. John C. Nelson, Cass.

11. S. E. Cook, Huntington.

12. R. C. Bell, Allen.

13. George Ford, St. Joseph.

PLATFORM DECLARATIONS.

The Democratic party of Indiana takes just pride in the strength of the record it has made in the legislative and executive departments of this commonwealth by the enactment and enforcement of wise and beneficent laws in the interest of the peo- ple and in the fulfillment of its pledges.

It passed the mechanic lien laws and the law giving laborers a lien upon the prod- uct of their labor for wages and materials furnished, the law protecting labor or- ganizations, the law providing for the safety of miners and proper ventilation of mines, constituting eight hours a day's labor in public employment, prohibiting

the blacklisting of employes, prohibiting "pluck-me" stores, the employes' liability law, forbidding the employment and im- portation of Pinkerton detectives, against the importation of alien or foreign labor. It enacted the school book law, saving large sums to the people, breaking down an oppressive monopoly and placing the instruments of education within the reach of the poorest and humblest citizens; it enacted our existing laws purifying elec- tions, giving an untrammeled ballot to the voter, and by the Australian ballot suc- cessfully preventing fraud and intimida- tion of employes and others at the polls. It framed and passed our present tax law, thus adding millions of property to our tax duplicates; it passed the present fee and salary law; it enacted the Barrett im- provement law, which has proven a bless- ing wherever used; it also passed the state board of charities law, which has insured honest, humane and intelligent adminis- tration of our public institutions.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

History of the Indiana democracy, 1816-1916, Part 48

Author: Stoll, John B., 1843-1926 Publication date: 1917 Publisher: Indianapolis : Indiana Democratic Pub. Co. Number of Pages: 1104

Author: Stoll, John B., 1843-1926
Publication date: 1917
Publisher: Indianapolis : Indiana Democratic Pub. Co.
Number of Pages: 1104