The Clark Investigation Raised A Debate

The regular meeting of the council last evening was an old-fashioned affair, lasting until after n o'clock local time. It was a busy meeting, and it cannot be said much time was wasted, excepting, perhaps, a short hour when the burning eloquence of Hon. A. J. Sawyer, the attorney for Mbert Clark, president of the board of public works, and Aid. Butterfield told of the procedure in the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson and other great men. Mr. Sawyer made a strong effort to have the investigation of Mr. Clark made as technical as possible. Aid. Butterfield answered Mr. Sawyer's arguments, contending for common sense and a thorough investigation, without bias, of the charges made against Mr. Clark. The appropriation of $1,000 to settle a law suit for a defective sidewalk, with other requests, showed that the mayor will have his hands full to keep taxes from growing upon the "dear people." The large crowd of spectators, including Messrs. Bullis and Clark of the board of public works, showed the interest taken by the general public. This did not abate until the adjournment of the council. The newly elected aldermen are beginning to feel their oats, if such an expression is permissable in connection with an alderman. If all signs do not fail, a number of new men will be heard from. Among these Aid. Koch did not hesitate to express himself as to what were his views, which were grounded on good common sense. Pres. Hiscock lost no time in calling the meeting promptly to order at 8 o'clock. The mayor's veto on the resolution offering a reward for the dog poisoners was sustained by a vote of it to 3, Aid. Koch, Ferguson and Shadford voting no. The following nominations of the mayor were unanimously confirmed: Charles H. Manly, treasurer; Chas. H. Kline, city attorney; Moses Seabold, fire commissioner; Dr. John Kapp, board of health; Gottlob Luick, George M. Clarken and John J. Ferguson, building inspectors. Mayor Walker also announced to the council that he had appointed Meivin C. Peterson as marshal, and David Collins, Reuben Armbruster, John O'Mara and George B. Isabell, patrolmen. The board of public works asked for an appropriation of $100 to rent a building to store tools in, from Mack & Schmid. This was referred to a special committee, consisting of Aid. Maynard, Ferguson and Coon. The board of public works recommended the purchase of a road machine. Jacob A. Polhemus petitioned the couDcil to pay $150 for a horse that was killed by slipping on a cement crossing. It was referred to the finance committee. Five new fire hydrants were asked for, the petitions being referred to the water committee. The sewer committee recommended the building of laterals on Hill, Huron and Detroit streets and the postponement of the Fifth ward main sewer until the district became more thickly populated and the people along the line desired to raake connection therewith. Aid. Butterfield, chairman of the committee, made an exhaustive report on the order of business and method of procedure, to be adopted by the council, upon the investiga tion of changes against the president of the board of public works on Wednesday at iüne o'clock local time. A. J. Sawyer, the attorney for Albert M. Clark, asked permission to make a few suggestions. He took umbrage at the title given the matter, as it seemed to indicate a sort of co-partnership between the relator, Charles H. Manly, and the city of Ann Arbor. He thought only such testimony should be introduced as was permitted in a court of justice. The examination had passed the state of incubation. Mr. Clark's reputation had been assailed. If he should be found guilty, they would remove him, as it was their duty. Therefore only legal testimony should be introduced. They should have some regard for a man's reputation. There was also no provisión made in the rules to swear the aldermen to make an impartial investigation. Theycertainly did not intend to invite Mr. Clark to such an investigation. Some one might say it was undignified to have the council sworn, but it was certaiuly not more undignithan when the senators were sworn to try Andrew Johnson. Aid. Prettyman said there was no idea that the council was wanting in fairness, and he therefore moved to amend rule 3, section 3, so as to read that only testimony admitted in court of law be received. That the citizens wanted to know was, President Clark guilty or not ? He would suggest that some fair minded lawyer like Thomas A. Bogle sit with the council and advise thern on the admittance of testimony. Aid. Butterfield said the committee had given that section some attention and had concluded it was the proper thing to adopt. He called attention to the section of the charter giving the council authority to remove a member of the board of public works for cause. In investigating the cause the aldermen were only doing one of their functions. The members of the council were the solé final judges of everything done. They were answerable to no one, but the people who elected them. They were sworn to do their duty when elected, and there was no propriety in their being sworn again before the beginning of this trial. Every one was sworn to do his duty, and being sworn again would not make the oath any stronger. He then explained the trial of Andrew Johnson, alluded to by Mr. Sawyer, and said he failed to find the rule suggested by Mr. Sawyer. The common council would not be governed by any technical rules. To cali in another judge would not be proper. The only question was, was there cause for removal, Mr. Sawyer had said, if they "succe' ded" in removing Mr. Clark. That was not the sentiment of the council. Every one would much prefer if Mr. Clark could clear his name from the charges. The report of the committee was the proper one to adopt. Mr. Sawyer asked for one word more. He did not intend to intímate in any way that the council or any one had started out to do wrong. He claimed that no provisión was made to give the presiding officer power to act. If they assumed there was no appeal, the council had better remove Mr. Clark without discussion. Aid. Butterfield said the council had a presiding officer, and his powers were defined by law, and could not be enlarged. In answer to Mr. Sawyer he would say that they could assume that the council would act with diligence and decorum, and they had a right to expect that Mr. Clark and his counsel would also act with diligence and decorum. They were simply there to determine what was best to an ordinary business man. After some more general discussion the amendment of Aid. Prettyman was voted down by 12 nays against 2 ayes, the latter being Aid. Prettyman and Coon. Aid. Prettyman thought that perhaps an oversight had been made in there being no provisión made ever in case Mr. Clajk was found innocent, that he should be exonerated. Mrs. Hiscock asked, if Mr. Clark was found not guilty, if the charges would not then be dropped. Aid. Butterfield said it was not usual for a jury when they found a verdict of not guilty, to makc a motion recommending the defendant. The report of the committee was then unanimously adopted. On motion of Aid. Brown the council appropriated $1000 to compromise the claim of Florence B. Smith, of Schoolcraft, for injuries received from a defective sidewalk, the Lucy W. Morgan estáte to contribute #600 additional to this amount. Dr. E. A. Clark was unanimously elected city physician at a salary of $100 per annum.