Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1864-03-14
state Debt Interest QuestfOn-Gover-
nor MOrtons misrepresentation cor.
reeted by the Attorney General.
IxDIANAPoLIs. March 5, 1864.


rected by the Attorney General.
ISDIASAPoLIs. March 5. 1864.
Hon o. p Morton: k-lt.
SIN: In that portion of your speech before tbs
Republican Convention on the 23d of Feb'y, de-
voted to the proceedings growing out Of the sub
ject of the payment Of the interest on the Fun
ded Debt duethe lst July 1863. are statements
calculated 70 create a false impression upon
those not acquainted with the history of the
Transaction.
Professional engagements prevented my read
ing your speech until to-day. or would have
sooner called your attention, and that of the
public, to the incOrrectness of your statements.
and the istentional wrong. for mere partizan
purposes. you do all the parties you mentioned.
! make the following extract that you may
have the fall benefit Of the caseyou make:
ITO secure the cooperation of Mr.. Brett,
and 70 stem the current of public indignation
which was setting in strongly against the parties
to this scheme. it determined In May to pro-
cure an opinion from the Supreme Court. by
which Brett could be coerced, and under which
Ristine and his co adjutors could be sheltered.
Accordingly in May. Hon. w. II. Talbot, the
President Of the Sinking Fund, and who. i was
wall understood. one OF fSistoe aufiscto
in this scheme OF Repatriation, commenced suit
against Ristiue in the Circuit Court of Marion
County, asking for mandamus against Ristine
to compel him TO issue warrant upon the Treas
urer for an amount Of money sufficient
to pay the approaching July interest. The
Sinking Fund was the holder Of large amount
of our State stocks, upon which it the duty
of Talbot TO collect the interest, and the bring
ing of this suit was apparently in the perform.
ance of his duty 1t was obvious, however. that
If such suit was brought il wonld be a mere
sham, concocted thing to consummate the
original scheme of Reputation. The history of
the case in its progress through the Circuit and
Supreme Courts clearly established the truth Of
this opinion. The history Of the in the
Circuit Court is set forth in the card of Mr..
Smock. the Deputy Clerk Of that Court, which,
will read:
INDIANAPOLIS, May l6, 1863.
In the case entitled The State Of Indiana on
the relation of the Commissioners of the Sink
ing .und vs.: Joseph Ristine, Auditor OF State,
the papers were first presented to me by Mr..
Hord, the Attorney General, on Monday the l lth
day of May, with request that the entry pre-
pared should at once be entered OF record, and
transcript made out and certified for the Supreme
Court. This was NV first knowledge of the case.
Mr. Herd stated that the case had been passed
upon by the Court The papers consisted of a
complaint, demurrer TO complaint answer and
demurrer to answer, and of an entry in the hand
writing of the Attorney General reciting the over
ruling Of the demurrer 90 the complaint, the sus.
tanning the demurrer TO the answer, and the Judg-
ment of the Court that's writ of mandate issue OF
in conformity with the prayer of tee complaint.
The Attorney General wanted me to quit my
other work and make the entry in the order
book Immediately. which refused to do, and
told him that the transcript could not be made
then, unless il made from the original papers,
and before the entry made in the order-boOk.
Mr. Hord replied that he would take il in that
way | supposed IL was all right, and that every.
thing had beeu ordered bv the Court.
"The papers were then taken TO the Clerks
Office and from them Transcript was made out
and certified before any step in the case had been
entered upon the order book and before the min
utes had been read or signed. As soon "a the
tsLlscript could be completed in this mode, IL
was handed the Attorney General, who was watt
ing At the Clicks Office for IL be said as he re-
ccived it. that he hoped 20 get decision in the
Supreme Court in a few days, and that the costs
would be paid
@After this the entry was recorded. When
Judge Finch read the entry he remarked that he
had not been informed Of what 1t contained that
II had not been read 10 bin, and IL he bad known
its character il should not have been recorded
He struck the entry from the order book with his
own hand, and before the minutes for the day
had been signed.
SO "W. @. SMocK, Deputy Clerk"
This certainly beats any judicial time on record.
The summary proceedings of the police courts of
New York or the Old Bailey in London cannot
approach H. Here the pleadings on both sides
had been prepared out of court in advance,
record Of the case procured and fled in the Su-
preme Court before the minutes Of the Court be-
low bad been read or signed; without the char
acter Of the case having been brought to the
knowledge of the Judge Of the Circuit Court,
who, upon being informed of what had been
done struck out the entry upon the Order Book
with his own hsnd. and. as learn from another
source sent communication 70 the Clerk OF the
Supreme Court. stating that the record filed with
him had been improperly obtained, and that he
had not decided any such case. He then took up
and examined the original complaint aud decided
it invalid upon the ground that the proceedings
were wholly premature, the time not having ar
rived when anv action could be had upon the
subject From this last decision Talbot appeal
ed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
received and retained both records, and then tile
case presented the very novel aspect of two ap-
peals pending IN the Supreme Court at the same
time. and only one case in the Court below. In
a few days opinions were delivered IN the Su-
preme Court in both cases. denying the existence
of any appropriations by which the interest could
be paid upon the State debt And here leave
the law suit
10 future times the legal antiquarian will pause
amidst his researches to examine this case ms the
greatest curiosity in the annals of American
Jurisprudence"
You substantially charge that the proceedings
were sham, that the case in the Supreme Court
reached there through unfair means, that the de-
cision of the cause was prejudged. and that the
Judges we're influenced by improper motives in
deciding as they did. Grave charges, such as
should only be made upon conclusive proof but
when. as in this case. wholly without foundation.
merely prove that their author is reckless in his
statements. and is willing to make any charge,
however serious. and unfounded. when be hopes
thereby to benefit himself aud injure a political
opponent: that he is buccsneer in politics. will
ing 60 barter his honor and manhood for temporary
success When the controversy arose as TO the
satisfied you did not desire the legal question
submitted to the Courts for decision, that you
preferred il should remain an open question. and
the interest remain unpaid. that you might use
its non-payment as material for the manufacture
of political capital. and anticipated your throwing
every obstacle in your power in the way of the
Judicial decision Of the question. s0
Mr. RIsrIsE and myself realizing the i'm
portance Of The subject, were DESTROYS OF submit
ting the matter TO the courts for adjudication; If
we we're wrong. we desired the interest should be
paid. If We were correct in position that there
was no appropriation bin. We desired the support
of judicial decision. as,af re- fea