The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-02-05
THE MURPHY-ENGLIsH SUIT.
Legal "Reminiscences of the Last Presiden.
tial Campaign in Indiana.

| The New York Times gives the following ac-
count of the suit of William D. Murphy against
william H. English, of which mention has
already been made in the Journal:
"Among the Democratic speakers who went
TO Indiana prior to the State election there in
1880 to endeavor to overcome the Republican
sentiments of majority of the voters there, and
prepare way for the State to be carried by
Hancock and English. was William D. Murphy,
OF Albany, In this State. Bet Yeen Sept. and
oct II, 1881, Mr.. Murphy made twenty-five
speeches in Indiana. After the general election
he presented bill for his services and expenses
to William H. English, and asked that person to
pay 1t, asserting that Mr.. English had employed
him as a speaker, and, either personally or by
agents. had appointed the places at which the
speeches were delivered. Mr.. English refused
pay the bill, and Mr.. Murphy, about year ago.
began a suit in the Supreme Court here to re-
cover It's amount. The complaint set forth that
Murphy went TO Indiana at the request of Mr.
English; that his work a speech-maker was
worth 81 900, and that in the course of his trav-
els in Indiana he had expended $3.50 for ex-
penses. He admitted that he had received 100
ST $780, with interest. Mr.. English PIT IN an an an
swer denying that he had employed Mr.. Murphy
but admitting that the latter ned made some
speeches in Indiana which, he alleged, "were
poor and worthless, and not oCably worth
the sum of 81 900, any sum whatever and
were made by SAID plaintiff of his own desire and
procurement expressive of his own political
opinions and to further his own political inter
ests and the interests of his party" For a sepa-
rate and final defense Mr.. english presented a
moral plea, as follows; THAT at the sew
eral dates named in said complaint an
election of President and the other officers
of the United States was near at hand, and the
meetings referred TO in said complaint had in
view said election, and were assemblies of clti-
Zens under the constitution and laws of the
United States guaranteeing the right to as
semble and to petition the government for a re-
dress of grievances; that the nature of such
eemblies involves and is a discharge of public
duty in all who participates duty to be exer-
cised only from consideration Of the welfare of
the government thatthe speech at sucn assem-
hlieR must be free and unbiased, and prompted
solely by purpose to influence citizens to vote
intelllgently and conscientiously, or so exercise
their right of petition; that the agreement set
out in said complaint alleging hired attendance
upon and hired speeches to said assemblies to in
fiuence the mode in which said citizens should
vote. and is against the policy of the con-
stitution and laws of the United States, against
public policy, and void" For these reasons Mr.
English of Indiana, asked the court to dismiss
| the complaint against him. To this part of the
answer the plaintiff Mr.. Murphy, demurred. on
the ground that 1T was an insufficient defense
upon its face.
| The case was tried on the demurrer before
Judge LarremOre, in the Supreme Court, special
term, Mr. M. A. Gearson appearing for the plain
tiff, and Messrs. Sullivan Il Cromwell for the de-
PENDANT. Judge Larremore decided yesterday to
sustain the demurrer, and in his opinion SAID
"By statute for this State imposing penalties
| for violation of election laws, it is INSIDE
meanor for any candidate for an elective Office
with intent to promote his election, or for any
! other purpose in his behalf, to furnish entertain
ment money to procure or compensate
voters, or 10 contribute money for any other
purpose INTENDED TO promote an election OF any
particular person or ticket, except for defraying
the expensrs OF printing and the circulation of
votes, handbills and other papers previous to
any such election, or for conveying sick poor or
infirm electors to the polls. This statute was
the subject of judicial Interpretation in
Walker against Jackson, in which it was
held that q log cahin,' which was used to pro-
mote the success of particular candidate by
furnishing entertainments for voters, was viO-
iat0n of it's provisions. This decision, sustained
by the Court of Errors in face of large dissent
ing vote, was followed in Hurley against Van
Wagner and Sizer against Daniels, with dis
tinct utteranco that its doctrine should not he
extended. No authority has been cited to show
that il is an Offense at common law for a candi-
date for a national Office who could not person.
ally present his individual views of national pol
icy over a wide area of constituency, to employ
and compensate person for that purpose. The
pleadings do not show where the alleged con-
tract was made, hut entirely agree that it was TO
he fully performed in the State of Indiana
There is no averment in the answer that the al
legged contract is void by the law of that State,
and that fact cannot be assumed. Penal stat
utes OF this State have extra territorial iurls-
diction. II the contract in question was void
under the law of the State of Indiana that
should have been pleaded and issue taken there
upon. The plaintiff is entitled to Judgment upon
his demurrer, with leave to the defendant to
amend his answer"