The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-09

succeeded to the honor and duties Of the Lieu
tenant governorship. The Constitution does not
provide for the election OF Lieutenant
governor in case of a vacancy. and the Attorney
general cannot show by direction or implication
where an election of that officer is required
oftener than every four years. 1t the election
of this officer stands at all, it must be within
the provision of the Constitution. If it is not,
every vote cast thereat for Acknowledgements
is illegal. and has tendency to subvert the gov
eminent. Arguing from this position, Mr..
Brown maintained that the Constitution pre-
sented completeness in providing for the sue
cession, for that instrument especially gives the
Senate power to elect its President If the va
cancy was one to be filled by election the Gov
ernor should have appointed a person to serve
until Lieutenantgovernor could be elected.
He did not. although it is a matter of political
history that his attention was called to it. He
cited the succession of James Brown Ray,
elected President of the Senate in 1923, to the
governorship in 1879 Lleutenat- governor Boone
having been sent to Congress and Governor
William Hendricks to the United States Senate.
There were repeated instances of vacancies IN
the lieutenant governorship but none like the
case of acting Governor Ray, which shows COM
pletely the rights of succession
Judge Turpie followed with the assertion that
il Governor Gray should die to-day Senator
Smith would have the right TO the succession.
He had in this case no remedy at law, for he had
no right to possession of the election returns,
nor could they be had by replevin; therefore re-
lief must be equitable He had lived long
enough TO see two Presidents of the Senate sit
ting together and to each Senators on the floor
gave recognition. 1t is expected that these pro-
ceedings will prevent clash one that NAV lead
to assault and battery validity of election in
contests is admitted, but the question involved
In these proceedings is, was the election valid!
None of the conditions for quo warranto exist
here. The delivery Of the returns to the Speak
er of the House is not political action, hence,
an injunction will lie. 1t is to prevent political
election that the Injunction is sought At the
time the Speaker is to canvass the
returns injunction would serve.
Senator Smith has not been slothful
in this case. At the first approach of the ag-
gressor he asserts his rights. Referring to the
duty of the Governor to appoint officers, he
claimed that it could not be done in this in
stance. Appointment must come from superb
or power, but the Governor and Lieutenant gov
ernor are Of the same rank, but with different
powers. They are closely connected by constitu-
tonal provisions, and cannot be separated. The
Constitution never contemplated that there
should be any vote canvassed for Governor with
out canvassing the vote for governor.
An official term of four years for each of these
offices is provided for The term cannot be
longer or less From this point Judge Turpie
cited instances of vacancies in the Lieutenant
governorship where no election had been held.
Attorney general Kitchener replied in twenty
minutes statement refutinI the claim as to
close connection between the two officers. The
president of the Senate cannot serve longer than
the first days session of this body. 1t then may
| elect some other person than this complainant
and that election will occur three days before
| the Speaker of the House can canvass the re-
turns. The complainant will then be out of
Office. He claimed that no election occurred for
Lieutenant-governor when Mr.. Morton succeeded
Mr.. Lane and Mr.. Baker Succeeded Mr.. Morton,
because there was no vacancy. In these ID
stances the Lieutenant governor acted as Gov
ernor.
With this the question was left to Judge
Ayres, to whom Major Gordon will submit a
brief to-day. A decision will not be given for
several days.