The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-17
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.
The ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Case.

TO the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal:
From the statements contained in your edi.
torial in this mornings Journal, headed "a
Spoiled Came and referring to what took place
before the Supreme Court at the time the day
was fixed for the hearing of the argument to be
made in the case of Smith VS.. Myers. Secretary
of State. evidently some person has grossly i'm
posed upon you in pretending to give you the
facts No such transaction as your editorial in
dicates took place. No proposition was made
to agree to a submission of the case to the
court on its merits, irrespective of the points
raised by the demurrer for the State, and the
decision of the circuit judge" and the converse
ton attributed by your editorial 20 Mr.. Myers
and Judge Niblack did not occur.
TIE facts in the case are as follows: J. being
the only counsel of Smith who was present.
first took the record to the Secretary of States
Office and requested Mr.. Myers to join in error
and a petition with the appellant to advance the
case, and for an oral argument which he did.
We then went to the Office of the clerk of the
Supreme Court, and the clerk filed the papers,
handed them to me, and Mr.. Myers and myself
went to the Attorney generals office for the pur-
pose of having him go with us to the Supreme
Court When we arrived there Mr.. Hord. the
deputy, told that the Attorney general was
out of the city. / requested him to go to the
Supreme Court with us and assist in having a
the case, which he did. Arriving at
Judge Niblacks room, / handed the
record to the Chief Justice Judge Elliott and he
informed me that Judge Howk had told him that
the record would probably be filed that after
noon, and the judges had Informally thought of
day, and asked me If Thursday would do
told him that gave but one day to get ready, and
asked ii the matter could not be assigned to Fri
day. Judge Niblack remarked that he thought
Friday would do, and asked Mr.. Hord if he
thought that day would suit the Attorney, gen.
eral Mr.. Hord replied that the Attorney gener-
al was ont of the city, but that he supposed Fri
day would do. Judge Elliott then told him to
telegraph the Attorney-general at once. Mr..
Myers said that he wanted no delay in the mat
ter; that the appearance of the Attorney general
was voluntary: that he was not his attorney
asked him If he had any other counsel and he
said not. l stated that the appellant had no
objection to the Attorney general appearing IN
the case This is all that was said upon the
subject. There was nothing (which was prop
erly and promptly checkmate6 by Judge Nib
lack, and had you known the facts, do not be-
lieve you would have published the editorial
cannot see that there would have been any
improperly in Mr.. Myers having offered to
waive any supposed or doubtful question of
jurisdiction, if any there was if he had the legal
authority and desired to do so. to the end that
the real question involved in the case might be
decided But nothing of the kind was done, or
offered to be done. l think the only surprise in
the matter is, that any one would attempt to
defeat decision of the main question, it being
one of great Importance to the public, by raising
any possible question which does not go to the
merits of the case. Jason B. BROWN.