The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-17
In THE DOMAIN OF JUSTICE
Attorneys in the Harrison Case
File Briefs in the Supreme Court.
other Liquor-Seller Fined in the Criminal
Court-An Eyicted Tenants Suit.

Briefs were fled in the Supreme Court, yes
terdsy. IN the case of Joseph T.. Carson against
Thos. FL Harrison, wherein Capt Carson seeks
possession OF the Office OF president of the State
benevolent boards, to which he was appointed by
the Governor The brief fled by Capt. Carson's
attorneys In stating the question at issue recites
that Harrison was appointed by the General
Assembly as president of the board of trustees
OF the benevolent institutions, on Feb. 81 1883,
for a term of four years, and that the legal term
OF the Office expired Feb 81 1887, the Legislature
then being in session and having subsequently,
adjourned without having appointed q successor.
Was there vacancy in the Office upon the ad
journment of the Legislature7 If such vacancy
existed had the Governor power to fill i'll In
answering these questions the brief recites that
the act under which Harrison was appointed
provid es that 1.-The term of Office of such presi-
dent shall be four years. Every four
years thereafter q president of such board
shall be elected The Constitution further
states that 1.-The General Assembly shall not Gre
ate any Office the tenure of which shall be longer
than four years" The attorneys argue that in
the absence of any provision OF the law or the
Constitution authorizing officer to hold be-
yond the defined term his rights as de jure
officer cease, and the Office. in legal contempla:
ton, becomes vacant The doctrine of the COM
mon law, as recognized in this and 9th er
States of the Union, is, that where the
term Of an Office is fixed and def
for the election or appointment of the officer
and OF his successor, with no express provision
for holding over, vacancy exists at the end of
each term in the event no successor il elected
or appointed When the Legislature is not in
session such vacancy shall be filed by appoint
ment by the Governor. the appointment to
hold good only until the following session of the
General Assembly. By the act of 1881 tcited
In LIST Ind, 505l the Legislature provided:
whenever q vacancy occurs in the Office of
any commissioner now or hereafter elected
appointed, by death, resignation, expiration of
the term OF Office, otherwise, the same shall
be filed, etc." thereby clearly recognizing the
proposition that a vacancy does arise by expra-
ton or the term of Office. AS to the Governors
power to fill the vacancy by appoint ment, it 10
contended that the Office has been created. It's
term has been fixed, and TIE method of filling it
has been provided by the Legislature.
The appellant states that il it be
coded that that the language of Section
of the act Of 1888 differs from the
language of the constitutional provision in re-
lation to the Governors power to fill vacancies,
in SO far as there may be conflict the provision
OF the Constitution should take precedence.
to have been taken from the federal Constitu-
ton and arguments of the Presidents appoint
ing power under analogous circumstances are
adduced in support of the appellants position.
In the brief which the attorneys for HARRISON
dled it is argued that expiration of term of
Office does not constitute vacancy. since
cording to statute the incumbent is legal Of
ticer until his successor is elected appointed.
The appelee's term of Office did not expire when
the Legislature was lot in session, the only condi
ton under which tie Governor is qualified by the
statute to make an appointment 1t is contended
that if it be construed that legisative-created
office cannot exceed four years, and that an in
CUNT bent of such Office cannot hold over until
his successor shall have been elected and quail
fed becauSA the farm 1irnitAd a cnu1d moth a
re- elected, a conclusion which reduces the argu-
ment ad absurdum.
The date for the oral argument has not yet
been set but it is understood that will be soon.