The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-03-15
HAVE FILED THEIR ANSWER
The Police Commissioners Give Reasons
for Declining to Surrender Control.
They Meet the Complaint of Holt and Asso-
ciates with Facts That Clearly Define the
Issue-various Matters in the Courts.

John b. Elan. VIM. Henderson, Harry 5.
New and Albert Travis yesterday filed an
answer to the complaint brought against
them, as Police Commissioners, on Wednes-
day by Sterling r. Holt, VIM. A. Sullivan
and Robert +. Catterson, who claim to act
as such commissioners by virtue of an cleo
ton by the General Assembly. The
swer, on behalf of the fire department, will
be filed to-day OF tomorrow. The follow
ing is the ground covered by the respond
ents and Superintendent Travis in their
answer:
8. New, William Henderson and Albert Travis
and waive the Issue of process and OF an alter
nate writ OF mandate herein against nm .ee anu
complaint herein against them. say: That 1T
Is true as charged in the bill that the said John
b. Elam William Henderson, Harry =. New and
Albert Travis being in possession OF the station
house and other property belonging to the POI
lice department of the city of Indianapolis, and
being the property of and belon cling to the said
city of Indianapolis, including the patrol wagons
books, records and other equipments ana the
session. custody and control thereof to the said
Holt, Sullivan and Catterson, claiming to act as
the Board of METROPOLITAN Police and Fire De-
partment of the city of Indianapolis for that de-
PENDANTS say that at the time the said REALTORS
made the demand for the possession OF
the property these defendants were In
the possession and control of the property afore-
said TO which property the said REALTORS had not
nor has either of them any right 10 nave t ,nS
thereof or of any part thereof, because there was
not at that time, nor has there since been any
law In force in the state of Indiana authorizing
or requiring them or either of them to yield up
and turn over to said REALTORS or either OF them
any or all of the property in the bill mentioned
then and there and ever since and low In ther
possession and control.
And these defendants further say that the only
authority under and by which the said REALTORS
IN n a nOgseSSiOQ.
management and control of the property afore.
said and of the police department of the city OF
Indianapolis, Is pretended act OF the General
Assembly of the State of Indiana alleged TO have
been passed at the last session thereof. cine
Bigham bill is here set forth
But these defendants say the said act never be-
came andis the law for that the said bill t0wlt
House bill No. SO. was introduced into the House
of the last General Assembly on the e day OF
-, 1889; and was during said session passed
by the House and transmitted to the Senate:
which body passed said bill on the - day OF
March, 1889; and thereupOn said bill was trans
united to the Governor OF this State for his
action thereon. That afterwards, to-wit. on the
9TH day of March, 1889, the said Governor re-
fused to sign said bill and returned the same to
the House in which the said bill originated. with
his written objections thereto. Here the n mes
printed in The Journal on March 8. is set FORTH
And these defendants say that after the Gov
ernor returned said bill to the house wherein 1t
originated, together with his objections thereto,
aforesaid. the same was never there after pre-
sented to said Governor or filed in his office, nor
posted In the Office of the Secretary of State,
nor did he ever thereafter inform the house III
which the same originated that the same was
deposited in the Office of the Secretary of state,
required by the 1irst section of the act of May
6, 1858, being Section 1882 of the Revised Stat
utes, 1881 which enacts as follows:
'Section1. The Governor shall cause all acts
and joint resolutions passed by the General
Assembly to be deposited in the office of the
Secretary of State and inform the house in which
the same originated
And the defendants further say that by Section
Is provided that the General Assembly shall not
pass local or special laws where general law
can be made appldiecaible That by the United
ton Of the city of Indianapolis was then 1906.
and of the city of Evansville $3.50, and that no
other cities this state at the time of the taking
of said census in 1880 had as great population
as $4,000; but these defendant say that now and
at the time OF the introduction OF said bill No;
81 and ever since, many other Incorporated
cities within the State of Indiana had a pOpula-
ton in excess of 30 900, and many other incor-
porated cities in said State had a population or
less than $4,000, in each of which cities. to-
wit: in the cities OF Fort Wayne, Terre Haute,
Lafayette, Richmond, New Albany, Logansport,
Michigan City, Elkhart, South Bend. and many
others there are and were fire departments and
police departments created and organized and in
force under and in pursuance of the general laws
of the State of Indiana.
And defendants further state that during the
last session OF the General Assembly, the said
Assembly assumed TO elect officers under the
provisions of the said pretended bill for the cities
said defendants say said pretended bill is uncon-
sttutional, in direct violation of Section % and
Section, % of Article ~ of the Constitution of
Indiana, and is null and void, because the said
bill was intended TO be and issOught TO be applied
90 the said cities of Indianapolis and Evansville
only and the same Is, therefore, local and special
And defendants further show to the court that
1t Is provided by Section 10 OF Article of the
Constitution of this State that Every act shall
embrace but one subject and matters properly
connected Herewith, which subject shall be ex-
pressed in the title"
And defendants snow to the court that by the
provisions of said bill two separate and distinct
subjects are embraced within the title Of said
bill and in the body of said bill, tO-wt: The sub
ject OF providing and maintaining police force
in the cities of Indianapolis and Evansville, and
the subject of providing and maintaining a fire
department in each or said cities, which sub
jects have natural, legal. logical connection
with each other, and therefore the said bill is un-
constitutional and void
And these defendants further show to the
court that neither the said Sterling X. Holt, Vim.
A. Sullivan or Robert f. CaIterson have ever
hold as described in the complaint by the Com
mon Council and Boardof Aldermen of the city of
Indianapolis by the legal voters of said city,
nor have they or either of them been appointed
to their alleged offices by the Mayor of said city
nor by the Governor of the State of Indiana.
i OF the Constitution OF this State it is provided
as follows: 1.-THE General Assembly shall not
grant to any citizens or class of citizens privi-
1eges or immunities which, upon the same terms,
ehal notequally belong TO all citizens" And they
show that by the provision of Section OF said
House bill No. SO it is provided as follows 1.-THE
said commissioners shall have resided In such
cities for at least five years next preceding their
election" That by the provisions of Section 3 of
said bill it is provided that saie Board OF Metro
politan Police and Fire Department shall have
the power to select and superintend the police
captains, sergeants, detectives and such other
officers and patrolmen as the board may deem 1t
advisable; the said captains sergeants and other
officers and patrolmen To be selected equally be-
tween the two leading parties of said cities"
And defendants say that the two lead
ing political parties Of said cities
OF Indianapolis and Evansville are the
Mepublcan party and the Democratic party, and
the Introduction of said BILL and ever since have
been and now are, in each of said cities large
number OF adult male citizens and voters who
have not resided within the respective cities for
the period of five years; Also that at the time OF
the Introduction OF said bill, and before and ever
since. there were, and now are, large number
of male citizens and residents within each of said
cities who were not at the last election and at no
time since. have been and are not members of
at said last election were members of and voted
for and with other political parties, to-wtt: the
Prohibition party, the Union Labor party and
the National party. And defendants show that
In each Of said cities at the time of the introduce
tion of said bill No. 49, and ever since, there
large numberof the residents of the said cities of
Evansville and Indianapolis who were not men,
beers of the two leading political parties in said
cities, to-wit, the Republican party and the Demo-
litlcal partiss aforesaid who 1T, able and
competent, voters and Taxpayers and otherwise
qualified 10 I'LL and discharge the duties of sup
of notice. ptains sefgeanfS. detect