The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1889-11-13
POLITICS IN THE SUPREME COURT.
The PeelIe-worreIl and Yancey-Hyde Cases
Decided Against the Democrats.

The PeelIe-worreu and Yancey-Hyde Cases
Decided Against the Democrats
The supreme court Thursday decided the
Yancey-Hyde and Peelle-Worrell cases The
principal opinion in the former was written by
Judge Berkshire, and in the latter by Judge
Olds. Chief Justice Elliott handed down an
opinion, in which he views the propositions in
the ease from every standpoint. dissenting to
the opinion of Judge Berkshire. Judge Mitchell
concurred in every particular in the opinion of
Judge Elliott and commended 1t as a most able
exposition of the constitutional law bearing on
the questions involved. Judges Codey and
Olds concurred in the opinion Of Judge Berk-
shire without comment. So the case was de-
cided in favor Of the republican party.
Practically the same questions were
involved in the Peelle-W orrell case.
Again, in it, the court stood divided. three 10
two, with Judges Berkshire. Olds and COiiey
in favor Of ousting the democrats, and Judges
Mitchell and Elliott in favor Of deciding the
case under the provisions Of the constitution.
Though the latter gentlemen had the power 20
prove by reason the correctness OF their
opinions they had not the numerical power,
which is brOtherly to physical power, to de-
eide the cases in conformity TO constitutional
lhWs lney ulu nave the powell however or
rather the privilege TO prove 10 every fair
minded lawyer in the state that their three
colleagues had blinded their eyes 20 reason
and forced the supreme court of Indiana TO
assume the burden OF disgrace incumbent upon
overriding the very essence of civilization
constitutional law.
Ii is doubtful il there is a lawyer in Indi-
annapolis who. when he heard the holding
Of the court in these two cases,
did not express surprise. Several
expressions were heard which indicated clearly
what the verdict of the bar of the state would
be on the heroic" action Of the three junior
judges of the supreme court. Said prominent
lawyer II am surprised that these young
judges should take upon themselves the re-
sponsibility OF Overruling the opinion Of both
their seniors. Even II they had no respect for
Judge Mitchell on account of his opposite
political convictions they might have had
some consideration for Elliott Judge Elliott
knows more about constitutional law than all
three of them combined" On all sides were
opinions of uninterested lawyers that the de-
cision was radically wrong.
As the cases were taken to the supreme
court on demurrers. they will go back TO the
lower courts again. If the defendants so wish
il, they will be tried again.
Prof. Gorby said he would hold his Office
until the case in which his position is involved,
that OF Yancy. vs., Hyde. is finally settled. II
am satisfied that IL IL merely a partisan deci-
sion" said he. "and propose TO see it go to the
end" Mr.. Peelle is inclined TO do likewise.
Judge Mitchell eoncurs in the opinion of
Judge Elliott, and says that the present in
cumbents were both legally appointed, and
were holding their offices under legal appoint.
ments when they were elected by the legis-
lature; and If IL were conceded that the last
election was utterly void. then under all the
authorities the incumbents would continue 10
hold over until their successors were legally
elected and qualified. Judge Mitchell con-
cludes: with an abiding nviotion that the
reached in the opinion of the court on all the
vital questions involved are radically unsound
and In open conflict with all the previous de-
cisions OF this court and with the practical ex.
position which the constitution has received
since the FIRST organization of the state govern
ment, aud that they are also in direct antag.
onism with the decisions OF the courts in every
other state where like questions have been con-
sidered, can only record an earnest and en-
phatic dissent from the judgment on the prin.
cipal questions. and an unqualified concurrence
In ~ Or.iu Of fhr -