The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1889-03-20
ONLY A PARTIAL VICTORY.
REPORTER eRlFFITHs GAINS A POINT
The Supreme Court Holds That the sham
baugh Act is In One Point Uncon-
stitutiOnal-The Salary Question
Not Touched Upon.
Fridays Daily SENTINEL


the reporter under a salary of $1,000 per an
mum, with a clerk at 81 800 and fixes the price
OF the court reports at Sl.50 instead of $3.50,
heretofore The Office has paid former report
ers from $4,000 10 $4,000 year. the duties of
the Office being so light that one man can do
all the WORK and have plenty Of time to go fish
ing and attend to other business. Therefore
1t is not strange that Mr.. Grifiths after failing
TO defeat the bill, through means well known
10 professional lobbyists, carried the case TO
the supreme court to have 1t declared uncon-
stitutional upon the grounds that II imposes
duties upon the court not mentioned IN the
constitution and upon various other grounds
The supreme court decides IN his favor upon
this pOiDt-that the new duties cannot be
added 10 those OF the court, but expresses no
opinion upon the most important section OF
the bill-the one affecting Mr.. Grithths salary,
and unless further action is taken by the
court in his favor, Mr.. Grifiths Will not be bet
Ter of for the decision.
1t was decided in the Baxter local option
law that one section was unconstitutional, but
the others valid In order 10 test the salary
features OF the law a suit viii have 10 be init
ated in the lower court
The case will be watched with interest, as 1t
is case Of John L. Griffiths on one side and the
taxpayers and all the lawyers OF the state on
the other side. The state now buys on an
average 300 copies annually OF the reports,
paying the reporter $3.50 per volume. Under
the Shambaugh bill the state would obtain
them at cost price, less than 81 % per volume,
and the taxpayers can easily figure how much
the state Will lose In the event OF GrtnthS'
final success. Mr.. Grifiths' plea for playing
the part OF a cOrmOrant Is that he spent over
s. 200 to secure his election. There are thou
sands of people IN this state who believe that
any man who expends 5000 10 secure an office
ought to be disqualified. Following is the de-
cision in full of the court:
In the matter OF the reporter OF the supreme court
Elliott C. T.
The reporter Of the decisions of the court files this
petition, invoking judgment upon the validity OF the
act OF March 1889 Among other provisions that act
contains the following: Opinions involving no dis
puted principles OF law equity or rule OF practice
and no question except as IN whether the verdict OF
decision is sustained by sufficient evidence or Is con-
trary 70 the evidence shall be printed IN BREWER
TYPE without analysis or SYLLABUS 1he lnoeA anu
tables Of shall be subject 70 the supervision and
direction Of the supreme court 1t shall he the duty
Of the supreme court 70 make syllabus Of each
opinion. except a hereinafter provided
If the act assumes 20 require the Judges OF the
supreme 10 perform the duties OF the clerk by
pIepang entries 10 discharge the duties OF sher-
ii bv preparing returns Tor him we suppose no one
would hesitate TO declare il void. The fact that the
ofhcer whose duties the act assumes 10 direct the
judges perform is the reporter and not the clerk
the sheriff can make no difference. Neither shade
nor sembanoe OF difference can be discerued by the
keensSt vision between the cases lnstanced ~ way
Of illustration and the real case. The principle
which rules IS this: Judges cannot be required TO
perform any other than judicial duties. This is
rudimental principle of constitutional Law. To the
science Of Jurisprudence Il Is the axiom that the
whole Is equal 10 all its parts is the science OF
msthemstics There Is no contrariety OF opinion
upon this subject There IL no unge Of reason for
asserting different doctrine. We quote
Judge Cooleys statement Of the principle,
although 1t Is found in book in
tended for beginners because 1t expresses the rule
clearly and teTsely. This IS his statement Upon
Judges as such no functions can be imposed, except
those OF judicial nature principles Of Court Law,
81 The authorities upon this point are many and
HARMONIOUS; lHayourn 5 case Dan 40S D. y. :
FerTirs, Is How &c. 81 30 ~ Auditor Railroad,
Kansas 500 Supervisors of elections ia Mass 247
Fees city 10 Wall 1O7; Heinel levee commission
IL Wall 655; smith IS. Strether West court r 423;
BurgOyns vs.. supervisors Calf people vs.. town
Calf 14s; Hardenbay Kidd 10 Calf 400; Mclean
Debout bank 81 Ky. 254; state Young %
Ninn. Shepherd rs. city S L rep. 6S5l
The preparation Of the syllabi IS essential part
Of the reporters work HeadnOtes may be copy
Jighted- but the opinions of the court cannot be-
The syilabi or head-nOtes may be copyrighted be-
the judges. The work IS essentially and intrinscaly
ministerial and, therefore, cannot be performed by
The judges or the court.
The sOundness OF the rule stated by Judge Cooley
Is beyond controversy and II Is hardly necessary 10
60 further u Is conclusive here but the prOvis
ions OF cur constitution are so clear and decisive that
cannot forbear referring TO them. Thee provis-
ions are found in art. and read thus:
Sec. 8. The supreme court shall, upon the decis-
ION OF every case, give q statement in writing Of
each question arising the record OF such cases
and the decision OF the court thereon. Sec 6. The
p1olcation Of the decisions Of the supreme court
made under this constitution; but Judge shall be
allowed 10 report sueh decisions"
These provisions when read in connection with
sec. OF art ., distributing the
powers Of government and sec. OF
art. = lodging the whole judicial power OF
The state in the courts make 1t perfectly clear that
the renorter 1uon the INDIES Of The s,nrer,e Cont
sec defines the duties Of the court, and TO these
duties the legislature can make no additions. The
last clause OF sec is positive prohibition, and
Judge can without - open defiance OF the constitu
ION be has sworn to support take upon himself the
duties OF the reporter.
The principle which controls here has been
serted and applied by this court. By force of this
pr1ncple the act OF 49, concerning the office OF
porter, was overthrown. Judge Buskirk, in speak
Ing Of the decision SAYS il was the unanimous Judg
meut Of the court (BUskirk's Practice i2) That
learned judge discusses the question al length and
very clearly proves that the legislature has no power
10 require the Judges 10 exercise any OF the func-
tions Of the Office OF reporter There are many de-
risons asserting and ENFORCING the General urinciI
Involved herein II is, indeed. everywhere agreed
that constitutional courts not subject 10 the will
Df the legislature Tor as said in ''WTghts Defen-
ments OF government are not merely equal,
they are executive in respect 10 the
duties agilss ASSIGNED 70 eaeh. Insy are aoso-
Of Houston vs. Williams Is Calf. "a. the court.
tpeakng BY Field J., now one Of the justices of the
Z. :. supreme court said: The truth Is, such
power can exist IN the legislative department OF be
sanctioned BY any court which has the least respect
for its own dignity and Independence. In its own
sphere OF duties this court cannot be trsmmeled by
any legislative restrictions Its constitutional
duty is discharged BY the rendition OF decisions
eTs subject cites with approval the Of Houston
Williams and says Of the constitutional rights Of
the court that 1.-The legislative DEPARTMENT
is incompetent 10 touch il" Vaughan Harp 4 5.
W. Rep. 751 10 a recent decision OF our own Ii was
said at Is true that the judiciary is independ-
ent department OF the government, exclusively in
vested by the constitution with element of
sovereignty and that this court receives its essential
and inherent powers, rights and jurisdiction from
the constitution and not from the legislature
(Smytbe Boswell.) OF the many other cases sus-
tanning this doctrine we cite: Little state, 90
Ind. 53s and authorities cited s. G. IS Am. Rep
"a; Gregory state, s. Ind, 31s; Schulz vs. Nc
Pheeters, - Ind, S; Nealis Dick, y Ind. 374
Greenough vs.. Greenough, N Pa. St, 49S; Chandler
v Nash, Mich, 400 HaEkins vs.. Governor, I Ark
B7o; Ia Janitor IS Wis 40; Spreight vs.. People
b III, 595s parte Randolph Brock. c., 479.
II is our judgment that the petition brings before
us these three questions: Cd Can the legislature
impose ministerial duties upon the court2 ~ Can
the legislature add duties 70 those devolved upon
the judges by the constitution 90 Can the egisla-
tuTe in violation Of the constitutional provisions
authorize the judges 70 DISCHARGE the essential du-
Ties Of reporter Upon these cues
lions express our judgment, and sustain the
petitioners contentious, but we neither express
nor intimate an opinion upon any others, although
others d scussed. We have doubt that il is
questions have stated because they directly con-
Germ the rights, powers and functions OF the court
and other tribunsl can determine for what our
rights. duties and functions under the con-
stitution.
When the news of the decision first became
noised about republican politicians of the more
saEguine sort held an imprOmptu Notification,
under the impression that the decision was
- l. 4 =