The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-04-11
SUIT TO TEST THE LOAN ACT
Mr.. Foster Files a Complaint on Which
1t Is Sought 10 Eniein State officers.
A Hearing in the Supreme Court Will Prob
ably Occur the First Of Next week-Farmer
Williams Acquittcd-othe Court Matters.

prevent them from further acting under
the new law to provide for a State loan.
The complaint is lengthy. and sets forth
that the three officers named have had
printed two series of State bonds, each Sc
ries aggregating S70O.O0O, whereby it is
agreed to pay the sum named on each bond
to the bearer. The defendants, it is
further claimed. acting without any au-
thority to so bond the State. have expressed
their intentions to execute and sell the
bonds, to the highest bidder. and they
claim its right to issue and to sell them
under what is termed by Mr.. Foster, a pre-
tended act of the last Legis-
lature. They Ore quoted as having
said that they are going to
to sell the first Series of $780, 600 and apply
the sum realized to meeting the expenses of
the State government, which alone requires
an expenditure of S37O.0 600 as interest upon
the State debt. The second series of $780,
600. it is claimed, is to be spent in behalf of
the various appropriations made by the
General Assembly. Mr.. Foster thinks that
if Governor Hovey and the officers are per-
mitted to issue and to sell the bonds, they
will unlawfully divert the State funds to
the payment of the interest and principal
of the bonds, which latter are liable to pass
into the hands of many who will bring suit
against the State for payment, and thusthe
State treasury will be wasted by large pay
ments of costs and counsel fees. And as to
the result of all this prospective trouble
ahead, he states all taxpayers will be more
or less concerned.
1t is further stated by the, plaintiff that
L---I.oA tho 1ofonI = - -
be authorized to make the loan is invalid,
because it is directly against the State Con-
stitution, which provides that "nO law
shall authorize any debt to be contracted
on behalf of the State except in the follow
ing cases: to meet casual deficits in the
revenue: to pay interest on the State debt;
to repel invasion; to suppress insurrectiOn;
or. ii hostilities be threatened, to provide
for the public defense" The law in ques-
tion, it is thought, does not provide for any
of these cases except the payment of the
State debt, and it only provides for the
payment of $4,000. Therefore Mr.. Foster
asks that the State officers involved be en-
Joined from signing, executing or selling
any of the bonds as provided in the act of
M arch IL, 1885, except for the $370,OOO, and
that the remainder of the bonds be can
celed. AttOrney-general Kitchener last
night stated that the matter wOuld be sub
mitted to the circuit judge at once and that
after an agreement between the attorneys
tuC tdoC Il 10 up v olO Il
Court, where it will be argued next Mon
day or Tuesday.
Whatever may be the decision in the
case, it will not relieve the Democratic
neglect in failing to act on Senator Crosses
advice when the act was before them. He
then moved to amend the bill by inserting
therein the clause. ITO meet casual deficits
in the revenue" Had that been done, State
Treasurer Lemcke would now have the
G~l0 mn IN Hro ~ nn0n IN mQQfln0 AamonAo
for money. There would ave been no OBJ
~jectiOns to the act raised by the German
Savings Bank, and it would not have been
necessary to file a complaint in order to
test the cOnstitutiOnallty of the law. Sem
ator GrOse thought there would be trouble
if that claus was omitted, but no doubt
because the advice and amendment came
from q Republican the Democrats gave no
heed TO one and voted down the other.
Disposing of Election Cases.
William Williams, the johnson county
farmer indicted for bribery. walked out of
the United States district courtroom yes
terday morning a free man. The jury that
heard the case returned a sealed verdict of
not guilty, after q short deliberation Tues
day night. There was no surprise when it
was announced in the open court yesterday
morning, from the fact that the evidence
brought out did not sustain any of the
counts upon which Mr.. Williams was tried.
The next election case upon the docket was
against John Joyce. of Terre Haute, charged
with assaulting a United States deputy
marshal at the polls, but the attorneys for
the defendant came in with q motion
TO quash, because the indictment
stated that Joyce had committed an as
R4nIf on .I0hn N0Eanno ~hop tho N mo of
the deputy marshal in question is James IL.
Mckenna. On account of that defect the
indictment was dismissed. 1T is some
more OF Bailey's work" said Assistant Dis
trlct Attorney Cockrum. There was no
reason in the world why the Indictment
should not have been correctly drawn.
Balley's notes of the grand Jury show that
the man assaulted appeared before the jury
as James II. McKenna, yet with these notes
before HIM, he went to work and changed
the mans name to John. Lit cannot be pos
slDle that such gross carelessness of this
KIND was ever before exhibited. The in
dlctments on which we are expected to go
10 trial are simply a series of plumbers.
IheS could have been drawn by a man Who
did not know the first principle of law"
AFTER the case against Mr.. Joyce had been
thrown out of court. Martin Dolan, of
Henry. township, Henry county, was placed
on trial. lie was charged with voting
,nade IN IN MS home precinct. The defendant
w NOhI LILO thol Doe
asked Justllcation on the plea that he was
drunk when he committed the ~offense. He
resumed That after he had voted nee some
one came to him and, putting a slip of paper
IN ms hand. which h~e'supposed was a bal
iot, told MIN to vote 1T. He did so, and be-
heved that afterward he received s.. There
was but little evidence in the case, and at
S1ciock In the afternoon the jury retired.
within a short time q verdict of guilty was
returned. Dolan was allowed to GO home
nntl the Judge summonedhim for sentence.
IhIee persons are on the docket for trial
to-1ay. lney, are Marshall Holdings worth,
OF flKe township, this county, and James
Woods and Albert Woods, of Kempton.
bribery.
Wives Asking for Divorces.
reari L. Rotter yesterday petitioned for q
divorce from Frank j. Rotter, to whom she
was married Dec. 81, 1884. They nave one
chiid' Lena, born in 1886, and Mrs. ROtter
claims that on March 9, 1887, her husband
her, and has since refused to
Make any PROVISION for the support of her
sen or the child: She asks for the custody
gi Tue latter. Florence Il. Detterer also
nied a complaint for a divorce from Law
le ar :D1tterer, claiming that they were
married IN June. 1851, but that in January,
1855. he abandoned her. In the following
June; sne alleges. he was convicted OF
elanu larceny and sentenced to a peniten-
tiary IN pennsylvania for six years.
appointed as Trustee.
In the matter of the trust created by the
deed OF Chaplin C.. Foster to the late Wash
1ngton c. DePauw, a petition was yesterday
hieu asking for the appointment of q
trustee. On Sent On ,se, ~. daed was