The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-03-16
JUDGES REPLIED PROMPTLY
Supreme Court Reporter Escapes Effects
of the Bill Concerning His Duties.
Partisan Legislation in That Instance Fails
and Leaves Mr.. Griffiths to Perform Work
of the Office as Did His Predecessors

the ex parte petition of John l.. Griffiths.
Reporter of that court, setting forth why
the law relating to his office passed by the
Legislature just adjourned should not be
operative. came earlier than was expected.
The petition was filed only few days ago,
but the promptness as well as
the effect of the decision was
received with much satisfaction. The
court did not pass upon the questions
that will come before it in other issues in
volving the constitutionality of the bills
vetoed by the Governor, but leading at
torney said the decision is sufficient to show
that the Supreme Court has the inherent
power to protect itself, and that the Legis-
1ature cannot take from or add to any de-
partment duties assigned to it by the Con-
stitution. The decision was as follows:
The Reporter of the decisions of this court files
this petition invoking judgment upon the valid
ity of the act of March, 1889. Among other pro-
visions. that act contains the following: "Opin-
ions involving no disputed principles OF law, or
n M Sp Whether I t5e VERDICT or nd is
tanned by sufficient evidence, or Is contrary to
the evidence, shall be printed in BREWER type,
tables of cases shall be subject to the supervis-
ion and direction of the Supreme Court. 1t shall
he the duty of the Supreme Court to make a
syllabus OF each opinion, except as hereinbefore
provided"
II the act assumed to require the judges of the
clerk by preparing entries, or to dis
charge the duties OF the sheriff by pre-
hesitate TO declare it void. The fact that the
officer whose duties the act assumes to direct the
judges to perform is the Reporter, and not the
clerk or the sheriff, can make no difference.
Neither shade nor semblance of difference can be
discerned by the keenest vision between the cases
nstaneed 6y way Oh ana , the d feai
cannot be required to perform any other than
judicial duties. This is fundamental principle of
constitutional law. To the science OF Jur1spru-
dence il is as the axiom that the whole is equal
to all its parts Is t. the science OF mathematics.
There Is no contraIiety OF opinion upon tDis sun
iect. There is no tinge of reason TOR asserting a
different doctrine We quote Judge Cooley's
statement of the principle, although it is found
presses the rule clearly and tersely. This is his
statement: upon judges as such no functions
De Of sHsep 81
Hayburns Case, Dali, 400 NJ United
Auditor VS.. Railroad 6 Kansas. 500; Supervisors
of Elections, ia Mass, 247; Rees VS.. City, 10
s51: smith VS. strf 18th west Court r. " aas
Burgoyne VS.: Supervisors, 3 CAL; People VS..
Town; 8 Cal; 14s; Hardenbgrg VS.. Kidd. 10
vs.. City, s. E. Rep, 635.
The preparation of the syllabi is an essential
Be copyrighted but the opinions of the court
cannot be. The syllabi or head-notes may be
copyrighted because they are the work of the Re-
porter and not of the judges. The work is es-
sentially and infrinsieally ministerial and there
fore cannot be performed by the judges OF the
court.
The soundness of the rule stated by Judge
Cooley Is beyond controversy and it is hardly
necessary to go further since 1t Is conclusive
here, but the provisions of our Constitution are
so clear and decisive that we cannot forbear re-
ferring to them. These provisions are found in
Article z, and read thus: section 5. The SUI
preme Court shall, upon the decision of every
case, give statement in writing of each ques-
ton arising in the record of such case, and the
decision of the court thereon. Section 6. The
General Assembly shall provide, by law, for the
speedy publication of the decisions of the SUI
preme Court made under this Constitution; but
no judge shall be allowed to report such decis-
1ons 18th These when read IN eGnn .h
powers OF government, and Section L,
Of Article =, lodging a., the whole ja-
perfectly clear that the Legislature cannot i'm
pose any of the duties of the Reporter upon the
Judges of the Supreme Court. Section defines
the duties of the court, and TO these duties the
Legislature can make no addition The last
clause OF Section 8 is positive prohibition, and
no judge can, without an open defiance of the
Constitution he has sworn to support. take upon
himself the duties of the Reporter. The princi-
pie which controls here has been asserted and
applied by this court BY force of this principle,
the act of 1875, concerning the office of Report
er, was overthrown. Judge Buskirk. in speaking
ment of the court Buskirk's Practice, ~.
That learned Judge discusses the question at
length, and very clearly proves that the Legis-
else any OF the functions of the Office of Report
en-, There are many decisions asserting
agreed that constitutional courts are not sub
Wright We nerees Ind ass rSe pow sslr of
the three departments OF government are not
merely equal; they are exclusive in respect to
independent of each other In the case of
Houston vs.. Williams, 13 Cal, "a. the court.
ces Of O{ The fsd M Of the q e
States) said: THE truth is, such power can
exist in the legislative department., or be sane
toned by any court which has the least respect
for its own dignity and independence In its own
sphere OF duties this court cannot be trammeled
b. any legislative restrictions. It's constitution
cisions."
:. The Supreme Court of Arkansas, discussing
the general subject, cites with approval
the case of Houston VS.. Williams, and
says, of the constitutional right of the court that
''the legislative department is incompetent to
touch it." Vaughan Harp, s. W. Rep. ISL.
In recent decision of our own 1t was said ut is
true that the judiciary is an independent depart
ment of the government exclusively invested by
the Constitution with one element of sovereign
ity. and that this court receives its essential and
Constitution and not from the Legislature"
Smythe VS.. Boswell this term.) OF the many
1taeT eases an Td tn aa doctrine we cite
State. 65 Ind, 31S: Schoultz VS.. McPheeters 20
Ind, 373; Nealis VS.. Dick. ~ Ind, 374; Green
ough VS. Greenough IL Pa. ST., 1885, Chandler VS..
Nash,5 Mich, 400; Hawkins VS.. Governor, 4 Ark,
$40; In re Janit0r 80 Wis, 40; Speight vs.. PeO-
pie, 81 Ill, sos. and ex parte Randolph, 2 Brock,
1t is our Judgment that the petition brings be-
fore us these three questions: First can the Leg
islature impose ministerial duties upon the
COURT Second. can the Legislature add duties
10 those deyolved upon the judges by the C0nsti-
tutionl Third, can the Legislature, in violation
OF the constitutional inhibition authorize the
judges to discharge the essential duties of Re-
porteri Upon these questions we express our
judgment, and sustain the petitioners conten-
ton; but we neither express nor intimate an
opinion upon any others, although others are
discussed We have no doubt that Ii is our right
and cur duty TO give Judgment upon the ques-
tons we have stated, because they directly con-
Germ the rights, powers and functions of the
court, and no other tribunal can determine for
Us what our rights. duties and functions are I'M
der the Constitution.
Mr.. Griffiths was asked. yesterday after
noon. what he thought about the decision.
After reading it," he replied, Il am salts
fed that my theory. that the whole act is un-
constitutional is fully sustained. On the
petition presented by me the Supreme
Court could not pass upon all the questions,
but simply upon their own duties and pow
ers. There is no provision IN the act for the
preparation of the syllabi. unless the same
shall be prepared by the Supreme Court
Judges. Tam not even permitted to receive
the opinions from the clerk of the court,
unless accompanied by the syllabi. This
q. Il