The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-09-17
THE CALUMNY SET AT REST
Four Judges of the Supreme Court Sew.
orally Deny a Sanderous Charge.
None of Them Have Conferred with Any Com.
mitteemen or others About the AppOr-
tiOnment Litigation.

When the Sentinel, q week or so ago. took
MP a slanderous charge against the Supreme
Court, first promulgated by an obscure and
irresponsible weekly publication. TO the ef-
feet that certain judges of the court bad
been in consultation with the Republican
State mmit regarding the apportion-
ment suit before IL was brought, charging
that the suit was the result of a conspiracy
between the committee and the court,
Chairman Gowdy. ofthe committee. prompt
ly and emphaticaliy denied tho charge.
Notwithstanding this the Sentinel has re-
peated the charge, and n few newspapers
In the State have taken il mp. At the time
. Journal reporter submitted the following
question TO individual members of the
sourt:
lyon have, no doubt. had your attention
called to certain articles published In the
indianapolis Sentinel, and other papers.
charging that certain members of the Su-
preme Court had entered into q conspiracy
with other parties, the purpose of which
was TO overthrow rho a-pportionment law.
Have you any objection TO making a state
ment in relation TO the matterf'
The charge was not deemed worthy of
the dignity OF a refutation, but since then
the fact that the charge has been made
broadcast through certain county papers
IN the State. has led q majority OF he
jud ges to conclude that il constitutes an
attack upon the integrity of the court of a
nature that should not go uDchallenged,
Notwithstanding It's source. and q Journal
reporter obtained expressions from each OF
them, except Chief-justice Elliott. who
held To his original Judgment.
Judge Odds said: 1T is contrary TO my
unvaried rule TO pay any attention TO false
charges made against me for political pur-
poses in new spapers. would not give any
answer 10 the matters which yOu refer 10
now were II notfor the fact that the charges
as l understand them. are made against the
members oil the court generally. So far as 1
Rm concerned, i have not been at lndianap-
oils since the court adjourned. the LIST Of
july. until j returned On the evening of
Sept. II, to meet with the court. / have not
conferred with the Republican State central
or executive committees or any mem Der of
either, at any time. relative to the gerry
mander case. or any other case of q
political character. nor have i ever been
approached for the purpose of ascertaining
what my opinion would be- in any case in
advance OF a decision, and / have no sus-
picion that any person will ever approach
me for that or any other iilegitimate pur-
pose. My experience at the bar and upon
the bench leads me to believe that the
judiciary of Indiana. including judges of
nIsl pruis. as well as appellate courts. are.
~ aiWhlS u6ND uCOus ViA anu tnOOi-
ruptibie, and the people have confidence In
the courts, and | do not believe a charge of
CORFU tion made against a court will be be-
leyed by any one unless founded on suth-
cient evidence TO support It,
IF the charges referred TO were intended
60 relate to me they are false IN every par
%ticular. and have not q suspicious circum-
stance 10 rest upon, and have no doubt
that they are equally as u~ngrounded as to
every mem Der OF the court"
81 have no obiecfiOn whafever Usaid Ind a
Miller. "and all that / rave TO say can be
said in few words. L have not been in the
rooms of the Republican State Central
COMMITTEE since the Fort Wayne conven-
attended q political caucus, conference or
committee meeting in this city within ten
years. Know nothing of the bringing of
the suit or suits referred TO. except what |
have read IN the newspapers / nave not
been consulted, or communicated with the
central committee, or its ofncers, executive
committee. attorneys engaged in the cases
or other person OF persons. either directly
or indirectly, with reference to this or any
other case.
81 do not know what judges are referred
TO. but. speaking for myself. and. so Tar as
NV knowledge goes. for the whole court. |
will say that there Is absolutely not one
word OF truth in the charge. and nothing
from which such an Inference could be
drawn"
Il have no objection to making q state
ment." said Judge Mcbride. Il do not,
however, feel that l need any vindication
from the charges made by the papers re-
ferred TO. All who know me, without re-
gard To party. Will not need my assurance
that as TO me there IS no truth in the
charge. But the judges OF this conrt are
not here as the representative of any
political party. They are the conservators
Of the rights of the people of the State. ire
spective OF party. and the people have :he
right TO demand that We do not, even by
silence. lend color TO charges SD seriously
Affecting our integrity. i have no idea
what members OF the court they refer Tn.
Speaking for myself, / will say there il a b.
solutely no foundation whatever for any
charge of that character. / have never met
with the State central committee since /
became a member OF this court.
except at an open meeting held
convention, and the matters referred To
were not mentioned at that meeting. |
have never, at any time nor in any man
Der. held any communication. directly or
Indirectly, with the committee, or with
any of its members OF officers. relative to
the litigation referred to. or sny'other liti-
CATION, past. present or prospective, or
with relation To the validity or invalidity
OF the a-DportI0nment law. ALI the informal
ton 1 have relative To the matter l have
received from the newspapers. No person
has asked my opinion about either the ap-
portionment law or the apportfonment lifi-
gation, ana Il have never expressed anv
opinion on the subject TO any person.
While, of course. l can only speak posi-
lively for myself. j believe the charges
equally uDfounded as TO all of the members
OF the court.
81 repeat. without reserve or qualifica u
ton, the entire charge Is. in every ~particu-
lar. so far as 1 am concerned, without any
foundation whatever"
Judge Cofiey said: II have seen some of
the articles TO winch you rsfer. i certain
~ have no objections to making q state
ment In relation To the matter. To q
charge so seriously affecting our integrity
as pubic oflcials the peopls of the State
have "a right TO know what we have to say.
j have had no conversation or communities
stion OF any kind whatever with INV msm-
Der of the State central committee since
our adjournment IN June. | had no knowL
edge that any suit To test the legality of
a~pDOrtlonInent law was-in CONTEMPLATION
until 1 learned from the papers that euch
q suit had been brought. have
never at any time or place expressed any
opinion as To the validity of the law. nor
have | ever been asked by any one for such
opinion. The charge. so far as IL relates TO
my self. is wholly without foundation. and
Is false ~ every particular"
"You must pardon me-" said Judge
Elliott. IF 1 decline TO be interviewed.
This / do with all possible Difference and
respect for the judgments of others whom |
TO be- right. and whom know 20 be incapa-
BILE of doing anything wrong or improper.
but in such o matter as this 4 can not do
otherwise than obey the dictates of my
own Judgment"