The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-10-06
THE APPORTIONMENT SUIT
Appellee's Attorneys Ask a Modifica-
ton of The Supreme Courts Order.
AttOrney-General Green Smith Moves TO Throw
Ii Out Of Court Because It Is a Political
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. Law.

hearing the arguments for the advance
ment of the cause as Oct. IL. 1t was signed
by the attorneys of each side. who are
suit to q final hearing as soon as possible.
The following is the motion as filed:
The plaintiffs in the cause respectfully
show to the court that from the character
OF the Judgment rendered In the court be-
low and the nature of the questions IN
volyed IL Is of the utmost Importance that
said cause should be determined in this
court sufficiently long before the Sth day OF
November. 1892, upon which day the gen.
eral election is to be held, to enable the ap-
pellants to know under what appOrtion-
ment statute the official duties imposed
upon them concerning the election of
member of the General Assembly are TO be
performed, and that il Is also of like IN
p%ortance TO the people OF the State that
there should be such speedy de determination
of said cause, so that IL NAV be known IN
due time under what statute the members
of the General bly, are to be elected.
And they further sh0Ey that In the inter-
venlng petition filed by Morgan Chandler
in eaid cause. upon which he has been per-
mitted TO- intervene as a party, with leave
to file a brief and participate in the argu-
ment of said cause, no objection Is made TO
the advancement of said cause as prayed
for by both the appellants and appellee In
their petition for such advancement. filed
a. Al ttAhO bhO IA oAN tou ~
filed, and which has ever since remained
on file.
Wherefore appellants move the court to
modify the order made In said cause on the
4th day of October, 1892, whereby the con-
sIderation of said petition to advance was
postponed to Tuesday, Oct. IL. 1892, and
said Morgan Chandler was admitted as q
party, with leave to file a brief and partici-
pate in the argument, and the Attorney
general was also granted leave TO appear In
said cause in the respects as follows:
First, so as to omit therefrom the post
ponement of consideration OF the petition
to advance. and thereupon that the court
will now act upon said petition to advance
and grant the prayer of the same, and
second. so as TO require said Mogan
Chandler, the Attorney general, and all
other persons who may desire to file briefs
In said cause. to file such briefs on or be-
fore Tuesday. the 18th day of October, 1892.
The following points IN support OF the
above motion were then made:
First. that persons not parties to the rec
ord, intervening In O cause, are only en-
titled to come IN upon such terms as the
court sees TT to impose. and In a case such
as the present, where the interests OF the
parties TO the cause and of the public both
demand u speedy determination, other per-
sons should only be permitted TO come into
the controversy. the Judgment In which
will not bind them as an adjudication.
upo condition that they are ready to pro-
coed in the cause, ana that their lnterven-
ton shall not work delay.
In the case of LaUgenberg VS.. Decker.
No. 1888, this court having permitted per-
sons not parties to the record TO intervene,
with leave to file briefs within thirty days,
which was but half of the time allowed to
parties to the record under the rules of the
court, afterwards, upon the motion of the
present Encouragement, set aside It's or
der by which the time hxed for oral argu-
ment had been postponed TO permit the
fling of such briefs. and proceeded with
the oral argument at the time originally
fixed, and further modified the leave
which had been given to the lntervenors TO
file briefs, by requiring such briefs TO be
fled within fifteen days. In that case
there was no such urgency for q prompt de-
clsion as exists In the present case, and We
think the precedent there rightfully estab-
lished will fully support the court in sus-
tanning the foregoing motion.
Second, that so far as the postponement
of the consideration of the petition to ad-
vance is concerned. in view of the fact that
Mr.. Chandler makes no objection to the
advancement of the cause In his petition
for leave TO intervene. and no suggestion
of q desire TO oppose such Advancement ap-
pears to have been made In any quarter. ~
would seem that that question should not
be delayed when the reasons for an early
decision of the case are so urgent.
The motion was not brought before the
court, and no action was taken on it.
Seeks to Throw It Out of Court.
A new phase of the suit was instituted
yesterday by the filing of q petition by
Attorney-general Smith. in which he prays
but it's gist is that the suit has no proper
standing in court, from the fact, as he as
serts it. that it was conceived by the ke-
publican party. and is now fathered by IL
and is for no other purpose than
to defeat, if possible, Democratic
supremacy in the State. The opening
paragraph of the petition contains several
charges in regard 10 the way the case was
handled In the Henry county court. He
declares that no service of any kind, so far
as the record shows, was made of the al
tentative writ. but on the 7th day OF Sep
TENDER, 1892, the parties against whom 10
was issued appeared by counsel and de-
INJURED separately and Jointly; the record
does not show that any OF any
king whatever were offered or heard.
The Attorney-general then goes on to say
that as soon ss the case was brought 10 the
Supreme Court counsel of both parties to
the suit conformity petitioned for the ad-
vaLcement OF II on the docket of the court.
Following that he goes into detail con-
corning what he deems the causes of the
suiL. He says that IL Is for the purpose OF
1891 set aside as unconstltutional, and that
the clerks of the counties of the State be
ordered to proceed TO the election accord
Ing to the law of 1873. He says he believes
that the relator, all the defendants, the
Judge who presided in tho court below upon
the pretended trial of this cause, and all
the attorneys engaged therein. were at the
time it was commenced and decided. and
still are. active partisans and
members OF the Republican party
in the State of Indiana" and,
that this action was begun upon the sug-
gestion of the central committee of the
said party in said State, and prosecuted
and defended ut the sole expense of that
committee with an understanding. If
not q definite and specific agree
ment, between the nominal parties 10
the action that no defense should be made.
and that the defendants. as well as the
pretended relator. would procure. If posi-
BILE, a decision from the Henry Circuit
Court adverse to the defendants; that, pur.
pursuant to this understanding or agree
ment, the defendants elected TO stand up-
| on their demurrer to the alternative writ,
and. instead of pleading over, permitted q
| Judgment TO be entered commanding them
as election officers to take preliminary
steps for the holding of the election next
month under the act of 1879. whereas. had
they, as in good conscience they were re.
CURED to do, filed proper answer TO the
alternative writ the court below woul
have had presented TO it fact conclusive
~ showing that if said acts of 1885 and 1891
be unconstitutional, as claimed by %relator,
the said act OF 1879 10 undoubtedly for the
I'M raaSap alan ennafifufiona