The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-01-27
PERQUISITES FOR SMITH
Jennings County's Legal Slugger AnX-
iOus for Big Fees-Partisan Attack.
Last Night by Committee on Ways and Means
-Ex-Judge Elliott Appears in Behalf of
Cullop's Bill, Mr. Butler for the Board

Last night the ways and means commit
tee of the House listened to arguments
pro and con on Representative Cullop's
bill to confscate the property of the State
Board of Agriculture. and on the constItu-
tionaiIty of the bill if it becomes a law. The
full committee was In attendance and
speeches were made against the bills favor
able recommendation by John NJ. Butler
and for it by Judge Byron X. Elliott.
1t is q very perceptible fact that Attorney
general A. q. Smith. who instigated the
proceedings, is out for every monetary
scalp he can capture. The wary Mr. Smith,
If judgments can be recovered against the
board. will reap a handsome fee, and, in
the meantime, will bend every effort to
abolish any board in existence that can
possibly be abolished if there is fee in it.
The first speaker, Judge Elliott. said that
the theory of the bill was that the board
held property in trust for the State. There
could be no trnst without a trustee or ben
eficisry, therefore tue State was the trus-
tee and the board the benefc iary. The
case OF The State Board of AgrI-
culture VS.. Michael A. Downing
ct al" appealed to the Supreme Court. was
dered In that case. which enjoins the APP
pellants from interfering with the property
of the board, real and personal. He argued
that the trust should not go on forever
and that the State should have an account
Ing.
Here followed an argument that no per-
son having bought property of the board
would be disturbed by the proposed legis-
lation.
Mr. Cullop questioned Judge Elliott as to
whether or not the appropriation. If pro-
hlbited by the Constitution, would be
trust, to which the Judge answered yes.
Judge Elliott was asked by Mr.. Butler to
state whom he represented, but Judge
Elliott declined to answer.
Mr.. Butler said the bills only object was
TO contiscate the property Of the State
Board of Agriculture. There was n charge
made of malfeasance in Office of the State
board. The bill sought to do in
directly what the suit of the board
VS.. Downing sought to do directly
TO take away and destroy the
benefit of a great agricultural association.
The State Board of Agriculture Is an agri-
cultural institution on the same plane of
the State University, of Bloomington. the
State Normal School and Purdue Univer-
slty. and that any attempt to take away
the property would be unconstitutional.
will Judge Elliott contend that the ap-
preparations made to the Bloomington
University can be recovered under like
billv he asked. The United States
supreme COuEC Dau Ceclueu the question III
case forty years ago In the Vim
cennes University. In favor of the board.
Mr. Butler SAID that no lawyer, Judge or
ex-judge of the Supreme Court ever held or
would hold that the State could recover
the property OF the University of Bloom
lngton. which the Supreme Court held to
be on the educational plane OF the State
Board of Agriculture. Here followed an
argument In which Mr.. Butler said that
the authorities were mountain high that
ations for educational purposes by
Legislatures could not be recalled.
On the question of policy of the passage of
tie bill Mr.. Butler said great damage had
already been done by this agitation to an
institution which stood at the head of all
agricultural institutions of the United
States and the object of the bill was to cir
cumvent the Judgment of the Marion
Superior Court, affirmed by the Supreme
Court and re-affirmed by the Supreme
Court. on petition for rehearing.
Mr.. Butler then queried: what sort of
an attitude would the State of Indiana
stand In III the slsterhOOd OF States by re-
curing the board to pay back the appro-
priatiOns. that have been very small COM
pared with other great agricultural Statesp
In answer to Judge EllIOtts question as to
lasted forever. Mir. Butler referred
to the Dartmouth College case. and
road an extract of Gov. Joseph A. Wright's
message to the Legislature of 1853. in which
ne declared tnaC ali appropriations womb
return to the people of the State more than
four fold, and prsising the State of Indi-
ana for instituting this Board of Agri-
culture.
Judge Elliott said he appeared as a law
yer and not as a citizen. and that he could
argue the questions. although he might
concur in the opinion rendered in the
case of the board against Downing. There
were, be said, but two PROPOSE
tions which confronted the committees.
hA hall In
private corporation, and could do with It
as it pleased. the State was powerless. Ii,
however 1t was given the board as a pub
lie corporation and held in trust by the
board, il would surely revert to the State.
The question was an ola one, and
would have to be met and settled
some day, said Judge Elliott. and
there was no better time than the present.
1t was the opinion of n few members of
the committee, after the arguments had
concluded, that the bill would be favor