The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-09-28
IT WOULD NOT WORK
Supreme Court Upsets that Parti-
san Outrage on the Judiciary.
Judge Friedley Sustained and the Bill
Passed at the Behest of the Liquor
League Knocked Out.

Judge Daily. of the Supreme Court, yes
terday affirmed the decision of the lower
court of Jefferson county in overthrowing
that partisan outrage known as the Me-
Gregor act. to legislats Judge Friedley ont
of Office. adopted by the last Legislature at
the behest of the State Liquor League.
The APPEAL to the Supreme Court was made
by George II. ID. Gibson. who was judge of
the Fourth Judicial district when the new
act of the Legislature sought TO abolish
the Fifth circuit by attaching Jefferson to
Clark county. William I. Friedley, Judge
of the Fifth judicial circuit, refused DOS
session of the records when they were de.
msnded by Judge Gibson. The appellee held
that the State Legislature had no power to
deprive hin of his Office until the expira-
tion of the same. the appellant contending
that the State Constitution gives the Legis-
latnre q right to change q judicial district
when 1t is found necessary. Judge Daily.
In passing upon the result of the lower
courts decision. had the following to say:
The first section OF the act In controversy abol-
ishes In expressed terms the Fifth judicial cir
cult OF this State. II the first section be uncon-
stitutional and void then all the other sections
are likewise void. IL seems beyond the power CT
the Legislature 20 l~egislate , judge and prose-
cutting attorney out or office. If the Legislature
cannot by q direct act deprive them OF their of
fees neither can IL do go by the indirect mode of
abolishing their circuits. Judges and proseout
ing attorneys may be removed from office by
conviction OF corruption or other high crime.
but the State has thus far failed TO provide any
other manner than tho constitutional mode.
The Legislature. we think. has the power 10
provide for the reI,.oval of judges and
prosecuting attorneys in some ad-
ditional manner than that prescribed
in this constitutional section. 1t can only do so,
however, by enacting "a general law applicable
TO all judges and all prosecuting attorneys, and
TO be valid must provide for a trial. or the act
would he unconstitutional for the failure To give
the accused such opportunity. This clause does
not authorize the Legislature TO enact u law re-
moving the judge or prosecutor from Office at
will. without giving him a day in court. Section
169 is the ouly authority that can be found on
which TO base the legislative right OF removal.
But 10 give the fl ct clause OF that section such
construction would nuliify the part of the same
section which provides that the judge OF a cir
cult shall hold his Office tor a term OF six years
IL he so long behave well.
To construe the section that the Legislature
can legislatc the judge and prosecutor out OF
Office, in addition to being III conflict
with the other provisions OF our organic
law. would also put the official life of every
judge and every prosecutor in the State
at the mercy of the Legislature. 1t would
power. and utterly destroy all judicial in
dependence. Judges and prosecutors would
be at the within or caprice or tho senators
ana Representatives. The office of circuit
judge. as we'll as prosecuting attorney, is q
public trust, committed by the public to an indi-
vidual The General assembly may aid to or
take from the territory constituting a circuit. 1t
may create new circuits. 1t may abolish n cir
emit IL the act he made to take effect at and not
before the expiration OF the terms of Office OF the
judge and prosecutor.
The act is held unconstitutional because it ut
tmpts to legislate the two officials out of Office
and was TO have been enforced Aug. !, 1893,
while the terms do not expire until Oct. %.
1897. The decision also applies 10 q suit filed by
Ihe prosecuting attorney of the Fourth circuit.
1t affects only the counties composing the two
circuits.
The bill providing for the above act was
holly fought last winter. Ivs passage
through the Senate without trouble was
for q time stopped in the House. hut after
q long struggle. in which Reuben Daily. of
Floyd county. and Marcus Il. Sulzer, Of
Jefferson county. denounced it AS a CON-
Tempt ble measure, WAS passed. Great
confusion and much bitter speech at
tended it's passage. and Representative
Daily did not hesitate 10 say that il was
simply "a scheme OF the Democrats to rid
the office OF n man who had frowned upon
the saloon men.