The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-03-25
GERTRUDE SHUTTERS CASE
Her Father Seeks Habeas Corpus from
Judge Tay Tor, of Superior Court No. /.
Attack en- Validity of Board of Children's
Guardians Law Because No Summons on
Child Pr0vided-DlyOrces-Co Notes

The case of Gertrude Shutter has found
its way into another court. Yesterday
afternoon Frank McCray. attorney for
Shade Shutter, the girls father. filed
petition in Room 1 of the Superior Court
seeking to obtain the release of the girl
from the custody of the Board of Children's
Guardians On a writ of habeas corpus. On
March the child. who is thirteen years of
age. was taken from her parents by the
board and has since that timo been con-
cealed by them, custody having been
granted the board by Judge Brown IN
an action against the father. After several
futile attempts to regain possession of his
child by legal process in the county courts.
the father instituted habeas corpus pro-
ceedIngs In the fe deral court which were
dismissed by Judge Baker for want of
jurisdiction.
The petition filed yesterday afternoon
alleges substantially the same facts as
those upon which were based the petition
in the federal court. The affidavit alleges
that she is citizen of the State OF lndi-
ana thirteen years of age, and Is unlaw-
fully restrained and deprived of her liber-
ty by the Board of Children's Guardians.
within the jurisdiction OF this court. 0y
virtue of an order of the Circuit Court
upon decree against Shade Shutter. The
binding effect upon the child OF the order
made IN the case against her father Is de-
mod, for the reason that no notice. sum-
mons or service of any process OF
any kind whatever was served upon
her. apprisng her of the time and
place of trial. IL 10 alleged that she has
committed no crime and Is not held In Gus
tOdy upon any judgment. civil or criminal,
against her or for any crime. or mlsde-
meanOr or violation of any law; that no
charge or complaint OF any kind whatever
has been filed against her in the Circuit or
any other court 1t is charged that the
board without warrant seized the child
March and spirited her away beyond the
reach of her relatives. friends or counsel;
that they threaten to carry her beyond the
jurisdiction of this court. and VIII. IL not
prevented from doing so. indenture her
as a servant to perform mental labor In
q family unknown to her relatives and
friends; that the board refuses 10 disclose
her whereabouts. that it is the fixed policy
of the board and their ayOwed intention TO
destroy the identity Of the child that she
may never know her parents. frIends or
relatives. that her memory of them may be
forgotten. that they may never know OF
her whereabouts nor she OF theirs.
The act of March s. 1889, and that of
March g. 1891, creating the board and de-
timing Its powers. is declared to be uncon-
stItutiOnal in that il prov ides for no notice
of the time or place of hearing any charge
against the child and gives the board the
Shade Shutter, to which Gertrude was not
party and was not represented. to
indenture her TO mental service. 1t Is
alleged that the act delegates judicial
powers to the board and authorizes them
upon an ex parte proceeding. without due
process of law and without her day in
court. to contine Gertrude Shutter to penal
servitude by leave of the court until she is
twenty -one years of age. and that without
any charge against her of the commission
OF any crime. and that this. uDde- the act.
may be done secretly aud without the
knowledge of her counsel, parents. rela-
tives or friends.
Attorney McCray, in speaking of the eff
feet of the act said that under its proyIs-
ions the board could commit O child to the
reformatory during its minority. ana no
power could secure its release. 1t could
not even be pardoned by the Governor. as
it was not charged with the commission of
any crime.