The Indianapolis journal., 1895-05-29
A NECESSARY EXPLANATION.

The attempt which has been made in
Legislature responsible for the ineff-
cheney of the Roby legislation should
not succeed. Governor Matthews had
the bill which became law drawn and
presented to the House. where it was
promptly passed without change In
the Senate the bill was intrusted by the
Governor to a political friend, who pur-
sued course in reference to it which
caused most people who were familiar
with the circumstances. including, if re-
port be correct, the Governor himself, to
suspect this friends good faith. Finally
1T was rescued and presented to the Sem
ate, exactly as passed by the House,
and enacted. Pending enactment the
bill disappeared, but was subsequently
found under circumstances which point
ed very strongly to bad faith on the
part of a member of the Governors
party, despite the vehement vindication
of a special Senate committee. 1t is
said that after the Roby lawyers had
seen the bill they were only too glad to
have IT enacted. if that should be the
end of Roby legislation.
One or two other bills known as the
Governors measures would have been
passed the last day Of the session, the
House having already passed them if
the Lieutenant Governor had not ruled
against action on them on constitutional
grounds. Another of the Governors bills
(Senate bill No. 32D, presented by Sem
ator Parker. was so remarkable in it's
features that, although it was approved
by the judiciary committee. no member
of it would have voted to enact it, Sec
ton of the Parker bill reads:
Be it enacted, etc.: That the Governor of
the State be, and is hereby, authorized and
empowered, either I'm his own name or the
name of the State of Indiana, on his rela-
ton, TO institute and maintain in any court
of competent jurisdiction any and all actions
that may be necessary against any and all
persons to enjoin, restrain, prohibit and for
bid the commission Of any act or acts act
morals, public health, public policy, or in
violation of any of the statutes of the State
of Indiana, either now in force or hereafter
to be enacted, and in any such action any
and all parties interested in or benefited by
the commission of such illegal acts may be
made parties defendant and served with
process as in other cases. Provided, that
where ii shall appear that the principals in
Sucn lliegal acts are DeyOnu tne JuTlSulctlOn
of the State of Indiana, publication may be
had against them as in other cases, and
it shall only be necessary in such publica-
ton to show in general terms the interest
part that such nonresident defendants
have in the property in question or in the
commission of such Illegal acts.
The bill further provided that the Gov
ernor should not be required to execute
a bond for damages by the wrongful
possession of another's property, should
it prove to be wrongful. but leaves the
aggrieved to prosecute his claim before
the Court of Claims. as i'm other cases.
A court could under this bill appoint
receiver, no matter how wrongful the
act or how destructive of the business
of the man afterwards found innocent,
and yet he could have no remedy except
through the Legislature. Another sec
ton makes the law retroactive by hav-
ing it's provisions cover actions already
begun.
Roby is a nuisance which the people
of Indiana would have suppressed, but
it can be suppressed. as similar plague
spots in other States have been, with
out resorting to laws of doubtful con-
stitutionality or establishing power
which may be made destructive of in
diyidual rights.