The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-04-23


sel-exscu!lns 70 this sstsn,-th.t all laws:
which conflict with II. were at once an
nulled.' Constitutional Law. Page "a.
perior to the State CONSTITUTIONS. which had
10 give way 10. and did 70 give way TO
them. and were repea.ed as 90 al connict-
g. S. s sS:ss''''n''' Neal vs. Delaware =" o.
In Parker vs.. The State. iss Ind. 18. n is
a;Ion !. Ts 1e 6srP sSs p IA ssaa, oi so, ,ss e n sssn
made in order that the Lssisistare may
as nearly as may be an equal voice with
every other voter I'm the State In the selec-
ton OF Senator's and Representatives. The
s eoVernme pn,ne ebas t on e 1res; reef nsi says
equal weight In exercising the right OF suf-
frase; Is recosnizsd and secured Repre-.
fixed by these several provisions OF our Con-
stitution. and the General Assembly has no
this rule than Il mas e' to o dssressrs any other
plain provision found In that instrument.
1t Is elementary hat the censtitoiionaiity
~stitution at the very time OF the trial. Many
laws In the various States were. constitu-
and fifteenth amendments and thereby be-
came invalid. Any law In force on March
a~me insii messs sh ~ss sd In sona ie our ws ronr,i sne
ton were thereby repealed. Neal VS.. Dela-
ware. 18 l.. s.
You'll BLACKS
1T follows that as all the a-pportionment
laws not heretofore decided void and passed
prior to 1885, were based upon the partial emu
meration excluding colored men and as any
law now passed under the enumeration law
censusing white voters only would be in
valid. st equally Follows thai those laws
are likewise void.
Il venture to say II was this knowledge
which caused the court TO close it's opinion
In Denny VS.. The State In these words:
Consequently that act Qsss) is the last and
perhaps the only expression Of the legisla-
tive will upon the subject of apporfionment.
fives may be chosen at the general election
in 1896, unless the Governor shall see n
to call a special session OF the Legislature
The counsel who opened this case says
you must not pass Judgment on the law OF
Is issI e. because essc tit WOULD cav mo valid nd, Jaw law
denim an unconstitutioDal gerrymander UNI
less there is a valid law to fall back upon
fore and can do no good hereafter, for II
the next law passed Is unconstttutional and
bad, you could not set 1t aside. and so on.
That is. IL you start with a bad law, the
system can go on forever
pass on the consutut!ona,ity OF the law OF
1855, saving II VIII raise 'surgins bniows OF
0ctldIinS Tic at W ? W Dts o. IL - III
constitutional. because the Constitution
makes provision for the executive II the
public welfare shall require IT., to call a
ernor5 shall take care that the laws be
faithfully executed Art. S. p. 16. The Con-
S person elected Is e ia~ Or AZ s1so ef0s TO any I ofiics
under this Constitution shall, before enter
ing on the duties thereof. % take an oath or
this State. and CD OF the United States. and
CO also an oath of office The Constitution
can only be supported by obeying and en-
ssThe same argument was answered by
the Supreme Court OF a sister State as fol-
are not for us. II is our duty TO declare
the law, TO point out the invasion OF tho
Constitution and to forbid It. In State. etc.
adopts the language of Chief Justice Fuller
in Mcpherson VS.. Blacker.. 146 L: s.: 7.
ton of President was a political question
TO be exercised by political officers. and
therefore the court had no jurisdiction TO
igan In that behalf. The Chief Justice said:
The question of the validity of this act as
presented psse,ne to. TO us ne D S,n tine I decl,ns Is ,bs a s Sus,Shss
of our jurisdiction upon the inadmissible
suggestion that action might. be taken by
political agencies in disregard OF the judg-
ment of the highest tribunal OF the State. as
revised by our own
''The Governor, being requested. declined
because he could not assume the law OF
1856 to be unconstitutional. 1t is unthinkabie
that any department of the State govern
ment will not do it's duty TO uphold the
sible' and i am sure the court VIII not al
low II as against itself. or permit 1t as
against the executive or legislative depart
ments."
Mr.. FORMERS ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Harris completed his argument a few
minutes past Il m. and the court adjourned
until 2 o'clock. M. Z. Forkner made the
closing argument for the appellee. and he
was followed by John w. Kern, for the APP
pellants. Mr.. Forkner called the courts at
tention to the fact that counsel for appel
lants had not TO show that the act
Of 1885 was constitutional. but had devoted
their time to asking the court not to so de-
clare it unconstitutional because of the dis
astrous results and the condition of anarchy
into which the State would be plunged IL II
were left without a law under which the
General Assembly could De elected. They
admit" said he. that the case is rightly
evil results to the State may follow, the
court should not declare the truth IL tbs
court refuses TO act upon such grounds, IL
will do what no court has done since the
dawn OF civilization What right has this
court to consider. anything outside? The ar
of place, because they intimate that the CO.
ordinate branch OF this government Will
stultify itself by failing TO do It's duty |
have no more fear that the executive branch
Of this Commonwealth viii fail TO do it's duty
than that the judiciary will so fail.
They say that the act OF 1885 Is the only
Law upon the statute books. We maintain
that IL Is not a valid law. VIII this court s
fail to declare the truth? III an enactment IL
upon the statute books that is not a valid
Law. 1t is your duty TO so declarerit. There
10 no striking down of law, which they fear:
there Is no law to strike down. 1 have heard
no word uttered by the gentlemen on the
other side which indicates that they opposed
the setting aside of the acts OF 1891. 1893 AID
1895. They are satisfied with the decision OF
this court in those instances Did your
Honors fail TO act then because there was no
law which could stand? III this question Is
TO be raised at all. then was the time when
Ii should have been raised. We have a Gov
ernor a Legislature and a judiciary. IL IL
the very genius OF cur Constitution that they
should be perpetual. and each power is 10 be
continuous without lapse. Before the Con
stitution there was the spirit I'm the hearts
Of the people that was greater than the Con-
stitution, and which gave birth TO the Consti-
tuition. II was the Unborn right OF fair rep
resentation- The failure OF the executive and
judiciary of the State cannot take that right
from the people. Take the provisions or
enumeration ard apportionmen;; do they
take away any right? They are not de-
structive. but reeulative. n 1 may use such
an expression. They simply fix districts.
lines and boundaries. Although this court
may hold a law unconstitutional in bonds,
yet when the people have met and elected
their Representatives under that law the body
Is a de lure body. and 10 speak OF * as a de