The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-03-20

government, says Judge Cooley IN ms toh
stitutional Limitations, Chapter IN, anu
every Official of every department. may, az
any time when duty Is to be performed
be required to pass upon a question OF con,
holding an election under the act OF lssS'
the court adds:
Neither has the constitutionality OF the
apportionment act Of 1885 been questioned
I'm the case at bar. consequently that act
is the. last and perhaps only expression OF
the legislative will left upon the subject
OF apportionment. and under which Senator'S
and Representatives may be chosen at the
general election of 1896. unless the Governor
should see fit TO call a special session OF
the Legislature 10 pass a new apportion-
ment law
The court thus recognizes the right of the
Governor to call a special session and by
implication at least holds that the Legis-
llature can pass a valid new apportionmens
law.
''It has not been long since this modest
Democrat regarded his opinion on the con-
stitutionality of an apportsonment law or
more consequence than decision OF the
Supreme Court of this State. In his in
augual address Jan. 2. 1893. he said: The
people view with great jealously any at
tempt made by the courts to encroach upon
the province so particularly within the
scope Of legislative action. The manner or
mode of apportionment in Indiana is not
new, and has been the same under all
administrations, and after the usage OF
half century the legislation of our State
ought not to be imperiled by an alleged
judicial construction novel and unp-e-
cendented whereby the judiciary branch OF
the government may virtually control the
right of representation and deprive the rep
resentatives of the people OF their constitu-
tional authority.
ACTION IN PRISON CASE.
''It thus appears that he refused TO rec
ognize the decision of the Supreme Court
holding the acts OF 1891 and 1879 unconsti-
tutional. and for exactly the same reason.
if he were consistent. he would treat the
last decision upon the apportionment act
of 1896 as unconstitutional and as an al
legged decision alone. Our distinguished
Governor who now has presidential as
pirations, has evidently never found. or il
he ever possessed it, has lost the jewel of
consistency.
'The last Legislature of this State passed
an act constituting the Governor. Auditor.
Treasurer. Secretary of State and Attor-
ney-general a board for the selection OF
prison directors. That board, the 18th
day of March, 1885, appointed directors fer
the northern prison, and, after qualifying
they organized board, and on the I9tn
day of March, 1885, they appointed a war
den. The warden, after qualifying, de-
manded from the warden who was then i'm
charge under Democratic appointment, the
books and records of said institution. which
We're refused him, and a suit was brought
for the purpose of testing the validity of
the act Or 1895. The defendant i'm that suit
was the Democratic warden of the State
pffSOH. lue COUNSEL WHO ftpTeStnleu the
defendant were, in fact, the representa-
tives of the Governor and selected by him
to appear and defend the suit. The answer
Of the Governor denies the legality of the
appointment of the Republican selected by
the board under the act mentioned, and
alleges that the board appointing him, and
the board appointing the board OF directors.
| ter board, were all illegal and unconstitu-
| tional, and that the Governor had declined
to act on the pretended board which pur- %
ground that such board Illegally or
| ganized and constituted. and that the Leg
| is.ature could not name him as a member
| OF such board and that the act was uncon-
| stitutional.
1.-The contention of the Governor in this
| case was that the appointing power was an
executive function, and that the Constitu-
| ton did not, expressly or by implication,
| deny the exercise of this function to the
Governor. and, therefore, he treated this
| law, constituting the. board above men
| toned, as unconstitutional and refused to
| recognize the law and to act under IL. The
answer of counsel representing the Gov
| legation Defendant further says the
| Governor of the State OF Indiana notified
the pretended board of State officers which
| undertook the appointment of the board OF
| directors for the Prison North prior to
their meeting, as referred TO in the in
%nHo aS of sh bnrd 5hs he wsna
| illegal and unconstitutional.
| Here the Governor within a year of hi
1 answer TO the Republican central committee
in which he declares that he must recognize
| the law of 1856 until 1t is declared unconsti
| tutional. holds that an act Of the Legislature
| which takes from him the appointing power
is unconstitutional and refuses TO recogniz,
| such law as a binding force upon him, am
| now undertakes TO force the people of this
| State to elect its representatives under
law conceded at the time II is passed to b
unfair, and. as applied to the changed condi
| tions of to-day. simply outrageous. This
/ then, / say, is Democratic consistency, anC
| consistency gentleman who's.
| craftsmanship Is to secure for him the nom
ination of the Democratic party at Chicago
| for President
| NOMINATIONS BY ACCLANATIoN.
Martin Hugg formally moved that com
| mittee of three be appointed by the Chair
and that all resolutions be referred to tha
committee without reading. There was nj
| opposition to this motion, and the Chair ap
pointed on that committee Martin Huge
| George b. Elliott and Robert A Brown
| Only one resolution was offered and il wa.
| not reported back by the committee.
On the call for nominations for delegate
| to the national convention, X. o. Hawkins
| of the Sixth ward. presented the name o
Harry S. New, while w. n. Harding, on be
half Of the Third ward. named Joseph B
| Healing. The Fifth ward seconded the nom
ination Of Mr.. New, and before any more
| of the wards could follow with seconds
| Royal Hammer moved that the two gentle
| men be nominated by acclamation.
| "All those in favor of electing Harry s
| New and Joseph b. Healing by exclamation
| say aye" said the Chair in stating the mo
ton. There was one loud shout of ayes.
Are there any noes?" asked the chair
| man inquiringly.
mo-" shouted Vice Chairman Cyrus Clark
| Of the county committee. You bet ther
| are noes to those nominations" And tn,
| delegates laughed at the way he played oi
| the Chairs manner of calling for the noes
| Mr.. Kealing was introduced for a brie
| speech, the chairman proc.aiming him ION,
| of the best Republicans in his or any othe
| county" Mr.. Kealing said he believed tn,
| sentiment of this district is for Mckinley
| and .he announced that he would vote th'
| sentiment of mis- district when the conven
ton met. Mr.. New was introduced by In,
| nothing but uncompromising Republican
| ISM" Mr.. New thanked the convention fo
the honor shown him. He was sure IL wa
/ patent to every observer OF political ar
| fairs that the sentiment in the Seventh dis
1 trict at the present time was In favor o
| when the national convention met, and h
| anticipated no change, his vote would b
| cast for the Ohio statesman.
| Robert A. Brown, of Johnson county
| wSs the first on the floor TO make a nomi
| nation for alternate delegate. His county
| he said, was modest from its nature, al
well as from its necessity He supposed
| candidate from his county would have L
| be heralded as candidate from the Firs
| precinct of the Sixteenth ward.' so thor
| cuef1y was the small county Of johnson
| absorbed by the bigness of Marion county
! 1t was important that the Republican
| select good men to go 10 St Louis. i
| their national convention. Here he relate
| bup,orous story the apfueSS of which 4,