The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-07-23
THE OPINION IN FULL
Judge ShOwaIter Holds that the New
Law Disturbs Contract Rights.


The opinion of Judge Showalter, as hand
ed down yesterday, is as follows:
1T is again urged that this suit cannot
be maintained against Prosecuting Attor-
ney Wiltsie because he represents the state
of Indiana If the enactment here in
question be valid then Mr. Wiltsie does
represent the State-not the State as a
prosecutor, however, but the State as
invalid, then he does not represent any
thing. On the latter hypothesis he. or any
enforce the penalties in the enactment or
1897, would merely be q Wrongdoer. The
theory of the bin is that that statute is un-
constitutional and void If the complains
ant be mistaken in this one proposition,
then the bill cannot be Sustained as to any
defendant. | get the impression from the
suit in law or equity against a State, with
in the sense of the eleventh amendment to
the Constitution of the United States, is a
sult anecting IN some manner a property
right OF the State as municipal corpora
ton But the discussion on this point
seems to be aside from the case at bar
If, as said, the enactment of 1897 be in
valid, then Mr.. Wiltsie does not here rep
resent the State; if it be valid, he does.
But on the latter hypothesis the entire suit
must be disposed OF before any question
special to Mr.. Wiltsie can arise. The
validity Of the amendment. take it,, this
court must pass upon. What the rule or
decision shall be-Whether the opinion of
the state court shall be deemed final or
whether this court is charged with the re-
independently-on any view of that matter,
the validity of the amendment, so far as
concerns this litigation and apart from any
subsequent review by the Federal Court OF
Appeals or Federal Supreme Court, depends
upon the pronouncement OF this court. For
these reasons l doubt if the discussions
concerning the force of the eleventh amend
ment be pertinent"
SAME AS REAGAN CASE
After reviewing the oft-quoted Reagan
case, from Texas, Judge Showalter con-
tinues:
The opinion last cited was delivered In
May. 1894. The position of Mr.. Wiltsie here
Is the same as that OF the attorney gen.
eral in the Reagan case. III the attorney
general had not been specifically named as
the officer TO carry on the prosecution un-
der the Texas statute the duty would have
devoVed upon some prosecuting attorney
in Texas, and such officer, in place of the
attorney general would have have been the de-
fendant. / cannot hold that this suit, as
against Mr.. Wiltsie, is inhibited by the
eleventh amendment, without dsregarding
the law as laid down by the Supreme Court
case, Sections ) and IA had been deemed val
id the injunction could not have is
tion is the purpose of the bill. If. as said,
the enactment of 1887 be valid, the case
fails and the bill must be dismissed as 10
all defendants; If that enactment be in
valid, Mr. Wiltsie, so far as the threat
ened prosecutions are concerned. does not
represent the State in any capacity what
ever. So much as preliminary to the matt
ters which arise more particularly on this
hearing
STATE COURT SUBORDINATE.
when a federal question is involved the
discussion Of the highest court of the State
is not final but is renewable by the SUI
preme Court of the United States. To this
extent, at least, the judicial power OF a
State is subordinate TO that OF the United
States. But there is no relation OF subordi-
nation on the part or any federal court 10
any state court. In certain cases the fed
eral courts Of their own motion follow the
decision OF the state court as determina-
ton OF the rights OF litigant In For