The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-12-07
PARK CASE REHEARING
CITY ATTORNEY FILES HIS PETITION
WITH SUPREME COURT.
Contended that one Section Can BE
Dropped and the Act Still
stand.

City Attorney Kern has filed a petition
fer a rehearing before the Supreme Court
of the case of the Indianapolis Brewing
Company against Edward f. Claypool ct
al, better known as the Park Board case
The Supreme Court recently held that the
act creating the Board of Park Commits
sioners was invalid under the section Of
the Constitution which limits the length
of service in any office created by the
Legislature to four years, the act in ques-
ton fixing the length of the term of park
commissioners at five years.
1t is claimed that the Supreme Court erred
in this ruling. The section of the Consti-
tuition alleged to be violated is as follows:
1.-THE General Assembly shall not create any
Office the tenure of which shall be longer
than four years. The appellee contends
that the word tenure conveys the idea of
an absolute right to hold and that in the
appoin tment of park commissioners there
is no such right granted them-they might
be removed at any time by the mayor. The
case of Parsons against the United States
is cited This was a case where an APP
pointment was made for term of four
years by the Senate, and the President
sought to remove the appointee. The Su-
preme Court of the United States held that
the right to hold the Office was not abso-
Lutte but was subject to the will of the
President. 1t is contended that, If the same
construction be placed on the act creating
the Park Board, the right to hold the Of
flee for period of five years was not con-
ferred. The period beyond which this in
cumbent could not hold Office in any con-
tingency was fixed, the words being merely
W rds of limitation.
NO CIVIL SERVICE IN INDIANA.
The appellees contend that if the ruling
of the court stand there can be no such
a thing as civil service in Indiana, for, with
the absolute right to hold office for the
periods provided in their creation by the
Legislature would go also the absolute
necessity of surrendering the office at the
end of the term.
A second error is assigned in the ruling
of the court in overthrowing the whole act
because of one unconstitutional feature
The first section, which creates the board
and is silent on the tenure of office, it is
said under all principles OF law, and ac-
cording to authorities, ought to stand Only
the second section is objected to- and the
silence of the court on the other twenty
two sections leads the appelleeS to conclude
that they are constitutional. 1t is pointed
out that with Section omitted the act is
a perfect piece of legislation and similar to
the sections OF the city charter creating the
other municipal boards.
The Supreme Court is asked to give the
subject further careful consideration. The
great Importance of the law to the people
is urged, but the petition states that it is
not asked that the Constitution be bent on
this account 1t is asked that Section 2, if
unconstitutional, be Topped off as useless
member and the remaining sections be al
lowed to stand "a healthy, vigorous and
perfect body"