The Indianapolis journal., 1897-04-16
CONTENTION OF THE STATE.
Attorney General Maintains that This
Court Cannot Interfere.

When the court opened after the noon
hour Attorney General Ketcham addressed
the court. He said the only question upon
which he desired to address the court was
whether the State of Indiana must sit at
the feet of the Federal Court and ask it's
permission to put her criminal laws in
operation. AS a sovereign State she stood
erect in the formulation and enforcement
of her laws. He renounced the doctrine
that the State. i'm the person of one of her
judicial officers, could be dragged before
this court TO ask permission to enforce her
statutes. 1t was an elementary PROPOSE
tion that the Constitution of the State
construed by the Supreme Court of the
State was the Constitution of the State
and should be respected by all courts.
1t was argued that this law was in contra
vention of the State Constitution. The
determination of this question should lie
with the State courts The interference
of the Federal Court would be violation
of the eleventh amendment. He referred
sarcastically TO the unwilling defendant,
TIE Citizens Street-railroad Company, and
told how its heart would bleed If it should
be enjoined from collecting less than D.
cent fares. He cited decisions showing
that the comfy required that it must be
a very extraordinary case TO require the
Federal Court 10 interfere and constrre
the State Constitution. If the force and
effect of the record was 10 interfere with
the State the Federal Court should go no
further: The request of the bill was that
Mr.. WiltSie an officer or the State, be
enjoined from prosecuting this company
under the law of the State. He quoted
decision from Judge Lane in Souse No
BILE. declaring that there could be in equity
no restraint upon the criminal processes of
the State. ana that the State could not be
made defendant in equity cases He quoted
another decision. this by the federal Su-
preme Court, which held that equity
court has no jurisdiction over the prosecu-
ton of crimes. This opinion was by JUS
,,ce GRAY He made distinction between
officer and that TO control judicial officer
and declared that the effort to reach the
latter was an effort TO control the State
He maintained that where no federal
questions and the State court had
already acquired jurisdiction its Jurisdic-
Federal Court. and it could with as much
reason entoin this court as this court
could enjoin il. He held that it would be
abs Ird for the Marion county Circuit or
SuIerior courts to seek to enjoin the pros
ecutor from presenting an indictment to
the Criminal Court There was no higher
power of sovereignty than the power to
punish and in interfering with il the Fed
eral Court would be laying hands upon one
of the dearest rights of the State. He de-
clared that the Brewer decisions applied
to the actions of administrative officers,
and did not attack the sovereignty of the
State He again quoted from Justice Gray,
declaring that cases OF punishment of
puDiic onenSeS must De iett 10 the states,
except when Congress mas by express en-
actment provided for removal and trial in
the Federal Court or the issue OF a writ
of habeas corpus by Federal Court as
judge.
He showed by further citations that suits
against officers of the State TO prevent
them from performing official duties were
in effect suits against the State. He closed
by stating that they had no personal in
terest at stake, but stood as officers of the
State to draw the barrier of the eleventh
amendment. These people who had taken
mortgage for property that they well
knew would not pay moiety of the lien
unless they could maintain the right to
charge what they pleased. now come here
demanding that this court put one hand
upon the mouth of the State Supreme
In1f