The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-06-26
THE HEARING CONCLUDED.
Mr.. Winter and the Attorney General

Mr.. Winter and the Attorney General
Talk-NO Decision for some Days.
The argument in the street-railroad nti-
cation was resumed before Judge Showal-
ter, of the United States Circuit Court, at
10 o'clock yesterday morning. Mr.. Winter
took up the argument for the company and
devoted much time to the contention of the
attorney general that the prosecuting at
torney is a judicial officer of the State, and
the Federal Court therefore, could not
have jurisdiction as to him. He cited and
discussed several Indiana decisions tending
to show that no officer in Indiana not a
court can be regarded a. judicial officer.
and efforts to clothe such officers with judi
cial power by the Legislature had been
overthrown by the Supreme Court. He
cited decisions in Louisiana, by Judge Bill
ingS and Justice Bradley, where injunc-
tions against criminal proceedings had
been issued. He also cited three cases
from Kansas, two by Mr.. Justice Brewer,
which he declared to be in line with his
contention. The logical result of the at
torney generals contention would be, he
declared to permit a state Legislature, to
trample any corporation under foot and
shut it off from appeal to the Federal
Courts by making the penalties Of the law
criminal or quasi criminal
MR.. WINTER SARCASTIC.
He grew bit sarcastic when he declared
that the attorney general took himself and
his office too seriously Mr.. Winter never
smiled when he said it, though the gold
spectacles hanging by a slender wire from
his left ear danced gaily about his chin. Mr..
Winter discussed at some length the ques-
ton of following the decision of the State
Supreme Court. He gave it as his delib-
crate judgment that Judge Showalters de-
cision was the better law. He denounced
the case before the Supreme Court as sn
effort to drag the Federal Court TO the feet
of the State court.
Passing to the contentious of the demur-
rer to the bill, he declared that the COM
pany had a contract right that the Legisla-
ture could not interfere with in the manner
it had attempted to. In this he went over
much the same ground that General Harri-
son had traversed the day before.
In the afternoon the attorney general
made the closing argument. He had been
taking copious notes during the morning.
and every slap made at him by the oppos-
ing attorneys caused another iab or two at
his note book. The atmosphere was pretty
warm, and. with a prescience that his
speech would not make it any cooler, the
before the court arrived.
He began mildly with the statement that
it was a great pleasure to listen to an ar
gument by General Harrison. While he
was speaking it was impossible, he said to
think that what he said was not the law,
but when he was through II was possible
to see from the books what the law was.
He returned to the contention that the
prosecuting attorney is a judicial officer,
and quoted again the decision in State VS..
Henning from the Supreme Court. He
said that many years ago. when he tried a
case with General Harrison. he had been
much worried as to how they were TO get
fact before the jury. and General Harrison
had cut the Gordian knot by remarking
that he would tell them. Thus, also, ne
had 'tcld7 about the Navin case in the SUI
preme Court He then gave a statement
of the origin of the Nayin case and the de-
cison of the Supreme Court. He declared
that opposing attorneys in their argument
had made the inference that IL was snug-
gled through the Supreme Court, and
showed that these gentlemen had been
notified by the city that they should have
opportunity to conduct the case before the
Supreme Court, but they declined to have
aught to do with it, He then read a copy
of the. letter sent May 10 to the Citizens
StreetErairoad Company by the city sttor~
ney inviting it to take charge OF the arg1-
rnent against the constitutionality of the
law He further declared that the chief
Justice of the court had invited these gen.
tlemen to come in and argue the case. He
reverted briefly to the fact that the court
had been furnished by the company with
printed pamphlet containing all the argu-
ments against the law and an anonymous