The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-12-01
DR.. FUCKERS CASE.
Explanation as TO why an Unauthor-
lied Suit Was Brought Against Him.
To the Editor Of the indianapolis Journal:

To the Editor of the indianapolis Journal:
There appeared in the Journal of Nov. 10,
statement from your correspondent at
this place which does me great injustice
The part of said article to which l wish to
take exception is the following:
Kane 81 Kane, county attorneys, this
day filed suit in the Circuit Court against
Albert r. Tucker and his bondsmen to re-
cover about $1,000 Illegal fees charged and
collected by Tucker when auditor of this
county from 1893 to 1897"
On the morning of Nov. 10 I called upon
the auditor of this county, through which
office the commissioners can only authorize
a suit to be brought and ne furnished me
the following certificate:
State of Indiana, Hamilton county, SIS.
Il, Calvin Sturdevant, auditor in and for
said county and State do hereby certify
that the Board of Commissioners of said
county and State have no order on their
records as such board directing suit to be
brought against A. r. Tucker, ex-aduitor,
to recover excessive salary.
Witness my hand and seal, this Nov.
10, 1887. CALVIN STURDEVANT,
tSeal) Auditor"
Two days after the above was furnished
me. called upon two members of the
Board of Commissioners, and they informed
me that they knew nothing of such suit be-
ing brought, and If it had been brought
that it had been without their order, which
clearly confirmed what one of the attorneys
had told me about Sept. "a in his office.
had made the remark to him, following a
conference between him county attorney,
the Board of Commissioners and myself
that the board did not seem disposed to
force an action; if not they, who was push
ing the matter? He informed me that two
or three prominent Republicans, whom he
named, were continuously urging him to
bring the suit. To which answered Per
hdps they were fearful that / might con-
clude to become a candidate for Congress
this coming spring upon the Republican
ticket which the latter part of your CORE
spondent's letter fully confirms as follows:
The case will attract considerable atten-
ton, as DR.. Tucker is now a candidate for
Congress"
The filing of the papers without the au-
party or parties the necessary food for
thought, and notices of the bringing of the
suit were printed in the Journal, the Sem
tinel and the Evening News for it's political
effect to be felt throughout the county, con-
gressional district and State antagonstic to
me. Seeing that such notices were not true
as published, the county attorney then
called the board together ON last Tuesday,
Nov. %. The commissioners then informed
me as the matter had been agitated in the
papers and for fear the taxpayers of Ham
iltOn county might condemn the board, al
though they doubted the result would be in
favor of the county, they authorized the
of this county. congressional district and
State may form their own opinion as to
my being an embezzler or attempting TO
extort from the county any fees which
/ thought / was entitled to, wish to sub
init the following statement Of facts:
The Legislature of 1891 passed what was
known as fee and salary law. The county
officers brought suit to test the constitu-
tionality of the act The first suit was
brought n o behalf OF the t a as a o ser
ifs and clerks. A second suit was brought
III behalf of the county treasurers, and the
Supreme Court, in November, 1884 declared
the law unconstitutional to treasurers,
also to auditors and recorders. AT the De-
cember term of the Board Of Commission
ers of this county, Peter Martz, county
treasurer, and myself auditor, filed our
claims for fees under the law of 1879. The
board required of us TO furnish to them a
certified copy of the decision of the SUI
IRENE Court which we did. They also au-
thorized the county attorney to thoroughly
investigate the question, which he did, and
the Board of Commissioners after thor
oughly investigating the decision of the
court, approved our claims under the law OF
1879 and we drew our money. At the time
of the decision above referred 10 the per
sCnnel of the Supreme Court was as fol-
lows: Judges Coffey, Daily, Hackney How
ard and McCabe On Jan. /, 1895, the per-
sCnnel of the Supreme Court was changed
Judges Monks and Jordan succeeded Judges
Coftey and Daily, before which court q
third case was brought. and in June, 1879,
they reversed the former courts decision
and declared the law of 1884, with the
amendments of 1893 as constitutional, the
last decision being rendered six months
after we had drawn our pay under the de-
cision of the former court Were we guilty
as your correspondent WISHES you 10 pciieNe;
when he says we sought to recover llegal
fees? i hope not. We accepted what . we
thought our just dues. He further says II
legal fees from 1893 to 1891" | wish TO IN
form the Taxpayers of this county; con-
sressional district and State that the Legis-
lature enacted another fee and sal salary ia%
during sthe session of 1894 and 1879, Which
took effect about June !, 1888, under Wnlcn
law l filed my claims and drew my saiary
until the close of my term on the first Mon
day of March 1897 and and c at no 81 time me f tepm
IF office has any one made a demand upon
me for illegal fees collected and for eight
nonths afterward no one ever. charged me
With extortion or any reflection upon my
character as an officer of this county or as
= nitiZen If this State. AS all the taxpayers
of this county, congressional district and
state are entitled to all facts pertaining to
the conduct of their officers, demand OF
them. as they have a right to demand OF
me an honest and just decision upon the
conduct of the offices before condemning;
A. r. TUCKER.
NToblaSviIIp Ind. Nov. 30.