The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-06-05
STATE VS.. THE VANDALIA
ARGUMENT IN THE CLAIM FOR MIL
LIONS CONCLUDED.
Attorney Generals Reference to the
Alleged Seduction of Legislative
Committees in Past Years.

was continued in the Superior Court yes
terday morning. It was concluded in the
afternoon and the court has asked for
briefs from the attorneys before giving a
decision
John G.. Williams, general counsel for the
Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad Com
pany, finished his argument yesterday
morning in support of the demurrer to the
States complaint. He contended that the
amendment of Section % of the old char
ter being retroactive as we'll as provid-
ing for the future, was clearly Unconstitu-
tional Counsel for the defense, he said
had only to consider the charter of 1S47
and the legitimate amendment made to that
charter. He spoke of the argument of ex-
Judge Taylor for the State the dream of
a poet-dealing with fancy and ignoring
fact. The original incorporators of the
Vandalia were not philanthropists, but bus
mess men who embarked in a hazardous
enterprise, in which the State had failed
for the purpose of making money.
The attorney reviewed the legislation by
which the Terre Haute & Indianapolis Rail-
way Company was made a separate cor
poration in 1852. The original charter, with
its school fund provision, applied to the
while 140 miles Of the road from the Wa
bash river to the Whitewater canal and
the amendment of 1851, allowing the road
to be divided into two separate corpora
lions, abrogated that provision of the char
ter. Attorney williams held that it is too
late now for the State to say the company
must be content with 10 per cent, the State
taking the rest. The Legislature had no
power to enact a law with such an object.
The principle was plain. he said that re-
covery could only be had on basis of
contract and if no contract could be shown
the attempt must fail. The attorney in
sisted that the construction of the char
ter for which the defense contended was
the construction placed on it by the Marion
Superior Court twenty-one years ago. The
State, it was urged, had made persistent
attempt to secure a rehearing of the case
decided long ago and the present action
was only an irregular motion for new
trial, backed up by the last General AS
sembly. This complaint, the attorney de-
clared, was the same old complaint filed
twenty years ago. The same allegations
could be recognized. The complaint, he said,
was faulty and of no avail. The averment
that after an accounting had been had it
would be found that $2000,O00 was due the
State was mere assertion. There was moth
ing in the complaint that tended to prove
the statement.
Attorney General Ketcham, for the State,
replied to the argument of Mr.. Williams.
He began with the admission that the case
at bar illustrating as it did the power of
the railway company, which had kept the
State out of it's own for forty years, pre-
scented no light task Referring to the filings
of the counsel on the other side, he wanted
to know what the attorney general was for
If ne was not 70 aid the legislature He
wondered that the State had not been met
by argument instead of diatr1bes against
the attorney general. The act of 1856 diVid-
ing the original road into two parts, re-
leasing the Terre Haute & Richmond rail-
way from all obligations to complete the
road east of Indianapolis, was referred TO,
the attorney general contending that the
provisions of the old charter requiring that
certain profits go to the State were made
to apply to the divided road in specific
terms.
The attorney general touched in general
way on the allegations of the complaint
that the legislative committee delegated to
examine the roads financial condition sew
eral years ago had been seduced from its
main purpose by agents of the road at
Terre Haute He declared the representa-
tives of the corporation argued this case
as if it were a joke. The State, he said,
is not asking TO enforce thing that is
onerous or Oppressive. He held that the
common schools of the State. There was
nothing left for the State to do but say
to the. company that an accounting must
cent That is what the State is now en-
deaVOrlng TO do
MAXWELL CLOSES THE ARGUMENT.
Attorney Lawrence Maxwell, of Cincin-
natl. closed the argument, speaking for the
railway company in support of the demur-
rer He elaborated the point that the act
of 1851 which terminated the Terre Haute
&, Richmond road at indianapolis and in
corporated the Indiana Central Railway
Company, to build that part of the road
from Indianapolis to Richmond for which
the original charter provided, had the eff
feet of wholly absolving the defendant
from any obligation to pay any part of its
earnings to the treasury of state for the
use of the common schools BY Section %
of the original charter the State agreed not
to regulate the tolls so that the defendant
could not pay Is per cent. dividend and
in return the company agreed to pay part
of it's surplus profit to the State. Upon
the passage of the act of 1851 the State
was at liberty then to regulate the tolls
without regard to the provisions Of Section
% and the company was necessarily re
leased to pay any part of its earnings in
excess of Is per cent. to the State. The
act of 1851 created two corporations instead
of one to build and operate railroads from
the Illinois line to the city of Richmond,
Ind. The State, when this was done, did not
require either of the two corporations to
contribute to the school fund.
Mr.. Maxwell held that the original char
/. ter only created an obligation to pay part
of the surplus profits arising from the OPP
Grafton of a road between the Illinois line
and Richmond 1t made no reference to the
earnings or profits of a road between the
Illinois line and the city of indianapolis nor
those of a road between Indianapolis and
Richmond. He further commended that
under Section % of the original charter
there could be no recovery unless there
had been dividends declared equal to the
full sum invested in the enterprise with 10
per cent. per annum thereon and precedent
action by the Legislature regulating the
tolls The language of that section was
plain The words used were common words
of no doubtful import. The court was bound
to give those words their plain and ordi-
nary meaning. The attorney maintained
that the legislation of 1897 was unconstitu-
tional and void so far as it attempted to
change in the slightest degree the Obliga-
tons of the company as fixed by Section
% of the original charter. He referred to
the manner in which the Legislature had
sought to impose new and addluonaI obHga-
lions on the railway company ana denied
the power of the Legislature to do this.
In conclusion the attorney maintained that
the judgment of the Marion Superior Court
in 1875 was upon a complaint which set
forth the same cause of action as the pres
ent complaint. He claimed the attorney gen.
eral had full power to bring the FORMER suit
and the matters and things in that suit
having been decided in favor of the rail-
way company the former judgment was
a complete and final bar TO the present