The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-06-25
GEN. HARRIsoN's ARGUMENT.
Spoke with Great VigOr and Grew
Sarcastic ut Times.


General Harrison took up the argument
for the other side Immediately upon the re-
converting of the court in the afternoon
and occupied the whole time until the adj
journment of the court, at 4:30 o'clock. He
spoke with great earnestness and vigor,
and at times was sarcastic at the expense
OF his opponents. A large crowd filled the
courtroom during most of the afternoon,
and his argument was listened TO with keen
interest.
He said, in part:
If your Honor please, my associate coun-
sci have asked me to take I'D the argu-
ment for the complainant at this point.
do not think that where questions were
presented at the former hearing supported
by certain considerations in argument and
by certain authorities cited by counsel, and
those propositions have neither been modi-
ned nor additional reasons in support of
them mentioned in this argument nor any
additional citations called to the attention
of the court that should detain the court
with discussion of such questions. They
were fully heard before. The court ma
turely and fully considered the citations
oHered by these gentlemen and us and
nounced a conclusion. Now / cannot as
sumo, where new considerations have
been presented nothing new has been said
in argument and no new cases have been
cited in support of the propositions. that
your Honor desires that l should reargue it.
take it for granted that your Honor has
come here to abide by the mature and de-
hberate expressions of opinion which you
gave upon the former argument. unless
something new is said in argument or some
new citations are offered TO your Honor,
with the view to impeach the conclusions to
which the court arrived.
This whole question to whether the
complainant in this bill made q cause of
injury that entitled him to invoke the juris-
ton was argued on both sides. Mr.. Curtis
for the city, insisted that we had not
in this case. would be injured if this S-cent
fare law We're put in operation We cited
the aVerments of the bill to show that it
was alleged that the security of the mort
gage the property pledged by ;he mort
gage to the security of these bonds, would
be disastrously affected in its value by the
operation of this law. Your Honor sus-
tanned us in the proposition that case
was made here showing an interest by the
complainant and a threatened injury that
entitled him to the protection of this court
II he otherwise made case which appealed
to it to exercise its jurisdiction. This bill
shows that the tangible property of this
company, separated from the power to use
1t in the streets, would not be sufficient Sc
curity for the mortgage debt, and that is
not unusual or extraordinary aver
please, it might be made with equal truth
of the tangible property of the New York
Central Railroad. If separated from the
franchise the right to use the rails and ties
would not equal the mortgage debt of the
company.
GREAT ADVANCE IN SERVICE.
Mr.. Kern said that the people of this
State, realizing that war prices no longer
maintain, decided that war tariffs should
not be continued. and enacted this law He
says the fare is still cents. The fare for
what? Mr.. Kern very well knows that if
he can get two yards of calico for a dime
now, whereas it cost him Is cents to buy
that calico during the war, he can now ride
for cents ten times as far as he could be-
fore-five times at least. In 1864, perhaps
the longest line in Indianapolis did not ex-
coed two miles. The facilities for travel
We're shackling mule cars drawn by small
mules at the rate of perhaps four miles an
hour. and the fare was cents for two
miles Though cannot conceive what
THESE considerations have to do with the
case, we have the same fare with the
transfers, and people ride in comfortable
carsTcars that are not infected with the
smell OF the horse stable-by electric pow
er. at the rate of ten miles an hour, and we
roe IVe times as far. If we are to con-
slider this question l think we will find that
there has been more increase in service in
proportion TO the pay than in any article
of merchandise or any other employment
IN which service is engaged
General Harrison referred to the New
Jaw which was passed before the Scent
law, and which he claimed was the better
expression of the people as to the method
of regulating the fare street-railway com
panles should charge But" said he.
after tnat was done, without the slightest
inquiry by any committee as to whether a
scent fare was a reasonable fare and upon
the proclamation that the company was to
take Its own medicine this 3-cent-fare bill
was passed" '-
Mr. ketcham's contention that the
United States Court had no iurisdiction
over the prosecuting attorney was next re-
Ierred TO- the Reagan case being cited to
show that this officer was not judicial
oulcer, put that his duties We're purely min
lsterlal. Il want to know" said General
HARRISON, If this court, having the res of
TINS property in its custody, is without
power TO prevent it from being seized nv
every constable or sheriff under processes
ISSUED from the state courts in actions in
sugated and prosecuted by the prosecutfne-
attorney of the circuit?'
SUPREME COURT CASE NOT QUOTED
NOW upon what does the appeal to your
Honor to rehear this case arise? Nav 7 ex
press my surprise without offense to the
learned gentleman who opened this arp7I
ment that, having called your Honor here
to reverse your own ruling under what he
regards as a peremptory order from the
supreme Court of the State of Indiana,
that he never once mentioned that decision
or quoted from 1t. The decision has been
mentioned TO your Honor only as one that
had peremptory influence over YOUR ac
ton The responsiveness of the reasoning
OF the court, whether the court had said
anything that might induce your Honor to
change your views upon the question. has
never once been alluded to. If the whole
record were here your Honor would ascer-
plu constitutional, Notwithstanding the
able attorney for the city in the
former case argued before your Honor
the unconstitutionahty of the law and
maintained before the Supreme Court it's
constitutionality. But upon what ground
the Supreme Court rested its decision-un-
less your Honor has extended your study
OF this case beyond the lines suggested by
counSel-you have no manner of informa-
ton whatever. So that think | NAV take
1t as conceded by the learned gentlemen
that If that decision is peTemptorily bind
ing upon your Honor, there is nothing i'm
be persuasive TO your Honor.
i want to speak a little about the iuris-
dictlon of the United States courts.
The judicial power of the United States
precisely as its Legislative and its execu-
tive power is a supreme power.
do not lose sight of the fact that the Judi
cial power, as the legislative and executive
powers of the federal government are as
To the subjects to which they attach linn
tied; but as to everything embraced within
the legislative power 1t is supreme and as
to every suit at law or in equity of which
the United States courts are given iurisdic-
Supreme Court of the United States is the
supreme law of the land. The Jurisdiction
OF the United States courts may be divided
into two general classes-a jurisdiction that
grows out OF the subject matter and a
jurisdiction that grows out of the character
or citizenship of the parties litigatng: and
the Jurisdiction is just final just as
supreme, in the one case as in the other.
COURTS COMPLETE JURISDICTION.
Except as this court defines for itself