The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-06-25
HARRISON TALKS At LENGTH
GOES OVER THE WHOLE CASE AND
REVIEWS JUDGE MONKS.
The Hearing VIII BE Finished To-
Day-Lively Tilt Among
the Attorneys.

ne appeared in the United States courtroom
at 10 O'Clock he found a small crowd of
spectators and a large array of legal talent
headed by General Harrison, Mr.. Miller and
Mr.. Winter for the Central Trust Company,
and Messrs. Ketcham, Kern and Quits,
representing the state and city. The street,
railroad company was directly represented
by Mr.. Turner, one of the directors of the
company.
AS soon as the court began its session
Mr.. Miller filed a petition asking leave to
file an amended complaint bringing in as
parties defendant five citizens who had ten
dered Scent fares and then sued the COM
pany to recover the penalty fixed by the
statute. The attorney general asked If
there was anything else to be filed, remark
ing that they might as well shoot at the
whole flock at once. I'VE should be very
glad to have your honor board with us all
summer" he continued. taking up various
phases of this matter, but it is my impress
sion that the main question is covered by
the motion to dissolve and the citys de-
murrer to the bill" The defendants at
torneys got hold of a copy to the petition
to amend and held 2 brief consultation
over 1t.
Upon returning the attorney general took
the floor and made brief statement of the
question before the court First, the mo-
ton to dissolve the Injunction; second the
citys demurrer 10 the complaint; third, the
petition to bring in these new parties. 1t
was only accidental, he said, that there
We're but four or five of these instead OF
10000 who had a right to ride at cents.
If this was admitted the records of the
court might be kept busy. After all, this
depended ultimately upon the constitutions
L. % e. ln-.r l.
constitutional this court could have no jur-
isdiction, both because all the parties are
citizens of the State and because the
amount involved is too small He held that
this, matter should abide the decision of the
main question
OBJECTED TO THE CROSS BILL.
Mr.. Turner then asked leave to file for
the Citizens Street-railroad Company a
cross-bill asking temporary injunction.
This cross-bill is printed in another
column of the Journal. To this the
attorney general strenuousy objected.
He noted the fact that the bill Mr..
Turner held was printed and had evidently
been prepared for some time. In all this
time no notice of any such intention had
been given counsel for the other defendants.
This was not the rule day of the court. This
jug-handled business between the trust
company and street-car company, identical
in interest, in thus suddenly springing
new question was not commendable prac-
tice. He took the cross-bill and looked at
ii a moment. He declared that its theory
was that this would be confiscation OF
property. This could not be sustained by
an ex parte affidavit like that of Mr.. Mil
holland, secretary of the company. In or
der to determine such question the court
should appoint an examiner, and the state
and city would be willing to meet them on
that ground.
Mr. Turner declared that it was custom
ary in suits in equity to file cross-bills. The
court said it was not his understanding that
the attorney general objected TO the filing
of the BILL but to its consideration.
The attorney general said his position was
not one of objection to filing the bill, but
he had noticed that when the camel got
it's head under the tent it tried to carry
off the tent.
In other words" interrupted Mr.. Miller,
you do object"
MIR. Miller seems to comprehend me bet
ter than his associate COUNSEL retorted
Mr. Ketcham, sarcastically, 'and /, of
course, am not furnishing comprehension"
ut was the court that did not compre-
hend."
II think the court understands me-"
''I had always understood. retorted Mr..
Miller ':that the attorney general was
capable of furnishing brains for AL the
lawyers and courts of the State"
mot only able but tries to do So" In
teriected General Harrison.
II plead guilty TO the cnarge," said the
attorney general, and proceeded again to
give his opinion.
The court gave leave to file the cross
bill. at the same time declaring that the
first question to be determined was the mo-
ton to dissolve the injunction.
MIR. KERN OPENS.
Mr.. Kern then took the floor to talk to
the motion to dissolve, and discussed at
length the decision of Judge Taft of the
Ohio circuit, sustained by the Supreme
Court. This was in the attacks of the ex-
press companies upon the Ohio tax law.
They took il before Judge Taft, who
granted temporary injunction. Then a
test case was taken before the Supreme
Court. and decided in favor of the State.
The companies had declined to participate
in the matter in the state court, and
brought this up as a point when opposing
a motion before Judge Taft to dissolve.
However the Federal Court dld dissolve
the Injunction. Mr.. Kern called attention
TO the fact that the federal courts In
VariabIy Welded to the state Supreme
Courts in the Interpretation OF state con-
stitutions He declared that this was not
a matter of state rights, but was necessary
TO the harmonious working of the Ameri-
can system of Jurisprudence.
II understand" said the court, that
when the Federal Court obtains jurisdic-
tion by the diversity of citizenship and the
question involved is local law. the iu-
terpretation of the State Supreme Court
is usually regarded as the law"
General Harrison was on his feet in .
moment. II beg that your Honor will not
announce any conclusion OF that kind" he
cried Il shall argue later that this act
involves the right of contract
The court said his remark applied only to
cases where the only federal question was
diversity OF citizenship Mr. Kern had not
expected to take up these other questions,
and after rambling about a little said that
unless the court desired him TO he would
not argue them,
The bin ITSELF" said General Harrison,
raised the question of the first article OK
the fourteenth amendment. and the inter-
ference with contracts. We expect TO argue
these propositions. and you are entitled 20
be heard upon them.
Mr.. Kern replied that he was arguing
upon the motion TO dissolve an injunction
which had been granted on the ground of
tha Indiana Constitution. but the eOnrt