The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-06-26

brief. mot formally but informally" and
the attorney general handled pamphlet
behind his back.
MR.. MILLER PROTESTS.
This brought Mr.. Miller to his feet with
a protest. Mr.. Miller told how he had been
invited by Judges Hackney and Monks to
call upon Chief Justice Jordan, who had
invited him to appear as a friend of the
court. He had replied that they were not
parties to the suit. Judge Jordan had re-
piled that if they had any briefs or au-
thorities the court would be glad to get
them. He replied that he would do so, but
they could not consent to have anything
nled in the case. AS soon as they were
printed he had sent copy for each judge,
and a few days later Mr. Winter, having
seen a brief by the attorney general, had
written out few sugges lions which he had
also sent 10 the judges.
The attorney general remarked that he
was glad TO learn the authorship of that
anonymous brief. He declared that he had
brought this matter out to convince the
court that the street-railroad interest had
been amply heard by the Supreme Court.
He then turned to the bill of complaint.
There was not a word in it to show that
penny OF the money realized on these
bonds had been used for the benefit of the
plant. He declared that indianapolis was
not confscating city. 1t was a aw-abid-
ing, cOurt-obeying city, and he cited the
ready submission it had given to the order
of this court. Should it ever be ascertained
by reasonable proof that upon honest in
NeStment reaSonab bic remuneration could not
be got from 3-cent fare not a man in
this city would demand it, But when a
property was taken in at $3,000000 and COM
peheu 10 carry ~, OOO of bonds and s., 600, =
w or stock with 5-cent fares it was a differ
ent matter. He ccmplimented very highly
the opinion written by Judge Monks.
He then read from the constitutions of
various States from which decisions had
been cited showing that it was competent
10 amend general statute by special enact
ment He denied the right of this court to
interpret the laws Of Indiana by the Con-
stltut1on OF Indiana. He declared that this
was not the nrSt time these gentlemen had
enueaVored to eVade the Supreme Court Of
the state, and cited the case of FOrSythe
against the city of Hammond He declared
that upon federal questions the construction
OF the Federal Court was always bowed to
by the state courts and upon purely state
law as interpreted by the highest court Of
the state. He passed rather lightly over the
Louisville case. upon which General Harri-
son had largely relied, declaring that it was
question of the construction of a contract
question of general law. He laid great
stress upon the remarks of Justice Brewer
contracts he argued that no contract was
possible under the law of 1861 that would
prevent the amendment of that law All
Ihere was IN this case was the question Of
whether general statute can be amended
by special enactment and that was purely
a question of statutory construction They
mad spoken about mandate. OF course the
State Supreme Court could not mandate
this one. 1t was powerless as a babe when
It reached the threshold of this court 1t
had nothing behind it but the law, not the
law of the State. but of the United States.
This court was bound to observe the con-
struction of the state Supreme Court.
Passing to the contention that the Scent
fare law was in conflict with the fourteenth
amendment, he argued that the larger pop
ulatlon or indianapolis made a smaller rate
of fare possible and made it impossible that
the same conditions and circumstances
should prevail thus demanding the equal
aty guaranteed in this amendment.
he said woeful picture had been painted
about the consequences that might flow
from this law. when people have their
hands in other peoples pockets and want
a vested right to keep them there it is won
dertul how pathetic their counsel can
at General Harrison. Il am also panied to
learn that the conduct of the attorney gem
sral is not satisfactory to opposing counsel
believe it was Pope who first said:
- No thief e'er felt the halter draw
With good, opinion of the-attorney gen.
eral.'
"Then the law and the attorney general
are synonymous?' asked Mr.. Winter.
y am simply quoting Pope"
He returned to the question of the judi
cial functions of the prosecutor and went
over the subject again at length.
Before concluding the attorney general
commented on the way the street-car COM
pany had crawled into the case in the Su-
preme Court ''by crawling under the tent
and introducing briefs in other than the
regular channels"
The attorney general concluded his argu-
ment at 4:30. Judge Showalter asked for a.
copy of the Supreme Court decision and
placed it with the papers III the case He
said he would leave for Chicago on the IL
O'Clock train and would there consider the
case.
Before the court adjourned the attorneys
crowded forward and paid their respects to
the judge. General Harrison offered the
use of his carriage to Judge Showalter that
he might be able to view the city. He de-
clined the offer with thanks, saying that
he had an engagement and could not afford
the time.