The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-10-13
ARGUMENT. A BIT SPICY
APPELLATE COURT CASE HEARD BY
THE SUPREME BENCH.
Remarks That Indicated the Views of
Two of the Judges-The Re-
Iator Question.

The oral argument in the Appellate Court
judgeship case occupied the entire day in
the Supreme Court yesterday. The argu-
ment for the plaintiffs was opened by C. A
Korbly, who took an entirely opposite view
Of the cause of the REALTORS to that taken
by the State and printed in yesterdays
Journal. He maintained that as the relief
asked for was something in which all the
people of the State were interested, il could
be shown that the candidates were properly
Joined as REALTORS in the petition and en-
titled to sue jointly.
He denied that the petition depended on
the several interests of the candidates in
each obtaining an office for himself. He
claimed that in this case the REALTORS were
not the plaintiffs, and the rule that all who
join as plaintiffs must have joint cause OF
action does not apply. He maintained that
all judicial office holders are rghtfully
elected by the people, and in case vacancy
occurs the Governor has the power to ap-
point a successor, but only for term last
ing until the next general election. Any
other extension of the term of an official, he
held, is in effect an appointment for an
extended term, which the Legislature is not
empowered to make. He contended that
the terms of the present judges expired at
the end of the two months ending March /.
1897, when, according to the law under
which it was created, it was specified that
the court should go out of existence. In
this manner he reasoned the present
judges were holding office under appoint
ments by the Legislature.
G. l.. Reinhard, for the election commits
sioners. held that by the declaration of the
candidates that each of them was of the
required age, lawyer in good standing and
otherwise fitted to be a judge of the APP
pellate Court they had forced themselves
out of the position assumed by them of be-
ing citizens simply seeking the enforcement
of the law. He asserted that the Constitu-
ton of the State expressly provided that
the Legislature has authority to extend the
term of an Office created by it and to pro-
vide by law how the office should be filed.
The Constitution also provides that as they
are elected according to law they are en-
titled to hold their offices until their sue
cessors are elected under some valid law,
and that the Legislature did not provide in
any way for the election of their success
sors until the abolition of the court in 1901
Attorney General Ketcham followed out the
line of argument printed yesterday in these
columns.
F. E. Gavin, who closed for the candi-
dates, maintained that as all the REALTORS
were affected by the refusal to print their
names on the official ballots they had the
right to joint action to have the act of the
election commissioners reversed The basis
of his argument was that the present judges
were only elected for term of two months.
During the argument of George L. Rein
hard Judge McCabe took occasion to ask a
rev questions. When Mr.. Reinhard said
that the plaintiffs had not joint interest
as citizens in the reversal of the decision
OF the election commissioners, but as can
didates, Judge McCabe said: Does the
complaint allege that they, are citizens?"
to which Attorney Reinhard replied that it
had been so alleged in order to show the
right Of the plaintiffs to be candidates:
Later, when Mr. Reinhard discussed the
right of the Legislature to extend the term
of the judges to four years. Judge McCabe
asked: What was. the term of Office to
later: IF 1 had the signing of their com
missions think they would read for two
months Hardly had Judge McCabe ceased
information, and in doing so displayed a
McCabe.
The statements of Judge McCabe plainly
vexed Attorney General Ketcham, who, as
soon as Attorney Reinhard sat down,
Jumped up and pointing his index finger at
question straight from the shoulder. The
Appellate judges were elected for term of
Tour years.
He then went on to show that the judges
were now subject to conditions made SUBJ
sequent to their election. During the course
of a ten minutes talk his voice pitched
high and loud, the attorney general waved
his arms and fired statement after state
ment at Judge McCabe. During one of
his heated remarks he said: sit would re-
quire an attorney of more than ordinary in
telfigence to understand the attitude of
Judge, McCabe's mind. from the questions
he asked, and 1t would not require an at
torney of great intelligence to understand
the attitude Of Judge Jordan" With this
remark he directed his gaze straight at
Judge McCabe and said: Lawyers like to
be asked questions, even though the judge
questioning. indicates a very discouraging
tendency of mind