The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-05-11
STICKS TO FIRST RULING
JUDGE BAKERS ATTITUDE IN BAR
RETT LAW CASE.
what He Has to Say OF the Supreme
Court-Dickman VIII Attacked
Other Court Cases.

Judge Baker, of the Federal Court, yes-
terday made a ruling sustaining the ex-
ceptions of the compliments to the an
swer OF the defendants in the cease of
James Charles against the city of Marion
and the Warren-Scharf Asphalt Paving
Company The court adheres to its original
decision in maintaining the Barrett law to
be unconstitutional Notwithstanding the de-
cision of the State Supreme Court to the
contrary, and insists that that court has
reversed itself. Judge Baker says:
1T is now insisted, because a majority
OF the Supreme Court of this State. In
the case of Adams against the city of
Shelbyville, has for the first time In our
judicial history construed the Barrett law
authorizing assessments for street and
alley improvements according to special
benefits, that this court should reverse
its previous rulings and follow this new
reading of the statute. However erroneous
and illogical a decision of the Supreme
Court of the State may be, the inferior
courts of the State bound to abdicate
their own judgments and follow It, Such,
however, Is not the unfortunate situation
Of this court This court Is at liberty to ex-
ercise it's own judgment as to the construc-
ton and validity of the Barrett law.
II feel constrained to adhere to my
former opinions in this case, because 1
prefer to follow the judgments and opin-
ions of the Supreme Court of this State.
which, for more than forty years, IN
numerous decisions, have held exactly the
reverse of the majority of the Supreme
Court in the case of Adams against the city
of Shelbyville In my opinion, the harmon
ious judgments of the numerous learned
judges who have occupied seats on the Su-
preme Bench of this State during the past
fcrty years and who have uniformly con-
strued the statute in harmony with the con-
struction given to IL by this court, are
entitled to more weight than is to be at
tributed to the opinion of the four judges
who concur in the decision in the case Of
Adams against the city Of Shelbyville.
Nor can 1 follow this later ruling, be-
cause ii emasculates and practically re-
law and rewrites them in a sense never
before attributed to them. If the
Legislature meant that the cost of street
ard alley improvements should be as
Sessed according to actual benefits, why
did IL provide, in the same sentence, for
sewer assessments according to benefits
and for street improvements and alley
assessments by the front-foot rule?
This statement defines Its own mean
ing and shows in language too plain for
doubt, and too plain to be fairly inter-
preted away, that the Legislature UNDER
stood the difference between the frontage
rule and assessments according to bene-
| fits. and did purposely prescribe the 'front.'
| foot rule for streets and alleys, and the
| rule of actual benefits for sewer improve
ments.
Besides. the statute as rewritten by the
majority of the Supreme Court is, in my
| opinion, unconstitutional. The reasons why
| it is unconstitutional are well stated in the
dissenting opinion in the case of Adams
| against the city of Shelbyville, to which I
| refer, and in which / concur