The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-12-27
WILL FIGHT TO THE END
RIVER BOUNDARY CASE TO GO TO
THE HIGHEST COURT.
what Attorney General Taylor Says
Extract from Dissenting Opinion
of Kentucky Judges.

A year ago in November the Court Of
Appeals of Kentucky, unanimously rendered
an opinion in the case OF Meyler VS.. Wed
ding, holding that Kentucky had exclusive
Jurisdiction on the Ohio river. and that no
Indiana court had any jurisdiction what
ever below low water mark. either In
criminal or civil matters; that no
could be served in a civil case. nor any
arrest made in a criminal case on the Ohio
river.
1t was not known to Attorney General
Taylor that such a case was pending at all
until after the decision had been rendered.
He then obtained leave of the Kentucky
attorneys to appear for them and file petit
ton for rehearing, and the Court of APP
peals permitted him to appear and have a
.reargument Of the case.
hat court now divides and two of the
judges, in very strong and vigorous dis
senting opinions. find in favor of the doc
trine of concurrent jurisdiction in both
civic and criminal jurisdiction in both
river between the States of Indiana and
Kentucky. The majority of the court,
however, refused to change their opinion
and the case will be certified back to
Bowling Green, KY, where proper records
will be made, permitting the case to be
taken to the Supreme Court of the United
States.
Attorney General Taylor has already
taken steps to perfect an appeal to the SUI
preme Court of the United States. 1t is a
question of too great Importance to In
diana to suffer such a decision to stand.
He says:
Indiana, for seventy years, has MAIN
tanned concurrent jurisdiction. Men have
been tried and convicted of murder in the
first degree; have suffered life sentences;
the rights of property have been disposed
or In Indiana where arrests were made
and service OF summons had on the Ohio
river below low water mark. Indiana will
not surrender jurisdiction now at this late
day. In fact the concurrent jurisdiction
was maintained by Indiana before she was
a State, during her territorial life.
If the case was one of first impression
with the court of Kentucky, II would be
different, but the Kentucky Court of APP
peals again and again have held that In
diction on the Ohio river. and this is the
first break from the long line of decisions
of her Supreme Court. 1t is without rea-
son and against all the authorities"
DISSENTING OPINIONS.
The two dissenting judges close their
vigorous opinion with the following Ian
| guage:
There is greater reason for the con-
current jurisdiction on the river where
line between the States than where the
line is at the center Of the stream, for
the reason that the State holding to the
water edge at mark on its side
Of the stream would otherwise be prac-
ticafly at the mercy of wrongdoers on the
river. and the policing of the stream
| woul be a burdensome tax In many cases
| on the other State with little correspond.
the Ohio the cities of Evansville, New
Albany, Jeffersonville, Madison, Lawrence
burg, Aurora Mount Vernon, Rockport
| Vevay, Canelton, Leavenworth and a num-
! Der OF smaller towns. Concurrent jurisdic-
ton is a practical necessity in the admin
istration of government on the river. Other
wise the police boats maintained by these
cities will be no protection. A thief can sit
| along side the wharf boat in open posses
sion Of stolen goods and the entire peo-
pie on the north shore of the river will be
utterly unable to protect their harbors
landings or wharves or other property from
the army of river tramps, here today. gone
Tomorrow, leaving no trace behind, and
only known to have been present from the
| stolen Ealuables that are not TO be found
I'm many years no practical inconven-
fence has resulted from the concurrent tu-
risdiction exercised by kentucky and In
| diana on the river, and there is no reason
for the apprehension of trouble in the
future that may not be settled by the prin-
ciples applied in other cases of conflict OF
| laws. The two States have concurrent ju-
| risdiction on the river, and neither can by
it's laws impair or control the Jurisdic-
| ton of the cause and the parties will re-
tain it and the courts of the ether State
will not interfere.
mo question of conflict of law arises In
this case. The only question is whether
| the judgment of the Indiana court is void
| for want of jurisdiction, because the pro-
cess on which ii was based was served
on the Ohio river"