The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-01-03
ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD
A CASE OF MUCH IMPORTANCE TO
THE BAR OF THE STATE.
The Supreme Court Now Considering
the Test Case Of George l..
Denny-Brfefs Filed.

The oral argument in the matter of the
petition of George l.. Denny for admission
to practice law, involving the adoption of
the constitutional amendments voted for at
the last election, was heard by the Supreme
Court yesterday afternoon.
Some time ago Judge Allen, of the Marion
Circuit Court, held that the two amend
ments voted for at the last election were
adopted, and therefore ne had a right TO
adopt rule requiring applicants for adj
mission to the bar to be examined before
a board appointed by him. George L.
Denny refused TO be examined, proved he
was a voter in Marion county and that he
had a good moral character, which was all
the old Constitution required. and there
fore he had right to admission to the bar
without examination. This the Circuit
Court denied. and Denny appealed to the
Supreme Court, and, by his attorneys.
Evans Woollen and w. w. Woollen, filed
his brief with the clerk of the Supreme
Court yesterday. The attorney general, b.
order Of the Supreme Court. was requested
to present the argument for the amend
ments, and he, with Judge Timothy r..
Howard, filed an exhaustive brief in favor
OF the adoption of the amendments.
THE CASE ADVANCED.
The case, on account of its great impor-
lance was advanced and set for oral argu-
ment yesterday afternoon at 2 o'clock. The
arguments for the appellant were made by
Evans woollen and w. w. Woollen. and for
the appellee by Judge Howard and Deputy
Attorney General Merrill Moores.
The appellant contended in argument
that the Constitution requires that an
amendment thereto must be voted for by a
majority of all the electors voting at such
election in order to be adopted. and that
since neither of the amendments voted for
at the last election obtained a majority of
all the votes cast for Governor, therefore
neither of them were adopted. The total
vote cast for Governor in the State at the
last election was 655,965. 1t was admitted by
attorneys for the appellant that both
amendments received more votes for them
than were cast against them. After read
ing the constitutional provision with ref
erence to Its own amendment Mr.. Evans
Woollen contended that the words II a
majority of the said electors shall ratify
the same" were equivalent to saying that a
ma ority of all electors voting at such cleo
ton must vote for the amendments.
He read from the constitutional debates
to show that that construction was the
purpose of the trainers Of the Constitu-
ton.
he quoted largely lEOIn the oWlt CASE
In which the Supreme Court of this State
by q majority decision held the above TO
be the proper construction, and that there
fore a majority of all the votes cast at an
election were required in order that the
amendments should be adopted.
THE STATES CONTENTION.
Judge Howard and Mr.. Moores in their
arguments contended that all that was
required to adopt an amendment TO the
Constitution was a majority Of the votes
cast by those voting for and against the
amendments. They quoted the constitu-
tional provision requiring electors to vote
for or against each amendment when two
or more are submitted at the same time.
They maintained that If a majority of all
the votes were required there would be
no necessity of counting the votes cast
against the amendments. Mr.. Moores par
ticularly argued that the Constitution it
self was originally adopted by less than
a majority of all the electors in the StaSe
at that time, and was adopted by a ma
iority of those voting for and against the
Constitution. He said that practically all
of the amendments to the Constitution
since is original adoption had been carried
by less than a majority of all the voters
in the State. He submitted the vote cast
for each of the amendments that are now
a part of the Constitution. and also the
vote cast at the general election Immediate
ly preceding and succeeding the elections
at which the amendments We're voted for.
In each case where special elections were
held the amendments were adopted by less
than a majority of the votes cast at such
general elections.
A decision in the case is expected by the
attorneys some time the latter part OF next
week.