The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-08-02
THE SELLING OF A VOTE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDS
TT Is AN .iNFAMOUs CRIME"
Question to He Discussed Before SUI
preme Court In Harry
Baum's Case.

Deputy Attorney General Hadley filed a
brief for the State yesterday in the SUI
preme Court in the case of Harry Baum.
who was convicted by the Montgomery
County Circuit Court under the Caraway
law of the last Legislature on the charge OF
selling his vote at the November election
last year. Baum was disfranchised for
twelve years. This is one OF thirty-six
cases of voters selling their franchises in
Montgomery county, about which much
was printed at the time OF the trial of
Baum and for some weeks previous.
The States brief Is particularly interest
ing because 1t defends the Caraway law
from a powerful attack made on ii by
Baum's counsel on the ground of it's al
legged unconstitutionality. Appellants at
torneys maintained in their that
the Caraway statute is not sound because
the Constitution of Indiana allows the Leg
~islature 10 provide Acknowledgement only
I'm case a man has been convicted of an in
famous crime. and an infamous crime. they
assert. means one for which n Denitentiary
sentence may be assessed. The Caraway
law assesses no other punishment for vote
selling than Acknowledgement
Mr.. Radley contends in his brief that the
Constitution must be interpreted in connec-
tion with statutes existing at the time of
its adoption. The statutes of 1915. which
were in force at the time the present Con-
stitution was adopted. defined an Infamous
crime. and among other things provided
that a person shall be deemed guilty of an
Infamous crime. so as TO render him i'm
eligible 10 vote. when he has been convicted
of a crime a part OF the punishment for
which Il disfranChisement for any de-
terminate period. Mr.. Hadley asserts that
this definition entered into the framing of
the section of the Constitution referring
20 Acknowledgement and that the meaning
OF the term infamous crime must be de-
termined by this statute of 1913.
Another point made In the States brief is
that Under the old common law definitions
OF Infamous crime the crime itself and
not the punishment described its infamy
Certainly a man who is so lost TO honor.
SO degraded and unprincipled as to make
his right OF suffrage, his highest right Of
citizenship. says the brief. "a pure matter
OF merchandise. Is so CLOTHED in irfamv and
loaded with degradation that the mere mat
ter OF Imprisonment az hard labor could NOT
possibly add thereto
The brief concludes I'm the following man
ner: Counsel for appellant enters into a
populis;ic Jeremiad about the rights of the
rich and the poor and the power of the ricn
10 control elections under such a law In
has no place in this brief. We cannot see
the results OF the workings OF this law as
counsel see them. II the voter realizes that
by selling his vote ne deprives himself of
the right 10 vote. places himself in the
piliOry OF the public eye. disgraces himself
for all time. BE- thereby shOrn OF his citizen.
the open market. The law ithe Carawav
statutel Is a good law; IL Is constitutional.
IL should be upheld.
Mr.. HadIey regarded the opinion OF Judge
West or the Montgomery Circuit Court i'm
the Eau case as of such value that he in.
~corporatcd it in the brief for the state. This
opinion is printed in the form OF an appen-
dix al the end Of the brief.