The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-12-14
THEFORT WAYNECHARTER
ORAL ARGUMENTS MADE BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT.
n. =. Taylor, Allen collars and Ex-
Senator Barrett Iieard-Argu-
ment of Attorney General.


Dreibelbiss case. involves the question of
the consututionality of the amendment to
the Fort Wayne charter enacted by the
last Legislature. which created the City
Court in Fort Wayne. The law provides
that the court should begin its existence
on May last. The city election in Fort
Wayne took place on May Z, two days be-
fore the court came into existence. The
Governor appointed Dreiblebiss judge of
this court, as the law provides. Under the
statute he will serve until the next city
election in Fort Wayne which will occur
in 1895. The court below declared the law
creating the Fort Wayne Police Court I'M
constitutional. and from that decision this
appeal was prayed.
The other Fort Wayne case argued yes
terday was the police and fire department
case. This involved a construction of the
law enacted last winter creating the fire
and police board for Fort Wayne and plac-
ing in the hands of the Governor the APP
pOintment of such board. The court below
also held this provision of the law uncon-
stitutional and from that decision an APP
peal was prayed. The ground upon which
this case was held unconstitutional below
was that the Legislature had no right to
include the fire department with the police
commission bill, as the control of the fire
department was a matter of local concern,
and any law that took that out of the
hands Of the city was invalid. The Gov
ernOr had already appointed a Board of
Safety for Fort Wayne, and they are the
appellants in this case. The appellants
were represented in the argument by Judge
r. S. Taylor and James Il. Harper, of Fort
Wayne. and Attorney General Taylor. The
appellees were represented by eX-Supreme
Judge Allen collars and ex-senator James
NJ. Barrett, author of the famous Barrett
law. The court extended the time two
hours for the argument of both cases.
ROBERT S. TAYLOR ARGUES.
Robert S. Taylor opened the argument
for the appellants He analysed the con-
stitutional provisions of Indiana with ref
erence TO the right of the Legislature to
control municipalities at will. He said this
power of the Legislature extended TO the
creation of any court for cities deemed
necessary. and also for the appointment of
any boards for cities which the Legislature
in its wisdom saw fit. He held that the
city of Fort Wayne was no exception to
the rule that prevails in other cities in In
diana. Local control is not a constitu-
tiOnal right in Indiana and never has been
declared SO except In the indianapolis
cases, and in this case the language of
the court was not necessary to a decision
Of those casos and therefore to that extent
was dictum.
Mr.. Taylor was followed by Mr. collars
who discussed the Board of Safety cases.
He contended that the right of local self
government that came down to us from
before the time of the adoption of the
Constitution is prohibitive of the right of
the Legislature TO deprive any city of In
diana of the privilege of having local con-
troll. He insisted that the right of local
self-gOvernment is inherent in every city
and town in the State. The Indianapolis
cases, known as the Denny cases, were
specially relied upon to sustain his propo-
sitiOn In those cases, decided twelve
years ago, when the Legislature attempted
to appoint a Board of Public Works and
Board of Safety for Indianapolis the Su-
preme Court held such law unconStitu-
tional. basing it's decision upon the right
OF local self-government. In theses cases
the Legislature itself appointed the boards.
Ex-senator Barrett then discussed the
municipal court case. He charged that
this was attempt to take the selection
OF the judiciary from the people and vest
the appointing power thereof in the Gov
ernor. and that this was unconstitutional.
He said that all judicial officers must be
elected by the people. He referred to the
charge that politics was responsible for
this law, and declared that dangerous
precedent would be set IL the law was sus-
tanned.
James B. Harper briefly discussed the
Police Court case. He recited the cases
heretofore arising similar to the Fort
Wayne cases, in other cities in Indiana. lie
said that in Indianapolis the city judge is
elected by the people. In Evansville the
city Judge is appointed by the mayor. In
other cities the mayor acts police Judge
and In still other cities, like Fort Wayne,
the people elect the police Judge. He
pointed to the fact that the Governor only
appoints to fill q vacancy that will exist
until the next city election in Fort Wayne.
He raised the point that Representative
Loutitt who claims to have been elected
judge May :, last. could not serve be-
cause there was no court in existence at
that time.
ATTORNEY GENERAL HEARD.
Attorney General Taylor closed the case
with an argument for the appellants. in
favor of sustaining the law. He briefly
discussed the Police Court case, charging
that Loutitt, who is acting as police judge
in Fort Wayne, is serving wholly without
authority, because the law which is here
assailed is the very law that creates his
court and is the only law that authorizes
the election of a police Judge in Fort
Wayne. Mr.. Taylor pointed out that when
Loutitt pretends to have been elected on
May Z, there was no court organized
and there is no Sucn thing as q Judge with
out a court The attorney general then dis
cusSed the Board of Safety case He said
City governments are wholly creatures of
law. With a single breath of legislation
every municipal government in Indiana
can be annihilated. BY legislation munich
pal powers can be enlarged, curtailed or
destroyed. The city governments of Mem
phis. Mobile and Baltimore. by their re-
spective State Legislatures, were obliter-
ated. and the Supreme Court of the United
States. in each of the three cases sustained
that legislation. Anywhere between crea-
ton and destruction of a city government
the Legislature has power TO govern. The
Constitution distinctly provides that all
municipal governments existing in 1851
should have their powers enlarged. cur
tailed destroyed at the will OF the I.eeis-
lature. This has been the universal rule
in Indiana for sixty years. except in tho
HOlt-Denny case twelve years ago. That
case arose over struggle between the
executive and legislative departments The
Legislature claimed the right to name the
time Mr.. Taylor was city attorney and adj
vised against surrendering any of the de-
partments 10 the boards elected bv the
Legislature. for the reason that the Gov
ernOr had the right TO make the appoint
ment The Supreme Court sustained this
position and the law was overthrown The
attorney general referred TO Mr. Barrett :
assertion that II would be a dangerous
thing 10 take city control away from the
people OF the city. and said; THE great
dangers to-day that Turk in the pathway of
our countrys future are the increasing
criminal and vicious classes that infest the
great cities. No more salutery influence
| can be brought 10 bear upon these vicious
elements than the conservative force OF the
whole State-speaking through its Cover
nor Local control and local self-goveru-
ment so far as the police powers are con-
| ceTned in our great cities is a theory that
| has not been proved wise in practice"