The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-03-11
BRIEF in MlNTURN CASE
FILED IN SUPREME COURT BY
CHAIRMAN E~LLIOTT'S ATTORNEYS.
Ii Is Thought the High Court Will
Render a Decision Within the
Next Few Days.

Attorneys Fred \. Joss and James W.
Noel yesterday filed in the Supreme Court
the appellees' brief and argument in the
case entitled the State of Indiana on the
relation OF Joseph A. Minturn. appellant,
against Charles y. Elliott, as chairman of
the Republican central committee of Mar
ion county, and others. This is the case
that grew out of the refusal of Chairman
Elliott and the election commissioner TO
place Mr.. Minturn's name on the primary
election ballots for the Republican primary
to be held next Friday for the nomination
Of joint senator for Marion and Morgan
counties. Mr.. Elliott claimed the primary
law does not provide for a joint senator
to be nominated by direct primary. and told
Mr.. Minturn that the nomination would
be by delegate convention. Mr.. Minturn
brought suit to compel the commissioners
to place his name on the ballots. but
the demurrer of Mr.. Elliott and the COM
m~issioners was sustained.
The case was carried to the Supreme
Court last week by Mr.. Minturn. The brief
filed by the appellees yesterday comedies
that the brief of the appellant has correct
ly stated the nature OF the action, the is
sues and decision. The brief states that
Mr.. Minturn was told that the joint SEN
atOrial candidate would be selected by dele
gate convention. After he sued to man
date the chairman and commissioners the
court below sustained the separate de-
murrers of the appellees to the alternative
writ and the petition and affidavit upon
which the writ was issued.
LAWS PROVISIONS.
The appellees in their brief contend that
the law does not provide for the holding
of primary elections for the nomination of
a senator from a senatorial district; that
the senatorial district is not included with
in the language of the statute and that
such an election was not contemplated by
the statute: that the statute does not re-
quire the chairman Of the county central
committee TO receive such a petition and
does not require the county board to place
the name on the ballot for said office; that
there is no provision in the law for hold
ing joint primaries between the counties
of Marion and Morgan, and no provision
for canvassing the returns for the two
counties Jointly, so hat the same might be
certified to the proper election boards, and
that in general there is no duty devolving
upon the appellees respecting the office or
candidates therefor, to which the appellant
is an asDiTant.
The appellees also contend that the de-
murrers were properly sustained for the
reason that the relief commanded by the
alternative writ is greater than appellant
would be entitled to, in that he seeks to
compel the Board Of Election Commission
ers to place his name on the ballot, where
as it is not shown that they have refused
to do the same, and that the writ and the
motion and petition therefor are INSULT
cient. Neither the alternative writ nor
the motion and affidavit contain any allie
cation that the Board of Election Com
missiOners nave refused or have threat
ened TO refuse 10 do any act imposed upon
them by law, yet relief against them is
sought.
The case will be considered a once by the
Supreme Court, and a decision may be
handed down within the next two days.