The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-02-14
supreme Court Cannot Give an opin-
ion Unless "A Specific Case Arises
i'm the Lower Courts.
MORE SALARY FOR GOVERNOR
HOUSE ADOPTS COMMITTEE REPORT
FIXING 1T At $4,000.
WampIer Renews Fight for shot
Firing BiII-Action on Bills In
House and Senate.

Senator Walter L. Ball, OF Muncie, yester-
day morning on the floor OF the Senate
a brilliant sermon on the general
subject of the foolishness OF wasting time
over bills which are plainly unconstitutional
and impracticable. The senator from Del
aware took that stand at the beginning
of the session. and in the face of consider
able opposition and in positions where his
infiexibility was severely tried, has
maintained the wisdom of his theory snat
the time of the Senate should not be wasted
on measures which controvert the Consti-
tuition of the State or the opinions of the
courts.
While general and far-reachng his SER
mon was at the same time a powerful
philippe against particular bill. and so
telling were his arguments that Senate bill
No S. was laid in the grave
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL.
This bill provided that whenever the
consututionality of a measure before
either house of the General Assembly
should be attacked. it might. after second
reading. be referred to the Supreme Court,
by two-thirds vote, for the courts opin-
ion. In such cases the bill was to be de-
Tended before the high tribunal by the at
torney general. and an attorney might be
employed by persons interested i'm the other
side to present the conflicting view to the
court. The bill has been in the hands
of the Senate comn.ittee on judiciary No.
ever since Jan. IL, when il was intro
duced. Its constitutionality was attacked
in committee room by Senator Ball. and
other members, and their arguments were
so effective that majority report was
presented yesterday morning recommending
that the bill be indefinitely postponed. A
minority report accompanied the recom-
mendation to kill, apd the speeches arose
over the motion to substitute the minority
report for the majority.
Senator Ball fortified his arguments
against the bill by numerous citations from
incontrovertible authorities.
The Senate. he said, should. endeavor to
avoid wasting time over bills of this kind
bills that would have short shrift with the
Supreme Court. Senate bill No. 65. he said,
was so plainly unconstitutional that he
wondered why there was any necessity to
waste time over il at all. II provided in
reality, he pointed out, for an encroach-
and gave the Supreme Court powers that
would be extrajudicial.
QUESTION NOT NEW.
"The question is not new" said Senator
Ball. ut is old. and in every single in
stance the high courts have handed down
opinions declaring that the Supreme Court
has business TO tell the Legislature
whether bill is constitutional or uncon-
stitutional The only time that the opinion
of the court can be given," Senator Ball
said. "as has been ruled dozens of times, il
in cases before it. Then and only then can
the constitutionality OF a law be decided
To say that the Supreme Court can go out
of it's way to advise a Legislature il alb
surd, dangerous and subversive of good
government. 1t would be unwise and un-
just so far as individual citizens are con-
cerned. -.
In addition Senator Ball argued that the
Supreme Court of Indiana is too busy as IL
is without having its time taken up with
such things as giving advice TO the Legis-
lature. The court might be flooded with re-
quests of this kind and might have little
time to consider other more important busi-
ness,
Senator Ball declared he had made a
careful investigation of the constitutional
aspects of the question and that he had
gone into the matter exhaustively He had
found in every single instance, he said that
the courts have decided that the function
of the Supreme Court is TO look into the
constitutionality of law only when specific
cases reach 1t from the lower courts.
In the matter of the application OF the
Senate 90 Minnesota, 7S) IT was held by the
Supreme Court OF Minnesota that the Legis-
lature has no power or authority TO require
by statute the judges of the Supreme Court
TO render opinions on questions OF law at
the request and merely for the Informal
tion Of the Legislature, for the reason that
such an act upon the part of the judiciary
was extrajudic.al that IL was an encroach-
ment of the legislative upon the judicial
department of the government. whereas
these departments are coordinate: and also
that such an expression of opinion by the
judges would not be binding upon parties
court for actual judicial determination.
AUTHORITIES QUOTED.
Senator Ball also called attention TO the
opinion of Judge Black, given at length In
his constitutional Law" In which the
learned jurist gives expression to almost
the identical ideas
Those interested I'm the discussion OF the
question Senator Ball referred TO the fol-
lowing authorities:
"By the Constitution OF Rhode Island
(Section /, Article 10. Constitution r. l.
of the Supreme Court are. when requested
by either house OF the General Assembly
or by the Governor, required 10 give their
written opinion upon any question of law.
(Sec. 2, Ch. 3, C0nst. Mass. a. ! Rev.
Laws of Mass, 1902. OF Colorado (Sec. z.
Col. 1ssl-lsse). of Maine Sec 3. Art. s.
Const. Me-, PIP 47-ss. r. s Me-. 1850. and OF
New Hampshire Cart. %, Const. n. H.. p
"A. Pub. st. and Sess., Laws of ~ H.. lsoi.
each branch of the Legislature and the
Governor and the Council have authority TO
require the opinions OF the justices OF the
Supreme Court upon important questions
of law and upon solemn occasions
"The Constitution OF Florida (Sec Is. Art.
A. Const. Fla. u 80. r. s. Fla) contains q
provision which grants TO the Governor
only the power to require the opinions in
writing OF the justices OF the Supreme
Court as TO the Interpretation OF any por-
ton of this Constitution upon any question
affecting his executive powers and duties
nf0D0unQlu
the court by the House of Representatives.
reported In las Mass, 62S, at p GA. the su-