The Indianapolis journal., 1904-05-01
COUNTY OFFICERS LAW
is DECLARED INVALID
Judge West, at Crawfordsville,
Rules on Demurrer. to the Plea
in Hendricks County Case.
AGAINST PUBLIC VEAL.

Special to the Indianapolis Journal.
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Ind, April 30
Judge Jere West. of the Montgomery Cir
cult Court, in a long decision to-day sus-
tained defendants demurrer in the case of
John E. Vestal VS.. z. Z. Dougan. Repub-
lican county chairman; John Taylor, Re-
publican county secretary, and James a.
Clay the latter being the Republican nomi-
nee for treasurer, all of Hendricks county.
The case involved the constitutionality of
the act of the last Legislature whereby it
was sought to extend the term of the coun-
ty treasurer. Vestal is the present treas
urer Should the law be valid he holds un-
til Jan. l. 1907. Otherwise, his two years
term will expire Jan. l. 1906. Clay, as the
Republican nominee for treasurer, was
made party to the suit
The suit was for an injunction to re-
strain Dougan as chairman and Taylor as
secretary from certifying Clays nomination
to the board of election commissioners. The
effect of the decision is to deny the injunc-
ton. The case will go to the Supreme Court.
The judge of the Warren Circuit Court
also held the law unconstitutional a few
brought at the direction of the Republican
state committee, While the county officers
had the suit brought in Hendricks county.
in Warren the treasurer is serving his sec
ond term, and the law would give him more
than four years-the constitutional limit
while in Hendricks county the treasurer is
serving his first term, and the law would
not give him more than four years.
1t is said that the attorneys for the coun-
ty officers are glad that Judge West held
the low unconstitutional as this will make
it possible for them to appeal. If he had
held otherwise they feared the Republican
state committee would not have appealed
and the Hendricks county situation could
not have been brought before the Supreme
Court 1t is the plan TO take appeals to the
Supreme Court in both cases as quickly as
possible.
Judge West held that the act was clearly
and unmistakably contrary to the Consti-
tuition, which provides that certain county
officers cannot hold Office for more than
four years in period of six and that others
cannot hold for more than eight years in
period of twelve.
Judge West ruled that while the Constitu-
ton does not expressly prohibit the passage
of such law as the act of 1908, it certainly
implies that no such right is vested in the
Legislature.
1t is the sacred duty of the courts to up
hold the Constitution, and therefore the
stamp of disapproval should be placed upon
the county officers act, as a check and
safeguard against future legislation in this
direction. Should such a law be accepted
as constitutional the Legislature would
have il in it's power to continue a set of
county officers indefinitely in office and GER
tainly such power would be an abuse of the
legislative authority.
Judge West declared that not only did he
believe the law to be unconstitutional but
that in his opinion it is not in the public
interest. He believes the public is already
better served under the present system of
county officers taking their seats at differ
ent times than 1t could possibly be should
entirely new set go into office at the
same time as is contemplated in the act in
dispute