The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-05-25
COUNTY OFFICERS LAW
CASE ARGUED IN COURT
Recent Legislative Enactment Is
Brought Before State
Tribunal.
TWO ADVERSE RULINGS
Hendricks and Warren County
Courts Have Decided Against
the Law.
TWO ADVERSE RULINGS

The first day of the May term Of the
Supreme and Appellate courts was marked
yesterday by the handing down of three
opinions by each judge. making thirty-three
I'm all. and in the Supreme Court, by the
hearing of the oral argument in the case
in which the constitutionality Of the county
officers law, enacted by the last General
Assembly. is attacked
In this case r. o. Hawkins and Merrill
Moores represented the appellants. the
county officers who organized to make the
fight 10 uphold the law, while Thad 5.
Adams and Addison G. Harris appeared for
the appellees, who are attacking the law.
The Circuit courts of both Hendricks and
Warren counties have held the law uncon-
stitutional.
In the argument the only question con-
sidered was whether the act of 1903, post
poning the election of certain county and
judicial officers, to the end that the terms
OF all such officers might begin the frst
of the calendar year, is constitutional IL
was not denied that the law. if upheld. will
lengthen the terms OF many Of these OF
fcers. the extensions ranging from few
weeks in some instances TO almost two
years in others. 1t was also admitted that
in some counties il would necessitate the
appointment of treasurers for term of
one year because the present officers will
have held Office the four years allowed by
the Constitution before the time arrives
for electing their successors under the new
law.
The attorneys for the appellants con-
tending the validity of the act argued that
the Legislature can pass any law which
the Constitution does not forbid, and that
there Is nothing in the construction requir
ing general elections TO be held every two
years, or forbidding the Legislature TO
postpone the election Of officers for prop
er purpose They insisted that making
all terms of officers to begin the next jan
uary after their election was a worthy
purpose, and that considerations of public
policy would uphold rather than overthrow
the law. They urged that the law of 1869.
which first provided for biennial, instead of
annual, elections had the effect of keeping
scores Of officers in office year longer
than the terms for which they, were elected
and yet that act was never questioned.
A liberal construction of the Constitution
was insisted on. and the dangers incident
10 such a narrow Interpretation as would
defeat the will of the people expressed by
the Legislature were urged upon the court.
The appellees' attorneys found many i'm
piled limitations on the power OF the Legis-
lature in the Constitution. They urged that
the provisions for the election of officers at
general elections, who should hold Office
two years, implied that q general election
must be held every two years. The danger
of a construction of the Constitution which
might give a legislature the power to per-
petuate one political party In office by
passing laws postponing the election of
Governor, judges and other state officers
was pointed out. 1t was argued that if the
legislature could postpone the election of a
treasurer beyond one general election it
could do so for ten general elections, and If
1t could do this in the case of treasurer it
could do the same for the Governor.
The sound public policy of a law,
which would make all county offices
throughout the State change hands on the
same day, was also questioned. Ii was es-
pecially urged that the fact that the treas
urer of Warren county was now on his
second term and being ineligible 10 serve
after Jan. i, 1906, must be succeeded by an
appointed officer for II e next year, made
the act invalid. 1t was insisted that as this
officer must, under the Constitution, vacate
his office before the general election in 1906
the Constitution clearly demanded that his
successor be elected in 1904. And it was
asserted that these invalid provisions of
the law were so interviewer with the other
provisions that all must fail together.
A number of county officials who are di-
rectly interested in the decision in this
case were present to hear the argument
1t is expected that decision will be handed
down by the court at an early date.