The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1910-02-10
AS A REHEARING
OF OPTION CASE
Attorneys for NobIesville Sa-
Ioonist AIIege Four Err
rorS Were Made.
STATE READY FOR FIGHT
ATTORNEY GENERAL BINGHAM
AND AN ADDITIONAL STATE AS
SiSTANT WILL REPLY IN DE-
FENSE OF RULING.

SiSTANT WILL REPLY IN DE-
FENSE OF RULING.
Indianapolis, Feb. 1O-The next step
in the legal battle over the county local
option law will be the reply of Attor-
ney General Bingham and Hanly. Art
man X McAdams TO the application for
a rehearing of the case filed by Ferdi-
nand Winter of Indianapolis and Shirts
n t'ertig of Noblesville. Mr.. Winter
appeared with Shirts \ Fertig as coun-
sci for George Mcpherson. a Mobiles
Vile saloon keeper. in the case which
was carried. as a test, to the supreme
court. The court, in holding the law
constitutional, decided against Nc
Pherson.
Minority Reports Made.
filed minority dissenting opinion,
holding the law unconstitutional.
In their application the attorneys for
Mcpherson give four reasons why they
think the supreme court should grant
another hearing. The first is that the
court erred in deciding that the county
I local option act was not in conflict Sec.
10, Art. 4 of the Indiana constitution
and that the subjec, of the act is fair
1y expressed in the title. The second
is that the court erred in deciding that
the act is not in violation of Sec. -.
Art. l, of the constitution. which de
clares in substance that no law shall
be passed to take effect upon any 9TH
er authority than that provided in the
constitution.
TWO Other Errors Maintained.
The third reason advanced is that the
court erred in deciding that the statute
is not in conflict with Sec. %. Art ] of
| the constitution. which provides that
the operation of the laws shall never
be suspended by authority of the gen
| era lassembly." The fourth reason is
| that the court erred in deciding that
the statute did not violate Sec. l of Art
1. of the constitution. which provides
that the Legislative authority of the
state shall be vested in the General
/ Assembly,
! 1t is not TO be denied" Nc. Pher
sons attorneys say, in their argument
that full faith and credit is to be Civ
en- to every act of the legislature and
| that the presumption is that an act ol
! the legislature has validity. But such
| presumption is one which arises rather
| withOu the reading of the statute than
with it. and if upon reading the contra
| Iona
stands. For such presumtion as to the
| constitutionality of the statute. like
any other presumption. must give way
to the actual fact and demonstration
| just as the prisoner at the bar Is deem
ed in law not guilty and the presump
tion stands until dispelled by proof
An act of the legislature is not to bt
judged by the words it contains anC
light may also be thrown upon suci
words and the purpose of the statute
by the history of the times of its en-
actment.
But clearly, as shown in the dissent
ing opinion herein, n different inten
ton can not be imputed to the legisla
ture than the one it actually had. ant
if it appears from the clear and imam
biguous language used in the statute
thatthe legislature had a particular in
tent and that such intent can not b.
carried into law because of the viola
tion of the constitution. it is not within
the power of the court to substitute
different intent for the purpose of Sc
curing one which will be in harmony
Matter of Courtesy.
| In the mere matter of courtesy to
coordinate branch of the government
it seems to us it is fairer TO give th
legislature credit with a meaning
which it plainly expresses rather thai
to intimate that the legislature was ig
norant OF the meaning of its own word
and Of the Specification OF language
Furthermore. it is never to be for
gotten that construction of a statute i
permissible only when there is an am
biguity in the statute and where tn
words of the statute are clear and tn
purpose obvious it is not for the cour
by construction to change the languag
or Substitute other purpose. And W
contend that the language, of the stat
ute under consideration being SO clear
and unambiguous that the purpose o
the legislature stands forth in ever,
line thereof. such purpose can not b
changed by the court and that both IN
meaning and purpose of the statut
have been by the majority Of the cour
asserted 10 be other than the clear Ian
guage of the statute imports"