Pierre weekly free press. (Pierre, S.D.) 1889-19??, 1915-05-20
A A LEGAL TILT

A SHARP LEGAL TILT
Hearing evidence and arguments of
counsel occupied the attentionof Judges
Of the supreme court or Monday last,
in the matter of Judge Mccoy Of that
court against j. e. Handlin, involving
the constitutionality of the $50 90 per
month expense vouchers to each mem
Der of the supreme bench.
Joe Kirby of Sioux Falls appeared
in behalf of the defendant, uandlin,
who argued at length that the court had
reason of personal interes It of each mem
Der of the court in the outcome.
l.. L. Stephens and John Sutherland,
attorneys CT this city, appeared for the
plaintiffs, contended that Judge Nc
Coy had a right to a hearing and decis-
ion in this matter, and that the supreme
court was the only court before which
such an action could be brought. They
also contended that the $50 warrants
paid the judges each month were for
j climate expenses, and were o per-
q~uisites of office, and therefore were as
legal as the expense warrants allowed
other state officials, for any service.
They further argued that the fault
rested uponthe defendant in this action,
iii bringing the matter before this body,
v hich had a lively personal interest in
the result, as he should have, if he de.
sired to test out the constitutionality of
the custom adopted years ago; made a
test case of the warrants issued to some
other state officer, and not hold up pay
ment vouchers to the members of the
supreme court.
The continued contention of Lawyer
Kirby, was ON three grounds: that the
justice had an adequate remedy at law
outside the supreme court; that the
judges of the supreme court were all
disqualified to sit, as parties in interest;
that Chapter 239, Laws of 1911, is di-
rectly in violation of constitutional re-
strictions. Mr.. Kirby, in his argu-
ment, made his strong point that of ju-
risdiction and the rights of the judges
OF the supreme court to sit I'M case
they bad a direct interest, and
continued stated, that while an injus
tice might be done by lack of final court
to act in cases where there was no other
court to hear the issues, there would be
greater injustice if they would proceed,
rs it would open the way to abuses. He
declared that a judgment obtained
against the state at any time would be
AN appropriation in itself and would not
lequire legislative action to secure a
warrant, but did not consider the pro-
vision of a constitution itself which pro
llbits the payments except upon spe-
citic appropriation. He stated his per-
onal willingness to submit any issue to
the supreme court with a belief In their
integrity of decision, and concluded
with the statement that the judges of
he supreme court had the respect OF
he people, but need use care to. see
taat they retained the same.
The argument of attorneys for the
court was that prior to 1911, the SUI
RENE court a absolutely the only de-
partment of the state which was not
ipplied with an expense account, and
@hile every officer of the state had been
$ , supplied since statehood, and is now
cling supplied, without constitutional
provision authorizing such expenditure,
and that the court is in the position OF
al other officers in being given such an
allowance. 1t was argued that the con
s~titution neither provides for nor pro-
il.bits the allowance OF expense for state
ulcers, leaving that to the judgment of
the legislature.
AS to the right of the supreme. court
to hear the matter in which the mem
hers thereof are personally interested,
it was alleged that it it has not the
right, the State Auditor, at his discre-
t on, might refuse to Fay salary war
r.nts and leave a court either to serve
,ithout compensation or to quit, leav-
! iag the state without courts, as under
tie contention of the defense, no court
has a right to sit in a matter in which
it waS at Interested.
The supreme court has taken under
aavisement the matter and an opinion
may not be written for a week.
@4S
nArrynnrorr no nvrnr rr~-