Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-10-28

day Of the election, but it has been
| omitted.
Now as to the other question: "was
there another remedy?"
| In my judgment there Is a clear rem
edy. and the Legislature has provided for
| it.
1t is the rule Of mandamus proceed
| tngs that If there is another remedy, q
clear remedy, that writ of mandamus
| will not lie, the same as the rule as to
suits in equity.
| Heretofore, we have resorted simply to
the question of challenge.
A would-be voter was challenged be-
cause he was not a voter, whereupon he
! filed his affidavit to the effect that be
was d voter
A counter-affidavit could then be fled
~whereupon, If the voter insisted upon
voting, he must produce two voters Of
the precinct, either householders or free
holders, who would make an affidavit
! that he was a voter, and that ended the
controversy, and thereupon the election
| board had no authority whatever to re-
! ject the voter, although they, as men
might have known absolutely that he was
not a voter
| Now the Legislature has provided u
similar remedy in this case, but left it
open to Investigation by the ele1tion
| board.
Now the claim is that in that kind of
an instance, on account Of the great num-
Der of challenges that might be made,
it would impede the election in that
Gentlemen, the remedy is with the
Legislature.
1t is not with the court.
II the Legislature has not provided O
speedy remedy In an instance OF TINS
KIND 1t is not the courts fault.
You will have to appeal to the Legls-
lature.
In regard to the 600 voters not being
parties to this complaint.
The proposition is to disfranchise them
| for this election without any notice 10
them, or any opportunity for them to
be heard In court.
l am asked to strike their names from,
| or cause them to be stricken from these
registration rolls, which VIII In erect
absolutely prevent these 600 from voting
on election day.
men having an opportunity to be heard,
Now the right to vote, might say, is
sacred right, and there Is not one OF
you lawyers here that for single IN
slant would think that ! had right 70
deprive a man Of his real estate or ms
personal property without MS Delns IL
court and being heard; and yet the prop
osition is made that en- to do tnat WIZ q
reference to the right to the exercise OF
the electoral franchise; and the man
might go to the polls on election day
and know nothing about It unui ne Ls
about TO vote, and then he Is 20 be toiu
his name from the registration.
Gentlemen, I have no power 10 DO that'
l have no right to do II.
The very fact Of the number OF men,
or voters, tbat is involved In this case
Il looks to me as II Il was an argument
against any such proposition.
II there were only one or two u would
not present itself to one 80 rorclbly as
where there are Ave or six hundred.
Therefore I say TO you that the de-
murfer will have 70 be sustained because
the complaint does not state cause or
action. and because OF the absent parties.
In regard TO the names OF the absent
parties In this case the law provides
that a demurrer must point ont who are
the absent parties. but Il does not lie
in the REALTORS mouth IN this case TO
say that the demurrer has not done
that because the relator has mentioned
or stated that there are parties but has
not given the names. and the defense
has the right TO take the complaint Just
AS f. Is and point 10 the fact that these
parties to be dlsfranchised whom the
relator has not named and OF whom tn
defendants are not informed, that the
defendants have right 70 take Il Just
as the relator has made u, and say that
the absent voters should be made par
ties defendant.
Therefore the demurrer Is sustained
and an exception given.