Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-10-28

Mr.. wilmeth to be printed on the ballot.
It is pointed out that II the higher
court should reverse the trial court on
premises Of law. Mr.. Hartman might have
a basis to bring possible action for dam
ages as well as to recover the salary Of
the office to which he claims he was duly
nominated at the primary,
In giving his sweeping decision In re-
fusing to issue a mandate in Hartman's
behalf, Judge Mou held that Hartman
has in such ways and to such extent
violated the corrupt practice act OF the
State of Indiana, in his effort at the re-
cent primary to secure the nomination
of his party for judge of the city court
as to render himself Ineligible to retain
the nomination. E.~.t
In basing his conclusions in the case,
Judge Mol stated
= 'HaFing received the highest num-
Der of votes cast and being thus in
eligible by reason Of such viola
lions there was in law no one nomi-
mated. A vacancy thus exists in the
candidacy for that office, There
being a vacancy the statute provides
way for filing It. That the va
cancy was assumed by the party
officials in advance of a judicial de-
termination Of the fact is immaterial.
SO long as -tAo= IcouiNS DObA
courses are alike. The party officials
IN this case, as stated above, acted
at their extreme peril. and 1t Is only
where the facts and law Justify their
action that they can ever presume
or assume so TO act. false step
or unvarranted act on their part
would no doubt place them in Sc
rious jeopardy and with them the
board Of election commissioners that
acts upon their certificates. Having
reached the conclusion from the evil
dence and under the law that relatOr
is ineligible, the writ Of mandate Will
be and lie denied"
The two determining points In the case
according to the court, was the finding
that Hartman aided and caused f. Fran
els, known as Frank Francis, or Frank
Moore, to Illegally vote at the primary
as duly qualified voter residing at
Hartman's home, and that Hartman VIC
lated the corrupt practice act by at
tempting to interfere with primary cleo
ton officials.
HARTMAN SUBJECT
TO PROSECUTION.
In discussing the legal effect Of these
| disquaIifying acts Of Mr.. Hartman. the
court statedi
A person who aids and abets an
other in repeating at a primary or
an election Is himself subject to a
prosecution for felony. Prevailing on
qualified voters by sinister means to Pa.
refrain from voting is practically the
same in law. This Is 'coDoquiaily
known as 'herdiug In the same
category are intimld ion or coer-
ciOn, and fraud practieed on the le-
gal voter, causing him to vote other
wise than according to his own wish,
will or judgment Those are forbid
den by statute. AS also voting at a
primary differently than ones party
utilization"
In holding that the indictments OF
Hartman in the Federal and Marion
County Criminal Courts had no bearing
on the mandate proceeding, the court
stated:
I'm this stage Of the litigation we
are not dealing with the Federal and
State indictments pending against the
realtor as to matters disconnected
with the primary election and cOnsti-
tuting nc charge under the local cor
rupt primary act. AS to these the
realtOr is presumed innocent unless
and until proven guilty. Neither he
nor any other person is rendered or
is to be considered inen gible simply
because charged with crime In regard
to ordinary felonious acts. II the in
dictments had already resulted in
conviction 1t would present an alto
gether different question. The law
is well established that statute dis
qualifying onA who has been con-
victed Of felony is valid, and that one
so convicted Is presumed In law unfit
to vote or hold office"
The first part Of the opinion Is taken
up largely with a discussion Of whether
or not the action for a mandate was
brought properly, whether tho parties to
the suit are the proper ones, and as to