Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-10-26


as he was acting personally and not
acting officially.
The court held that the demurrer of
Hartman to the third paragraph OF VIII
| meth's answer was not good and that the
answer of Wiimeth is sufficient On the
theory that Hartman at the time Of the
| primary was ineligible, one specifis
charge being that be voted Francis
Illegally.
The above three rulings of the court
now pave the way for the introduction
of evidence.
HARTMAN MUST COME
WITH CLEAN HANDS
Judge Moll in discussing the merits
of Hartman's petition for a mandate, de-
clared that Hartman must come into
court with clean hands"
While mandate is high prerogatlve,
never the-less the practices Of chancery
and equity demand that the relator must
come into court seeking a mandate with
clean hands" he said. 'If the relator is
guilty Of miscondl It, then ne is not en-
titled to relief. II ~ his conduct or that
of his associates o" confederates or In
strumentslities, he did defle the cleo
tOrate's expression which resulted in bis
nomination, he then did not come Into
court with clean hands.
ORIGIN OF CORRUPT
PRACTICE LAW.
The corrupt practice act is the result
Of the sad experiences OF voters. The
voter has seen his vote stolen his neigh
Dor cheated and coerced and while we
look upon the electorate as the most Won
derful phase of our Government never
theless It Ia the most abused. hope that
the corrupt practice act stays on the
statute.
III upon the issues Joined, 1t is shown
that he is ineligible OF any part Of the
charges In the intervening petition he is
guilty and Is not entitled to the relief
sought. The mere fact that he Is indicted
and the mere fact that the committee at
tempted to remove him does not operate
to remove him. He is on the ticket to
stay unless he disqualifes himself by his
own act" This statement was made in
holding good the third paragraph OF VIII
emth's answer and In overruling Hart
mans demurrer to the third paragraph
Of the demurrer.
POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS
AND ELECTORATE POWERS.
In speaking Of the action in removing
! Hartman from the ticket, Judge Moll
stated:
1.-The court is heartily in accord with
the attitude Of argument Of counsel for
the relator (Hartman). 1t is incon-
ceivable that the Legislature ever In
tended to take away f-'rn the electorate
at large the power TO select candidates
or after election the Legislature never in
tended that the power could be overridden
by q political organization. IL that were
possible. 1t would destroy the essentials
Of representative government. No Legis-
lnture would have the temerlty to do
this in the face OF Federal legislation dis
approving Of any mistating Of the prin-
ciples OF democracy.
A FEW MEN CANNOT
HALT WILL OF THOUSANDS.
at Is beyond credence to think that
166 mep can meet in this very room and
by passing 8 resolution wipe out In such
q simple, deliberate and unforeseen man
ner the win Of 5000 people. On the
other hand II vacancy for any reason
did exist, then the only authority under
the statute to fill that vacancy is the
duly constituted chairman Of tho central
committee of that particular party.
THE court Is fully convinced that the
statutes does not contemplate that the
chairman or a committee has the inherent
right to create q vacancy upon a poliu-
cal gickst
NO one In the hearing Of my voice
will ever see the day that such a condl-
tinues to be Republican form Of govern
msnt here.
STATUTORY MEANING
OF REMOVAL"
Tho word removal in the statutes at
first would indicate a territorial removal,
but upon reflection and upon study of
the cases, the court Is convinced there Is
some power TO remove a candidate who
is ineligible. II chat is attempted Il
I l. As "a - He -
comes a matter of vital public concern
and must be adJudged like any other
thing OF vital interest
at 10 evident from the proceedings that
there was no adversary proceedings on
part Of the city committee or chairman
where the relator was present personally
or by counsel to hear the premises.
"As far as act OF removal Is concerned
The court Is firmly Of the opinion that
II is void but the cedti1cate Of the city
committee nevertheless Is addressed TO
the board and the board has the right to
consider IL and to come to this court for
advice"
POSSIBLE CONVICTIONS HAVE
NO BEARING ON PRESENT CASE.
Judge Mon stated that hs agreed with
counsel for Mr. Hartman In stating that
the allegations in the third paragraph OF
| conviction in the Criminal and Federal
! Courts has no bearing In tho present
hearing. The court on his own motion
struck out Of Wilmeth's answer all state
meuts relative to possible conviction Of
Hartman. The court stated that he as q
court had no right te PREJUDICE a man
bes0Ts the relatOr faces a jury OF his
| peers In the Federal and Criminal
Courts"
'In a matter Of this kind" the court
held, every presumption Of innocence
maintains aud prevails. Whether IN the
highest or lowest courts Of the land an
Indictment causes no reasons why reiator
should be deposed. The court on his
motion strikes out that part Of the third
paragraph OF Mr. Wumeth's answer on
the grounds that a mere indictment does
not disqualify. This now leaves the only
question In the third paragraph, the
answer concerning the alleged criminal
misconduct Of the relator at tho time Of
the primary"
| Arguments began at o'clock yesterday
afternoon and continued until so, when
recess was taken until o'clock. 1t was
| then evident that neither side could pro
coed with evidence, although the court
| hoped that immediate Introduction OF tes-
timony could be made. The court then
adjourned the hearing until l o'clock this
! afternoon.
JUDGE THoRNTON'S
| RULING.
Judge Thornton's ruling In dismissing
! Bells petition was as follows:
"In this case it is nowhere falleged in
! this petition that the plaintiff intends to
vote for Mr. Hartman; 1t is nowhere
averred in this petition that Mr. Hartman