The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1931-06-11
ACTS OF 1881
FIGHT MAY GO
TOU. S. COURT
Mayr May Seek Federal
Ruling on Publication
of Statutes.
OGDEN STUDIES OPINION
Attorney General to Draft
Statements on Legality
for Officials.

Steps to bring into federal court
the states legal mixup over pub
lication and distribution of the 1881
legislative acts, were being consid-
cred today by Frank Mayr Jr., sec
rotary Of state, and other Indiana
officials.
Mayr said he may attempt to gain
federal jurisdiction, to obtain a
definite answer as to whether the
acts can be published legally with
House Bill 6 omitted
However, Mayr is prepared to
proceed with publication Of the
acts, basing the possibility on an
opinion wrIpSen by Judge Clarence
r. Martin of the state supreme
court.
Ogden Studies Opinion
Meanwhile, Attorney = General
James M. Ogden proceeded to study
the Martin opinion and the two
others, majority and minority
opinions, handed down by the high
court Wednesday.
Oub Va bliC nANSl SCAAT VIC no AAS VI
poets to draft his own opinion of
whether it is legal to publish the
acts, excluding House Bill 6. This
opinion has been requested by
Mayr, who is acting on an oral
opinion, from deputy attorneys
general in the case declaring pub
LEGATION legal
Court Approved Plan
Support was given this view by
Judge Harry o. Chan1berlin of
Marion circuit court Wednesday
afternoon. He approved state
ment written by Joseph Hoffman,
corporation department chief, which
is to be inserted in lieu of House
Bill in the acts. Approval also
was given by attorneys in the House
Bill case, it was said.
Should publication continue with
out l1indrance, the acts will be dis
tributed and can be declared in
force by the Governor within ten
days or two weeks, according to
j. Otto Lee, printing board secre-
tary.
In taking the House Bill 6 suit
into the supreme court Mayr an
nounced that his purpose was to re-
ceive definite view as to legality
of publication.
Chamberlin had issued a restrain
ing order forbidding publication of
House Bill 6. A case is pending be-
fore him to make this order perma-
ment on the ground that the bill
was passed by fraud.
Ogden proceeded on Mayr's behalf
to seek in the high court a writ of
prohibition which would dissolve the
Chamberlin injunction.
Judges Disagree
Justice Martin wrote a majority
opinion, setting out, in addition to
the writ denial, that it was the
right and duty Of the secretary of
state to publish the acts without
House Bill 6.
Judge David A. Myers wrote an
opinion concurring in the writ de-
NAL. but not touching the point of
publication of the acts. This was
concurred in by Judge julius G..
Travis, the three Republican judges
agreeing to deny the writ of prohi-
bition.
Judge Walter E. T'reanor, how
ever, wrote a minority opinion, de-
claring the circuit court has no
right to interfere with publication
of any act, and that all should be
published, or none could be pub
lished. This view was concurred
in by Judge Curtis w. Roll. Both
are Democrats.
Treanor Gives Opinion
Touching the point of publica-
ton the Treanor opinion said the
following:
I'VE do not believe that the sec
rotary of state has any discretion
in the matter of emitting one or
more acts from his publication Of
the acts of the general assembly.
and we do not think the courts
should, in effect, amend Section
1885, Burns Annotated Statutes,
1926 (the law relating to publica-
ton Of the acts).
In urging the other acts be pub
lished Justice Martin cited the con-
stitutional duty of publication i'm
posed on the secretary of state and
several decisions supporting his view
that all acts need not be included.
Meanwhile, House Bill awaits
-. IL