Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 04.pdf/256

 The Supreme Court of Indiana. four years. Aug. 7, 1862, he was commis sioned colonel in the volunteer service, and accepted the commission, leaving a deputy in charge of his office. In the following October Michael C. Kerr was a candidate at a general State election for the office of reporter, and was elected. The court held that the acceptance by Mr. Harrison of the office of colonel vacated his office as re porter, and that Mr. Kerr was entitled to the office. The result of this decision was to deprive many individuals of county and township offices to which they had been elected before entering the volunteer ser vice. In 1861 the legislature passed a stat ute authorizing township and county officers to retain their offices while serving in the volunteer service during their terms; but this act was pronounced unconstitutional.1 The legality of the legal tender quality of treasury notes early came to the front in In diana. At the May term, 1862, the court, Judge Hanna dissenting, held the act of Con gress making them a legal tender was con stitutional and valid, and the banks of the State, by redeeming their paper in treasury notes, did not expose their franchises to for feiture.2 At the May term, 1864, the validity of the clause making these notes legal tender again came before the court in Thayer v. Hedges (22 Ind. 282.) In a long and dis cursive opinion written by Judge Perkins, in which Biblical quotations respecting money are quite prominent, the court held the act unconstitutional, notwithstanding its former opinion; but in view of the fact that the question was pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, the court said that "a petition for rehearing may, if the party desires, keep open the question, and save all rights as they may be finally settled by that tribunal." The opinion was unani mous. At the following November term the judgment was set aside. This was after the judges deciding the case had been defeated at the polls in their candidacy for re-elec1 State v. Allen, 21 Ind. 516. 2 Reynolds v. State, 18 Ind. 467. 30

233

tion. In January, 1865, four new judges came to the bench, and within a few weeks thereafter they unanimously held the le gal tender clause valid.1 In thus chang ing front the Supreme Court of Indiana did no more than the Supreme Court of the United States afterwards did upon the same question. In Griffin v. Wilcox (21 Ind. 370) the court decided that neither the President nor Congress had any power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus; and that the Act of March 3, 1863, attempting to indemnify officers for illegal military arrests, was un constitutional, and afforded them no protec tion. This decision, so far as it relates to the Act of 1863, is contrary to the weight of authority. Another important opinion was rendered in Warren v. Paul (22 Ind. 276), in which it was rightly decided that Congress could not require the use of internal revenue stamps upon judicial process issued by State courts. At the October election of 1864, James S. Frazer, Jehu T. Elliott, Charles A. Ray, and Robert C. Gregory were elected, to take their offices Jan. 3, 1865. They were all Repub licans. One of their earliest cases was upon the validity of the Legal Tender Act, as we have seen. Another was upon the Temper ance Law of 1859. In Lauer v. The State (22 Ind. 461) the court had decided that the fourteenth section of that act was invalid, overruling thereby a former decision.2 But in Reams v. The State (23 Ind. 111) the court held this section valid, following its earlier case. One of the important cases decided by this court was that the provisions of the State Constitution prohibiting negroes or mulattoes from coming into the State were rendered nugatory by the provisions of the recently adopted amendments to the Fed eral Constitution.3 1 Thayer -, Hedges, 23 Ind. 141. a Thomasson v. The State, 1 5 Ind. 449. 3 Smith v. Moody, 26 Ind. 299.