Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 04.pdf/278

 The Supreme Court of Indiana. the Supreme Court reports. The effect of this act was to deprive the Reporter of his constitutional privileges, and to impose upon the court duties and labors placed elsewhere by that instrument. The court declined to write the syllabi, and held, in an elaborate opinion1 and in a subsequent one,2 the en tire act invalid.

The legislature of 1889 provided for a Board of Public Works in all cities of fifty thousand inhabitants or more, to consist of three members, se lected from the two leading political par ties by the General Assembly. These boards were given control over many af fairs of the cities. The legislature was largely inspired to this action by party mo tives, in order to se cure control over cities of political majorities adverse to the major ity of that body. Con tests quickly arose over the validity of this act; and the court, one member dissent HORACE P. ing, held it invalid, on the ground that the legislature could not fill a vacancy in an office, and that it deprived the municipali ties to which it applied of that local selfgovernment guaranteed to them by the Constitution.3 A similar act, creating a Board of Metropolitan Police and Fire Department in cities having a certain population, was also held invalid,4 leav1 Ex parte Griffiths, 118 Ind. 83. 2 Griffin v. State, 119 Ind. 520. • State v. Denny, 118 Ind. 382; and City of Evansville v. State. 118 Ind. 426. 1 State v. Denny, ti8 Ind. 449.

253

ing an earlier act on the same subject, but not obnoxious to the Constitution, in force.1 Another case of importance before the court was the act authorizing the State to borrow a large sum of money for govern mental purposes. The act was upheld.2 So was an act authorizing the legislature to elect trustees of the benevolent institutions of the State.3 In its greed for of fice, and to hedge about the constitu tional privileges of the Governor, the leg islature of 1889 pro vided that the State Geologist should be elected by the joint ballot of the two houses. The Gov ernor claimed the right, under the Con stitution, to appoint, and the court upheld his claim.4 Two mem bers of the court dis sented. The same ruling was made, with a like division of the court, with respect to State Statistician, the majority of the court BIDDLE holding further that such office was elec tive.6 The same ruling was made concern ing Oil Inspector, except as to the elective feature.6 Other acts of 1889 held invalid were the Meat Inspection Act;7 the section of the Election Law requiring registration of those leaving or absent temporarily 1 2 3 4 4 6 7

State v. Blend, 121 Ind. 514. Hovey v. Foster, 118 Ind. 502. Hovey v. State, 119 Ind. 386 and 395. State v. Hyde, 121 Ind. 20. State v. Peele, 121 Ind. 495. State v. Gorby, 122 Ind. 17. State v. Klein, 126 Ind. 68.