Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 37, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 September 1892 — SHOCKNEY VS. CHASE. [ARTICLE]

SHOCKNEY VS. CHASE.

A Republican Institution Charged with ExtrarafUM by a KapubUoan Candidate. Theodore Shockney, Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, is in hard lines. His demagogery in denouncing the tax law, for which he voted, has been strongly exposed in all parts of the state. This was unfortunate for Shockney and his state organ, the Indianapolis Journal. But Shookney in his reckless charges against the Democratic party made a blunder whiob compromises JfGovemor Chase. Parson Chase in his sermons eulogises the feeble minded institution at Fort Wayne, and his partner on the Republican ticket has been denouncing that institution for extravagance and expenditures. He has been charging that the management has bought expensive Turkish rugs and many other unnecessary furnishings of foreign make. This may all be, and doubtless is true, but this is the only institution in the state that has a Republican majority on its board, and the superintendent is the only Republican superintendent of any state institution. The Republican candidate for governor and lieutenant governor are out of time and should hold a convention and harmonize. Perhaps Candidate Shockney can easily convince Candidate Chase that it is his duty to denounce the extravagance of the Repub-' lican managers and superintendent of the feeble minded institution. Until this is done Parson Chase’s sermons and Shockney’s stump speeches will not consist, and one or the other should be permanently retired. rsrtliM Coarts in Indian*. For seventeen years the supreme court was composed of judges elected on the Democratic ticket, or at least a majority of them were. This was the complexion of the Indiana supreme court until 1888, when the Dudley “blocks of five” invasion installed three practical politicians on the supreme bench. Until then, the people, irrespective of party, had the highest confidence in the supreme court of the state. Not a word had ever been uttered, charging it with partisanship. There can not be one decision cited where a political party was favored; no case involving questions affecting either political party ever decided from a party standpoint. It will be remembered that the infamous Republican gerrymander of ’72, remained on the statute books until ’79. During that time, a majority of supreme judges were Democrats, yet no attempt was ever made to have the apportionment act of ’73 declared unconstitutional by the Democrats. No caucuses were ever held by the chairman of the Democratic state committee and members of the supreme court.

In 1886 when the Democrats and Be* publicans were In a deadlock in the legislature, on account of the controversy as to who should preside over the ■enote, Colonel Robertson, Republican, or Senator Smith, Democrat, the supreme court composed of four Democrats and one Republican, properly declined to interfere, by deciding that the court had no jurisdiction over the general assembly. But in view of the past record of the pnwnt supreme court, is there a sane man who really believes that had the court of ’B6 been composed | of the same judges elected in ’BB, the re- | suit would hare been the same? The < court would have promptly assumed jurisdiction and decided in favor of the The supreme court of Indiana since 1888 hits lowered its reputation, not only ia the state of Indiana, but all over the country. It will take years to re-estab-lish its former high standard and its reputation as a non-partisan tribunal.