tary, and were to be delivered to him by the latter. The avowed purpose of the suit was to test the validity of the election of Robert son. The court unanimously decided that it had no jurisdiction of the controversy.1 Although at the November election of 1886 the Republicans had secured a majority in the House, the Democrats still held a ma jority in the Senate. Robertson claimed the right to preside over the Senate; but that body denied his claim, placed Smith in the chair as President pro tern, and forcibly ejected Robertson from its chambers, and by police force kept him out. On the 12th day of January, 1887, Smith filed in the Marion Circuit Court an information, pray ing for an injunction against Robertson, re straining him " from intruding, or attempting to intrude himself into the office of Lieuten ant-Governor," and for a judgment of ouster, "excluding him " from that office. The lower court granted the restraining order; but upon appeal its judgment was reversed. The Supreme Court held that as Robertson resided in Allen, and not in Marion County, the action should have been brought in the former; and a majority of its members also held that a claimant of the office of Lieuten ant-Governor cannot maintain an information in the nature of a quo warranto to settle the title to that office, for the Constitution vests exclusive jurisdiction of such a controversy in the General Assembly.2 These decisions called down on the court the wrath of the entire Democratic press of the State. Its leading organ at the capital was very offensive, going so far as to use on its editorial page, as applied to the mem bers of the court, the unseemly denunciation, "D — n their cowardly souls!" Political strife ran high. The House declared in effect that the body occupying the Senate Chamber was not legally organized, and re fused to communicate with it until Robert son was recognized as Lieutenant-Governor and as its duly elected presiding officer. The 1 Smith v. Myers, 109 Ind. 1. 2 Robertson v. Smith, 109 Ind 79.
consequence of the deadlock was that few laws were passed in 1887. The strife was continued in 1889, and Robertson excluded, until the newly elected Lieutenant-Governor, Hon. Ira J. Chase, took his seat. At the November election of 1888 Silas D. Coffey, Walter Olds, and John G. Berk shire were elected as successors to William E. Niblack, Allan Zollars, and George V. Howk; and they took their seats Jan. 7, 1889. They were Republicans; and for the second time in the history of the State a majority of the bench were members of that political party. The strife that had arisen between the two leading parties of the State was one not cal culated to pour oil on the troubled waters. The Democrats took their defeat of 1888 sorely. The Legislature in both its branches was Democratic, and it soon manifested a disposition to save from the wreck of defeat as many offices as possible. The docket of the Supreme Court was several years be hind. There was a universal demand for relief. To increase the number of judges, or to change the organization of the court, a constitutional amendment was required, and it would take two years to adopt it. A commission was proposed; but a Repub lican Governor would appoint Republican commissioners, and so would a Republican court, it was thought* The result was that the legislature created a Commission of five members, " to aid and assist the court in the performance of its duties," to hold their of fices four years. The legislature selected the commissioners. The persons thus se lected qualified and demanded recognition; but the court, in an able and elaborate opinion, unanimously held the action of the legislature unauthorized, and the act failed. The striking down of this act was simply an assertion of the independency of the judiciary.1 Another thrust at the court, made by the legislature, was an attempt to compel it to prepare the syllabus of each opinion re corded, and to superintend the printing of 1 State v. Noble, 11S Ind. 350.
