INDIANA. 



Ninth Tippecanoo, Clinton, Boono, Tipton, Ham- 

 ilton, tuid Madbon. Vote, 84,828. Kepublican major- 

 il\ in l7tJ, 863; Democratic majority in 1878. 4H2. 



ii Luke, Porter. Newton, Junpor, i'uluwki, 



Whit.', (nrroll. Ciws, Fulton, and Bciiton. V-.ti;, 



lu<pu!>licsB majority in 1876, 1,048; in 1878, 



nth Miami, Howard. Wabash, Grant, Hun- 

 tingtou, Wells. Adams, Blackibrd. and Jay. Vote, 

 89,863. Republican majority hi 1876, 400; Demo- 

 cratio majority in 1878, 840. 



Twelfth La Grange. Steuben, Noble, De Kalb, 

 Wliitley, and Allen. Vote, 84,967. Democratic ma- 

 jority in 1876, 1,864; in 1878, 8,118. 



Thirteenth Laporte, Starke, St. Joseph, Marshall, 

 Elkhart, and Kosciusko. Vote, 85,291. Democratic 

 majority in 1876, 151 ; in 1878, 682. 



In the Senate the bill was passed by a vote 

 of 26 to 23, and in the House by a vote of 67 

 to 87. 



On March 9th the regular session expired 

 by limitation, and on the same day the Gov- 

 ernor issued his proclamation convening the 

 Legislature in an extra session. The members 

 again took the oath of office, and the officers 

 of the previous session were by resolution con- 

 tinued. 



A resolution was adopted to appoint a com- 

 mittee of five to investigate the affairs of ex- 

 Attorney - General Buskirk, the previous in- 

 cumbent, during his term, and ascertain what 

 amount of money has been collected by said 

 Attorney-General from any and all sources; 

 what amount thereof has been accounted for 

 and paid over, and what amount, if any, has 

 not been accounted for. The charges related 

 to money collected for the State from counties 

 and county officers. The term of office of 

 James C. Denny was subsequently included in 

 the investigation. The whole matter turned 

 upon an interpretation of the statutes of the 

 State, whether the Attorney-General was en- 

 titled to fees on the amount collected in addi- 

 tion to his regular salary. According to an act 

 passed in 1855, providing for the election of an 

 Attorney-General, fixing his compensation, and 

 prescribing his duties, it is said to be clear that 

 the statute as it then stood provided that the 

 only compensation was the salary named in the 

 act. Whether Messrs. Denny and Bnskirk 

 have accounted to the State for all moneys col- 

 lected by them depends in part upon the con- 

 struction to be given to the supplementary act 

 relating to the duties and compensation of the 

 Attorney-General, approved March 10, 1873. 

 Section 2 of that act makes it the duty of the 

 Attorney-General to collect all fines and for- 

 feitures where the prosecuting attorney has 

 failed to collect and pay the same into the 

 proper Treasury for one year after such fine is 

 assessed or recognizance forfeited, and no ad- 

 ditional compensation beyond the $8,000 sal- 

 ary is provided. The main difficulty arises 

 under section 9 of the act, which provides for 

 additional services and allows therefor addi- 

 tional compensation in the way of commis- 

 sions on moneys collected. By applying to 

 this section the familiar rule of construction 

 that requires us if possible to ascertain the le- 



gislative intent and give it effect, it it clear 

 that the suction contains two, and but two, 

 separate and distinct proposition*, which, al- 

 though they are somewhat confounded as they 

 stand in tlie sections, may be readily separated. 

 The first part of the section is a distinct propo- 

 sition and complete in itself. It authorize* no 

 suits and provides for no fees or commissions 

 for the performance of the services required, 

 but simply requires the Attorney-General to 

 ascertain what money belonging to the State 

 has been collected by such officeholder, and 

 requires the officer, under penalties, to furnish 

 him with the necessary information. It does 

 not even require the officer to pay it over to 

 the Attorney-General, but seems to presume 

 that, if it has been collected, it has reached or 

 will reach the Treasury through the proper 

 channels as provided by law. The other prop- 

 osition in section 9 is equally independent. It 

 seems very clear that the purpose of the first 

 proposition is to aid the Attorney-General in 

 enforcing the second, because, having ascer- 

 tained what money belonging to the State has 

 been collected, it is an easy matter to ascertain 

 what is uncollected. It then becomes his duty, 

 if the proper officer has refused or neglected 

 to take the proper legal steps to collect the 

 moneys of the State for twelve months or 

 more, to step in and institute suit, or such legal 

 proceedings as may be necessary. Under the 

 first proposition the Attorney-General is not 

 entitled to any fees or commissions for merely 

 ascertaining what moneys belonging to the 

 State the officer has collected, but his commis- 

 sions must be alone on that which the officer 

 refused or neglected to collect, and the Attor- 

 ney-General did collect. The committee re- 

 port the facts in part, and leave them to the 

 House to determine what action shall be taken. 

 Ex-Attorney General Denny held that the 

 ninth section authorized him to take the proper 

 steps to collect any money due to the State in 

 the hands of any officer in default. This was 

 the construction given to the act by the judges 

 of the courts in all the counties where the 

 question had been raised. He also said : 



The first portion of section 9 makes it the duty of 

 the Attorney-General to ascertain from time to time 

 the amounts paid to any public officer, etc.. and to aid 

 him in doing so the latter clause was added. It reads 

 as follows: "And for the purpose of enabling the 

 Attorney-General to ascertain the facts herein con- 

 U'inj'lutc.1, it is hereby made the duty of the officer 

 having the custody of any such moneys to report the 

 facts to said Attorney-General," etc. Now. the ques- 

 tion raised by the committee is fully settled by the 

 Supreme Court in the case of Moore, administrator, 

 r. the State, tx rtl. Denny, Attorney-General, 66th 

 Indiana, p. 360. In that case the Court say that the 

 ninth section of the Attorney-General's act repeals the 

 sixth and seventh clauses of Motion 8 (1 Davia's 

 Statutes, p. 157). The sixth subdivision of the above 

 apt reads as follows : " The Auditor of the State shall, 

 sixth, institute and prosecute, in the name of the 

 State, all proper suits for the recovery of any debts, 

 money*, or property of tho State, or for the ascertain- 

 ment or any right or liability concerning the same : 

 seventh, direct and superintend the collection of all 

 moneys due the State, and employ counsel to prose- 



