sand, where it now remains. An effort was made in 1891 to raise it to forty-five hun dred, but failed. On the 12th of October, 1858, Perkins and Davison were re-elected, and Worden and Hanna elected for the first time, for a term of six years from Jan. 3, 1859. The period covering the six years extending from 1859 to 1865 was a momentous one. At the October election, 1860, the State went Republican, and a Republican Governor and State officers were elected. Party feel ing ran high. The southern portion of In diana had been settled by people from the South, many of whom, if not a majority, were in sympathy with the cause of the Southern Confederacy. The legislature of 1863,1 which was Democratic, — and so were the State officers, except the Governor, — refused to make the necessary appropria tions to cover Indiana's portion of the cost of arming her quota of troops; and Governor Morton pledged his personal word in order to secure funds for that purpose. An effort was made to compel Governor Morton to call an extra session of the legis lature, on the ground that no appropriation had been made at the general session for the salaries and expenses of the State officers and institutions. Governor Morton con tended that general statutes authorized the payment of such individuals and institutions, and in this he was following a precedent set by a former Democratic Governor. The in terest on a large State debt was also due, for the payment of which no appropriation had been made; but this had also previously been paid under the authority given by gen eral statutes. There was plenty of money in the Slate treasury to pay all these just claims. The Auditor of State was in favor of their payment, but all the remainder, except the Governor, opposed it; and these were spurred on by the hope of an extra session of the legislature, and by political capital. 1 The legislature and State officers, except the governor, lieutenant-governor, and judges of the Supieme Court, are elected biennially.

Then was instituted a proceeding that was an outrage on the administration of justice. Several days after the legislature adjourned, the Attorney-General appeared before the clerk of the Marion Circuit Court with a sworn complaint for an injunction to pro hibit the State Treasurer paying the interest due on the State debt, with an answer, and an order-book entry granting the injunction and entering final judgment. Upon the as surance of the Attorney-General that every thing was correct, that official entered the proceedings in the order-book of the court, and gave the Attorney-General a certified transcript of the entire proceedings, in order to take an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Attorney-General was anxious to take an ap peal at once. The next day, when the judge of the Circuit Court came to sign the record of the previous day, he denounced the pro ceedings, said he knew nothing of the case, and struck out the entire entry. In the mean time the certified copy had been filed in the Supreme Court clerk's office, and the Circuit Court clerk at once notified him of the action of the lower court. The court then proceeded to hear the case, and refused the injunction as prayed for. From this an appeal was also taken. Both cases came on for a hearing in the Supreme Court, the same counsel appearing in each case. The parties were the same, the same ques tion was involved in both cases, and the two appeals were from the same county; but the results of the decisions of the lower court were diametrically opposed to each other. One case was affirmed and the other reversed on the same day; and the State treasurer was tied up with thousands of dollars.1 If the court was not cognizant of these facts and a party to the conspiracy, then it seems that "inductive reasoning is utterly fallacious." One of the cases tinged with politics was Kerr v. Jones, 19 Ind. 351. Mr. Harrison, the now President, was elected reporter of the Supreme Court in 1860, for the term of 1 See Ristine v. State, 20 Ind. 328; and State v. Ristine 20 Ind. 345.