Williams v. Smith

• Decision Date: 11 May 1921
• Docket Number: 23,709
• Citation: 131 N.E. 2,190 Ind. 526
• Parties: Williams et al. v. Smith
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

131 N.E. 2

190 Ind. 526

Williams et al. v. Smith

No. 23,709

Supreme Court of Indiana

May 11, 1921

From Clark Circuit Court; James W. Fortune, Judge.

Action by Warren Wallace Smith, by Lincoln E. Lankford, his next friend, against Charles F. Williams and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Ele Stansbury, Attorney-General, and Edward M. White, for appellants.

Wilmer T. Fox, for appellee.

OPINION

Townsend, J.

Appellants were enjoined from performing vasectomy on appellee, who is a prisoner in the Indiana Reformatory.

The chief physician, board of managers and two chosen surgeons were proposing to act pursuant to the following: "That on and after the passage of this act it shall be compulsory for each and every institution in the state, entrusted with the care of confirmed criminals, idiots rapists and imbeciles, to appoint upon its staff, in addition to the regular institutional physician, two (2) skilled surgeons of recognized ability, whose duty it shall be, in conjunction with the chief physician of the institution, to examine the mental and physical condition of such inmates as are recommended by the institutional physician and board of managers. If, in the judgment of this committee of experts and the board of managers, procreation is inadvisable and there is no probability of improvement of the mental condition of the inmate, it shall be lawful for the surgeons to perform such operation for the prevention of procreation as shall be decided safest and most effective. But this operation shall not be performed except in cases that have been pronounced unimproveable: Provided, That in no case shall the consultation fee be more than three ($ 3.00) dollars to each expert, to be paid out of the funds appropriated for the maintenance of such institution." Acts 1907 p. 377, § 2232 Burns 1914.

In Davis v. Berry (1914), (District Court, S D.), 216 F. 413, in passing on an Iowa statute similar to the one here in question, on page 418 the court uses this language: "The hearing is by an administrative board or officer. There is no actual hearing. There is no evidence. The proceedings are private. The public does not know what is being done until it is done. Witnesses are not produced, or if produced, they are not cross-examined. * * * The prisoner is not advised of the proceedings until ordered to submit to the operation. * * * Due process of law means that...