ILNews

Hebenstreit: Here's to Another 100 Years

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IBA-hebenstreitIt is May, this is Indy; how can I fail to comment on the Greatest Spectacle in Racing. One hundred years—that is a very long time. This year is the Centennial running of the Indy 500. It has been a fascinating run since the first race on May 30, 1911. William Howard Taft was serving as the President, World War I was still 3 years away, and the automobile was a new and strange contraption. William A. Pickens was serving as the 36th president of the Indianapolis Bar Association. I wonder if he had the opportunity to write a column every other week.

In 1911, Carl Fisher and his group decided to use their raceway in northwestern Indianapolis to host a record breaking event. Although Fisher is frequently described as both an eccentric as well as a visionary, I suspect he had no idea what a tradition he was starting. That inaugural race was not without controversy, and for 100 years there has been a dispute about who really won that race. Just as motor racing was brand new, so was the method of scoring and counting laps. Author Charles Leerhsen has just published a new book detailing the problems with that first running of the Indy 500. Until his death, Ralph Mulford claimed that he and his Lozier car had beaten Ray Harroun and his Marmon Wasp to be the first winner of the Indianapolis 500. Mulford claimed to have been a lap ahead of Harroun due to a pass he performed during a crash scenario. Apparently, knowing the scoring devices were flawed, Fisher decreed that all the records of the race be destroyed before they could be reviewed by the AAA who sanctioned the race. Sounds like a classic case of spoliation of the evidence!

As I am writing this column, it is a rainy Sunday, the second day the track has been open this year. Like many soggy race days, the weathermen are looking for that “window of opportunity” to allow cars to get out on the Brickyard to practice and especially for the rookies to get much needed time on the track. In this age of domed stadiums, the weather is still a major factor. Let’s hope that on Sunday, May 29th, the sun will be shining as Jim Nabors sings “Back Home Again in Indiana” and as AJ Foyt leads the group of 33 drivers to the green flag.

It seems that there has been a greater buzz about the Race this year. I hope that is a good sign for the Hulman George family and the racing community. With the revitalization of Main Street in Speedway as well as the arrival of Dallara to the area, the neighborhood around the World’s Most Famous Oval is looking up. Whoever thought up the idea of a Hot Wheels event at the World’s Greatest Race Course should be either commended or shot. Every guy who ever played with a Hot Wheels racer as a child is curious to see exactly how that event will turn out. Just a new twist to the real show—the Centennial running of the Indy 500.

For how many years did we hear Tom Carnegie announce the ecstasy that one of the daredevil drivers had just earned “a new track record” or the agony of defeat hearing that “Mario is slowing down…” How many race mornings have you awakened to hear that the Coke lot is almost full and that 16th street is at a standstill? What about all of those Styrofoam cooler toting race fans making their way to the old Snakepit. Ah, the old days.

Although we enjoyed those crazy days in the infield, I, for one, appreciate the substantial effort and expense the Hulman George family has devoted to elevating our Race into a first class international event. The 80 or so acres in the shadow of downtown are immaculately maintained. The economic impact to our City of that one day is almost twice that expected by hosting the Super Bowl. And let’s not forget that they don’t ask for City money to maintain the course. Since 1945 when Tony Holman purchased the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, it has been a constantly improving venue. Our city owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to the family for making our city the Motor Sports Capital of the World. I hope it continues for another 100 years.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT