The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1926-09-13
WILL THE DRYS PROBE?

If there be any sincere believers in prohibition
who in the past have had some misgivngs to the
propriety of turning their votes to Senator
James E. Watson, they certainly should demand
thorough showdown the facts concerning the
petition to release a conspirator from the Federal
Penitentiary
The merits Of the case no longer matter. The
Jones Brothers may be the worst traitors to the
country they may have been framed.
But the big question in the matter is whether or
not Senator Watson signed petition for their
lease.
The Times has the word of DR.. shumaker, head
of the Anti-Saloon League of this State that Wat
son. replying to an inquiry which Shumaker made
over the telephone told him that he knew nothing Of
such a case and had never signed any such appeal.
That puts any defense in the future that Wat
son might make that he wanted to correct an in
junction out of court
For Watson evidently believed that signature
to such petition would affront the dry forces and
took pains to deny that he had signed.
Did Watson rely the rules of the Federal
prison which forbid an official to dvulge the names
Of signers to petitions for mercy?
The denial of Watson to Shumaker was con-
tradicted by the statement sent out over wires of
two big press associations which considered
liable and many Washington correspondents for
newspapers.
The accuracy of these reporters is their chief
asset Their reliability is their first claim to dis
tinction
1t is significant that Watson has not received
denial from any newspaper correspondent or any
press association.
He did deny it to the who has always
dorsed Watson to the voters of the State friend
of prohibition to whom he should give their votes.
He did think the matter important enough and
perhaps dangerous enough to his "dry" record to
tell the Reverend Shumaker that he had signed no
such appeal
Denial of course is the easy way especially
when the rules of the prison board such
be invoked to prevent an inquiry or disclose the
signature, if it be there.
Perhaps the dry forces if they believe that Wat
should have proof of his assertion to Shumaker
will give them release, from this rule and join
them in petition to the prison authorities to show
the petition and the papers on file?
For clearly the issue is no longer one of the
Jones case but whether Watson tried to deceive the
dry voters of this State
If the press associations and the newspaper cor
respondents all lied concerning Watson and his
signature, it might that he would have, before
this demanded retraction.
Either these associations and newspapers made
misstatements concerning Watson the Senator de-
liberatey tried to deceive the dry forces of this
State.
What will Shumaker and the dry forces say II
they should find that Watson had made at least
inaccurate statement to them?
Would that convince them of what many believe,
that Watson has not been sincere friend of either
vets or drys but has cast every vote the ground
of expediency and then lend aid through naming
friends of enforcement when he had the chance?
If he tried to bunk them on this matter, would
they believe that he has tried it, successfully before
on other matters? rfT
The drys should demand a probe-quick in the
name of justice to Jim or themselves.