The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1927-09-21
Missing the Point

Various church organizations are passing
the head of the Anti-Saloon League and by I'M
plication declaring that his case of contempt
is an attack on prohibition.
Those who believe in prohibition will ap-
plaud the loyalty to that cause, but the con-
tempt case has nothing at all to do with the
question.
The original charge raised, not wet and
dry issue, but the question Of free speech.
The new charge has to do with the sanctity
Of courts and their freedom from political IN
fuence and control
The Times believed that the Supreme Court
was mistaken in assuming power to punish
The dry leader for criticisms however mistaken
they may have been of cases which had been
decided
1t took the stand, and it believes with good
cause, that every citizen has right to discuss
Bhe merits Of decisions Of the court when those
hecisions have once been rendered.
That the criticisms may have been un-
founded and that they were false interpreta-
lions Of the decisions had nothing to do with
The fundamental right Of every citizen to voice
his views.
Very dangerous indeed would be the as
sumption Of courts that they may punish
criticism of their acts and pass upon the false
ness or the truth Of statements concerning
their own acts That road leads to tyranny
and to the final creation of super power In
corrts which the people did not intend and
which can not exist under our free institutions.
But now far different question is raised
;Nand one which involves not only the dry leader
but two United States Senators.
The new motion charges that an attempt
by the dry leader toaforce an early decision
or favorable decision in his case in advance
of the election was corrupt effort to influence
the Supreme Court of this State.
This certainly has nothing to do with prohi-
bition. For if it can be done by dry leaders, it
can be done by wet leaders, and if by wet
leaders by any group of politicians, so that
courts would lose their character Of free bodies,
removed from any influence except considera-
ton Of the law and the Constitution.
The evidence is in the form of letter writ
ten by Senator James E. Watson and one by
DIR. Shumaker.
The letters are explicit. especially the let
ter of the Senator. It says that Senator
: Arthur Robinson went to Washington and
asked Watson to work IN HIS OWN WAY to
keep the dry leader out Of Jail.
The case was before the court. Every legal
pleading had been filed. All that was left was
judicial decision.
Senator Watson also states frankly that he
wrote letters throughout Indiana that he hoped
would have the effect Of keeping Dr. Shumaker
put Of jail.
The people have a right to know, and the
eourt must know, to whom these letters were
sent, how the Senator hoped they would in
fuence the legal decision, and what, if any
thing, was done by those to whom the Senator
wrote to influence that high court
The people must know, also, what Senator
Arthur Robinson said to Watson when he ap-
preached him in Washington, and what he said
over the telephone when he called from his
own home to put DR.. Shumaker in touch with
the Senator who was engaged, so he says in
bridge game at Culver at the time.
~ @NV VhO Ooulu pOooluly OuJSct W COluplcCc
and hearty support Of all legitimate efforts of
DIR. Shumaker to keep the State dry, and to en-
force laws and secure other laws that his fol-
lowers may desire.
But that is not the issue now. The issue is
whether the dry leader and Senator Arthur
Robinson or any other person attempted to in
fuence the Supreme Court in its actions in the
case which was before it,
Not whether the State shall be wet damp,
or arid, but whether the Supreme Court shall
be free from the threats and secret pleas of
political candidates is the issue in this matter
No one should be misled Unless the courts
be kept free from fear, there can be no justice,
and our government ceases to be one Of law
and becomes one of mobs.
P1sifofx1 onI n,,x, roc C,,x.oIxv