The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1927-08-11
It Must Not Stand

It would satisfy those who look upon him
as the enemy of personal liberty and menac-
ing political influence.
It would arouse the sympathies of those
who look upon him as the inspired leader of
great cause.
Time would wipe away both the gratifca-
ton of his enemies and the indignation of his
friends.
But what is important is the assertion Of
power by the Supreme Court of this State to
punish for comments, true or false, concerning
the decisions it has rendered.
Such decisions become, as precedents, the
law itself as powerful as though imbedded
into the constitution and written into law.
This nation finally rests for its vindication
and its true purpose upon those guarantees
of Liberty as are written into the Bill of
Rights.
1t was for these liberties that the revolu-
ton against tyranny under the form of mon
archy was fought.
This nation was not founded as protest
against tax on tea. 1t was ordained by men
who believed that human beings have certain
inalienable rights and among them the right
to rule themselves and form their own gov
eminent, to change it as they please, to mold
it to their needs.
They knew, these men who had studied
tyranny and sought to escape it, that human
liberty and free government could not exist
unless there was freedom of speech which
guaranteed to every citizen the right to dis
cuss his own government.
That right is the protection Of every other
liberty. Upon it depends free institutions.
It is this right so it seems to The Times
which is invaded by the Supreme Court Of this
State when it sentenced the head of the Anti
Saloon League to prison.
The right and the duty of courts to defend
their dignity and power, to protect themselves
against oppressive domination or the fear that
might deter them from doing their full duty, is
essential
They have asserted, not without challenge
and always against protest, the right to punish
for criticisms of specific cases which have
not been decided.
But that right has been established and
always has it been maintained on the theory
LndC the CRITICISM muSC De concerning case
which is pending and undecided.
The case Of Shumaker is different. His
report to his followers dealt with cases which
had been decided. He thought they had been
decided wrongly. The court says, the same
court which rendered the decisions, that he
rendered false report to his following as to
the nature and the meaning Of the decisions.
Even though the court asked a few lawyers
to pass upon the matter, the same judges who
rendered the decisions passed upon the truth
or falsity Of the Shumaker decisions. That
is not important.
For the truth or falsity Of the Shumaker
comments have nothing to do with the matter.
The cases had been decided They could not
be influenced by any distorted report to the
people.
The important thing is that the Supreme
Court now Furnishes man for making state
ment concerning decisions which had been
rendered
They could with good grace, punish for
fattering comments as for critical ones
If Shumaker falsifed the record, the
proper answer was the truth of that record.
No man, no organization can long have in
fuence who deliberately tries to mislead his
following No movement in this country has
ever gained enduring power upon falsehoods
What is important is that the people as
sert and maintain their right to discuss any
institution of government and any act of any
of it's branches.
Without it, tyranny is not only threat
but reality.
The issue is greater than Shumaker, greater
than any personality, greater than prohibition.
1t goes to the very foundation of the gov
eminent itself, and if this power goes unchal-
lenged, another stone has been dynamited
from the Rock Of Ages upon which this nation
is built
There should be more than protest There
should be positive action. If it be necessary
to write in palmer language the guarantee of
free speech, protecting even from the highest
court, that should be done. If statute will