The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1927-09-19
Controlling Courts

This is government of law, not govern
mcnt of men,
This is the achievement of our democracy.
1t is the only claim which the United States has
to being the land of freedom and equality.
Our entire government is based upon the
theory that it has established a government
which assures this
It is done by dividing our government into
the executive, the legislative and the judicial,
all distinct, all of equal dignity but separte.
The right of petition goes to the executive
and the legislative. The courts are removed
from that influence.
The people have carefully refrained from
any step which would give them direct in
fuence upon the courts, other than in election
and selection of the judges.
Once elected, the people themselves have
declared that they will not attempt to influence
decisions of those judges but keep them re-
mote and removed from any influence.
When La Toilette, tried to change this sys-
tenn by proposal that there be a recall of
Judges the people refused to listen. They
stood by the ancient tradition and theory that
courts must never be subject to the demands of
the hour or the passions of the moment. The
courts must be free to follow law and pre-
serve the Constitution.
When Theodore Roosevelt proposed the re-
call of judicial decisions, he failed to secure
any great Endorsement Of his plan. The peo-
pie chung to the belief that courts must not
write their decisions in fear of the popular
mind, but with an eye fixed only on the law
and the Constitution.
When Attorney General Gilliom filed his
motion charging the head of the Anti-Saloon
League with an attempt to corruptly influence
the decisions of the Supreme Court, he raised
an issue that is much wider and more impor-
tant than the one on which DR.. Shumaker is
at present under sentence for contempt
His original charge cited that the attempt
to coerce the courts was made through false
criticisms of decisions and an attempt to fright
en- judges.
There is serious doubt in the minds of
criticisms of decisions in cases which are set
tied. That would end the freedom of govern
ment and make courts too powerful The peo-
pie have reserved to themselves the right to
discuss decisions once rendered and to pass on
he fitness of judges in the light of their deci-
sions.
But this new charge is direct and is on an
entirely different basis.
1t is based upon a letter of Senator James
Il. Watson, which the Senator says is his only
word on the matter. 1t is enough
That letter accuses Senator Arthur Robin
son. The letter is confession by Watson.
Whether Senator Watson told Shumaker
that he had seen three judges and discovered
lat they would not decide his case before cleo
ion and afterward would not send him to
nil, as Shumaker says, or never said any such
hing is not important, though interesting.
What is important is his statement that
senator Arthur Robinson came to him in
Washington and asked him to work IN HIS
OWN WAY to keep DR.. Shumaker out Of Jail.
The words are those Of Watson.
What way did Robinson believe that Wat
son could work and what was that way?
What did Robinson want Watson to do?
Was it to appear as an attorney for Shumaker?
That was the only legitimate and innocent way