The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1927-08-06

4 Ill
/ seHIpps-HowARb "Give Light and the P
( Shumaker and Free Speech
There should be but one happy person
/: today in Indiana as the result of the sentenc-
: Saloon League for contempt of the Supreme
Court.
That person is DR.. Shaumaker.
i, His enimies will rejoice They should
isweep His followers will weep. They should
IFshout in jubilant hallelujah.
Il Thinking persons may well pause to con-
sFsider what the sentencing of this man, long
Ia dominating figure in Indiana, long the
Header of cause which he lifted to the heights
fof intolerant fanaticism, really means.
Il Contempt of court in the past has been
isconfend to discussions of pending cases.
This sentence means that no one may discuss,
apparently, decisions of courts.
is It means that the Supreme Court has
taken charge of politics in so far as it re-
Hates to it's own membership and that an
Il arbitrary power not given to other branches
/ of government will be asserted to protect
Its members from false and perhaps mali
scious attack.
Is Thas some challenge should be made
against the creation of super government
(which is more powerful than the organized
sgovernment was necessary. But that the
challenge should patiently destroy that free
dom of speech and make any institution or
81 ;o1c
fable
II To properly understand the situation, the
speople should understand the nature of the
Il proceeding under which Shumaker is sem
Stenced.
r The power to punish for contempt is
Eheld to be one which is inherent in the court
i.itself and comes from no statute. It exists
i without action of the legislature While
.sthere are laws which define this power for
lefower courts, there is no statute in regard
.sto the power as it exists in the Supreme
HCourt.
/. The power to punish for contempt is
necessary for the orderly conduct of the
'Scourts. It is of two kinds The first is that
;scomitted in the presence of judges. A man
.fwho cursed fought in the presence of the
lEcourt must be suppressed. 1t is necessary
ITO have the courts free from interference.
.sThat power is essential.
Il The other kind is that committed away
lsfrom the presence of the court. It is ex-
;serted when the courts believe that they can
lsnot function honestly and fearlessy. 1t is
lsused only when the power of the court is
sblocked by conditions which should not exist.
ID Other courts have held that discussions
,sanud criticisms of cases pending before them
iSof a nature to infame public opinion, arous-
ling public sentiment in regard to particu-
lFlar decision constitutes contempt.
IL That power is we'll settled No one dis
Eputes the right or the duty of judges to
Sprotect themselves against, proper func-
iKtioning of the courts. They must be free
ato declare the law in the light of the consti-
istution.
lE But this power has never been exerted
lin discussions of cases which have been de-
lkcided. The courts have never held that their
Edecisions are beyond criticism. They have
lenever said that comments on cases which
iEwere asettled was contemptuous or inter-
iNfered with justice.
N Whenever this power has been exerted
iEt has been considered a swift, summary &C
Istion to remove the influences and to permit
liz the courts to function.
Iii The very nature of the remedy implies
iAthat there is an emergency, that the power
iSof the court is challenged, that the judges
Z are unable to function.
II 1t is exerte donly when judges are con-
II vinced that they cannot properly dispense
Is Justice because of infamed public opinion.
lf This court waited for eighteen months
!, before it discovered that Shumaker had
! made it impossible for them to properly de-
Il eide liquor cases.
u That very delay would seem to nullify,
i to very great extent, every argument of
I. the opinion which found that Shumaker had