The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1927-11-29
The Statute Of Limitations

FSSSNSs~SN
The courts will decide the question Of
whether or not the Governor of this State can
be prosecuted on an Indictment which charges
him with conspiring to bride former Governor
McCray.
His attorney has pleaded that the passage
of time, as apparent from the date of the
offense, has barred any criminal charge. That
is legal question.
Whether such trial is held or not, there
is a phase of the matter that is outside the
jurisdiction of courts and rests in a much
greater tribunal, which is that Of public opin-
ion.
In this State the people have never fully
subscribed that to the theory that keeping out
of iails is the sole standard of morality or char
acter in public Office.
1t may be taken as an accepted fact that the
people of this State would never knowingly
elect to any public Office any man who would
resort to secret offers in order to advance his
own ambitions.
Especially is this true of the highest Office
in this State.
stances to suggest that Governor jackson rs
entitled to something more than judgment in
criminal courts as to whether the statute Of
limitations has run against the charges made
in an Indictment.
The statute of limitations, so the lawyers
assert, never destroy right.
1t was intended to prevent prosecutions and
is designed for a very commendable purpose
In the civil law it prevents the presentation
of false claims.
In the criminal law twas designed to pro-
tect innocent persons from false accusations
after time when necessary witnesses may be
missing or memory grow faulty through lapse
of time.
It was intended to protect the innocent from
injustice, never to furnish cloak to the guilty.
These statutes were not created to make
game Of the criminal law under which lodging
the policeman for certain period of time
would furnish immunity.
Something more than the personal fate of
the Governor is concerned in this matter and
fortunately it is matter which does not need
the action of criminal courts to determine.
That is the reputation of the State itself,
and the tradition which will be given to history.
Whatever the courts decide or do not de-
eide in this matter is not so important as
full public hearing upon the facts
The charge that Governor Jackson in pur-,
suit Of his own ambitions did certain thing
which should bar any man from the highest
office has been made in the greater court of
public opinion.
Linked with that charge are the names Of
men whose evidence in this matter should be
heard in public. The charge as it goes from
lip to lip and from village to village and city
to city has with it defniteness that can be
answered 1t is either true or false.
The Governor may be presumed to desire
not only an acquittal in a court, but COM
plete vindication.
The Governor may be presumed, in all sin
cerity, to desire chance to meet his accusers
face to face and to force them to prove their
charges and to have his chance to answer
them.
None of the witnesses to the transaction
which is openly charged are dead
These men may be defaming the reputation
Of the State They may be seeking to destroy
an innocent man. That should not be per-
mitted.
Aside from whatever outcome may be had
in courts, there is way in which the reputation
Of the Governor and the State may be pro-
tected.
The Governor can call the Legislature to
look at the facts and meet as tribunal Of
public conscience to listen to evidence.
The statute Of limitations runs against
crime. 1t does not run against opportunity for
vindication.
TTo~r4Sr TIo;1