The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1927-11-22
Courts and Politics

COuTCS ana EOuClCS
Whatever guilt may or may not lodge in
the head Of the Anti-Saloon League on the
charge Of using political threats or pressure to
influence decision in his own case in the SUI
preme Court will be decided by the judges.
But the people are very much interested in
the revelations Of the two United States Sena-
tors and the head of the Republican State
committee concerning their own part in that
case.
There lis the frank sworn statement of
Senator James E. Watson that he and his col
league, Arthur Robinson, met at Washington,
talked the Shumaker case over and decided
that the sentence Of the court or lack Of any
decision would have an important bearing on
their own elections.
The senior Senator says that he shrank
from approaching any judge to personally per-
suade him.
But he declares that he Immediately, after
this conference with Robinson, sent letters to
the friends of Attorney General Arthur L. Gil
liom in an endeavor to brighten or persuade
the chief legal officer to change his attitude.
In other words Watson admits that he tried
Court. What he really tried to do was to IN
uence that court for his own political interests.
To the legal mind there may be vast dis
tinction between directly approaching judge
and indirectly trying to mislead that same
Judge.
The Watson statement is even more indica-
tive of his attitude to courts when he said
=, bo r; NJ fTuc fO
slowness of mails, but used long-distance
telephone from Washington to some part OF
Indiana to get some close friend Of Gilllom to
Journey to Indianapolis and personally appeal
to him in the name Of the party to change his
attitude.
Results show that Gilliom failed to respond
to any plea or political persuasion.
In his plea to the Supreme Court, Scion j.
Carter made this charge against Shunaker;
Here we have man. in furtherance OF what
he calls righteous cause, attempting to Destroy
the one thing we have left in Indiana That Is an
incorruptible court One things Indiana has lett
is the fact that her courts are 1ncorruptole Inc
duty Of the court is to let the public know that no
nam can bring influence to bear on this court
What then is to be said of Watson? What
was he trying to do when he sent his political
friends to argue with the attorney general that
political expedience demanded that he stop
case In court which he had brought IN the
name of the peopleH
What becomes Of the theory Of an incor-
runtible and fearless court if its chief law adj
wiser is to be made the subject Of pressureF
To the lay mind this might seem to be an
even greater assault upon the integrity OF
courts than a direct approach to one OF the
judges.
The statement of Senator Arthur H. Robin
son concerning the same episode casts little
credit on his actions or his own conception Oh
the high dignity of courts when political
matter was involved.
He says that he quickly telephoned to wat
son when Shumaker seemed disturbed about
his own fate There is missing from the rec
ord any statement that he considered any dis
cussion Of pending case by candidates OF
the possibility of using political methoos : 20
secure action at all improper
Out Of the hearing has come very PLAIN
nortrait Of two United States Senators. They
are shown by their own statements as plac-
mo their own election above any regard Tor
Justice. They paint themselves as willing to
: Influence. in indirect manners, the decisions OF
courts by attempting to discourage or per-
suade the attorney general.
The courts will deal with Shumaker The
neople will have chance to deal with the
Senators.