The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1928-07-27
RE trial FOR
SHUMAKER IS
COUNSEL PLEA
Appeal to Nations High
Tribunal to Follow If
Plea Is Rejected.
ERRORS ARE CHARGED
Admission of Dispositions
by Watson and Wilson
Is Attacked.
ERRORS ARE CHARGED

Attorneys for the Rev. E. S. Shu-
maker superintendent of the In
diana Anti-Saloon League, today
filed with Indiana Supreme Court
a motion for a rehearing and a new
trial of Shumaker on charges of
contempt.
Supreme Court last week affirmed
its decision holding Shumaker in
contempt for his 1925 annual re-
port, charging some of its judges
were wet" and affirmed the sem
tence of sixty days on Indiana State
Farm and fine of $3.50.
The headquarters committee of
the Anti-Saloon League announced
Wednesday that Shumaker would
appeal to the national Supreme
Court on the grounds of free speech.
League Stand Explained
Only Thursday the Rev. G. H.
WinderS of this committee issued
long statement explaining the
leagues stand.
of the league appeared at the Of
flee of Justice David A. Myers and
filed the motion for rehearing and
new trial. If the State court over
rules the motion, then the appeal
to the higher court will be taken.
Miles charges in the brief sup
porting the motion that the court
erred in admitting dispositions of
United States Senator James E.
Watson and Henry Lane Wilson,
former ambassador to Mexico, in the
hearing upon Attorney General Ar
thur L. Gilliom's motion to increase
Shumaker's punishment.
Hits Deposition Acceptance
Watson and Wilson, who testified
as to a telephone conversation of
Watson with Shumaker, were un-
able to attend personally and
Gilliom introduced their dispositions.
Miles contends the court could not
accept dispositions in criminal pro-
cedure, such as the contempt case.
Attorneys interested in the case
pointed out that Supreme Court, in
affirming its original sentence Of
Shumaker upon the basis of his 1925
report, refused to increase the pun
iShment upon the basis of the later
hearing on Gilliom's motion-the
one in which the Watson and Wilson
deposition were offered.
"The motion for new trial raised
just one question: Miles said, "anG
that is the error of the court in de-
Gliding that in a procedure of this
kind it is not governed by rules pre-
vailing in other trials, permitting the
defendant to face the witnesses in
court"
Explains His Move
Under our State laws" Miles
said, you can't raise a question on
appeal that was raised in the trial
of the cause, unless it is presented
in motion for a new trial. That
explains this action"
The attorney said he would pro-
ceed with preparation of the writ
of error preparatory to the United
States Supreme Court appeal, but
that no definite step toward carry
ing the appeal to the high court
would be taken until the State court
acts on the motion for a new trial.
He said he held hope that the
State Supreme Court, in light of de-
cisions cited in the motion, would
grant the new trial, but that if the
motion is denied, a necessary step
will have been taken into carrying
the appeal to the United States Su-
preme Court
Says Rights Denied
Shumaker was denied the right to
a trial by jury to determine the law
and the facts as guaranteed to him
by Section "a, Article l, Indiana
Constitution, the motion contends,
and was denied the right to meet
the witness face to face, guaranteed
to him by Section So, Article /, of
the constitution.
Bingham & Bingham, Shumaker's
personal attorneys, joined Miles, the
leagues attorney, in filing the
action.
The motion is "in good faith" and
not "a dilatory plea, the attorneys
said in the memorandum accom-
panying it.