The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1928-12-29
Shumaker to Prison

of prohibition makes an even greater mistake
Primarily the court settled but question when
it ordered the return of the dry leader to the penal
farm 1t decided that the supreme court and Cover
nor are of equal standing and authority and that the
executive has no power to interfere with the judiciary
in the exercise of its functions.
It takes away from the Governor the power to
pardon for contempt 1t decides that he cannot inter-
fere with the highest court when it decides that its
authority has been challenged and overthrown.
That is undoubtedly a sound view, although it may
result unfortunately.
To raise distinctions between any one of the three
branches of government the legislative, judicial and
executive is to set aside the entire theory of our
government.
The legislature was created to enact laws. The
Governor is chosen to execute them. The courts
set up to interpret them.
For Governor to claim authority to supervise de-
cisons of the supreme court leads to dictatorship
For courts to become instruments Of injustice
leads to revolution.
While this is the one legal question involved the
one in the open is the punishment OF ShumaKer LOT
publications which the court said tended to destroy
its power and it's influence
THE court in effect declared that Shumaker, be-
cause of his vast influence had set up super
government IN this state which trying to Suppant
courts and which ruthessly desired to set aside the
constitution and the protection of citizens through
coercion of the judges.
Mo one will dispute that such a super government
has existed in this state. 1t came through an appear
to the consciences Of men and women rather than
through revolution 1t existed because the purposes
of the Anti-Saloon League and the Ku-Klux hlan SO
co.ordinated that they controlled elections. To-
eer they were powerful enough to terrorize all pub
lie officials.
IT was against this super government that Attor-
ney-Ceneral Glliom protested and fought Increasingly
When he saw what he believed an effort to conVrol
decisions of the court he brought his action WHICH
finally results in the sentence Of Shumaker being car
ried out
That he was justified in his fight is strongly Sug-
cested by the manner in which the case has oeen oe
laeyd and handled in the court since Uhe ""S AZ
first filed his information
| It was months before the supreme court rendered
hts first decision Important elections occurred IN the
kn+erval in which the case something OF an ISSUE
br believed by politicians to be an issue
AS to whether the method Of Gillom III bringing
Ia contempt proceeding for a published 1alsehooo
concerning court decisions the proper one there
can be some doubt. 1t is, at least, traughV WIN
danger.
There can be no contention that Shumaker
suffers because he told the truth. His reports wels
orestionaby calculated to misinform the thousands
who trust him. That was determined by six lawyers
named by the court. The pleadings in the case IN
behalf of Shumaker make no claim OF truth IN MS
behalf
Neither can there be any dispute with the state
ment that the purpose Of the Shumsker publications
was the defeat of judges who had rendered decisions
not to his liking. He proposed to write, not per-
sonally but through fear of his power the decisions
80 oil En1iOr the bill OF
rights was invaded at times meant nothing.
But the power asserted by the court in this case
is one which, in the hands of vindictive judges or
preudiced judges might easily result in suppression
of free speech Courts corrupt courts, could easily
terrorize timd press and timid ctzenry.
There should be clear definition by the ncom-
ing legislature of what constitutes contempt and pro-
visions for trial by juries in all cases of indirect
contempt.
The history of the Shunaker contempt sug
gests that he should not be alone in his vacation
if the theory be that any effort to political in
huence upon the court constitutes contempt and
creates super government.
After the first charge was filed, political influence
was sought by Shumaker-and given-more dangerous
than the original assault of Shumaker if it we're
assault.
When the campaign of Senators Watson and Rob-
inson in 1926 was at its turning point Shumaker ap
pealed to them to aid him. He also approached Clyde
Walb then the campaign chairman and now guest
of the government.
There is of record letter from Senator Watson
to Shumaker telling him that he had been ap-
preached by his colleague Robinson, and asked to
do what he could do legitimatey, to help Shumaker.
The only legitimate action that Watson could
have taken was to appear as his attorney in court
Instead Watson said that he wrote letters which
he hoped would have the effect of keeping Shumaker
out of jail Those letters, he later explained, were to
men who might impress Attorney General Gliom
with expediency of taking less belligerant attitude
in his conduct of the case
In other words it was an effort to corrupt Gill
hom and prevent him from doing what he had de-
clared his legal duty. 1t an effort to indi-
recty do what Shumaker had been charged with
doing merely influence the court by changing the at
titude of the chief legal officer of the state.
There was also the visit by Shumaker to the home
of Senator Robinson hurried telephone call to the
summer home of Watson, conversation that resulted
an exchange of letters that leave neither Watson