The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1928-12-01
PARDON LEGAL,
COURT IS TOLD
BY SHUMAKER
Jackson Within Rights in
Granting CIemency, Is
Demurrer Claim.
FIGHTS GILLIoM MOVE
Payment of Fine EStops
State, Contention of
Dry Leader.

Governor Ed Jackson was within
his constitutional rights when he
pardoned Edward S. Shumaker, In
diana Anti-Saloon League super
intendent, for contempt of court, at
torneys for the dry leader contend
in demurrer to the states suit for
execution of judgment, filed with
the State Supreme Court today.
Fighting Shumaker's recommit-
f1ent to the Indiana State Farm, his
attorneys attacked the motion filed
recently by Attorney General Arthur
L. Gillion, which argued the Gov
ernor was without authority to
pardon a person convicted of con-
tempt of the State Supreme Court.
Gililom's motion asked execution
OF Judgment, which would return
Stumaker to the state farm to serve
the siXty-day sentence imposed by
the court.
Defends Pardon Validity.
The demurrer filed by Ethan A.
Miles, Shumaker's attorney, defend
ed validity of the pardon; charged
that the attorney generals move
was an attempt to invoke the aid
of the judiciary to interfere with
the action of an independent de-
partment of the state" and con-
tended that Shumaker did not seek
the pardon, but in accepting it and
paying the fine imposed, 5000 and
costs, he made himself mot prop
er party to any proceeding to have
said pardon declared void"
The charge arose from remarks,
held contemptuouS, which were
published in the American Issue,
Anti-Saloon League publication.
His plea for a rehearing denied,
Shumaker was taken to the state
farm Oct. 10 to begin his sentence.
Governor Jackson's pardon effected
his release after a few hours.
The State Supreme court is with
out jurisdiction over Shumaker or
the Subject matter" of informa-
ton filed by the attorney general,
the demurrer asserted. Gllliom
erred, it argues, in not making Gov
ernor Jackson and Ralph Howard,
state farm superintendent, parties
to the action.
Nine Points in Support
Nine points were recited in sup
port of the contention that the in
formation filed by the attorney gen.
eral "doeS not state facts sufficient
to constitute any cause OF action or
ground for any order against or af-
fecting the rights or liberties OF said
respondent Shumaker."
First of these is the argument
that the Governor was within the
authority conferred upon him by
Sec. II of Art. 5 of the Constitution
of Indiana in issuing the pardon.
This provides that the Governor
"Shal have the power to grant re-
prieveS, communications and pardopS
after conviction for all offenses ex-
cept treason and cases Of impeach-
ment subject to such regulations as
may be provided by law
provided. however, that the gen.
eral assembly may, by law, constl-
tute a council to be composed OF
officers Of the state without whose
advice and consent the Governor
shall not have power to grant par
dons, in any case, except such as
may, by law, be left to his sole
power"
Claim State EstOpped
Inasmuch as Shumaker accepted
the pardon, paid the costs and fine
imposed, and these were accepted
by the state, "the state of Indiana
now is .estopped to question the
validity of said pardon" said the
demurrer.
The supreme court is without jur-
iSdiction, it continued, because the
action is neither an appeal nor pro-
ceeding upon writ of error, pro-
ceeding against Shunaker to have
him fined or imprisoned for con-
tempt, motion for new trial, petit
ton for rehearing, nor motion to
modify judgment.
Shumaker is not charged with
having sought the pardon, either
directly or indirectly, in the states
information, says the demurrer, and
SO is beyond reach of the court in
any action seeking to have the par
don declared void, it argues.
It is expected the supreme court
will come to a decision without