The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1932-01-20

llButI COuItS we DeucFS bOoS COuAOS WOulQ nave
affirmed the right of newspapers freely to report the
proceedings in any courtroom.
But although no review now can be obtained we
feel that the case has been beneficial.
1t again has demonstrated that conduct of courts
should be subject to scrutiny of the public, and the
force of public opinion If this safeguard is not
maintained it is not hard to anticipate the day when
a certain type Of judges would hide all procedure
in their courtrooms from the public by closing their
courtroom DOORS not only to the press, but to the
public.
The case also has called attention again to one
Of the great weaknesses Of court procedure-the in
tolerant and unfair performances of some lawyers
in pleading before jury.
The effect in this field already is visible W. c.
Hamilton, the prosecutor who devoted much of his
closing argument in the Jones case to exneous mat
ter concerning Reds" and Communism" and in
spired the News-sentineIs first editorial, did not
mention Reds" in the trial of william Hightower
at Mt. Sterling
The original News-Sentinel editorial to which
Judge Prewtt objected called attention to the prose-
cutor's speech extraneous subjects Then it COM
mented;
NO far-minded man who has followed the Jones
trial can help wondering in his own mind whether
the Harlan county labor leader was convicted and
sentenced to life imprisonment for murder or for
being a labor leader
$50 long as our courts permit themselves to be a.
stage for the TRADES of political and social prejudice
they will not obtain the full confidence of those who
believe in even-handed justice"
That the criticism.
1t is criticism which we stand-a criticism
made to appear just by the fact that the
old not repeat his oratorical joust with the Reds
in arguing the Hightower case.
lIrtb &c
only against Judge Prewitts court but against most
If not all, of the courts in our land
One of the most common things in courtroom
procedure, which almost invariably impresses the av
erage citizen who for reason or another comes into
court is the performance of the overzealous advocate
In his pleading before the jury he talks about any,
thing under high heaven that he thinks might have
some influence on the not-too-briiant minds of the
twelve men, good and true
Any one who has watched the progress of court
trials has seen the spectacle we describe in oreat
lesser degree.
Ii Is the thing we criticised in our editorial on
The Jones case Dec. 11-and it is thing we will con-
tinue to criticise.
Whether such criticism is contemptuous is for the
courts to decide
All we know is that in the Jones case-and this
may interest Judge Prewitt-we did not have con-
Tempt IN mind when we expressed ourselves but. on
Che contrary, we did have in mind our right under
Article of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution
Oh the United States to advance an opinion about
court practice which we regarded and still regard. as
opposed to the best interests of justice.
We shall continue to exercise that right of expres
sion and when occasion makes it necessary we shall
be prepared to defend that right against the rash
angry orders of any court