The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-09-30
HINDSIGHT, WE CALLS 1T

WE have letter from Earl F. Reed, one of the
w committee Of three representing the SO Liberty
League lawyers, who recently handed down de-
csion that the Wagner labor act is unconstitutional
The letter says:
an articles which appeared in your newspaper
in connection with an interview in Washington on
Sept. 19 when the report Of the lawyers committee
Of the American Liberty League was released,
noted in several articles the following purporting
to be quotation from me:
when lawyer tells client that law is un-
constitutional it is then nullity and he need not
obey that law
This was inaccuratey reported to you What
said was in substance that an act which was un-
constitutional was a nullity in law, and that
thought it the duty of a lawyer to advise his
client to disregard such act. followed this by
statement that this the way any act of Congress
into the courts for attack, and that if ali law
yers advised clients to obey unconstitutional laws
amounted to taking away mans right to challenge
act unconstitutional.
There was never at any time any statement to
the effect that lawyers opinion that an act was
unconstitutional made It a nullity, which is the
Interpretation which has been given to the mis-
quotation"
Nov, that is letter which we are mighty glad
to print, because for some reason or other, we
feel lot of satisfaction in heapng Goals OF fire
upon fraternity which is not always too kind to
that most miserable of human beings-the witness.
At the time the quotation to which Mr.. Reed
now objects first showed up following the press
conference in which the decision was promulgated,
we thought the language bit blunt, not to say
strong. So checked with our correspondent, and
then with another who had also attended, and re-
ceived what the lawyers term absolutely corrobora
tive evidence. Mr.. Reed had said it, And he had
said it precisely that way
And while delighted to serve Mr.. Reed by
now publishing his communication we have our own
private idea that this is what happened:
Mr. Reed had found himself in a strange role
very strange role for of his profession Instead
of conducting the examination is the wont of the
attorney, he took the witness stand.
FAVE you ever been on a witness stand? Have
you ever felt the finger of opposing counsel
quivering near your face? Have you inhaled
the hot breath of a booming and accusative voice
believing at you to answer yes or Mo-? Have you
ever heard it intimated that you were the one who
kidnapped Charley Ross, hit Billy Patterson, caused
the panic of 49, and brought the yellow fever to
Memphis?
Well, if you have, you may realize what might
occur if lawyer, always heretofore accustomed to
giving it, suddenly put in a position of taking
it; and that he might say things which, in the calm
of his study with all the powers of hindsigh brought
to bear didn't look so good.
Well, for whatever our opinion may be worth,
that is the way we reconstruct the incident.
When the self-appointed Supreme Court met and
after it had been called to order by Chief Justice
Jouett Shouse questions Of unexpectedly critical
nature volleyed and Numbered from half hundred
highly skeptical newspaper men. That words not so
carefully chosen spoken in response is nothing
at all remarkable.
So once again we say are more than pleased
to be magnanimous to bestow upon Mr.. Reed the
precious privilege of afterthought, to give him, in
fact, break that we have never seen lawyer give
witness, to let him express with all due deibera-
ton the very quintessence of what he intended to
say. and to congratulate him, incidentally, on the
fact that there is not whereas or an andor in his
letter.