State v. Shumaker

• Decision Date: 05 August 1927
• Docket Number: No. 25147.,25147.
• Citation: 200 Ind. 623,157 N.E. 769
• Parties: STATE v. SHUMAKER et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

200 Ind. 623

157 N.E. 769

STATE

v.SHUMAKER et al.

No. 25147.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Aug. 5, 1927.

Original action by the State against Edward S. Shumaker, Jesse E. Martin, and Ethan A. Miles, charging respondents with being guilty of an indirect contempt of court. Edward S. Shumaker and Jesse E. Martin held guilty, and Ethan A. Miles held not guilty.Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., and Wm. Thompson and Solon J. Carter, both of Indianapolis, for the State.

Bingham & Bingham, of Indianapolis, for respondents.

MYERS, J.

The Attorney General of Indiana, by an amended verified information filed in this court, in substance, alleged that the respondents, Edward S. Shumaker, superintendent and directing head of an association known as the Anti-Saloon League of Indiana, Ethan A. Miles, an attorney and counsel for the League, and Jesse E. Martin, a trustee and attorney of the League, are guilty of an indirect contempt of this court, in that Shumaker, with whom Miles and Martin collaborated, prepared, printed, published, circulated, and distributed to the clergy and members of the Women's Christian Temperance organization throughout the state a pamphlet in which was incorporated misleading, false, and defamatory statements of and concerning the Supreme Court, its judges, and decisions in respect to violations of the liquor laws of the state, a copy of which pamphlet, including said false and defamatory statements and matters, was, by Shumaker, caused to be printed in the Indiana edition of the “American Issue” of February 6, 1926, and circulated among its readers and subscribers. The entire pamphlet, and as reprinted in the “American Issue,” is exhibited with the information and purports to be an annual report of the superintendent of the Indiana Anti-Saloon League, wherein, after asserting that the Supreme Court of the United States in 1907 changed its rule theretofore existing admitting evidence obtained by an invalid search warrant in the trial of an accused person, and for so doing has been very severely criticized by a text-writer, it falsely and contemptuously stated that this court has “ held that a defective search warrant should operate to let a guilty person go free”; that “ this court in the Callender Case from Elkhart, and more particularly in the Flum Case from Beech Grove in Marion county, and these reinforced by a number of later decisions, has held that no matter how guilty a person may be of violating the prohibition law, even though he might have as many as three stills in his home and be engaged in manufacturing a white mule that is poisonous and deadly in its effects, should there be any mistake in the search warrant, such a person must be turned free. We think that such rulings, coupled with the splitting of judicial hairs in many cases coming before our Supreme Court whereby substantial justice has been defeated repeatedly, has been to a great degree responsible for the great increase in the appeals of criminal cases to our state's highest judiciary.” In 1918, 24 criminal cases were appealed to the state Supreme Court, while in 1925 there were 212. (Our italics.)

After asserting that a majority of the court is at least liberal in its sentiments, the report states:

“One of its members is said to be bitterly hostile to prohibition, and, if he had it in his power, would wipe all prohibition laws from the statutes.”

Under the heading, Liquor Assault on Courts, the report states that:

“We well remember how the late Colonel Eli F. Ritter, pioneer attorney for the temperance forces in Indiana, use to say to us that when the liquor interests could no longer control the legislative or executive branches of our government they would then turn their attention to our courts and seek to control them. I think there is no doubt that this is true to-day in a bigger sense than ever before, and that the law-abiding people of our state will have to strive for the nomination and election of judges of such high judicial equipment and such a sense of honor and loyalty to the Constitution and the laws enacted thereunder that they will give judicial decisions carrying out in full and effective manner both the letter and the spirit of our Constitution and laws enacted thereunder. (Our italics.) To those who would urge that we are attacking the courts and encouraging disrespect for the same, I would say that our courts are the servants (our italics), not the masters, of the general public, and that nothing but the highest respect should be held for our American judiciary, even though it may at times err.”

The report then proceeds to call attention to the newspaper attacks on the dry law, what the so-called liquor interests are doing, and that many “wet” bills will be before the next Congress which will receive over 12,000,000 citizens' signatures for the repeal of our existing prohibition laws, and the church must rally and meet the oncoming titanic struggle, suggesting the necessity of having thousands of dollars at once for the circulation of literature and other uses, and finally, under the head of State Becoming Aroused, says:

“ The above is a dark picture, but it should be understood by the righteous people of our state and nation before it is too late.” (Our italics.)

Then follows a statement as to what is being done on what is termed “field days” to arouse the people to contribute money, and referring to the fact that at Ft. Wayne $3,000 in cash and subscriptions, and in St. Joseph county “three dozen public meetings were held,” resulting “in cash and subscriptions over $5,000” for the cause.

“ If the entire state can be thus aroused between this and the time of the primaries, we hope to be able then after the election in November to present again a solid dry delegation, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, from Indiana. *** And we trust that the next election will give us a Supreme Court that will be dry and not wet.

” (Our italics.)

The information then alleges that these respondents always expend large sums of money in every general election and particularly in elections where judges of this court are elected; that at the time the pamphlet was published and circulated, as aforesaid, and by Shumaker caused to be reprinted and circulated in the Indiana edition of the American Issue, there were pending in this court for decision many appeals from liquor law convictions wherein the question of the admissibility of evidence obtained pursuant to alleged unlawful searches and seizures was involved. Twenty-one of these cases are referred to by number, and for the purpose and object of controlling the decision of these cases and all others of like character pending or which might be appealed, the respondents entered upon a plan and scheme and are putting the same into execution, as clearly appears from the false and defamatory matter published and circulated as aforesaid, to intimidate and influence the judges and thereby to control the decisions of the court in such cases by falsely reporting certain decisions of the court, by falsely stating the personal attitude of the judges toward the prohibition cause, by imputing to the judges false and dishonest motives in rendering decisions in this class of cases, and thus and thereby to mislead and prejudice the people of the state against the court and its personnel, and to keep and hold the judges under the constant fear of being, by respondents, misrepresented as to their character, their integrity, their work as judges, and of political defeat for re-election, unless the decisions of the court conform to the opinions and desires of respondents, regardless of the command of article I, § 11 of the Constitution of Indiana; that as evidence of respondents' plan, scheme, and purpose of controlling this court's opinions in the particular class of cases, Shumaker, a member of the clergy and head of the Anti-Saloon League, having a large acquaintance with the clergy and church membership of the state, when permitted so to do, occupies church pulpits for the purpose of arousing people to political action and for soliciting funds to be used largely to control political nominations for public office, or for the election of public officials.

The information, in furtherance or in aggravation of the alleged contempt, and as evidence of the respondent's willful purpose to control the decisions of this court in the class of cases to which reference has been made, refers, by exhibit, to a certain article in the Indiana edition of the “American Issue” of date, October 18, 1924, concerning one of the judges of this court who was at that time a candidate for re-election. A portion of the article so published and circulated is set out and characterized as a false statement of and concerning the opinion in what is styled the Batts Case. The article stated that the judge, then a candidate for re-election-

“ wrote an obiter opinion in the Batts Case where he practically held that an automobile cannot be searched without a search warrant. He also made the statement in this opinion that the vessels which had been thrown out of the car in the Batts Case smelled as if there might have been whisky in them, when, as a matter of fact, the uncontradicted evidence shows that these vessels contained 23 gallons of white mule.” (Our italics.)

Under the heading “Federal and State Supreme Courts Differ,” the reader is referred only to the cases of United States v. Borkowski (D. C.) 268 F. 408, and Adonia Dumas v. State, 197 Ind. 123, 150 N. E. 24, and the article assumes to state the similarity of facts in both cases and the rulings. Thus, of the Borkowski Case, he says:

“ It is held that where officers smelled raisins cooking and saw a light in the cellar of a house and persons there moving around, and their experience told them that the odor of boiling raisins meant that a crime was being committed, they had a right to enter and seize the utensils employed, and that as...