The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1927-04-26
Pardon George Dale

Pardon George Dale
1t would be something of mockery if George
Dale, the Muncie editor, should be to the penal
farm for ninety days under sentence for contempt
Of court imposed by Judge Clarence W. Dearth after
all the revelations which the State had of the
peculiar conditions in the Muncie court
Technically Dale is guilty of contempt. The
courts have so ruled
The Supreme Court of the State has held that
Dearth had the power to send him to Jail
But considerable history has been written since
Dale wrote his article four years ago and all that
history suggests that Dale rendered distinctive
service when he brought to public attention
tain conditions even if he did SO in way that
was unwisc and perhaps injudicious.
Dale had been indicted ON liquor charge under
rather peculiar conditions. He had been demand,
ing enforcement of law. The arrest was made in
law Office. The evidence against him empty
bottle. Three others were in the room.
. Dale had been fighting that control of govern
ment which the Attorney General now denominaes
as mysterious imposters" That force was in power
and control at NIunce.
Dale, hurting out that he had been framed
that the grand jury bent persecution charged
that the jury commissioners of Judge Dearth we're
using their powers to Cypress.
1t is significant at least that this liquor charge
against Dale was dismissed by one of the men he
charged with conspiring against him for lack of
evidence. He was tried on that charge.
The last General Assembly took up the matter
Of Judge Dearth and his court.
The House Of Representatives with but
dissenting vote, charged Judge Dearth with yiolat-
ing the Constitution of the State in suppressing by
force the newspaper of Dale
The Senate voted 20 to 20, a verdict of guilty
on this charge The Constitution says that two
thirds must vote for conviction before Judge can
be mpeached The majority of Senators said he
was guilty
The House of Representatives charged that
Judge Dearth had illegally named the jury commits
sioner whom Dale assailed. It charged that Dearth
had qualified him by deciding to him a small bit OF
land worth not over $40.
Thiry-two Senators said upon their oaths that
Dearth was guilty Only seventeen said that lie was
innocent Fly the bare margin of two votes Dearth
retained his seat.
The House of Representatives by vote of 49,
to charged that Judge Dearth had manipulated and
controlled the drawing OF grand and petit 1urles
SO that he might personally control their decision
Twenty-six Senators, upon their oaths declared
that the evidence proved his guilt. But twenty
three said that the charge had not been proved
The House of Representatives. Young 30 10 j.
charged that Dearth had manipulated juries so that
many citizens could not obtain fair and impartial
trials.
Twenty.eight Senators declared that he was
guilty while twenty-oDe voted to acquit.
That is the record of the matter, so that per
baps there is some excuse for Dale when he blured
out that he could not obtain justice, that the power
of that particular court had been turned into
legal machine OF injustice.
What would any citizen have done had he been
confronted with situation such as the Senate OF
this State found, by a majority vote, to exist?
Perhaps Dale should have waited his time FER
hans he should have refrained from any protest,
submitted himself to court which majority OF tne
State Senate voted was so conducted as to deny
citizens fair and impartial trials, perhaps he should
have remained silent or joined the gang
But it does seem rather a travesty on lustce
and American ideals that Dale should go TO the
nenal farm for telling the people of Muncie what
majority of the State Senate later declared to have
been the truth.
The one escape is a pardon The Governor can
release him.
citizens who' feel that substantial justice de
mands his pardon might telephone the Governor and
demand such action.