The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-05-17
FRIDAY. KAY II. 1915
STILL No REPLY

Asst Saturday this newspaper directeo
La series Of questions to Criminal Judge
Prank Baker regarding his handling OF the
r7arker case. They we're. We feel perfectly
nroper inquiries since Judge Baker IS public
official receiving his salary from the tax
pavers. They were couched in dignihed, re-
spectful language.
Won will remember that Lee Barker was
placed in Marion County Jail last fall on a
contempt Of court warrant. The Supreme
Court had upheld his sentence Of from one
to two years in Michigan City Prison. Judge
Baker released him and explained that he did
so in the hope that he would produce his
brother. Dell Barker, who was wanted under
a similar conviction.
The Times could find no record indicating
the procedure by which Lee Barker was held
in iail Under the law Judge Baker was
obligated to send the man to states prison
as soon as he located him.
Now Dell Barker's family and relatives
say that he was living openly just outside
the city at the time that the judge released
his brother to hunt him.
THIS situation needs some explaining
Il Perhaps Judge Baker has some good rea-
son for his unusual conduct. That is why
We asked him those questions which have
become doubly important in the light of evi-
dence that Dell Barker was not in hiding.
The Judges only reply was an attack on
this newspaper and its executive head His
remarks had no relevance whatever to the
Barker case. The burden of his comment
was that nobody would believe The Times.
We then invited him to answer the ques-
tons in the News or the Star. both reputable
newspapers in the community. The admin
istration Of criminal justice in indianapolis
is far more important to us than COMPETE
ton among the local newspapers. The peo-
pie Of this city are entitled to the FACTS
about the Barker case no matter what news
paper prints them.
Thus far the Judge has said nothing, so
far as the public knows about The Times
questions This is surprising Judge Baker
inserted number of high-priced advertise
ments in all the indianapolis papers during
the campaign last fall. We think that he
might well spend his money at this time. if
necessary 10 tApLdlll tlAC DdAhtA NooC
This matter touches upon his reputation
as a judge.
JUDGE Baker has. however. not been en-
- tirely silent. on Wednesday, in open
court. he vented food of filth such as might
be expected from a mule skinner, but which
certainly sounded strange from a man who
is not only a member of the judiciary Bit
also a Sunday School teacher.
We can not quite grasp why nine straight
forward and courteous questions directed to
a public servant should throw the judge into
such paroxysms of passion. We do not I'M
derStand why The Times inquiry into his
conduct in Office should cause him to forget
the dignity Of his position and descend to the
sort Of unspeakable vulgarity one hears from
an adoleScent problem child
Frankly Judge Bakers loud and obscene
opinions Of The Times and its editor are of
no consequence except as he characterizeS
himself as public official by expressing them
The important thing is those nine uues-
tons about the Barker case.
Why don't you answer them. judge?
II you fail to do so you, Of course. realize
that peopia will draw their own conclusions
about your refusal.
Let's have the answers. judge.