The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-05-18
ANSWER QUIZ,
LODGE GROUP
WARNS BAKER
Protective Legion Demands
Judge Shed Light en-
Barker Case.

A sharp demand that Criminal
Judge Frank P. Baker answer ques-
tons submitted to him by The In
dianapolis Times regarding the re-
lease of Lee P. Barker, few hours
after $3.50 had been placed in es-
crow, today came from Capitol City
Lodge, Protective Legion of Amer
leans.
AS Judge Baker permitted an
other day to pass without explain
ing what process of his court Lee
Barker violated that resulted in his
imprisonment for 26 days, the Rev.
Arthur M Bowman, Legion presi-
dent. made public the attitude of
his organization.
Text of Resolution
The text of the Protective Legion
resolutions is
I'VE, the members of Capitol City
Lodge, No l, Portective Legion of
Americans, in open meeting, hereby
go on record as publicly commend
ing The Indianapolis Times and its
editor Mr. Powell, in the stand they
have taken, and the fair and i'm
partial manner the Barker case has
been presented to the public, and
Resolved, That we believe the at
titude taken by Judge Frank Baker
of the Marion County Criminal
Court, is unwarranted and certainly
most unbecoming of one holding
such high and responsible office OF
public trust, and
Resolved, That we concur with
The indianapolis Times in its de-
mand that Judge Baker answer the
various questions that he has been
requested to answer in the Barker
case, also
Resolved. That we do not be-
lieve The indianapolis Times is in
terested in politics, or even in Judge
Baker as an individual but is in
tereSted, as all good citizens should
be, in the honest enforcement of all
laws. and that no man is bigger than
the law he has sworn to uphold and
enforce, even though he be Grim
inal Court jurist, and
Resolved, That we disagree with
Judge Baker in that we believe the
people do read The Times"
Questions Are Repeated
Judge Baker had been asked by
The Times 10 answer these ques-
tons:
/. What was the Criminal Court
process which Lee Barker disobeyed
that he was attached for such dis
obedience?
2. Did it relate to the original
proceedings in which Lee Barker
was convicted in 1926?
3. If so. why was he released
when the law is clear that the only
thing that could be done was to
commit him?
4. If the original "disobeyed"
process had no relation to the pro-
ceeding in which Barker was con-
victed in 1926, why did the case
number (e0466) appear on the
jacket of the attachment?
Did j. A. B. Have Authority?
5. When Barker was released Nov.
%, 1884, was he ever brought to
court to try the issue whether or
not he "disobeyed" the process for
diSobedience of which he was at
tached?
6. Was he ever brought to court
to answer the original diSobedience
process?
7. Why was Barker released with
out having been called into court to
answer either the original disobeyed
process or the contempt.
8. Why was Barker released on
his own recognizance?
9. Did you give Joel A. Baker au-
thority to sign the release paper
upon which Lee Barker was re-
leased Nov. 26, 1884?
Held in Jail rs Days
Lee Barker had been arrested Oct.
81. 1884, on a contempt of court at
tachment issued out of Judge
Bakers court.
Fe was held in the Marion County
Jail until Nov. 26, 1884, when he
was released.
The release order bore the name
Frank P. Baker and was initiated
u. A. B." Those are the initials of
Joel A. Baker, Criminal Court in
vestigator.
Barker's 1926 conviction for viola
ton of now repealed dry law. had
been confirmed by the Indiana Su-
preme Court in 1880. He was not
committed to the state prison be-
fore being released in 1884.