homes, and can furnish the names of at least a dozen reliable and substantial citizens, men and women whose reputation for veracity could not be questioned, and who also know of the same facts.

Eighth. Federal Prohibition Agent George L. Hannen, having in his possession in the city of Clarksburg approximately eight hundred (800) quarts of bonded liquor, and during the April term, 1921, of the Federal court at Martinsburg (which was the first term at which Judge Baker presided after his appointment) called Judge Baker's attention to this condition, the said agent expressing the fear that his office might be broken into and the liquor stolen, and requested that an order be entered permitting the destruction of the said liquor as the law required; this same request was made by said agent several times during the term and was not complied with. During the May term, 1921, at Wheeling, the said agent having again requested the entry of such order, and no such order being entered, on his request, the said agent went to one Harry H. Byrer, who was then assistant United States attorney for the northern district of West Virginia, and requested him to prepare such destruction order and present the same to the court. The said assistant United States attorney complied by preparing the desired order and presented it to Judge Baker in open court, who read it and put it in his pocket, and never did enter it. On September 27, 1921 at the Martinsburg term, Judge Baker, upon his own motion, entered an order directing the said George L. Hannen, then Federal prohibition agent, to deliver said liquor to one C. E. Smith, then United States marshal, and directed the said marshal to hold the said liquor for 30 days, and at the end of said time the said marshal was to destroy the same. The said liquor was delivered to the said marshal (or to one of his deputies) at Clarksburg, W. Va., and was stored in a fireproof vault for about five weeks, and whereupon one Thomas Joyce, then United States deputy marshal, and one John Koontz, who was then and is now United States deputy marshal, having been appointed at the request of Judge Baker, and residing at Elkins, went to Clarksburg, took said whiskey out of the vault where it was stored and carried it to the city of Fairmont. No report nor return has ever been made up to this time showing the destruction of said liquor, but the said John Koontz stated to Louis Buchwald, now United States marshal for the northern district of West Virginia, and to A. T. Barrett, chief deputy marshal, and to B. Merindino, a Clarksburg attorney at law, that said liquor was divided after it was taken to Fairmont, and that he took one-half of it to the city of Elkins (which is Judge Baker's home town) and the other half of it was left with then marshal, C. E. Smith, at Fairmont. The said Koontz also stated concerning said liquor, "We used some of it ourselves, we gave some of it to our friends, and I expect there is some of it around there yet." The said Koontz and one C. C. Cook, of Parkersburg, W. Va., and former deputy United States marshal, upon an occasion when they were taking some Federal prisoners to Atlanta, Ga., also took along with them a quart of this liquor.

Ninth. That about the same time the said liquor mentioned in specification eighth was stored and delivered at Clarksburg, W. Va., as aforesaid, there was also stored in the vault of the United States clerk's office in the Federal building, in the city of Wheeling, sixty (60) quarts of bonded liquor, and that under the order of Judge Baker, heretofore mentioned, the said 60 quarts of bonded liquor were taken

from the said vault in Wheeling and sent to Fairmont, W. Va., to the said C. E. Smith, then United States marshal, and that no report or return has ever been made up to this time showing the destruction of the said liquor.

John H. Conrad, deputy clerk of the United States Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, knows of the facts of the storage of said liquor and its removal from the place of storage and consignment to Fairmont.

Tenth. At the Wheeling October term, 1921, of the Federal court, Judge Baker, upon his own motion, directed the entry of an order whereby all national prohibition officers and all United States marshals and other officers acting under the national prohibition act who should thereafter seize or obtain possession of intoxicating liquors were directed to promptly deliver the same to the custody of the United States marshal at Elkins, and said liquor was directed to be stored in the marshal's vault in the Federal building at Elkins, and there to be held until such time as the criminal proceedings or other proceedings connected therewith should be disposed of. As a matter of fact, the marshal had no vault at Elkins, W. Va., and the liquor was stored in the private vault of the United States clerk (a personal appointee of Judge Baker), and there is nothing on record to show what liquor has been shipped to Elkins under said order or what has become of same if any was shipped there. T. A. Brown, United States attorney, just about that time heard Judge Baker openly boast of the private stock of bonded liquor that he had in his cellar, and it was also common rumor in and about Elkins concerning said stock.

Eleventh. At the June term, 1922, of the Federal court at the city of Elkins, Judge Baker became indignant and declared from the bench that he would not enter a liquor destruction order which was then and there requested, giving a reason that "It is not proper according to statute"; he was then requested to retain the order and put it in such form as he thought proper, and after keeping the same in his possession for some little time, he directed it to be entered, the only change having been made by Judge Baker being to strike out the name of one of the agents directed to make the destruction and insert in its place the name of a different person. destruction order and request for its entry was prepared and made by the office of the United States attorney.

This

At the time the liquor order was entered by Judge Baker, directing confiscated liquor to be shipped to Elkins (his home town), the office of C. E. Smith, the then United States marshal, was located in the city of Fairmont, and there remained until the appointment of the present United States marshal, to wit, about March, 1922. It was also a fact that the only vault at the Federal building at Elkins in which confiscated liquor could be stored is in the office of the United States clerk. Since March of 1922 the principal office of the United States marshal has been and at the present time is located in the city of Wheeling.

Judge Baker's earlier connections disclose that he was connected with the Elkins Brewing & Storage Co.; was one of the incorporators thereof; was secretary and chief counsel of said corporation, and subsequent to July 1, 1914 (upon which day the State prohibition law of West Virginia became effective), the said brewery was in

dicted in Randolph County, W. Va., on one hundred and ninetyseven (197) separate charges of violation of the liquor laws of the State of West Virginia, upon one of which the said company went to trial before a jury upon a plea of not guilty, which trial resulted in a verdict of guilty, and was then followed by a plea of guilty as to the other one hundred and ninety-six (196) indictments. Judge Baker represented said company in said proceedings and the conviction and later pleas were followed by an order entered in the district court of Randolph County abating and closing the said brewing company as "a common and public nuisance.'

TEMPERAMENTAL AND GENERAL UNFITNESS AS A MEMBER OF THE

JUDICIARY

Twelfth. At a time when there remained undisposed of on the trial docket at the Federal court at Wheeling liquor cases aggregating in number more than 100 and while said condition existed, during the October term, 1922, of the Federal court at Wheeling, the Hon. H. O. Hiteshew, special assistant to the United States attorney for the northern district of West Virginia, called Judge Baker's attention to the situation, and also to the fact that but few pleas of guilty were being tendered; whereupon Judge Baker, in substance, replied that if the defendants did not come in and enter pleas of guilty that he would transfer all the cases to Elkins (which would be 160 miles from Wheeling) and then from Elkins to Parkersburg, W. Va. (which would be about 150 miles), and then from Parkersburg to Martinsburg (which would be over 250 miles), and would continue to drag them all over his district (which consists of approximately 28 counties, or the northern one-half of West Virginia), and would wear them out until they would crawl on their knees and beg for mercy.

Thirteenth. At Elkins, W. Va., at one of the November terms (which term can easily be supplied), one Charles W. Moore, attorney at Clarksburg, W. Va., was representing a defendant charged with violation of the national prohibition act, and after the Government had completed the introduction of its testimony, the said Attorney Moore, with the idea in mind of interposing a plea of guilty, asked the Hon. Howard D. Matthews (the assistant United States attorney who was aiding in conducting said trail on behalf of the Government) what fine he thought would be imposed if the plea of "not guilty" was withdrawn and a plea of "guilty" was entered by the defendant then on trail. Mr. Moore and Assistant United States Attorney Matthews went to the bench to discuss the proposition with the court, and the Hon. H. O. Hiteshew, who was a special assistant to the United States attorney, remained sitting at the counsel table; the jury engaged in the trail of the case remained in their seats in the jury box. Mr. Moore then suggested to Judge Baker that if a small fine could be imposed upon his client he might induce him to withdraw his plea of "not guilty" and enter a plea of "guilty." In discussing the matter Judge Baker said to Mr. Moore in a tone of voice sufficiently loud to be plainly heard by Mr. Hiteshew and by the jury in the box, "Your client is as guilty as hell." Part of the jury, at least, was nearer to Judge Baker than Mr. Hiteshew and in a more advantageous position to hear what the judge said. Charles

29045-25-PT 1—— 2

W. Moore, attorney at law, Clarksburg, W. Va., H. O. Hiteshew, of Parkersburg, W. Va., attorney at law and special assistant to the United States attorney; and Howard D. Matthews (a United States assistant attorney) all know of this occurrence.

Fourteenth. During the June term, 1922, of Federal court at Parkersburg, W. Va., the trail of a prosecution of Ramon Spinosa, charged with contempt of court in violating an injunction; Spinosa was a miner, and the injunction order had reference to alleged interference on the part of the miners' labor organizations with those engaged in operating the mine of the West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Co., situate in Brooke County, W. Va. John A. Howard, an attorney at law of Wheeling, W. Va., had been the mining company's counsel who procured the granting of the injunction, which had been granted a considerable time previous to the trail then in progress; the said Howard was also during said trial acting as special prosecutor representing the Government. The case had proceeded about to a conclusion, and on a certain night Judge Baker was in his room in the Federal building for the purpose of preparing his charge to the jury. The said John A. Howard, after dark of the same evening, took a cab at his hotel, began by being driven in a direction away from the Federal building, and then without stopping at any other place finally had himself driven to the Federal building, went to Judge Baker's room, and was closeted with the judge for several hours. The judge had announced in the court room that he would spend the evening preparing his charge to the jury. The next morning Judge Baker delivered his prepared charge to the jury.

Judge Baker's general attitude toward miners is fairly well disclosed by a letter written by him to the Hon. Guy D. Goff, Assistant Attorney General, in which, speaking of conditions existing along the line of the Western Maryland Railroad Co., the judge took occasion to say:

We have been for the past week riding on a volcano all along the Western Maryland from Ridgeley, W. Va., which is just across the river from Cumberland, over the entire West Virginia division. I am inclosing herewith copy of a temporary restraining order I granted last Saturday night at 10 o'clock. It apparently has quieted matters down for the present. We will start a hearing on motion for temporary injunction here Thursday morning. The striking coal miners through this entire section are in sympathy and league with the railroad strikers. Many of my friends have warned me to keep my eyes open, as some threats have been made since the granting of this injunction.

In another letter to Assistant Attorney General Goff, Judge Baker said:

The situation from Cumberland to Elkins and over the branches of the Western Maryland is very critical. The danger is much augmented by the coal miners through the entire territory being on a strike. Much anarchistic literature has been spread through that section and it was calculated to have a march of several hundred people at Thomas on Monday night following the red flag. I got in touch with the State police, had seven or eight men sent there with machine guns, had those intending to march notified that such actions would not be tolerated. In this way trouble was averted.

Fifteenth. At the June term, 1922, at Elkins, two brothers, Pete and Dominick Panetta, were charged with the violation of the national prohibition act in separate informations; they had been engaged in conducting a soft-drink place in the city of Clarksburg; a search warrant was sworn out by the Federal prohibition agents and when executed Dominick Panetta was found in charge, and a quantity of

moonshine whisky found and seized; Dominick Panetta was arrested, and while these matters were progressing, Pete Panetta came into the place and was also placed under arrest. Upon the trial of Pete Panetta, on motion of his attorney, the evidence was excluded upon the ground that the search warrant was defective, and therefore the search illegal, resulting in the acquittal of Pete Panetta. A few days later the case of Dominick Panetta was placed on trial upon exactly the same evidence that had been secured under the search warrant, which had been held defective in the Pete Panetta case, but upon the trial of the information against Dominick Panetta the court allowed the evidence to go to the jury. The Government, fully expecting the court to stand by its ruling in the other case, took the view that the trial of the Dominick Panetta case would be the better way to dispose of the case than to go through the delay and trouble of obtaining permission from the Department of Justice to enter a nolle, but in this case the jury without hesitation or difficulty found a verdict of guilty, and the verdict was sustained by the court.

Sixteenth. At the Elkins June term, 1922, upon the trial of one Felix B. Newman upon the charge of violation of the Harrison Narcotic Act, the Government had proven by one J. W. McDonald that he had secured morphine from the defendant. While Newman was testifying in his own behalf in chief, the following questions were propounded and answers given:

Q. This man McDonald says that he told you that he was a dope fiend, or an addict? A. He did not.

Q. He did not tell you that?-A. No, sir; he did not. I refused and have always refused in the last three or four years to handle an addict's case. I will not prescribe or treat an addict's case.

At this point Judge Baker on his own initiative, without objection upon the part of the Government, interposed and said: "That would be nothing more or less than a self-serving declaration, and the jury will disregard that." Judge Baker had directed the jury to disregard in toto the witness's answer, in which there was included the very material and vital matter which directly denied the statement of the Government's witness, McDonald. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty. After an appeal had been taken by the defendant and before action was had thereon by the appellate court, this matter was called to the attention of the Department of Justice to demonstrate the disposition of Judge Baker to interfere with the prosecution of Government cases. Upon the appeal being submitted to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit, Judge Baker was reversed and the case sent back for trial.

Seventeenth. At the Elkins June term, 1922, of the Federal court, two women were held before the court on the charge of bootlegging, one named Lulu Highcock and the other Blanche Murphy, both coming from Clarksburg, W. Va. All of the information possessed by the United States attorney's office, which included the reports of the Federal prohibition agents filed therein, the two offenses were identically the same, except that one was charged with having possession of a pint and a half of moonshine, and the other with possession of two pints of moonshine. Both were reputed to be common bootleggers. A fine of $5 was imposed on one and $500 imposed upon the other, and each upon a plea of guilty.