Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-06-22
IMPEACHMENT.
ANOTHER DAY NEARER THE ENI
Hon. W. P. Clough Submits a Portion OF
HIS Argume nt-It is Largely Devoted t.
the Law in The Case-Continuing of His
Argument This Morning.

the Law in the Case-Continuing of His
Argument This Morning.
Nearly all the Senators were in their seats
when the impeachment court convened yester-
day. There were besides a number Of specta-
tors, including several ladies. Mr.. Cloush, Of
the prosecution, commenced by saying he
should demonstrate in as short way as posi-
BILE that the respondent in this case had been
griltv of crimes and lnisdemeanors and corrupt
conduct in Office. He the n read the article of
tn, G, n titution relating to impeachment, &C.
dusing from its language that it was not nee
essary for an act to be indictable to constitute
an improbable affair. The improbable
otfenses are crimes and misdemean-
ors. Tho term crime includes every
act in violation of law. But if there
were doubts about the construction of the law
as to these matters, it can make no difference
in this case because the offenses charged
against respondent constitute crime under the
common law. Every misconduct on the part OF
public officer constitutes crime under our
statutes. In support of this assertion authorl-
ties were read at length.
Continuing. Mr.. Clough said it would be
seen that misbehavior in office had always been
QcnO.llnaCeu CrlIue ny Luc COulIuoil law: anu
tyranny in Office crime of the deepest dye.
BY the statutes of Minnesota misbehavior in
office is made an indcable uffense.
Next, MIR. Clough said, was the question
whether the offenses charged and proven aga INST
respondent constituted misbehavior in Office
Misbehav or in office, was a breach in the per-
formance of duty by an officer. To
fetal duty the functions of the
officer must be irst ascertained. and then judge
by his acts if he performs these functions just
ly and without Partially. The pril pal
function of u judge is to administer justlce-to
act solely for advancing the public good, anu
his character or property. Every man has Il
right when accused of an offense, of speedy
aud impartial trial Tie judge administers
the law, and when he acts FROM honest motives,
if he iunosently applies the law Improperly,
then he is doubtless guiltless. But he can only
by sincere desire to further the public good,
but when his misapplicati"n OF the law Is
brought about by ill-will or with a desire to
favor one party at the expense OF the other, Oh
from other unworthy MOTIVE then
such tffi Ter lays himself liable
to punishment for his misdeeus.
Respondent is charged with misbehavior IN Oh
fee, and if those charges are sustained, then he
has been proven guilty of crime. and must be-
punished for such crime by imp eachn- en-.
Mr.. Cough then proceeded to review the
articles and the testimony. Oh the first he
said, if it stood alone, it would not constitute
an improbable offense. But it presented
as link to show the character and disposition
of the man, and his manner of using his office
to punish and annoy those against whom he
had formed die like. In this first article re.
spondent is charged with an illegal act, in re
fusing Mr.. Mollson a speedy trial. and OF
affixing an excessive bail, such excessive bal
ho,x lor k1fv 81 <>f
spondent.
Taking up the second article, Mr.. Clougt
said respondent was accused of sitting in q cast
he had prejudged; Of making false decisions ir
such case, and of doing so from malicious mo-
tives. H. then reviewed the law as to the pay.
ment of fees, the purpose of u demurrer, and
other points of law bearing upon the case
from which it was held that the finding of facts
by respondent were false and NAL ciously
reached. One of the gravest charges against
judge il that Of prejudging a case, and it has
been proven in this case that respondent hau
pre- judged Riley's case and even made public
announcement Of his decision before consent.
ing to sit in judgment upon it.
Further, respondent found falsely in asserting
that an order prohibiting the payment of the
fees had been made by him. His own state
ment, Judge by the statutes, proved that ht
had stated falsely in this respect. The finding
beng false, it Is next necessary to look for tht
the circumstances surrounding the case. IL
this it would seem there could be ne
doubt, taking the testimony of the defense
alone, tnat Judge Page was actuated by intense
hostility. That hostility commenced on the
night OF the whisky riot, when Riley and Judge
Page had collision. It was next developed
when Judge Page attempted to defeat Riley's
appointment deputy sheriff. Next Judge
Page appears before the board of county com
missioners and objects to the payment of Riley's
bill for the reason as stated, that the party had
been sold out for contemplate lrishman
Judge Page denies such language, but falsely
Judge Page has also attempted to prove tina,
the rupture between French and himself did
not occur over the Riley bill, but over the
Baird bill at the previous session of the board
IN January. On this point respondent had in.
troduced many witnesses, honest nc
doubt, but they had evidently come in contac..
with the strong will Of respondent too often tc
have any correct recollection of what occurred
cf themselves. AS shown by their evidence
they had entirely forgot en- many equally i'm
portant facts occurring at the same time, So
that it is evident their testimony is incorrect
while that of Judge Page himself is undoubt-
eddy Intentionally false. Taking these facts
into consideration the righteousness
of the mot.ve is clearly apparent.
Mr. Clough then took up the third article
Here he said, the testimony is conflicting but
1t is apprehended that the wilful misstatements
of Judge Page rut aside no trouble will
be had in reaching a correct conclusion. The
charge of misbehaviour in Office here, is that
respondent maliciously insulted an officer of
receiving compensation for services performed
by such officer, charges which have been 50
clearly proven, that he would not occupy the
time OF the court in revie wing it.
Upon the fourth article, the SJimson case,
Mr.. Clough announced he should dwell at
pNn y1frfE n h,1
article. The case grew out of I'm execution
placed in the hands of Stimeon to serve The
plea that the execution was illegal, did not
matter. as it appeared valid on its face. The
officer did not l. ne the process, and it was hit
duty to carry out the process as set
forth in its face. But, Mr.. Clough
claimed that the plea of respondent
but not state fact and that the execution
was valid and legal document, in support OF
which he read and explained the statute s a,
some length, bearing upon the case, and under
which he argued that Mr.. Stimson was entitled
to his fees. The grand jury report in the case.
he said, was simply statement of the ia IT'S.
without any attempt to decide upon the right
OF the matter, and the act of Judge Page upon
that report. in requiring Stimson to pay over
the fees he had retained, clearly illegal
The amount was small. but the law makes no
dlstlnctlon in this respect. and the offense O.
Judge Page in taking $3.50 from Stimson was
as great as if it had been thousands. Tn,
money was Stimson's, and the Judge had n,
right to deprive him of it, except under due
process, which was not had, Stimson being re-
CURED arbitrarily, and without word Of ex
PLANTATION, to pay the money over to the clerk.
1t was true the court had control over the Of
tcers Of the court, but they must be controlled
in accordance With the law.
The conduct of Judge Page was illegal and
done with the intent to huniliare and insult
Crimson. There can be no other motive.
At this point Mr.. Clough suggested that o
recess would be acceptable, and such motor
was made, but it was withdrawn for mot;or