Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-06-24
THE LAW OF IT.

Mr.. C1Ough Expounds 1t as Appli-
cable to the Charges in tho Page I'm
observation-disclosures to Tuesday,
When Hon. C. X. Davis Will Sum Up for
the Accused.
The time for the assembling of the impeach-
ment court yesterday morning, found an IN
usually large number of Senators prese Mt for a
Saturday session. President Wakefield brought
down his gavei promptly at $3.50, and as
promptly Mr.. Clough resumed his argument,
saying that at the close of Fridays sessions he
was speaking in reference o'the report of the
grand jury in the Ingmundson matter. The
contents of the report made by that jury to Judge
Page, he said did not show any compulsion
of the town Of Clayton to pay the order twice,
and there was nothing in the report to show
that Ingmundson had anything to do with such
double payment, or that he was in any way re-
sponsible for it if it was SO paid. Further, the
examination made of the matter failed to show
that the order had been paid twice. Coleman,
the p zee of the order, swore that he was
paid but once, and no evidence has
been produced to show that the order was paid
more than once. In fact it was an impossi-
hiiity to show that the town lost one cent by
urer in some other transaction became de-
faulter, has no bearing on this case. But
Judge Page, without any evidence showing
wrong doing on the part of Ingmundson, and
in his desire to break down this independent
officer, organized the power of his court against
him. The taking Of the order as a voucher was
a legal act. The object of voucher is to show
the payment of money. Such is this case.
Now what were the motives of Judge Page as
shown here in evidence 1t was ill-will on his
part, and desire to break Ingmundson down
in his property and character, an offense COR
rectly denominated one Of the deepest malig-
nifty.
And yet the oHense against Ingmundson was
trivial, compared to his treatment of the grand
jury. Ingmundson is but one man, but when
Judge Page struck at the Crane jury, he made
a direct attack upon one Of the main props of
our form Of government. We are not governed
by the ballot box alone, but the courts are an
essential part, and a blow at one affects all.
And, said Mr.. Clough, if it should ever be, as
is sought, that the grand jury should be swept
away, then will commence the decline of civil
and religious liberty. Hence the necessity Of a
strict observance of the rights of the grand jury
There has been some slight divergence of testi-
facts there is no difference. There is no au-
thority in the statutes or elsewhere, giving a
Judge the power to coerce report from grand
jury. Their duties are defined by the law, and
the duty of the court, as to such duties, stops
when he has called their attention to the law
governing their action. In attempting to go
further and coerce report, Judge Page COM
mitted the grossest Of wrongs. There could
be no doubt the report was coerced. The tes-
timony of Page himself substantiates this
charge. And after his efforts at coercion failed
he added to the enormity of his wrong doing, by
accusing the jurors of having violated their
oaths. Of having purjured themselves, and in SO
doing We charge Judge Page with great wrong
upon the people, and Of misdemeanor in
office.
Mr.. Clough then took up the eighth and
ninth articles, the Stimson contempt case.
The proceedings in this case he said were illeg-
al from first to last. The offense charged
against Stimson did not constitute con-
tempt under any possible construction of the
law. The result of the examination showed
that the charge was trumped up by Judge
Page to serve him in procuring evidence he de-
sired for use in other litigation
then pending. Contempt proceedings were
dangerous to the liberties of the people at best.
and should be confined within the strictest
bonds possible. They were star chamber pro-
ceedings. There was no trial by jury, and the
Judge feeling aggrieved, sits upon the trial of
the cause.
Mr.. Clough quoted literally from the au-
thorities, to show that circulating libel
Stimsons alleged offense-did not constitute
contempt, for the reason that the alleged libel
did not refer to matters then pending before
the court. It might be argued that the act of
Stimson constituted misbehaviour in Office,
which in certain cases constituted contempt,
but this will not stand in this case, because the