Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-03-27
JUDGE PAGES ANSWER
TO THE ARTICLES OFIMPEACHMENT

TO THE ARTICLES OFIMPEACHMEN1
The Document FILED Yesterday---A Very
Lengthy Af1air---Tlle Old, Old Story Over
Again With observation-disclosures Of
the Reply.
The answer in the case of Judge Sherman
Page, Impeached by the late House of Rep
resontatives, was fled yesterday with
Charles w. johnson, Secretary of the I'm
parchment Court. It is voluminous docu-
ment, and would make ten columns of the
GLOBE. We append full abstract of the
matter
That the House of Representative of the
State of Minnesota, have never in any form OF
manner impeached the respondent for corrupt
conduct in office, or for any crimes or INSIDE
meanors in office, or for any cause or offense
whatever; that the said House of Representa-
tives uever adopted the said alleged, or any
other articles, OF impeachment of or against
this respondent; that the said House of Repre-
sentatives never adopted any resolution or
order or have in any way direct
81 that this respondent be impeachcd
for any cause, act, or omission; that all and
singular the proceedings of and before the Sen
ate Of the State of Minnesota sitting as court
of impeachment herein, have been, and wholly
without jurisdiction for the reasons above stat
ed, and for other good and sufficient reasons;
all of which this respondent is ready to main
tain ard prove, at such times, and in such man
ner and form as the Honorable Senate shall
direct.
And the said respondent, still protesting and
reserving his right of exception, as aforesaid,
and insisting upon the matters and facts herein
before pleaded, and not waving the same, and
reserving all his right hereunder, respectfully
THE MoLL1soN CASE.
Stripped of legal verbrage he goes on to re-
cite that respondent was judge upon the bench
in 1873, when d. s. B. Mollison was indicted
for the crime of libeling him (Page); that he
page did not incite said Indictment or knew
of it until it read in open court by the
county attorney; that Wallison appeared in
court and said he did not desire coun-
Respondent then being of opinion
as in fact and law he was, that he was for
hidden under the laws Of this State, to pre-
side at the trial of defendant upon the charge
contained in said indictment, Immediately in
formed defendant of that fact and also stated
son to postpone the trial until the attendance
of another Judge could be procured
to preside at said trial; to which
statement and disposition Of the case, Mollison
made no objection. Afterwards Mollison APP
peared with counsel, withdrew his plea of not
guilty and filed a demurrer and case was con-
tinued by consent of counsel for both parties.
Respondent claims that Mollison never had
been ready for trial but sought by delay to
avert trial. When he Page) went on the bench
there was large number of cases in which he
was interested and he made great efforts to get
great d aRu P pr doing Hus r0u so
He Page) alleges that he obtained Judge
Mitchell and Judge Dickinson, respectively, at
different times to, hold court, and that on both
occasions the trial was postponed at Mollison's
request. He says he has acted in good faith.
and denies all malice in the premises, but, on
the contrary, has offered the accused abundant
opportunity for fair and speedy trial.
THE RILEY CASE.
In answer to the allegations of official mis-
conduct, respondent says that he is free-holder
and tax payer, and as such has at all times had
legal interest in common with other citizens
in the proper, legal and honest
administration of the public affairs of
said county, and he insists that the
fact of being the incumbent Of public office
does not deprive him Of any rights, make
his duty any less citizen; and he earnestly
protests against the dangerous and subversive
doctrine that an officer be impeached for
the proper exercise of such personal, social and
political rights are secured to him by the
fundamental laws of the country.
Respondent admits that Beisecker and
Walsh were indicted, as stated, and that said
indictments were pending until August, 1875,
when Judgment was rendered thereon on de-
murrer in favor of defendants.
He also admits that subpoenas were issued in
said cases. stated in said article,
and that the same served by
one Thomas Riley; but whether said Riley was
at that time deputy sheriff of said county,
and as such authorized to collect his fees as
therein stated, respondent has no knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief.
Respondent claims that prior to the March
term of court, 1875, the defendants conspired
witnesses, when they knew that they
would not be wanted, and that said
subpoenas were used without authority and
when respondent learned that the same had been
issued he lmmediatelyyin open court, remind
ed the clerk of his mistake and duly ordered
that no part of the expenses or costs of issuing
and serving said subpenas be paid by said
county. That afterwards, and at the session
of the board of county commissioners of said
county, held in the month of January, A. D.
1876, the said Thomas Riley, we'll knowing all
the aforesaid facts, presented bill of fees to
and at the request of said board respondent
made statement to said board of the aforesaid
facts connected with the transaction, and dur
ing the conversation expressed and stated that
the court had ordered that the bill should not
be paid by the county; and the respondent
AYERS that under the statutes of the State of
Minnesota he had, both private citizen,
and as the Judge of said court, the right and
authority to do all and singular the acts
which We're done by him in the premises.
Respondent then claims that he treated the
county commissioners courteously, using no
harsh, angry or threatening language, and that
he not actuated by malice towards Riley
nor any desire to deprive him of just compen-
sation, but wished to prevent the allowance of
an illegal claim.
Furthermore he is confident in the opinion
that the conduct in the premises, was not lust
ly censurable nor improper. In expressing an
opinion to said board, that the bill before them
ought not to be paid by the county, he simply
repeated decision previously made
in open court relative to the same matter.
Respondent denies that he knew, when before
the commissioners, that Riley intended to sue
the county, but admits an action was COM
menced before Justice and finally came into
district court; that Riley attorneys stipulated
that he (Page) should try the case, without a
jury. that he did SO try the case, and reversed
county. That at that time respondent was of
the opinion, and fully believed that said judg-
ment was correct; but, if to this honorable
court it should appear that there was error in
said judgment, respondent respectfully urges
that he ought not, in justice, to suffer for an
error of Judgment in the decision of a legal
question.
THE VAUDEVILLE CASE,
The third article charges respondent with i'm
properly refusing to grant an order for the pay
Of one W. T. Mandeville-who, it is alleged,
served as special deputy at an adjourned term
of court held in the county of Mower in tho