Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-06-16
IMPEACHMENT.
BRIEF, BUT IMPORTANT PROCEED
INGS.

The Fifth Article and Specification Three
of Article Ten Virtually Quashed--Th>
Defense Rest Their Case and Rebutta
COMMUNICATING Proceedings in Detail
The impeachment court was well attended
Yesterday and business was commenced prompt
ly at $50 by recalling
ANDRDW KNOX,
who testified as to the proceedings of that 1877
grand jury. Was very friendly with lngmund-
son up to that grand jury, but he has refused
to recognize me since that time.
". H. DEAN
resides at Rose Creek, Mower county. Have
been acquainted with Mr.. Ingmundson four or
five wears. Heard a conversation in Mr.. Ing
,nundson's office in the spring of 1876 about the
town Of CLAYTON order. He was asked why he
did not settle with the town, and Ingmundson
said because the town would not take the order
he had. The man then tod Ingmundson that
Mr.. Coleman said the order had been paid, and
Ingmundson said he didn't care damn, the
town wouldn't get a settlement until the order
was allowed.
JUDGE PHELPS,
chairman Of the county board for the years
covered by the lngmundson matter again took
the stand. The auditing board of the county
commissioners advertised for bids for deposits
of county funds, but no bids were received.
Knew that Ingmundson was depositing funds
in the banks. Never told him that he could so
deposit. Had nothing to do with it.
A. G. TANNER,
another of the county commissioners, said it
was known by the commissioners that Ing
mundson Wa, depositing county funds in the
Austin banks, but no such authority was granted
by the board.
W. H. PAGE,
cashier of the First National bank of Austin
since it's organization in 1868. Ingmundson
had understanding with the First National
and Mower county banks at Austin. and the
bank at LIE Roy, for deposit of funds. This
understanding was had before the board
advertised for bids. lngmundson want
ed the money divided up, and in accordance
with the understanding the banks put in no
bids. The bank agreed to pay per cent. per
annum monthly balances. No bonds we're
given the county or MIR. Ingmundson.
W.. L. CoRBErT
lives in the town Of Marshall, Mower county,
and was another member of the March, 1877,
grand jury. Mr.. Ingmundson spoke to me af-
ter was sworn, stating that the grand jury of
1876 had examined the town Of Clayton matter
and exonerated him, and gave me to under
stand that Judge Page was pushing the inves-
tigation against him without cause. He also
said he did not want to be indicted.
HENRY BAaLEY
was member Of the petit jury at the septem-
Der term, 1876. At that time Mr.. Ingmundson
said to u.s. "Boys. take off your hats to the
id old devil or he'll have you fned.''
THOMAS F. STEVENS,
lawyer, but has not practised much in Mime
sofa. Was in court when the Stimson court
case was up before Judge Page. 1t was Satur
day evening. No evidence was taken. Judge
Page was talking to Mr.Stimson about the case.
He told Stimson he did not think he had been
instigated to his course by malice, but had
been drawn into it by designing parties. did
not he lr him mention the name Of HARDWOOD and
Others in connection with the Younger brothers,
make any threat Of any kind. When the case
was adjourntd that day Judge Page stated he
had to go to Preston Monday, 50 the case would
have to be held over until his return.
DIV. Lowell
resides at Austin and is a lawyer. Was at the
examination of the Stimson case before Judge
Page in Chambers. Heard the Judge mention
the name Of the Younger brothers. but the names
of HARDWOOD, French, ct al, were not mention
ed in the same connection.
A. j. HUNT
resides at Brownsville, and is a member of the
bar; was in attendance upon court when MIR.
Greenman was called to take a case for Mr..
French. The attorneys were taray, and Judge
Page spoke to them saying they would facili-
tate business by being more prompt. When
the criminal case was called French was absent,
and the Judge called Mr. Greenman to take the
case until MIR. French returned. When French
came in, Mr.. Greenman turned the case over to
him at once. Did not hear the judge say any
thing about Furnishing French for contempt.
Did not hear the judge speak to French about
his loud talk. and to go out of the room, and
don't think any such remarks were made.
On the cross-examination, Mr.. Hunt showed
a very imperfect memory as to the proceedings
in court at that time, other than testified in
his direct, even being unable to state the term
of court nearer than two or three years ago.
THE FIFTH ARTICLE.
At this point Mr.. Davis announced that with
the exception of single document not now in
court, respondent had put in ill the testimony
he thought he should be compelled to present.
But still there remains his underlined status as
to the fifth article and specification three of the
tenth article. These relate to riot in Austin,
growing out of which the judge wrote the letter
to George Baird, sheriff, embodied in the article,
ana from WHICH IL Is dttempGeu 10
show malice. From all that has been shown
the letter was private communication to
Sheriff Baird, without anything about it indi-
eating that it was intended for publication,
and it only saw light through the act of the
party to whom it was written. How such an
at can be twisted into showing malice, is hard
to conceive, and either that article and specifi-
cation ought to be withdrawn or else respond
ent ought to be permitted to go and prove
all connected with that affair. We therefore
renew the motion to quash.
Mr.. Clough did not know as the managers de-
sired to say anything more on the real question
than had already been said. The Senate had
already decided the matter as to quashing the
article. The evidence sought to be introduced
was clearly inadmissable, what happened on a
Saturday night having nothing to do with the
act of respondent the following Monday
in his communication to an officer intended to
brow-beat and humiliate that officer. But the
managers were willing to withdraw all objec-
tions, simply demanding the right to introduce
rebutting evidence, if it should be decided to
go into that Saturday night riot.
Mr.. Davis reargued the question briefly and
was replied to by Mr.. Clough, who
took the position that the real
question for the court to de-
eide whether argument should be reopened in
the motion to quash, and as if such motion
was entertained he should desire to be heard
upon the matter.
Manauer Gilman suopested that article five