Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1879-06-19
eEnnsrsM sus,F,Ees

o Fire Q 0ontAly pApee pusl'sn'
edses W1Skiastou instks htss11Is a. the To-
dis1tts6ss Of the country. od9msatinE up.
NCxn edisorhlsssslcls In the Press and Ds.
1kotaian slladtne % The acquittaf Of DR..
I'm regard a; the scquitsalof DR.. Living.
In the Indian on@st6at he plead the statute
of limitations Qgltnk ons OF the principal
Indictments, II ut tie court ruled out
some Of she pttsoi al witnesses because
they were IDdisns. Nhss has the Press
and DakoAian 10 reply sto thisI II DEL
Livingstels hsthe Victim of, persecution, be
Alntitleds oaauhsariuk before - public
~ lpu - . tfndtcation bv the t6nlSs." n
u NM hsresofo,s attaedS soErepotis
slsilatt faheAbovs 1hicl % ta1sked tot
have eIssnated from shiShsaashority In the
Indian Office" ana have shown their utter
fals.sy.s sBstsss7ths writer IN tlhss Council
E!irS Atps9s so Nbsss IanSfcaaAor and
hirness HsswM for III bsneas ststs
@1.a Dr.. L~fvingston did not plead the
statute or Limitations IN, any ~ the cases
brought against him. Ia one Of the cases
tried at the late term OF the United States
court In this city. the alleged efspas Wis
committed over two eafs before The npding
of the indictment. aud under the law the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS urging the
prosecution in,that particular CO. but the
Untsd States prosecutor, IiotwlkstAnding
the case was outlswed, moved IL, trial,
sndsbroqehthp Witaesses into cont. DR..
LvinHstch and his attorneys knew their
rights under the statutes In the case, but
relying upon the consciousness OF his in.
nocence and confident ofhis ability TO prove
himself 60, and having no desire to 1evade,
thorugh q bubble, Of the law, any charge
brought asslast bin. be ~intstposed ne ob.
lection to tho progress Of the suit aud
did not plead, OF in the remotest manner
aliude to the fact thst the time had lapsed
within which the charge could legally
stand against him. The witnesses for the
government were heard. and Livingston
was ready with his testimohy to establish
his innocence. But when the court-Chief
Justice Shsnnon-learned that the statute
% Nmi,asions interviewed, that the cas-, was
not legally before MISUNDERSTANDING
the protest of LivinRston's attorneys and
their demand to be permitted to present
their, evidence. and vincicate their
client against the charges pre-.
ferred against him - the case
was dismissed by the court. During
these proceedings two gentlemen from
Washington, attaches Of abe interior de.
partment, who were here as witnesses in
the cases sgainss Livingston. we're present
In the court room aud witnessed oil the
proceedings. The facts in regard. to the, dis
position of this as we'll as the other cases
against Livingston which we're brought TO
trial were published at the time, and the
facts as We have stated them appear of re-
cord In the proceedings Of the court. Con-
sequently, when COMMISSIONS Hayt, Gen.
| Hammond, or any other person high in
authority in the Indian Office" assert that
Dr.. Livingston plead the statute Of limita.
tions In any case against him. the willfully
and deliberately state what they know TO
be false. DR.. Livingston. with the full
consciousness of On henest,l upright mas
who fully and with scrupulous fidelity dis
charged every duty which devolved upon
hin, insisted upon and demanded the most
| rigid scrutiny Of his official acts, and so far
as ,ha. has been accorded him in the courts
he has been completely vindicated from the
charges preferred against him by Havt and
his minions. He was vindictively and
falsely accused at the start. and now that he
has been vindicated, bis accusers-persons
of high authority in the Indian Office
resort to falsehosd to justify their strange
and unaccountable proceedings.
9. The second statement by "h,gh au
thsrity in the Indian %cfice," that thu
~"court ruled out sqme of the principally vii
nesses because they were Indians" is til,
moot ridiculous and prepossardds hisehood
we have heard in connection with these
trials. Judge Shannon is proverbisf for BIZ
austerity and t~horeuRhness in the trial o
all cases, ofa criminal character, and ID,
statement that in this case. or In any other
be excluded testimony because it was offer
ed by. Indians, OF IN account Of "race
color or previous condition." In, any ID
stance, is simply preposterous. That ,sucl
9 claim should be made by persons high ii
authority in the Indian Office 10 tindubiabl
evidence that they are forced to resort I
fslsehood to give the persecution of; Liz
ingston. even the semblsnce Of Qualification
THE PEMBlNA ExIENS ION.
. President Wicker HIS inforrSd the pe>
pie Of Sioux Falls that, the Pembina 1oa