Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-04-13
To the Editor of the Globe.

AUSTIN, Aprilll, 1Ssl.-With your con-
sent, desire to make public through the
GLOBE the reasons for my refusal TO
participate IN the recent trial of John
Riley at this place. The statement will
necessarily involve brief history of the
prosecution.
The crime was committed on the oath
day of August, A. D. 1880, and up to the
recent term of court no attention what
ever was given to it by the public author
tiles OF the county. A large number of
the better classes of citizens interested
themselves in the matter, and generously
contributed to the employment of detec-
tives to bring the criminal to justice.
The case was surrounded with unusual
circumstances, owing to the debased
character of the accused and
the concealment given him by
confederates. Yet sufficient evil
dence was found to warrant his ar
rest in November last.
A criminal prosecution with the SYM
pathies of all the public officials on the
StuC VI UuC 10 HCIIuCI oil easy
nor pleasant task, and is not very likely
to terminate successfully. This case has
not proved to be an exception to the rule
The examination before the magistrate
IN December last, not conducted by pub
lie officers, disclosed such evidence as
satisfied the unbiased mind of the guilt
of the accused. This evidence was great
ly strengthened before the recent trial by
the discovery of new and important facts,
which, although known to the attorneys
who prosecuted, were not for some rea-
son placed before the jury.
The main part of the nee
essary expenses of the examination the
county commissioners, acting under the
advice of the county attorney, have refused
to pay Even the officer who executed the
warrant has been compelled to bring an
action against the county to recover for
his services. And in this connection it is
proper to state, that in his anwer to this
action, the county attorney alleged and
swore on his information and belief that
Riley was kidnapped in Wisconsin and
unlawfully brought into this State by this
officer or through his connivance. So
that during the same term of court the
county attorney appears in the doub e
character of defender and prosecutor #
the same criminal.
A few weeks previous to the present
term of court | had an interview with
Mr. Goodwin, the county attorney, at my
office in Austin relative TO the prosecution
Of the Riley case, in which | laid before
him such facts as were necessary
IN order to. bring the case properly
before the grand jury, and knowing his
nexperence cautioned him against dis
closing. important matters to Riley'S
friendsI6r attorneys. | was not little
surprised few days subsequent to this
interview to learn that Mr. Goodwin had
furnished the defense with all the infor-
nation gave him. This very naturally
led me to distrust the honesty of his pur-
poses and l was subsequently more
guarded in making communications to
him, until finally, having secured abun-
dant evidence of his desire to aid the &C.
cused | ceased intercourse altogether
with him concerning the case. This was
not done, however, until Thursday even
ing before the trial commenced, after
every possible effort had been made
to induce him to so manage the case
as that fair trial would be had. At first
he was determined to bring the case be-
fore the grand jury before the evidence
was ready, and it was only by the most
persistent efforts that this was prevented.
The indictment was an accident, although
one of Riley's attorneys declared that
they had the means of preventing it. Geo.
w Clough, of impeachment notoriety,
an inveterate enemy, was, by some means,
best known to others, appointed foreman
of the grand jury. His conduct disguised
the jury to such an extent that they re-
quested the court to remove him, and this
was undoubtedly an efficient agency In
finding the Indictment.
The arraignment was precipitated in
an unusual manner. Defendants at
torneys and friends seem to have
been informed as to results, even
before the indictment was filed The
county attorney seemed to figure merely
as passive agent to carry out the wishes
of the defense. Whatever was asked he
seemed to be willing to grant. At this
point interposed and objected to certain
proceedings which regarded as illegal
and asked the privilege of procuring
counsel at my own expense to aid the
prosecution. This was denied l then
tried to persuade the county attorney to
procure such counsel as were familiar with
the case and would try Thoroughly, and
suggested Mr.. Lovely, he having con-
Quoted the examination before the magis-
trate. This did not suit at all. Mr..
Losey was then named with better effect,
and Mr.. Goodwin said he would commu-
nicate with him. 1 then advised
him (Goodwin) that it would be impossible
to prepare the case for trial within few
days, stating its complications and diff
culties, and expressed the opinion that
no reputable attorney would take hold of
it without time to examine it in detail.
| advised him that fair trial could not
be had in this county and that both pru-
dence and economy demanded wise coun-
sci and careful preparation. During
these interviews, all of which were sought
by myself, Mr. Goodwin said but little
and manifested no interest whatever in
the case, but subsequently disregarded
my counsel in every particular, as well
as the advice of other attorneys whom he
visited. Mr. Losey advised HIM that a
fair trial could not be had in this county,
and finding him persistent in his course.
declined to take any part IN the case. Mr..
Burlingame, of Owatonna, was then sent
for, at whose suggestion l do not know,
but without my knowledge or assent.