Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1884-08-29
CAMPBELL's DEFENSE,
The Charges of Ordwa,
taken UP and Con-
Sidered.
n Clear Refutation by the United
States Attorney Of the
Allegations Pre-
Sented.
(Concluded,)


10 this is added my own positive and
manner, by word or action attempt to in
haence, directly or indirectly, the grand
case, but that, on the contrary, being
forewarned of this investigation, was
more than ordinarily careful to abstain
from anything which would bear even
the appearance Of such feeling.
On the second point, as to the express.
sions used by me with regard to Ordway,
the two jurors do not state IN their testi-
mony these expressions were nsed by me
during the examination of Ordway's
case, or in connection with it.
They leave this point, either designed
ly or because their attention vas not
called to it, unexplained.
In my testimony, state that in the
two instances where l did speak in
emphatic terms as to Ordway's conduct,
1t was with reference to an entirely
different matter than anything before
the grand jury; and it was not III the
grand jury, but outside on the streets;
and it was not to the grand jury, but to
a company Of persons, among whom
were one or two grand Jurors; and it
was with reference to certain
published charges that Ordway had
then recently made in the newspapers,
accusing the grand jury and the Judge
and myself of prejudice and malice, and
of conspiracy to pack the jury against
him; that these charges l did character
lze IN two instances, where some of the
grand jurors may have been present, as
false, and did characterize Ordway as a
rascal for making them.
The commission in the testimony of
those two witnesses to state how, and
wnen, and on what subject, these ex.
pressions by me were made, is signlti.
cant, aud means, either that they rten.
tionally in their testimony suppressed
these facts, or that by some omission
the examiners failed to call their
attention to them, and to
question them particularly on these
points. If the latter, am sure it was
not intentional on the part of the ex.
amiuers, but it had the effect to leave n
charge against me apparently proven,
when closer examination would have
disclosed u different state of fucts.
There is a further question: Was l, as
law officer of the government justiha.
BILE in law in allowing the grand Jury to
find au Indictment, and in drawing ar
indictment against Ordway, under sec.
tion 5501 OF tho United States revised
statutes upon this state of facts?
10 that answer, that in my iude.
ment undoubtedly I was justified. In
my view of that statute, United States
officer who makes or allows to be made,
any official action of his, conditional up.
on the asking, accepting or receiving of
anything OF value by u third party, as a
consideration for his action, and with in.
tent to have his action influenced there.
by, is guilty of bribery under that sec.
ton, the same as if himself had asked or
received personally the bribe.
And that, under the facts as disclosed
by the testimony, it was q legitimate
question for the grand jury, and for
them alone, as to whether In their iudr.
ment Ordway's action in the organiza.
tion Of Faulk county was influenced by
the tender to and acceptance by Teb.
belts, of the lands and lots IN question
And that if the grand jury did find
such tender and acceptance was made to
influence Ordway in his action, aud did
so influence him that Judgment cannot
be questioned in this examination.
Two other questions of law were rals.
made to the court to quash the indlct.
ment.
The first proposition was, and the
main one upon which Governor Davis
Ordway's counsel-secmed to rely, that
the court had no jurisdiction to inquire
into the acts of the governor, because lie
was coordinate branch of the govern
ment, and Independent of the Judiciary
and thnt the acts complained of in the
indictment, being alleged to beac done
by him as governor, the court could not
inquire into them, and the Indictment
should be quashed.
To this position the answer is, tha,
the asking or receiving bribe by the
governor was not an official act tha,
came within the prerogatives of his
office; that for the commission of any
crime, eay bribery in connection with
any nfiicial not, perjury by him in any
official reports, or forgery. or murder
the governor was as amenable to the
law ns any private citizen or individual
This answer seems to me irresistible
l am informed that the same question
has been raised in Colorado, although
have not the case before me, and de-
Al