Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1884-08-29

power conferred upon the governor to
act in the organi z alton of new counties
was conferred by the territorial stat.
ute, and that therefore, no act Of his
performed by virtue Of such law could
be inquired into by the United States
court.
10 that position the answer is, First,
that the act of asking or receiving u
brlbe for the performance of some act
under the territorial law, was not an act
performed by virtue of the territorial
law.
The act Of being bribed was separate
and distinct from any act he did in the
organization of the county.
And the language of the statute is
with intent to have his decision or ac-
tion on any question, matter, cause or
proceeding which may at any time be
pending or brought by law before him
in bis official capacity Influenced there.
BY" SO that, if the indictment alleged
that Ordway did ask or receive bribe
with the intent to have his decision or
action influenced thereby, upon any
matter which was pending before him.
or brought before him by any law, in
his official capacity, tae indictment was
good and the United States court had
jurisdiction OF the matter.
Second, AS governor he was United
States officer, He could not act as gov
ernor except by virtue OF the authority
and power of the United States and OF
his official position as United States
officer. The governor of the territory ls
as much United States officer as the
secretary of the territory, the marshal,
or the United States attorney.
and whether the law under which he
was acting in the organization of new
counties was territorial law Or United
States law, his action upon the matters
before him, brought before him by the
law, could only have been in his official
capacity as governor, and therefore, as a
United States officer. This answer also
appears to me to be.
such being my view of the law then
and now, as it most unquestionably and
honestly is, it seems to me idle and un-
heard OF, to charge me with malice in
acting to the best of my Judgment and
discretion upon question peculiarly
committed to such discretion and iude-
ment.
And here invoke the principle, that
IN all such nccusations the presumption
Is that the United States attorney acted
III the line of his duty, and is against the
charge of malice.
state, further, that in my whole ex
perience and observation in this terri
tory for eight years, there has been no
case brought before me in which there
has been such universal demand and
outcry for investigation from all classes
OF the community, and from the best
men in it, as in this case.
Further, solemnly add, that in nv
judgment the decentralization and cor
rupting influences which have flowed
from the prevalent belief in the corrup-
ton and fraudulent action of Ordway in
this and other official matters, have ex-
ceeded that which has flowed from all
other causes combined during that
period.
And, further, that it was the general
opinion of the bar that the only form
in which these matters could properly
be inquired into, WAS the United States
side of the court:
And I further state, that 1 was
governed in my action, by most
serious and profound conviction.
that unless some judicial
investigation was made of these charges,
there was the gfavest danger that the
tide OF corruption and bribery which
seemed to have been let loose over the
territory, by these examples in high
quarters, would sweep everything before
1t, and reach and imperil the adminlstra.
tlon of justice iu the courts themselves
Of course, l need not point out, that
no testimony taken at the instance of
Ordway before the examiners, subse.
quent to the investigation before the
grand jury, attacking the credibility o
witnesses before the grand jury, and
contradicting them, can have any bear.
ing on my case.
10 allow witnesses who have been
sworn, and testified before the grand
jury, afterwards to go before outsiders
extra judiciallv, and contradict their
sworn testimony, for the purpose OF
attacking the motives or conduct of the
prosecuting officer, would be monstrous
Such testimony could not, with any
fairness, be considered in passing on nv
case.
Undoubtedly, however. the object Of
Ordwav in making his strange request
to the attorney general, that Messrs.
Boteler and Haight should be empowered
to investigate the charges against him
upon which the grand jury had already
passed, was to have such testimony con.
sidered in their action upon his charges
against me.
am informed by the examiners that
the department of justice did order tn EN-
at the request OF the department of the
interior, to investigate the charges
against Ordway, while they were investi.
gating the charges against me.
Certainly Ordway's object was not tc
have a trial of his own case before the
examiners;
For, how was it possible for the exam.
liners, without process, or any means oi
procuring the attendance of witnesses
without o prosecutor, or any one to
present case against Ordway
without cross examination, without
rebuttal, without notice to
parties; without opportunity to wit
nesses lmpeached to defend themselves
IN short, by means of an er pa,te investi
CATION, hearing only one side, to try Mr.
Ordway, or to pass with any Justice O,
fairness upon the correctness Of the fnd.
ing of the grand jury in his case. OF
upon his guilt or innocence of the char
ges made against him before the grand
jury?
Therefore. say, that Ordway's object
in asking such an investigation could
only have been, to seek to have sucl
testimony indirectly affect the examin.
ers in his prosecution OF his charges
against me.
l respectfully ask the attorney gen.
eral to call upon the different Judges
before whom l have acted officially, and
| rc1 l, -, r