Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1884-08-28
;1aily gprtesss md dlakotaian

1t appears further y the testimony,
that complaint was publicly made OF my
inuctiou in the matter OF these charges
for some time prior to my acton ~ the
matter.
1t appears farther that numerous in
dividuals brought these complaints
against Ordway to my official attention
personally:
That at first did not believe them and
was disincllned to prosecute them: (See
my testimony, cross ex. by Oraway.)
That finally bacame convinced that
there was positive testimony sufficient
to demand an Investigation:
That L then summoned witnesses
whose names had been given NE before
the grand jury, and submitted their tes.
timony to the grand jury without COM
ment or advice as to their action:
That cautioned them in the language
of the law, to be governed solely by the
evidence before them, that the evidence
must be such as would be sufficient, if
uncontradicted, in their Judgment to Sc.
cure a conviction before petit jury:
Tlat especially cautioned the grand
jury in their decision:
That the grand jury were convinced
that the evidence was sufficient to war;
dictment.
Under this state of facts claim that
it is not competent for the examiners to
sit in judgment upon the finding Of the
grand Jury, or to inquire into the reasons
o, motives which actuateu the grand
jmy.
And. further, still less is it competent
for the examiners to hold me responsible
FOR the action of the grand jury, or to
charge me wish malice on account Of
their action.
l hold, further, that auy such inquiry
into the action of The grand jury trench
es very closely npon the boundary line
beyond which no investigation, save q
judicial one should proceed.
hold, further, that even should the
examiners aad the attorney general go
into the question as to what facts were
before the grand Jury to justify them IN
finding an ipdictment-whlch do not
think competent subject of inquiry by
them-eyen then, the facts as develoned
by the testimony would be found to Jus.
tlfy an Indictment i'll any court in the
country.
They were these: Gov. Ordway was
entrusted by law with the organization
of new counties. The county of Faulk
had for over year the legal number of
Inhabitants emitting them to an organi-
cation:
These Inhabitants. had during that
time, made repeated applications in the
legal manner to the governor for such
organization: upon these applications
he had neglected or refused to act TO:
over q year: finally, about year after
the first application young man named
Tebbetts, former partner of bis son,
aud an acquaintance OF Ordway suddenly
appeared IN Eaulk county where he did
not reside, aud gave notice to the people
that he swas there to inquire into the
facts relating to their demand for an or
ganlEation.
It appears also from the evidence be-
fore the grand jury he also gave those
people to understand that he had infu.
ence with Ordway, and that upon his re.
nort, ii favorable, an organ ization wood
be had.
Itappears farther that the members
OF two town site companies, rivals for
the county seat in that county, upon
the strength OF bis representations made
up fupd of land and of money which
they offered to Tebbetts to procure for
them an organization favorable to their
towns as county seats:
That he finally accepted the offer of
La Foon town.site company, which was
four hundred and forty acres of land
valued at ten dollars per acre and hall
of the town site of La Foon, and some
money: that the lund was decided by
the members of the town-site company
first to Tebbetts, then to Miller, in trust
for Tebbetts, and by Miller to Tcbbetts,
and that it was the understanding with
these men who thus decided their lands
that it was for the purpose of intluenc
1Op Gov. Ord WnV IN his n,ttjOn.
And that almost as soon as the deeds
were maize to Tebbetts, or as soon there
after as he could have an interview with
Ordway, Tebbetts did procure from Ord.
way, and Ordway did make, the organi
zation as requested by the La Foon
sown. site company.
The evidence was alao to other coun.
ties and county seats, that similar
methods were used by Ordway in Their
organization. This testimony was com.
petent, as going to motive, guilty know
ledge, and showing the system Of opera
tion. (See Wharton on evideuce.)
Now. the question is, whether the
grand jury were justified in finding an
but whether in presenting this testi.
mony before the grand jury I could
properly be chargeable with malice. My
answer is, that ii the facts submitted to
grand jury convinced them in their judg-
ment that there was corrupt action on
the part Of the governor in this matter,
then that finding of theirs relieves me
thoroughly aud completely from any
charge of malice or improper action in
bringing before them the testimony.
That is to say, the questions of fact
for the grand jury to nnd from the evil
dence were these:
Did Ordway know of Tebbetts going
to Faulk county for the purpose of max.
ing money out of the organization?
Did Orlway delay the organization
for the purpose of hearing Tebbetts
report?
Did Tebbetts report to him?
Did Ordway make the organ.zation IN
accordance with Tebbetts' report or
request?
If so, then the further question was:
Did Ordway allow the valuable con-
sideration, which was given to Tebbetts,
to influence him in the organization?
And this question was one OF intent,
peculiarly for the grand jury, and them
alone, and upon which their finding can.
not be questioned in this inquiry as to
my action, nor, indeed, in any inquiry,
AS to the charge of malice in my con.
duct of the Investigation before the
grand jury, and in the examination of
witnesses, which is the second branch OF
fha sama charpa which T have hean dis.