St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-01-21
EDWARDS ON TRIAL.
Proceedings in the Contempt Case.
History of the Case.
Special to the Globe.

History of the Case.
Special to the Globe.
FARGO, Oak. JAN, 20.-A large au-
dience gathered at the court house this
afternoon to witness the proceedings in
the contempt case against Major Ed
warts, and his Argus. The portly Ma
jOr was present, and represented by At
torney TwOmy. The form of action was
an order to show why the defendant
should not be held for contempt. The
affidavits upon which the order were
based were two: One from District At
torney Pollock, reciting that the Argus
had published matter upon which
Major Edwards was editor-in-chief
of the Argus. The other case
was from the grand jury,
and signed by the entire jury, and after
citing statements made in the Argus
and relied on by the district attorney, as
a. contempt Of court, specially denies
each one. The case was opened by
TwOmy moving to quash the informal
ton and dismiss the order. The case
was argued fully by the attorneys. The
court then discussed the matter at
length, reserving his decision to to-mOr-
row. He was greatly embarrassed in
for the defendant, but dwelt fOrcibly
upon his duty as judge, saying that
when he could not discharge his duties
as an impartial court he would step
down, but in consequence of his per-
Sonal relations, he thought he should
ask Judge Trip to try the case. He
used this language, which evidently
fOresbadoWs his decision: ut may be
true that in this particular case
there are some defects in the
pleading; but when / have
read in the Argus from day to-day. that
grand jurors are trafficing in crime.
that grand jurors are finding indictments
without evidence. When / have read
from day to day matters which to my
mind have tendency to bring the grand
jury into ridicule, derision and contempt
in the opinion of their fellow citizens. it
reflects upon them as individuals and
honorable citizens. 1t has been a
serious question with me heretofore
whether it was not my duty without the
motion of the district attorney to cause
the person making such charges from
day to day, to answer at the bar of JUS
tice here whether they are true or false.
The only question in my mind now is
whether OR not the district attorney III
framing this information ought not to
nave TeleTTeu W tile ScriGS Vi ARTICLES
published from day to day in which the
grand jury has been held up to ridicule,
cenSure and abuse. 1t has been a
question in my mind whether L did
not owe it to the grand jurors, who are
brought in here to give them an Oppor-
tunity to answer the charges against
them, or that the person making the
charges be required to answer to
their truth-becauSe, if these charges
are true, they ought to be inquired into.
If they are not true. but. as the district
attorney claims, published with malice,
then the person making them ought to
be held responsible for them" In case
Edwards is held for trial for contempt
he will justify himself by affidavit, Civ
ing the names of three members of the
grand jury who are alleged to have
come to him and given him information
upon which the Argus charges we
based. Great interest is felt in the case,
and it promises to increase as the pro-
ceedings progress. Edwards stated
in person to the court to-day that no
diSrespect was intended to the judge,
but he would stand by the charges made
of the grand Jury.