St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-12-19
Gov. Ordway Defends Himself
Against Attacks of Polit-
zeal Opponents.
He Explains the Charges Pre-
ferred Against Him When
Dakota's Governor.
How His Honor Was Vindi-
Gated by the Department
Of Justice.
Letters Written by Senator
Davis and Judge Boteler
as to the Charges.

4 dispatch from 1ankloli = b'' YES
terday appeared in the GLOBE declar-
ing untrue the statement OF eX-GoV.
Ordway that he was eXonorated by
grand jury in that city Of the charges
preferred against him several years
ago. The report added:
The memory of the United States court at
Yaukton is the record thereof, and Ii is
therein written that the grand jury brouSht
an Indictment against Nehemiah u OruNhy'
It's also matter of record that he was Quly
arraigned and through his counsel, Cush IL.
Davis moved 10 set aside the proceedings on
the ground that a territorial governor, unuer
the laws of the United States, could not De
tried for alleged crimes, but must be SUD
iected 10 imDeachment. The court sus-
tained the motion, and this Is how ne was
eXOnerated by the grand jury.
FX-Gov. Ordway is at present in this
CITY. 4 guest of the Metropolitan hotel.
He read the Yankton dispatch and an
swerS it by the production of the follow
inc letters. which. he says, prove con-
cluSivelV that there was neither law nor
evidence for the sO-called indictment,
and which, he adds. was worked up on
account of the removal Of the capital.
The first letter is from Senator Z. h.
Davis, dated st. Paul, July Is, 1889, ana
addressed to Hon. Alexander K. BOteler
partment of Justice. The letter reads:
In regard TO the investigations which are
making III respect 10 the administration OF
public affairs in the territory OF DaHoa
feel that il may be of some assistance, per
haps. to you if l shall state some matters
concerning the indictments against Gov:
OrdYay, whom Judge Shannon and myself
defended. At the commencement OF cur
Jiuiies we were made familiar with the
unique and INSCRIPTIONS processes by when
q grand jury was found ana then draSooned
IN finding bill against the governor OF the
territory. and we were placed in possession
Of evidence which in our Judgment would
have enabled US 10 have quashed the lndlct-
ment by exposing the manner III Whlcn IL
was procured.
Asto the facts charged in the Indictment
neither of US had any dCunt that the evil
ience would demonstrate that there was no
foundation for them and that the whole pro
ceeding was simply one of those dlsgracetui
prostitutions of the instTumentalilies OF pub
lie duty which have for the past two years
disgTaced that territory and very naturally
retarded lis progress Upon looking INTO the
ease. however. Il became apparent 70 US tnat
Gov Ordway owed a duty to the office which
he held. and which should fist be performed
before entering upon his defence OF the facts
aS II he were an unofficial pers IN under the
indictment.
We advised him that the governor OF q ter
STORY was not subject to an Indictment dur
ing his term OF Office for pretended official
misconduct in the line of his executive
duty. aud that the same principal is applica-
bic to tIe judges of It's courts and The mem
bers OF its legislature.
Under the statutes of that territory in eases
where there can be a conviction the result
was removal from office and the consequence
OF the verdict of the territorial petit jury.
that heing a portion Of the penalty prescribed
by the statute. This consequence was so
IDanifestly against the policy of the United
States, as expressed in the tenure OF office
acts. tEat We advised Governor 0rdway that
he would be dIrelict III his duty II he did not
upon this very ground protect this exemption
of the executive Office of The territory. Be-
sides IL was perfectly manifest that if the
governor is amenal'le, during his term, to the
ordinary criminal process Of the territory, he
could be arrested in any county upon the
warrant of any justice of the peace, or eX-
aiming magistrate, removed under custody
Of some constable from the seat of govern
menT and thus harrassed as TO be unable to
perform executive duties.
We submitted these considerations 10 the
governor. ana at first had considerable diff
Guilty in securing his consent to their adoI-
lion by Us in this particular case. He almost
insisted that the trial should proceed in the
ordinary way, but finally, after discussion
and reflection. yielded to our views. The re-
suit IS doubtless known to you. We advised
GOV. Or'lWay that, inaSmuch as the power of
removal was vested in the president by and
with the advice OF the senate the proper
thing for him to do wes to insist that you
should make Investigations of all charges
against him. and especially of those which
were comprehended in the Indictment We
believe that he did this, and from the init
mate knowledge which we as his counsel,
acquired of the facts in the case, we are en-
urely certain that the result in your hands
viii be complete viudicatiOn of a man who
is known in this community which has very
intimate relations with all interests in Da-
k0ta, to Lave done more for the advance
menJ OF the territory than any public officer
in it ever had.
The second letter is a copy of state
ment of Judge BOteler vindicating Gov.
OTdway from all charges against him,
and also Messrs. Miller and Tibbitts,
who it was alleged had improper rela-
lions with the governor. This letter is
dated Oct. q, 1885, and is addressed to
W. B. TibbiLts, OF Bismarck. 1t is as
follows:
IN reply to your request to state as one Of
the examiners sent TO Dakota by the depart
ment of Justice in 1884, whether there was
any evidence submitted to the examiners
which, in my judgment warranted the find
ing or continuance on the docket of the in
dicment presented at Yankton against Gov.
OrdWay and yourself. / have to say that, as
the report OF my associate examiner Mr.
HaighDand myself TO Attorney General Brew
steT has been acted on, Ifeel at liberty to state
that no evidence, either in the minutes Of
the grand jury or in the testimony Of wit
nesses was submitted to US which. in my
opinion. was sufficient to warrant the pre-
sentiments referred TO, or their combinations
IN court.
The correctness Of the grand jury's min
utes, which tended to throw suspicion of cor
TuptiOn on Gov. OTdWay or yourself was i'm
peached, not only by persons who had given
testimony before the grand jury at Yankton.
but also by members of the panel itself
The testimony of McAullins and Spinden,
which was mainly relied on by this DrOsecu-
lion. was impeached before the examiners
by the positive testimony Of many reliable
witnesses.
The decision Of Chief Justice Edgerton in
dismissing the indictments against Gov.
Ordway and that, also. against Mr.. Miller.
who, 1t is charged, cOnspired with you to cor
rupt the governor. would seem TO leave it as
simple act of justice that the same course
should be taken in your case.