St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-05-05
THOSE PERJURY CASES.
What the Law Says and What
the Public Verdict LISP

The man who "toyS" with the
kangaroo" law does il at his peril
WHAT will be Judge Burr's decision
in the perjury cases this morning? 1t
will make little difference what this
judge may decide, after having said, as
he did. on last Friday when the men
accused of perjury were arraigned be-
fore him: ut is not fair to bring this
case before this court, both judges OF
which are candidates for reelection"
But at the bar of public opinion the
Republican trickSters have been con-
Victed of an OffenSe against the laws or
the state that demands the most severe
punishment. Judge Burr himself, from
the bench, gave it out Oh Saturday,
that the man Dix had been.
proven guilty of committing the of
Tense charged, but he claimed that
he needed time to consider whether the
intent to commit crime was there. For
this reason he took the case under adj
viSement until this morning.
But what did these men do? AS
Judge Egan said, in his argument before
Judge Burr on Saturday afternoon,
they "Swore to bold, naked false
hood. and none of their defenders dare
Dix swore positively that Jasper Harris
was not resident of the third precinct
OF the Fourth ward. The right TO vote
is a sacred one. Now what does this
man Dix do? He takes away. prima
facie, that right. These men were
offered 50 apiece to, swear
to these affidavits and went
to a certain office to sign them and earn
the money. Why, gentlemen, this IS
like hiring man to commit murder"
Here the Judge quoted section 90 OF the
pen al code which runs as follows:
An unqualified statement of that which one
does not know to be true is equivalent to
statement of that which he knows to be false.
What ground does this leave for Sin
tent?''
Dix and Kingsbury admitted on the
stand that they did not know the truth
they swore, and the laws of Minnesota
then step in and declare that
IAN unqualified statement of
that which one does not know
to be true is equivalent to statement
of that which he knows to be false"
What room is left for ''intent" in this
statute or any other? The laws insist
that man must know thing to be
true before he can swear to it. and de-
cision to the contrary by Judge Burr the
day before election because. as he says,
he is candidate for re- election, would
be unparalleled in the history OF the
judiciary.
But does the Republican city commit
tee indOrSe these men i'll signing these
''crooked'' affidavits?
1t does so emphatically, and sent all
the lawyers it could muster around to
Go tn a of
the men accused of perjury, and they
talked the entire day in trying to con-
vince Judge Burr that he would be
justified in dismiSSing the cases. Ii
these men were innocent there wouldn't
be any necessity for making such
desperate defense OF them, but it is
done for the sake of saving men who
are leaders in the Republican cam
paign: for, if Dix and the others who
signed these false atfidavitS were con-
victed of perjury, nothing could save
the men who hired or persuaded
these ignorant men to sign these
atfidavitS from arrest and con-
VictiOn on the charge of
Subornati0n of perjury. This would
never do, and so the entire strength,
power and campaign fund OF the Re-
publican city committee has been di-
rGcltu W tlle QclCiSC VI JtiU Hull WIZ
are now on trial tor perjury.
Such raScaity and trickery cannot
help disgusting every good and law abld-
ing citizen of the city, and, regardless of
the decision which may be rendered in
the case of the state against Dix in the
municipal court this morning, this
crookedness will be rebuked at the polls
tomorrow.
Things have come to a pretty pass"
remarked a prominent lawyer yester
day, when man can make an affi-
davit TO anything he chooses and yet es-
cape punishment. III man can swear
with impunity that am not a resident
of my precinct, and thus disfranchise
me. why can he not dispossess me of
property, or put me to great inconveni
ence in some other way by his false
swearing. The argument that these
men had no interest to do wrong when
they signed those papers is absurd and
is not recognized in law. They had no
business to sign paper, and swear to
it, when they were ignorant of its con-
tents. [ am satisfied that .Jud ge Burr
will bind the whole lot over af ter look
ing up the iaw.o