St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-10-21
IN RE THE GOVERNOR VS..
DART.

1N 1eEJ II 1o te4NON y a.
DART.
In what had the air of an authorized
statement in an evening paper, Gov.
Nelson is made to say That ne Is not Il
stakeholder in the Bank of Litchtield
and, even If he were, it would make 40
difference with him in his action i'll the
case of Dart. In this the governor is
plainly right. If officers are to be de-
tered frc!h doing their duty because
they are stockholders in banks or rail-
roads or other corporations we have
reached pretty bad pass in the evolu-
ton of the capacity OF men for self
government.
We are glad that the governor has so
clear a conception of his duty-in the
case of Dart. 1t leads to the reasonable
expectation that he will be equally re-
lentless i'll his performance of duty
when Republican official is the cul-
prit. In fact. this assertion of an inten
ton to Sternly perform a duty regard
less of any ilnputation on motives or of
the politics of the accused makes it
necessary .that in the latter case the
governor should act with equal prompt
ness, impartiality and severity. If this
were not the case then we would have,
inferentlally. the decision of the chief
magistrate that what was malfeaSance
i'll a Democrat was merely venial
affair in Republican.
THIS being the case,we expect the gov
ernOr will direct his subordinate West to
prefer charges against Bigelow, the Re-
publican auditor of Meeker county. The
800 OF public money which Dart loaned,
BigeloW borrowed. If it is malfeasance
to loan, it is equally malfeaSance to
borrow. 1t is not probable that Dart
went to Bigelow and said: "You are
going to build, and will need some
money. l will lend you some of the
county'S money" 1t is more probable
that BigeloW went to Dart and said: Il
want to build, and am dead broke: l
need $500. The county has lot of it
lying idle; loan it TO me-" Where is the
line which divides these acts and rem
dprs one of them criminal and the other
innocent? How can Bigelow soliciting
loan of county funds he less guilty
than Dart, who yielded to his Sollcita-
tiou? Is the briber less criminal than
the bribed? Is the tempter less culpable
than the tempted? We are not without
a precedent. Eve was banished from
the garden for that little affair of the
apple because she yielded to the tempt
er; but the latter has been crawling on
his belly ever since, under the sentence
then imposed. He appears to have
been operating recently at his old trade
in Meeker county.
Mr.. Bigelow knew that he was Dor
rowing the public money. He would
create the impression that he did not
know it was; but, not wanting to lie out
right. he bubbles and prevaricateS and
lodges, and thus advertiseS to the world
that he did know he was getting
the treaSury'S money. But he must
have known it. He is a member of the
board of audit which examines the
treasurer's books and cash, and must
have seen his own checks drawn on a
bank in which he had no money i'll the
treaSurer's cash drawer and counted
| them as cash at the examination.
Come now, Gov. Nelson. tote fair; no
| Sinking of duty. II Dart is guilty, so
is Bigelow, and equally; if Bigelow is
innocent, so is Dart. Take which horn
of the dilemma you wish, but take one
and do your whole duty. You can't af-
| ford TO stand before the people of this
state as Furnishing Democratic officer
and shielding his Republican partner in
the otfense. That isn't fair play, and
that is a thing the people of the STATE
| think good deal of.