St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-03-19
O,BRIEN,s HOT SHOT.
How He Roasted the Committee
and Legislature.

How He Roasted the Committee
and Legislature.
c. d. O'Brien made an extended ar
gument that was fraught with bristIing
points and strOug denunciations of the
course pursued to deprive Mr.. Rhodes
OF his books. Mr.. O'Brien argued that
the proceeding is quasi-criminaI in its
nature, and designed to protect the
people against seizure which perhaps
the criminal law does not provide for.
He proceeded to outline the case from
its inception to the time of appearance
in court, and said he desired to make
another application, Whicn he based on
the fact that after Basil SmOut, the
gergeant-at-armS of the house, had ap-
peared in court he went to a telephone
in the building and notified r. A.
Walsh, of the house committee, to go to
the state treasurer's Office and get the
letter book. Proceeding with his ar
gument, Mr.. O'BTien said:
In order to take the property, the
sheriff is clothed with power to break
open any building, to break open any
receptacle and summon TO his aid the
power of the county for the enforce.
ment Of it.
The legislature of the state of Mime
sofa in 1871 provided that when the Off
Ger could not find the property any
party in whose possession it might be,
or who had knowledge of its wherea-
bouts. should be brought before the
court and compelled to disclose the
property, to the end that the purpose of
the statute of placing it in the posses
sion of the court should be fulfilled.
And the order OF the court in these pro-
ceedingS is broader than the powers of
the sheriff under the affidavit, for this
reaches precisely the contingency and
Tie Shuttle Attempted
in this case. The statute so standing,
the plaintiff IN this action brought his
action. The property was concealed
from him by these defendants and re-
fused to the sheriff, and they refused to
disclose its place OF cOncealment to the
sheriff The sheriff made his return,
and, upon the affidavit OF the plaintiff,
process was served by order of this
court on the defendant, who appeared
before this court with the attorney gen.
eral and associate counsel. Affidavit
was made that he was the sergeant-at-
arms of the house of representa-
tives of the state of Minnesota and
objected to the court proceeding fur
ther. !he argument upon the objection
TO the affidavit occupied the attention of
this court until about II o'clock today.
and while the argument was in prog
reSS, the court having Overruled the OBJ
lection and proceeding to inquire, this
witness, according to his own testimony,
within ten minutes or theSeabOuts of
the time that he was called upon the
stand to testify, proceeded to some place
In this building and telephoned a con-
federate, or some person to these pro-
ceedings unknown, to take that prop
erty and carry it away, with the evident
purpose and intention to defeat the
order of this court. and to put himself
in position where he could say. II
have not got it, and you can't order me
to produce it."
Now, there are repeals by implica-
tiOn which are not favored; there are
repeals by indirectiOn which are not
favored, and there is the legislative re-
peal of an enacted law; but it has been
left for this case and for the representa-
tives of the defendants in this case to
present to the court condition of af-
fairs by which man standing here, not
only as citizen, but as one summoned
to appear and answer, has the right and
power, if the position is correct, to de-
feat the entire statute and the entire
law of the state of MinneSOta-tO para
lyze the entire power of the court,
emaseulate justice and sand IA hHak