St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-13

er name one member to present one
side and then the other side be heard
from. This motion prevailed, and the
chair instructed the majority to pro-
| ceed to open.
This ruling being accepted Mr. Johns
was selected to lead for the majority.
| JOHNS ABLE ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Johns said he approached the
discharge of this public duty with trep-
| idation and reluctance. The dignity
of the house and the interests of the
| public demanded that there should be
a plain statement of the evidence ad-
| duced before the committee The
house should pass upon this matter
as public duty, a sacred trust, with
| out partisan feeling and without refer
ence to any precedents. 1t was reason
able to assume that those members of
the judiciary committee who had heard
all the testimony were in a better posi-
ton to judge of the merits of the
case than were those who had heard
none, or only a part of it There were
many members of the minority who
mad heard but little of the evidence
and two who had heard practically
none of it.
AS a lawyer, he declared he regret
ted to give his vote to the impeach-
ment of member of the profession
Oh which he was a member, but those
OF the committee who had voted for
impeachment felt that they had no
right to consider the question of ex-
pense, expedfency or politics, and
they based their findings upon the evi-
dence submitted. If there was a dis
pute as to the leading facts sub
m1tted, even on the part of the mi
hor1ty, he would say acquit and dis
miss, but even the minority would not
dispute the facts, basing their con-
cluslons on the construction only
1t had been claimed and with good
reason, that Judge Ives was engaged
In an effort to drive from the district
an undesirable class of people. and
that in doing so he was Judge iurv
and executioner. In support of this
position, he read a letter from Judge
ives to one Sprague, Offering free and
1ull indemnity to all persons engaged
IN unlawful practices at East Grand
Forks who would come into court and
testlfy as to misdeeds of others
A REMARKABLE LETTER
This letter, of itself, he said. was
such remarkable document as to
form sufficient ground for an investi-
cation. In following up these cases he
explained in detail the social condi-
t1ons existing in that locality. showing
that it was overrun with blind pigs
gambling rooms and houses of i'll
fame, the penalties being, in all cases
where convictions were made, fine and
Imprisonment. In many cases the
judge had RENTED part of the pen
alty-that of imprisonment-and this
was as much a violation of the law as
Tor judge to sentence a man con-
Vlcted OF murder in the first degree to
ten days in the county jail
Mr. johns quoted from the evidence
Oh the county attorney, who declared
that the judge had, without any ex-
pressed reason or explanation remit
ted the imprisonment portion of the
penalty Tor violations of the liuuor
law. In one case it was shown that a
man convicted of an offense had gone
to Judge Ives and compromised on a
small fine, which was never paid until
these Impeachment proceedings were
inaugurated.
Mr.. Johns went into the case of
contempt referred to in the report, and
declared that the proceedings by which
the man Russell was thrown into iail
and kept there, a writ of habeas corpus
being denied until the supreme court
was invoked, was an act of tyranny
and oppression which would not be
permitted in dark Russia.
THE PLEA OF IGNORANCE.
He said the principal defense set up
Tor Judge Ives by the minority was that
OF ignorance. Judge Ives was not an
ignorant man; he was simply an arbi-
trary, overbearing, selfish man who
held his own ambitions and desires
above all other considerations, and
stood ready to prostitute his high Of
nee to the prosecution of his ambitions,
his business and his revenge.
The verdict, he said, had already
been agreed upon if the newspapers
We're to be believed. That verdict, it
was stated, was for acquittaI.
The leader of the minority had said
IN the presence of the committee that
ne would not sign report except for
dismissal, no matter what the evil
dence, and he protested against any
man taking such a stand
Mr.. Gibbs asked who was referred to.
and when informed that it was himself.
denied that he had made such a state
ment until after he had heard the evil
dence. There was an interchange of
few remarks, and Mr.. Gibbs admitted
that he had made the remark credited
to him after he had heard the evidence.
When Mr.. Johns argument was
completed Mr.. Lockwood moved the
adoption of the minority report, but
the speaker decided that the motion
was out of order under the rules that
had been adopted.
HARTSHORN DEFENDS.
Mr.. Hartshorn follower Mr.. Johns,
speaking on the part of the minority,
and declaring that he would confine
himself to the evidence. Referring to
the letter written by Judge Ives to
Sprague he admitted that the letter
had been written. The place, he said,
was sink hole of iniquity which
Judge Ives set about to purify. With
this determination he wrote this let
ter intending to secure evidence from
acccmplices to convict principals in
crime. There was a combination of
criminals to resist the courts and the
officers, and the unlawful houses were
assessed to raise money for bribing
grand juries.
Mr.. Hartshorn sent up a transcript
of the evidence of S. D. Childs, fore
man of a, grand jury, which had sat at
Crookston, to show that Judge Ives
had made unusual eXertions to secure
convictions for offenses against state
and municiDal ordinances
This was very dry reading, and the
house became very restive, but Mr..
Feig insisted that it was improper to
read a part of the evidence without