St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-16
By a Vote Of 80 to II the
House Dismisses the
Ives Case.
SOME STRONG SPEECHES.
Littleton, Jones and Feig Saw
agely Attack the Popu-
list Judge.
GIBBS AND CANT DEFEND.
Claim Ives Was Trying to
Purify the Corrupt
Places
In EAST GRAND FORKS
Which Is Characterized by
Them as a Sink Hole Of
Iniquity.
"A CALL OF THE HOUSE
Produces Only Ninety-Seven
Members on the Final
Test Vote.
Which Is characterized by
Them as a Sink Hole Of
Iniquity.
a CALL OF THE HOUSE

Interest in the Ives impeachment
case reached the climax last night
when the final hearing was had be-
fore the house. While it was
hardly expected that a vote would
be reached, there was large attend
ance of visitors to hear the argu-
ments of the friends and opponents
of Judge Ives. Among those in the
house during the hearing were a son
and a brother of the accused, and
their feelings while the fate of the
judge was being decided, and while
his character was being discussed
with all that freedom which charac-
terizes the remarks of privileged
member of the legislature can only
be imagined.
The vote on the final result can
not truly be said to represent the
actual sentiments of the house upon
THE question of impeachment, for
there were many, possibly twenty,
members who would have voted to
impeach had they not been infiu-
enced by personal or political con-
siderations. The expense of an i'm
peachment court was another con-
Sidera'tion which Influenced come
votes, while others felt that it was
too severe a punishment for a COM
paratively mild offense to impeach a
judge who had committed the same
offenses that have been committed
by other judges who have gone unre-
buked
The galleries and aisles were we'll
filled with spectators when the
the speaker and the proceedings
were inaugurated.
JONES LEADS OFF.
Mr. Jones preluded what he had
to say by the declaration that he
was absolutely unbiased in the mat
ter under consideration, and he had
hesitated long before concluding to
speak for the committee. 1t was
only a sense of duty that prompted
him to speak. If the question were
left to his single voice he would
to present the facts as they were
presented in the evidence before the
committee.
He first questioned the character
of the defense which the minority
set up for Judge Ives on the mat
ter of remiitting a part of the pen
atty in certain conviction. The
oh
dence that Judge Ives had remit
ted the penalty because, as it was
claimed, the offender had been re-
peatedly punished for the same
character of offenses, and it was
also shown that he had been subse-
quently punished for the same Of
fenseS. 1t seemed that, according to
Judge Ives view, the hardened pro-
fessional criminal and not the be-
ginner in crime, was the one to be
granted immunity. He did not be-
lieVe that Judge Ives was so ignor-
ant as to honestly entertain this
view of justice.
Mr.. Jones reviewed the testimony
at great length, presenting facts and
drawing conclusions the reverse of
what had been presented by the de-
fenSe. In the matter of the arrest of
Russell, for contempt, he claimed
that Thompson, the witness arrest
ed in contempt of the court, was
arrested on warrant charging him
with bribery, and was Immediately
taken to Crookston, where the grand
jury was in session. Was it likely
that the parties wanted to keep
Thompson from testifying when he
was taken directly to the presence
of the court? And yet Judge Ives,
IN contempt of the law, had called
this man into court, and without
even the semblance of a trial had
peremptoMly discharged the man on
his own recogniZance. He read from
the shorthand report Of the proceed
lngs in court to show that the Judge
had arbitrarily, and without one
word of evidence, without even
having a witness examined, com
mitted Russell to six months con-
fnement in Jail. Russell had de-
manded to be confronted with wit
nesses, and the court had refused.
There was not word of evidence
10 show that Russell had ever been
guilty of any offense, however
slight. Russell had demanded to
be confronted with his accusers, and
had been refused. He had then de-
manded an opportunity to prove