St. Paul daily globe., 1895-04-16
IMPEACHMENT CHSE
ENDS IN ACQUITTAL

with the remark that he did 1T only
to avoid a fine, but declaring that it
would do them NO good, as he would
recommit him, which he did. 1t
was only when the supreme court
had been invoked that Judge Ives
had ceased his persecution of this
man, and yet Ives defenders claimed
that these were only errors COM
mitted with a good motive. The
speaker concluded with the declara-
tion that human freedom was too
sacred to be tampered with by any
obstinate man setting about to re-
form the world after an arbitrary
fashion of his own.
GIBBS FOR IVES.
On behalf of the minority, Hon.
John l.. Gibbs presented a strong ar
gument, prefaced by the statement
that he would rather be right than
to be governor of Minnesota, a
sentiment which was literally ap-
plauded. He referred to the matter
of the remission of the penalty al
luded to by Mr.. Jones, and stated
that Judge Nelson, of the United
States court, had recently done the
same thing in the case of the prose
cution of strikers who interfered
with the United States mails.W ould
there be a proposition to impeach
Judge Nelson for doing the same
thing that Judge Ives had done, He
did not claim that Judge Ives was
any great shakes of lawyer, but
it had been shown that his motives
were good, and that, after all, was
the real test of the matter.
Referring to the case in which
Judge Ives had naturalized a citizen
in an off-hand, irregular sort of way,
he declared that there was only one
term of the court a year, and that
dating in Ithe matter of issuing
naturalization papers in or out of
term time, and he quoted from the
statutes that he had a right to take
the declaration and issue papers.
The Declaration of Independence,
which protested against the obstruc-
tfons to naturalization, contained
justification for the judge in the
course he had followed.
1t was not the part of wisdom to
attempt, at cost of $40, 900 to $50
600, the Impeachment of Judge Ives
When there was so little prospect of
conviction. Mr.. Jones, he said.
had voted in the Judiciary committee
to dismiss the proceedings, and in
timated in terms which every one
understood, that it was only the
weight of pantisanry which had
driven him into the majority for i'm
peachment.
In conclusion, he declared that if
Judge Ives erred it was in his zeal to
drive out the dis equitable element of
East Grand Forks
LITTLETON'S MASTERPIECE.
In the presentation of the legal argu-
ment, the majority did we'll to submit
the matter to Judge Littleton, the rep
resentative from Dodge county. He
had, he said, examined the evidence
ana law in seventeen impeachment
cases, and in not one of them were
the facts and the conclusions as strong
as in this case. In saying that a judge
could only be impeached for crimes
and misdemeanors, he had left the i'm
preston that crimes and misdemean-
ofs meant exactly the same as the
words did when applied to the acts
OF a private individual. This was far
from true, and that which might be
minor offense in a private citizen
would be an impeachable offense in
Judge. In support of this position. he
quoted from the opinion of Judge
Brewer, of the United States supreme
court, IN an analogous case, and made
a strong point against the defense. In
TINS connection he made an eloulent
and telling plea for the liberty of the
citizen and the right of the accused.
He quoted from the statutes to show
that the judge had no right of discre-
ton in the matter of inflicting punish
ment. The supreme court in the case
OIL the state against Anderson, had de-
clded that the Imprisonment clause
was mandatory. In the case alluded TO
by Mr.. Gibbs, in which Judge Nelson
mad RENTED part of the penalty.
there was no mandate and the matter
was LETT to the discretion Of the court
lie quoted literally from various legal
authorities in support of the theory
that Judge Ives had exceeded his an
thorlty and usurped authority which
rested only in the jury.
crimes and miSdemeanors'' he de-
hned under the construction of Justice
Brewer as the act of a man who arhi-
tfarliy, knowingly or ignorantIy SUBJ
Verted fundamental law, over-rode the
Will OF the people or trampled upon the
statutes which govern judge and citi-
zen anKe. Gross negligence or a refu-
sal 10 recognize the legal rights of all
the people was a crime in a Judge more
serious than that for which many
man has gone to prison.
Judge Ives had, under his own hand
and seal, offered complete immu-
nifty to gamblers and prostitutes in
order TO secure evidence: upon which
to convict the county officials. Was
ms motive good? His motive was
clear, palpable and unquestionabI He
mad taken this course to punish his DO
lltlcal enemies, the public officials who
had opposed him in his campaign.
He read from the records of the i'm
peachment of Judge Bernard, of New
York, who had said, as Judge Ives had
said: This man has been my enemy.
and he need ask no mercy at nv
hands" Bernard had been impeached
solely upon this declarat tion,. and Judge
Ives had committed the same offense
on more than thirty different counts.
Should such man be permitted to dis
grace the bench of one of the greatest
districts in the state?
CANT CLOSES DEFENSE.
On behalf of the minority, in closing
the argument, Mr.. Cant admitted that
he had heard only portion of the evi-
dence adduced before the committee.
and he would have but few authorities
to present. Judge Ives was a man of
declining years, being past sixty, and
to impeach him would be to throw a
shadow of shame and disgrace upon
MIN as citizen and judge. He did
not believe that the state should as
sumo an expense of thousands of dol
lars unless there was more than an
nf l.