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

7 courts and the officers, which was
participated in and led by the parties
who were punished for contempt He
also declared that in the grand jury
cases Judge Ives knew no more of
what was going on in the grand jury
room than is ordinarily known by
courts concerning the doings of grand
Jur1es in session. Concerning the mat
ter of Judge Ives opinion of President
Cleveland and others, Mr.. Hartshorn
declared that man had a right to
hold and express his opinion, even if
he was judge. The argument of Mr..
Hartshorn was concluded with an
other extract from the testimony of
Mr.. Childs exonerating Ives from the
charge of arbitrarily removing the
two men from the grand jury.
DOUGLAS CLOSES.
Mr.. Douglas followed Mr.. Hartshorn
on behalf of the minority and admitted
that the majority was honest in it's
conviction, and while he had found
nothing in the evidence to convict
Judge Ives of criminal or currupt
practices, he was prepared to credit
those who had construed the evidence
differently with honest motives. Mr..
Johns had admitted that Judge Ives
was not corrupt, and with this ad-
mission half of the case was dis
missed. Impeachment, according to
the constitution, was only possible
under two charges, corruption and
crime. If corruption had not been
shown, which Mr.. Johns admitted, it
was not likely that the house would
believe him guilty of crime. He held
that Judge Ives had perfect right in
law to offer immunity to those who
would testify to evidence which would
convict greater criminals, and quoted
authorities to sustain him in this posi-
ton. Judge Ives, he said had simply.
Tor time, stripped off his judicial
robes and gone across lots by the
shortest route toward the reform of
the cesspools of iniquity at Grand
Forks, and in doing this he had per-
formed the highest duty of a citizen.
1t was perfectly within the province
Oh the Judge to commit a person for
contempt who tampered with or de-
talhed witnesses, and this was the
case In the proceeding mentioned. He
denled that Judge Ives had refused
to hear evidence or grant a writ of
habeas corpus in the sense claimed by
the majority. In passing he said there
was not a judge on the supreme bench
but had overruled his own decisions
at one time or another, and Judge
Ives made mistake of Judgment. but
that was not impeachable. He quoted
authorities to sustain this position,
also holding that Judge Ives had onIy
acted upon the discretion conferred
upon him in his judicial capacity. Ie-
norance, sometimes, he said, was a
strong defense, and he was convinced
that Judge Ives had gone about what
he considered his duty without the
accuracy and regularity of an ac-
compi1shed lawyer, but he had meted
out substantial justice, and had done
1t fearlessly and with a clearly defined
intention to do his duty as it appeared
TO him. For his honesty I have great
respect, for his accuracy as a LAWYER
and judge L have none" said Mr.
Douglas, and admitted that the man
ON trial was obstinate, self-willed and
pugnacfous, but that there was a more
honest man anywhere he positively
denied.
Upon the conclusion of Mr.. Douglas,
argument Mr.. Underleak moved that
Iurther considera ton of the mat+ar
De deferred until 7:30 this (Saturdavl
evening. This motion prevailed ami
the house promptly adjourned.