Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1895-10-31

lar. Every step In the case subsequently,
occurring shows this to be true.
Upon Taylor's return IN Jane the circuit
court on the contrary ordered that he be
held until the b~eginning of the adjourned
term of court set for Aug. 13. During the
interval Taylor was admitted to bail In the
sum Of SIS, ZOO.
"~lnstead OF tine circuit judge agreeing
to sentence Taylor for the term Of two
years, the facts are that he considered very
deeply the validity Of a judgment aud sen.
tence under the statute discovered to be
defective. which, II valid. would have per-
United a sentence Of twenty-one years and
a line OF twice the amount embezzled. The
entire difficulty arose from the discovery
that this twenty-one-year law was invalid.
1t was Arst enacted by the Territory OF
Dakota In 1858, and had been incorporat-
ed into the Revised Statutes enacted In
1877, a revision made by a commission of
two able justices OF the territorial supreme
court and Hon. Bartlett Trip, an able
lawyer, a Democrat, and present minister
to Austria. The fatal defect had escaped
the attention Of this commission, and few
persons In the state knew Of its existence.
l introduced the bill In the legislature at
Bismarck for the purpose of curing this de-
feet In 1889, but 1t was received with in
difference, most of the members seeming
to regard the proposed amendment as un-
necessary.
Statehood Most Important Then.
"In 1890, at the first session of the legls-
lature OF the state, there was so much i'm
portant legislative work to do in connec-
ton with statehood that nothing was done
about Ii further than casual mention. No
case had gone to the supreme court In
volving its validity, and there had never
been a defalcation by a state treasurer,
so the defective statute has remained on
nur hnnks from 1897 until tho nraSanf tima
at was only after the able and consci-
entious circuit judge obtained a copy OF the
Nebraska law, OF which our statute Is a de-
fective copy, and compared the two, that
he was compelled to abandon the idea OF
imposing sentence under that law. Until
this defect was made public the editor Of
the A~rgus-Leader made the most positive
and sweeping assertions that 1t was valid,
and charged me particularly with corruptly
refusing TO charge Taylor under 1t. Since
the nature of the defect has become known
no one pretends to claim that this statute
Is valid, and all must admit that had the
state drawn Its indictment under 1t and the
sentence pronounced under II, Taylor would
have been entitled to an absolute discharge.
During July, while Taylor was out on
bail, this same author of calumy and father
of lies published and circulated reports
charging that Taylor's friends were holding
the money and property OF the state out
OF its reach until after the day for imposing
the sentence was passed, In order TO COM
pei the state to first carry out its part Of
the alleged compromise by passing the
agreed judgment and sentence. Here the
false prophet was again proven to be a liar,
because nearly a week before the sentence
was imposed Tayior's friends turned over
the money and property-S100,0 900 in cash
and a large amount Of property-to the
state, and the sentence Of the circuit Judge
was for five, instead of two years. The
trial judge, when he concluded that n SEN
tence under the defective statute could not
stand, went as far as he possibly could go
when he imposed the sentence for five years
under the general enlightenment statutes
of the state, placing the responsibility upon
the supreme court Of holding that two
years was the limit. He no doubt felt that
the grave character of the charge made it
his duty to do this.
These proceedings have all been public
and they certainly demonstrate beyond per-
adventure Of doubt that the charges made
that there was an attempt to compound
Taylor's crime and to compromise the law
Is wholly false.
1.-THE states attorney of Hughes county
and myself worked day and night, In sea
son and out of season, to defeat the habeas
corpus proceeding brought by Taylor, and
succeeded. He then brought a writ OF
error to procure a reduction Of his sentence
on the ground that under the condition OF
the statutes of the state two years was the
limit of the law. We never worked harder
In our lives than we did in defending the
judgment of the lower court. One entire
day and half a night was spent In oral
arguments, and extended printed briefs
were submitted by both sides. Any man or
set of men who assert that we did not do
our utmost, earnestly and sincerely, to de-
fend the judgment of the lower court ut
tiers n wllful falsehood. But the supreme
court found that, owing to the invalidity
of the law intended to cover the case, they
were compelled TO resort to the two year
law rather than the ore applied by the low
er court, and they modified and affirmed
the judgment OF the lower court, ordered
down the rcm!t.!tur, and Taylor was ar
once taken TO the p~enitentialy, and Is now
serving out his sentence.
n reasonable man would expect the
court to yield to clamor and sentence the
defendant without any law. however much
all may regret the fact that the law in
tended to govern is fatally defective"
what have you to say about the claim
that the governor Of the state agreed 10
pardon Taylor soon after his Incarceration,
or at least to save his citizcnship?'
81 have TO knowledge whatever OF the
governor ever promising anything Of the
sort, and do not believe a word of Ii. A
~ WIN I" us 'sNh N'~
law by his good conduct, no matter how
long a term he serves. / have no knowledge
direct or indirect as to any such promise by
the governor, but this report is no doubt
as false as all the others"
~NOnsensicnI Charge.
Hwhat Ii there in the claim that you
could have procured the indictment against
Taylor to charge different counts, upon
which a cumulative sentence could have
been imposed, making the punishment ade-
ouate? Or that you could have procured
sc veral Indictments and separate convic-
tscns?'
There is not the slightest foundation 10
this charge. 1t Is trivial and sheer nom
sense. Taylor, as custodian Of the state
furds, had the right to hold them, subject
to disbursements for public purposes, until
1t became his duty to pay over to his sue.
caSsor. There Is no way On earth that I
have discovered TO Prove Tie appropriation
of his money or any OF X by Taylor until
he failed to pay IL over to his successor.
His books fail to disclose and previous
appropriation Persons TO whom he loaned
money testify that they borrowed 1t from
his bank at Redfeld-that the loan was
made by the bank and not by him. His
own admissions are only TO the extent OF
q saying that the money was deposited In