Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1895-03-07
INDICATED.
North Dakota Pcnftentiary Inveti-


B!SmaWk. Feb. 25.-Ihe1 North Da-
kotl senatorial inyestigattpRs3t the
charges against the manage'ileM J9f the
Bismarck penitentiary resulted i'll COM
plete vindication of every officer and
person connected with it. The report
was signed by Democrats md Republi-
cans and was adopted by unanimous
vote Of the senate. The report is as
follows:
MI. President: Your coni;hiHek to
investigate the affairs of the state peni-
Tertiary make the following report:
The fifth annual report Of the state
examiner Of the State Of North Dakota
for the fiscal year ending Nov. 5, 1894,
on pages 10, 20, 81. 30 and %, contains
certain charges against the warden of
the penitenti:lly and certain reflections
upon the trustees of the penitentiary
i'll their management of that institu-
ton.
On the third day of this session the
senate, by Il resolution, empowered the
president to appoint this committee to
investigate these charges contained in
the state examiners report, and on the
eighth day of this session the powers
Of this committee were, by resolution,
extended so that it should be its duty
to investigate thoroughly the manage
ment Of the penitontialy during the
past four years.
Under and by virtue of the authority
vested i'll the committee by this resolu-
tion an investigation of the affairs of
the penitentialy was made.
The investigation on the part of the
state examiner was conducted by the
attorney general Of the state, all the
witnesses asked for by the state ex-
aminer or by the attorney general We're
subpocnaed by this committee. and all
of the witnesses who appeared before
this committee We're Namined.
For the purpose of arriving at the
absolute truth in the matter the COM
mittee adopted Il rule to take the tes-
timony of the witnesses before it under
the rules of evidence which prevails in
courts Of Justice, and it was decided
to admit only evidence that would be
competent and relevant in u court Of
law.
The reason for adopting this rule Of
evidence and allowing only such evil
lence to be introduced as would be ad-
missible in a court of law is the same
reason upon which all the law of evil
lence is based. Elk parte testimony
without the presence of the defendant
and without being subject to the test
Of cross-eXanlination is not considered
Of such reliability to be admitted in a
court Of law, nor is it that kind of evil
dence which should be permitted to
take from public men their good name.
The committee has, however, attached
the aftidavits that were taken before
the public examiner to this report
They are made i part of this report
and in this same report is the evidence
of the same parties. taken in open
court, under oath. and when they were
subjected to Il crOsS-eXamination, and
which testimony denied every single
material allegation or charge that they
had made in their af1idavits.
The said charges contained in the
state examiners report were based
upon attidavits made by the following
named parties: Joseph Dietrich, Thorn
as Lennihan. Dwight Donnelly, John
Wray and Timothy NJ. O'Connor. All
Of these witnesses were subpenaed,
and all who appeared were examined
by this committee.
In no single case did the testimony
Of any of these men before this COM
mittee sustain in any degree whatever
the allega tiOnS contained in their atti-
davitS.
There is no single word of testimony
nor Il scintilll of evidence before this
committee to sustain any one of the
charges contained in their report, al
though every opportunity was given to
the state examiner and to the attorney
general to produce any witnesses who
might be abe to substantiate the same.
The failure to sustain the charges is
not wholly the fruit OF the public OK
amincr. He took as true the ex-parte
atfidavits made by the. before-namcd
parties. These atfidavits were not true
and the parties who made them de-
MED them under oath.
Your committee. however. is Of the
opinion that instead of making the
charges Il part of his report the public
examiner. if he believed the charges
to be true, should have laid The same
before the attorney general, whose
duty it W;.s to apply to the proper
authority to have the officials removed
from office. 1t is Il very serious thing
to make charges against public ot1i-
Gals on the eN-parte attidavits of IT.
responsible people and thus bcsmircll
the fair name of good men, and while
the committee is of the opinion that
the public examiner did not act
through malice in this matter. yet it
cannot refrain from condemn;ng Inn
for hastily jumping to concl lsion
and publishing the conclusion in his
report before thoroughly and carefully
sitting the matter to the bottom and
ascertainns beyond question that
the charges were true.
In reference to the parties who made
the attidavits upon which the report
Of the public examiner was based,
your COMMITTEES finds that the English
language is not broad enough to AIDE
quately express its contempt tor those
parties who are unuuestionably guilty
of perjury in making a11i;laviss. and
your committee recommend that they
be prosecuted to the full extent of the
law.
In reference to the conduct # the
affairs of the pamtrn::ary for the past
four years. your committee examined
into The mat;rrlS thoroughly rs it was
able. subponaniIs all the witnesses
asked for by the state examiner. and
having before it ail the vouchers end