St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-12

thus detained the witness. ~
1.-The law of the STAGE provides that
any interference to obstruct the trial
or other proceedings of court Is an
act of contempt of court, for which the
court has the right, and in many cases
it would be the duty to punish the of.
fender. 81 8
at further appears that all of these
facts were at the time known to Judge
Ives. The evidence further discIoses
that prior to his election Ives had not
been in active practice as a lawyer, and
possibly is not skilled in law to the
highest degree.
I'VE conclude, therefore, that his mo-
tiyes in. instituting these contempt PICS
ceedings were for the purpose of pres
venting the obstruction of justice, and
to protect the court, it's jurors and Of
ficers, from undue interference in the
discharge of their duties. Viewing the
proceedings in this light,w cannot cons
clude that in such proceedings Judge
Ives had committed any crime, nor did
his action amount to currupt conduct
in office
what is here said with reference to
the ninth specification applies with
equal force to the 10th. Hth,
18th, 18th and 14th specifica-
lions, for indeed they are a
part of this same transaction, and
grew out of these material factS-in
all of which we cannot concur with
the majority report, and recommend
that said specifications, and all of
them, be dismissed.
"Fifth-As to the 14th specification,
we, the majority, find that if the
charges therein are and were true, the
whole thereof does not constitute a
crime nor does the same amount to
corrupt conduct in Office.
"Sixth-As to matters contained in
the 18th specification, we, the minority
find that all of the matters therein
charged do not refer to any official act
or conduct of Judge Ives, and there
fore, whether true or false, were not,
and are not a proper matter for in
vestigation by your committee, nor
could the same be made the basis of
Impeachment proceedings.
CONCLUSIONS VS.. FACTS.
'Seventh-As to the matter specified
in the 18th specifica ton, we find that
the conclusions of the majority are
not warranted by the facts given in
evidence. Nor can we conclude that if
aid letter was written, it constitutes
crime, when we consider all the
surrounding circumstances and the
condition of affairs at East Grand
Forks at the time. though we cannot
justify a judge in writing such letter.
We can conceive a state of circum-
a yxrha tn
be condemned. 1t is not infreluent,
however, that courts and prosecuting
attorneys offer immunity from
punishment to one or more confed-
crates in crime, in case they shall give
to the state sufficient evidence to con-
Wet those more hardened and deeper
stained in crime. In fact, such would
seem to be a tacit understanding with
reference to the notable Claus Blixt,
now held in our neighboring county Of
this state for trial. ,c,g
Sixth. AS to the exclusion of
Brown and DeWolf from the grand
jury, and the placing thereon of Void
and Finkey, the evidence shows that
Brown and DeWolf were temporarily
excluded ON account of some eXamina-
tons by the grand jury in which they
may be supposed to be Interested
Void and Finley were on the regu-
lar panel, but not present at the time
the grand jury was first sent out. The
records, however, show that the grand
jury was regularly sworn and charged.
1t is fair to presume, and the law
raises the presumption, therefore,
their presence upon the jury was regu-
lar and proper. h+A
Eighth. The subject of natura1fza
ing certain citizens out Of term api
pears to be an irregularity However,
the law in relation to admitting aliens
to citizenship provides that the. per-
son shall appear before court of rec
ord and make certain proofs. This
law does not in terms declare that
such appearance shall be in open court
when in regular session, and the
statue declares that for certain pur-
poses our courts are always. open.
From these facts, it may reasonably
be inferred that the court held that it
had such power to so admit citizens.
1t it so held, at most this would only
be an erroneous ruling as to the law,
and such does not establish crime,
nor prove corrupt conduct in office.
Eleventh. Finally, upon all the
charges, and upon all the evidence
taken on behalf of the committee, we,
the persons whose names are here o
attached, upon our conscience cannot
concur in the conclusions arrived at by
the majority, nor can we upon our
conscience report in favor of i'm
peaching Judge Ives upon any or
either of the aforesaid charges or mat
tiers specified in the report of the
majority.
1--WE, therefore recommend to this
honorable body, the adoption of the
resolution beneath submitted.
"B. F. HARTSHORN,
JOHN L. GIBBS,
AUG. J. ANDERSON,
81. L. SCOFIELD,
"WM. A. CANT,
"W. B. DOUGLAS,
''E. J. SCHURMEIER,'
Resolved, By the house of repre-
sentatives now in session, That the
matter Of impeachment of Judge
Frank Ives, of the Fourteenth judicial
District, be, and the same is hereby
dismissed, and that all further pro-
ceedings in said matter be discon-
tinued."
Mr.. Douglas noted the following ex-
ception after his signature to the re-
port. Except that 1 do not consider
the contempt proceedings referred to
in the fourth specification at all I'M
usual or improper. I concede, how
ever, that Judge Ives erred in de-
Gliding the merits of the ISSUE"
The majority of the committee have
been doing little independent figur-
ing on the cost of Impeachment, and
with the figures they use they prove
that the state can pay the cost and
save money. They say it cost $1,000
more for the December term Of the
district court than 1t ever did before
and that if Judge Ives remains on
the bench he will have four more
chances to repeat this expense at a
total cost of $4,000. On the other hand
they claim that the impeachment viii
only cost $1,000, itemized as follows
Senators, managers, clerks and ser.
geant-at-arrns, 1920 a day; forty wit
L 90 /