St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-16
IMPEACHMENT CASE
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-
ition 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,
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 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 a 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
Judge Ives had been very accommo-
dating in THE matter of issuing
naturalization papers in or out of
term time, and he quoted from the
statutes that he had 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, ait a cost of $4O,O to $780,
900, the Impeachment of Judge Ives
when there was so little prospect of
a conviction. Mr.. Jones, he said.
had voted in the judiciary committee
to dismiss the proceedings, and in
tim9ted in terms which every one
understood, that it was only the
weight of pantisanry which had
driven him into the majority for inn
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 MASTERPIECES.
In the presentation of the legal argu-
ment, the majority did well to submit
the matter to Judge Littleton, the rep
resentative from Dodge county. He
had, he said, examined the evidence
and 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 private individual. This was far
from true, and that which might be
minor offense in a private citizen
would be an impeachable offense in n
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
strong point against the defense. In
this connection he made an eloquent
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 infiicting punish.
ment. The supreme court, in the case
OIL the state against Anderson, had de-
c1ded that the Imprisonment clause
was mandatory. In the case alluded TO
by Mr.. Gibbs, in which Judge Nelson
mad RENTED a part of the penalty
there was no mandate and the matter
was left to the discretion Of the court
He quoted literally from various legal
authorities in support of the theory
thaf Judge Ives had exceeded his au-
thorlty and usurped authority which
rested only in the jury
crimes and miSdemeanors" he de-
rned under the construction of Justice
Brewer as the act of a man who arhi-
trarlly, knowingly or ignorantly sub
Verted fundamental law, over-rode the
Will OF the people or trampled upon the
statutes which govern judge and citi-
zen alike. Gross negligence or a refu-
sal TO recognize the legal rights of all
the people was a. crime in judge more
serious than that for which manv a
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
10 convict the county officials. Was
his motive good? His motive was
clear, palpable and unquestionable. He
mad taken this course to punish his po-'
htcal 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 nv enemy
and he need ask no mercy at INV
hands," Bernard had been impeached
solely upon this declaration, 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
he argument, Mr.. Cant admitted that
ne 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
him as a citizen and a judge. He did
not believe that the state should as
sumo an expense of thousands of dol
lars unless there was more than an
-