St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-13
NO VERDICT AS YET
The House Listens to Much
Argument in the Ives
Case.
JOHNS FOR IMPEACHMENT.
Makes a Strong Argument
for the Majority Of the
Committee.
JOHNS FOR IMPEACHMENT.
VOTE TO BE TAKEN TONIGHT
Little Probability That the
House Will Ever Con-
vict.

The hearing of the impeachment
proceedings in the house of repre-
sentatives called out quite large
attendance, among the number be-
ing many ladies. The bar of the
state, and especially of st. Paul,
was also well represented to hear
the legal battle which was to de-
termine the character and standing
of one of the highest officials of the
state.
1t had been apparent for several
days that the sentiment in favor of
impeachment was weakening, and
this fact betrayed itself at several
points of the argument. The ad-
dress of Mr.. Johns, of the majority
faVoring impeachment, was easily
the ablest and most eloquent effort
of the evening, yet it did not elicit
nearly as hearty or general ap-
plause as did that of Mr.. Douglas,
which, though logical and convinc-
ing, was delivered in a monotone
which was far from pleasing to the
ear On every occasion where there
was a chance for an expression of
sentiment it was plain that the ma
jority of the committee had a mi
nority of the house, and it is doubt
full if more than third of the
house vote to impeach.
When the house met at 7:30 Clerk
Deakin read the report of the ma
jority of the committee, and Mr.. I'm
derleak, chairman of the judiciary
committee, lead off in presenting
the argument for the majority. He
made a plain, conservative state
ment of the evidence and conclu-
sions of the committee, dwelling
upon the grave and serious char
acter of the proceedings. To report
for Impeachment, he said, would
mean civil death to Judge Ives,
while if the charges were not sus-
tained it might result in a serious
detriment- to the citizens of the dis
trict where the judge presides. His
remarks were free and brief, and
at the conclusion he made the for
NAL motion for the adoption of the
majority report.
MIR. Gibbs asked that the ma
jority submit it's full case before
the motion was entertained. Ac-
cordingly. the minority report was
read by the clerk, and D. A. Jones
raised the point that the assumption
was that the majority was correct,
thus leaving the burden Of proof
upon the minority.
LINE OF DEFENSE.
Mr.. Gibbs said upon these lines
he supposed that when Mr.. Jones
tried a lawsuit he placed the bur-
den of proof upon the defense. He
was surprised, he said, that law
yer should take such position.
Mr.. Hartshorn thought the facts
should be submitted impartially by
both the majority and the minority,
leaving the house to judge.
Mr.. Douglas said under all laws
a man was presumed innocent until
he was proven guilty. A presump-
ton of guilt could only properly
arise from evidence, and it was OBJ
-viously proper that the evidence
should be presented first.
Mr.. Hartshorn said the committee
only had the evidence of about ten
of the forty witnesses, and these
were principally witnesses for the
prosecution, so the house would
have to depend largely upon testi-
mony that would be admitted by
both sides.
Mr. Underleak said the majority
and minority were practically
agreed upon evidence, being divid-
ed only upon conclusions, and all
members of the committee would
fairly state the evidence.
AS a solution of the veXed problem
Mr.. Gibbs moved that the majority
open and proceed with a statement of
their case.
Mr.. Johns objected to this plan on
the ground that it assumed a prosecu-
ton and a defense. This was not
judicial tribunal, but simply sitting,
a kind of grand jury, to determine
whether there was ground for estab-
fishing a court of impeachment. He
claimed that it was due the house
that the minority explain why they
refuse to adopt the report of the
majority.
Mr.. Douglass said the majority was
calling upon the minority to prove a
negative proposition, which was an
absurd position in which place to put
them.
FEIG CHIPS IN.
Mr.. Feig said this was a confession
that the minority had no negative to
present.
After some more incompetent wrang-
ling Mr.. Gibbs renewed his motion
that the majority proceed with their
case.
Mr.. Douglas said the majority was
1or the two sides to bubble as to
winch side should proceed first The
house wanted to know what there was
in the case, and they had a right to
know. He was interrupted by Mr.
Johns and Mr.. Feig, and finally de-
clared that this was not iustice,s
court, and they did not propose tn
be dictated to by the lawyers of the
house.
This was warmly applauded and
echoed by Mr.. Lockwood
Mr. Feig made the point that tha
substitute motion being for the adop-
ton of the minority report that side
should proceed to present it's case. The
speaker refused to be governed by any
court rules and declared that the argu-
ment should be made as the house
wanted it.
Mr.. Underleak moved that the speak