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

action of Judge Ives in this respect
was in violation of the law, and ap-
pears to us from the evidence and by
his admissions contained in his an
swer to the petition, a knowingly ut
ter diregard OF the laws of the state
of Minnesota. and in violation of his
oath of office.
In one of the cases referred to, the
judge fined the defendant, who pleaded
guilty to a similar offense, the sum of
S25, whereas the minimum fine pre-
scribed by the statute is $50, and i'm
prisonment for not less than thirty
(SO days.
AS to the eighth specification in this
petition, the evidence, mostly consist
ing of the records, shows this to be
true as alleged in the petition, and
shows that the judge was Illegally eX-
ercising an arbitrary power, resulting
in discreditirlg and innrings Mr.. Mon
tague, an attorney.of GFookston, for an
opinion on question of law which
Mr.. Montague had given in his own
Office, and which opinion appears also
to have been correct.
QUIGLEY AND DWYER.
AS to the ninth specification in the
petition, the arrest of Russell, Quigley
and Dwyer for an alleged contempt of
court, the essential part of the proof
consists of the records in these cases,
and this charge, as specified in the
petitions, is true. The arrest was made
by order Of the judge, based on two
affidaVits, the material part of which
affidavits were sworn to only on in
oil
legged in these affidavits and in order
of arrest based thereon were not suffi
cient to constitute any offense. Quig-
ley was, on such charge, sentenced to
pay a fine of 500. The sentence was
imposed despite his denial of the truth
of the facts alleged in such affidavits
and order, and without an5' witnesses
being sworn or evidence taken, and
without an opportunity for defense.
The Defendant Russell on the same
charge after he had demurred to the
sufficiency of such affidavit and order,
and after his demurrer thereto, was
overruled, and verified an answer,
thereby putting in issue all the facts
alleged in such afiidavits and order.
The judge Immediately on reading
such answer, without any evidence,
and without any other or further pro-
ceedings, and without any opportunity
on the part of the defendant to make
any defense, cruelty and arbitrarily re-
fused to hear any evidence on the part
of the defendant and imposed upon
him fine of $3.50, or to stand committed
for six months in default of payment,
and sentence Of thirty days imprison-
I
thereon, or to admit the defendant to
bail; that on such sentence the commit
ment was issued, and the Defendant
Russell was Hereunder imprisoned in
the county Jail Of Polk county for ten
days, at which time he was released
by a writ from the supreme court In
this case it appears that a writ of
habeas corpus had been issued by the
judge returnable before himself; that
on a hearing under such writ the judge
failed and refused to inquire into the
facts or legality of the proceedings by
which the defendant had been incar-
cerated, but remanded him back to the
county Jail.
UNDUE INFLUENCE.
That. as to the 10th, 18th, 18th, 18th
in the main the facts as alleged in the
petition are found to be true. Much
of the evidence, which the records did
not disclose, had to be procured from
unwilling witnesses, and it appears
clear that the judge sought to exert an
undue influence over the grand juries
of the county of Polk at the December,
1884, and January, 1895, terms; that his
knowledge, as disclosed by the records
and by the witnesses, in discharging
the first grand jury in December 1894,
shows that he had obtained knowledge
of the evidence before that grand jury,
and of considerable of the proceedings
which the law requires to be kept Sc
cret, and that it was made, at least in
a measure, public by the judge, and
used by him for the purpose of coercing
the special grand jury, called by him
thereafter, and to procure indictments
to be brought against certain public
officers named and designated by him
to numerous persons. The desire and
intention of the judge in these matters
may have been good, but such fragrant
violations Of the law by a judge cannot
be upheld on any ground, and are sub
y
to the welfare of any community, and
we can conceive of no circumstances
under which they are justifiable.
AS to the jurors selected by the judge,
and whose names were ordered by him
to be put in the jury box to serve as
petit jurors, the records show twelve
or thirteen such jurors so selected by
the judge,a and the evidence shows them
to have been in almost every case par
tisans or political friends of the judge.
AS to the 18th and 18th specifications
of this petition, there is sufficient evil
dence to warrant a finding that they
are true, as alleged in the petition.
IMMUNITY FOR CRIME.
AS to the 18th and 18th Specifications
of this petition, they are admitted to
be true as alleged. The 18th is the writ
ing and issuing a letter by the judge
addressed to one Stephen Sprague au-
thorizing him to offer complete i'm
munity and protection to all gamblers
and keepers of houses of prostitution,
If they would appear and testify to any
evasion of the law by the officers of
East Grand Forks. There appears to
be, and can be no justification for the
writing, issuing or making public, such
a letter. The 18th specification is near
ly of the same character as the 18th.
An offer of amnesty, and protection to
| one Mabel Mabel, person charged
| with being the keeper of house of ill
fame, if she would come into court and
testify against the city officers of East
| Grand Forks.
AS to the 18th specification of the pc
tition, it is true as substantially
! charged in the petition. As to the man.
ner of discharging the former grand
! jury in 1894, and the object of it, and
the manner of calling special grand
jury, which met Jan. Is, 1895, the rec