The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-03-24
PARADIS LIBELED DUNN
JURY FINDS THE MIDWAY EDI-
TOR GUILTY, AS CHARGED

JURY FINDS THE MIDWAY EDI-
TOR GUILTY, AS CHARGED
the State Auditor When CRITICS.
ing the Lnnd Sales-COunseI for
Both Sides Address the Jury-Mr.
Durment Claimed Mr.. Paradis Had
the Right to Criticise.
The Jury in the Paradis libel case
was out three hours last evening, from
$50 to $50. 1t took it's supper. and
then returned verdict finding Ed A.
Paradis, the editor of the Midway
News, guilty of criminally libeling State
Auditor Dunn in his paper on Nov 20,
1897, as charged in the complaint.
The case has lasted seven days and
was contested fiercely from start to
finish. Assistant County Attorney
Iollman moved for sentence, but SEN
! tence was deferred TIL Friday at 2 p.
M, on the motion of MI Hearn, who
gave notice of motion for a new trial
The jury, after being thanked and COM
pllmented by Judge Orr, was discharg-
ed.
In summing up, the counsel each con-
sumed about one hour. Mr. Durment
commenced It 1926 and opened by COM
| menting on what he termed the I'M
fairness of the prosecution in creating
prejudice against the defendant" The
fact that MIR. Butler had called atten-
tion to Paradis having termed the COM
plainant thief, he held, was an at
tempt to place the defendant in false
| light. He then attacked the complaint,
holding that it did not set out the ar
| ticles in the Midway News.
There is no such article there" said
Mr.. Durment. They are adj separate
articles. There is no allegation that
Mr.. Dunn is a pine thief or that he
acted dishonorably or corruptly. Para
dis supported Dunn in his former cru
SADIE, and he felt he had a right to
| cr1ticise him when he pursued the pol
icy Of his predecessors in. Office"
Proceeding, Mr.. Durment held that
| the sales conducted by Mr.. Dunn were
contrary to the spirit of the law, and
| that, II the states pine was to be sold
| because it was liable to waste, the state
auditor would be justified in selling all
the pine in the state. 1t was not neces-
sary for Paradis to think that Dunn
| was personally dishonest, and he did
| not charge that Dunn stole pine, in the
ordinary sense of stealing. Mr.. Dur
ment reviewed the sale of the section
II,
and then took the position that the al
legged libelous articles was simply i'm
polite language, and that Mr.. Dunn
himself had not been the essence Of
politeness.
''Paradis does not charge Dunn with
| being a thief" reiterated Mr.. Dur
ment. HE only charges that, If there
be such thing as a pine thief, Dunn
| is the thief; which means that there
may have been culpable negligence or
carelessness on his part. Paradis has
said that, If the state was a loser by
| this pine sale, Mr.. Dunn and his office
| Is to blame for it, because he is given
prevent loss, and that is all that Para
dis charges. It is easy for a. man to
be misled by his friends or designing
| persons, and 1T Is natural, and almost
Impossible for a man elected to Office
to avoid unconsciously to shape his
acts that his friends may benefit by
them.
Credit Is due to the defendant for
exploiting these facts, and he was Jus
titled in doing so. The administration
Of the state auditors office Is better
than 1t ever was. but 1t is not yet what
It should be-
MIR. Durment criticised Mr.. Dunn for
his abrupt treatment Of Paradis when
he called at the state auditors Office.
EVERY citizen has the right to get
any information he may want at a pub
lie office. The fault of public officials
is that before election they are all
suavity, and after election they are the
whole thing"
He did not believe the invitation sent
by Mr.. Dunn to Mr.. Paradis to be pres
ent at the sale were in good faith, and
he argued that If there was good
ground for Dunn attacking Bierman
| there was equally good grounds for
| Paradis attacking Dunn, and that
charges made by Mr.. Dunn in the past
| were as severe as those made by Para
dis. The former sale by Bierman of
the Mile Laos section was composed
by Mr.. Durment with the sale Of the
| Red Lake section, the counsel holding
the circumstances were similar and,
as showing that the work In Dunn's
Office was not as well done as 1t might
be, the spirit Of the law being violated.
He blamed Mr.. Dunn for not selling
pine in 1896 when no sale was held,
contending that that was a violation OF
the law and that the state auditor
should be governed by the strict letter
of the law and not by good horse
sense" as Mr.. Dunn had styled it. He
held that the state auditor had not the
right to decide as to the practicability
or the impracticability of the applica-
ton of a law, and he discussed alleged
w
Dunn had committed, once as adver-
Using the pine only in the trade paper
| of the lumber business. failing to ap-
| portion the cost Of estimating and APP
| praising the pine to each legal sub
| division examined. not allowing the
other cruisers to write up in their own
| hand the appraisal record Of the state
| land office, etc.
| In closing. Mr.. Durment defended
| the right Of Paradis to criticise and the
| freedom Of the press generally, and
| asked for fair play.
| Pierce Butler closed the case for the
| state, and addressed the jury, and
| commenced by commenting on the slow
progress Of the case which, he charged,
was due to the tactics Of the defense.
| This case, he held, was scarcely
| criminal case. The verdict would not
|, take the liberty Of the defendant If he
| was found guilty 1t meant that the
peace and good order of the state as
! sailed by Paradis in his attack on one
| of the citizens Of the state, would re-
! ceive condemnation and disapproval
| and that there would be an estoppel
| thereof.
81 differ in politics from all all the
| parties here said Mr.. Butler, "but
say that the greatest injury that
| threatens the life Of the republican In
| situations today is found in the ire
| sponsible, venomous assaults of the
| demagogue or Of irresponsible news
papers upon our public officials. Time
1