The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-06-26
JUDGE LEN|S HITS HARD
INCISIVE STATEMENT IN WHICH
HE TAKES THE GRAND
JURY TO TASK
STOPPED SHORT OF ITS DUTY
w. r.. Johnson Should Have Been
Indicted If Charges Preferred
Are True-COurt Pow
erIess to Act.

Inc attempt OIL the grand jury TO cast
| the responsibility of instituting impeach-
ment proceedings against County Auditor
Johnson, if any such action was con-
templated, upon the courts, was eff
| fectually SQuelched yesterday, when
| Judge Lewis, after carefully going over
the report in which the auditor was so
roundly roasted" discharged that body
| and the matter stands just where 1t was
| before.
The fact remains, however, that the
| scathing report submitted by the grand
| jury created sensation both in official
| and outside circles and the query every
where obtruGes itself, as to why the
| jury failed to bring in enc or more In
! dictments, instead of contenting itself
with a mere recital of what has appeared
to be gross mismanagement in the con-
/ duct of the auditors office.
ALL A HARMLESS TRADE.
The excoriation received by Mr.. John
| son at the hands of the jury is generally
regarded in the. light Of harmless
| TRADE, and if sucn a state OF affairs ex-
| lists as was indicated, it was due both to
! himself and the public that the matter
| should be made the subject of a Judicial
investigation In this way only could
the matter be set right, and the re-
| sponsibility placed where It belongs, and
! at the same time the official against
whom the charges are made could have
been either convicted or indicated.
1t was very evident, when the grand
jury reassembled yesterday morning that
Judge Lewis like large number of lay
| men, had been nonpIussed over the re-
port of the jury. and he sought for
further information, notwithstanding
that he had spent a number of hours in
porting over the ambiguous document.
The court indicated in plain language
that he would like 70 be appraised as to
whether the gross eafN-.esSness and negli-
gence attributed to Johnson was or was
not of a wilful character If 80, the Of
tense was indictabie, and the jury should
have acted accord .ngly, but if the con-
dition of affairs was due to mere care
| lessness. without intent at wrong, this
altered the situation
e. II. Cutler foreman Of the jury, in
formed the court that nothing Of a d1-
rectly wllful character had been discov-
cred, whereupon the jury was discharged.
JUDGE LEWIS DIsGUSTED.
Judge Lewis promised his query with a
review Of the report in which he in
formed the jury in no uncertain terms
that the courts had not the power to
investigate official misconduct except
through the grand jury, and that as re-
CARDS Impeachment the recommendation
could act. The report was ordered placed
on file and the jury was discharged.
Before propoundmg his query Judge
Lewis referred to the report at consider
able length, his remarks being as fol-
lows:
Ct have examined with some care the
report of the grand jury submitted at
the session yesterday.
1.-The report points out many specific
instances where certain public officials
and their subordinates in office have re-
peatedIy omitted to follow and have DISC
beyed the law regulating their official
conduct in office.
This report charges gross carelessncss
in the mana cement of the office of the
county auditor, resulting in loss of reVe-
hue and grave danger of further loss
both to the county and to the individual
taxpayer, and in conclusion your report
recommends an investigation of the
charges therein by the proper authorities
and the impeachment and removal from
office of Auditor Johnson and Commits
sioner Lott, in the event that such in
vestigation should sustain the charges.
THAT there may be no misunderstood
Ing on the part of the grand jury as to
their province and the authority of the
court to act in this matter, in view Of
fact that this court is pOwerless to act
in matters of this kind, except upon in
dictments or preSentments returned by
the grand jury.
JURY SEVERELY CRITICISED.
The district courts of this state have
no power to investigate official mscou-
duct. except through the grand jury and
cannot impeach public officials or remove
them from office Your recommendation,
| therefore, in this connection, submits
nothing on which the court can act, ex-
cept to place your communication on file
with the clerk
The responsibility of passing upon the
! criminalities of these matters is imposed
by law in the. first instance upon the
| grand jury 1t is for them to say, after
! proper investigation, whether they be-
| lieve crime has been committed or
whether a crime was probably committed.
! Inc law of this state provides that if
any public official or his subordinate will
| fully disobeys any legal requirements
regulating his official conduct such per-
! son Is guilty of misdemeanor and is
! subject to the penalty of the law. and
| every public official is presumed to know,
! and is chargable with knowledge of all
the laws regulating his official conduct in
office.
Your report charges many instances
| OF offc1al misconduct. But mere failure
| or omission to perform a duty imposed
| by law upon public official does not
necessarily furnish any ground upon
| which to indict or present him before the
| court.
The law is that if any public officer
or person holding any public trust or en-
| ployment, upon whom any duty is enjofn-
! ed by law. should wilfully neglect to De r
| form such duty such delinquency would
| constitute a misdemeanor.
STOPPED SHORT OF DUTY.
You will observe that to constitute
| this offense the offense must have been
Intentionally or wilfully committed, and
| If, upon the evidence before you upon in
| VeStTgation you had believed such A
| person has committed such an offense
| your duty would have required you to re-
| turn an indictment, or if YOU believed
| that such person had probably commit
! ted such an offenSe. In this case no in
| dictment had been returned and no pre-
| sentiment made.
! Your report charges neglect of Off
! ctal duty amounting to gross careless
ness. [ infer from the use of those words
and your failure to indict that you be-
! lieve the neglect was not wi1IfuI or inten,
/ tlonal, that 1t was sheer carelessness not
| amounting to willful or intentional
| lleve the neglect is not willful or inten-
| neglect. If I am correct in thus fnternref
ing your report, then your duties are al
| an end.
IF, however, such is the expressed
Intention of your report then it would
| be the duty of the court to submit these
ton - 9
IF. by the use of the words gross care.
| lessness and the finding of official miscon-
| duct you intended to charge anvthine
| stronger, anything tending to show 3
| W1llful misconduct, wilIful neglect theT
| the court would feel 1t it's duty to subnil
the matter to you for further consiGTra,
ton
Mr.. Cutler. having answered that tn,
grand jury did not find a. WiIlfuI Intent