The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-04-04
Judge Elliott S Charge Indicates
That Evidence Against Ames
Will Be Submitted.
Irwin Gardner Is Already Under
Subpoena to Appear on Wed
nesday Morning.
Supreme Court Decisions Shed
Light on Best Methods Of
Trying Graft Cases.

Former Mayor A. A. Ames and his
graft regime will be investigated by
the grand jury sworn in this morning.
Irwin A. Gardner, the states star
witness in the former Ames trial, has
been subpoenaed to appear before
the inquisitors next Wednesday morn
ing. Others who were on the INSIDE
under the Ames administration nave
been or will be subDoenaed and Judge
c. B. Elliott, in his charge to the
grand jury this morning, stated that
the Ames case would be resubmitted.
The plan of the county attorneys
office, as outlined in T h e ur n
last week, is to lay the evidence before
the jury and upon it draw new in
dictment charging the acceptance OF a
bribe by DR.. Ames from one Of the
women Of the town. Under such an
indictment, judging by the supreme
courts holding in the Frederick, W.
Ames case, it will be possible to intro
duce evidence of all the various graft
collections used in the former Ames
trial and thus a conviction seems prac-
tically certain.
Judge Elliott's Charge.
Judge Elliott in charging the jury
this morning gave a brief resume of
the noted case and the duty of the
jury in dealing with it anew. After
briefly reciting the facts of the ind1ct-
On appeal to the supreme court the
case was reversed, that court holding that
this court should have granted a new
trial. The supreme court expressed no
opinion upon the question Of the guilt or
innocence Of the defendant in that case.
The question before that court was SIM
ply a so-called technical one as to the suf-
ticiency Of the indictment. This court
held the indictment good; three judges Of
D.! the five Of the supreme court held that it
was good, two holding it was bad; but all
| of the judges Of the supreme court were
| of the opinion that even If the Indictment
was good the evidence was not sufficient
| to sustain the particular charges Of the
| Indictment. They did not hold that the
evidence was not sufficient to show guilt,
| they simply held that the evidence did not
fit the charge in the indictment. The re-
| suit is that the case comes back here for
| reconsideration by this court.
Pending Gases VIII Stand.
There are a number Of indictments
against the defendant now standing upon
the calendar Of this court: but because OF
the decision in that case, and the case OF
the state against Fred Annes, decided after
the case against DR.. A1nes was tried and
1 decided, the courts now have further light
upon the methods of procedure, and un-
lderstand It is the intention OF the county
tattorney to reSubmit the mat tier for your
I investigation. II that Is done II VIII De
for you to determine upon the evidence
produced, according to the ordinary rules
of law, whether an indictment should be
returned. do not suggest whether you
return an indictment or not; that is 8
4 matter entirely within your province.
have simply explained the matter to you
in order that you may understand the
circumstances and conditions surrounding
this particular case. It should be treated
by you just as all other cases which come
before you. The evidence should be con.
| sidered in the same way, and if it is suf-
ficient he should be indicted and tried
again until verdict Of "guilty' or mo-
guilty. is returned in this court. It is no.
a question in which public sentiment o.
sympathy should enter; it Is only ques
ton Of treating this case as all othe1