The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1904-01-30
.Ex-MAY0R AMES
is A FREE MAN
FOur-term Executive Of Mime
apOlis Escapes Punishment.
WON OUT ON TECHNICALLY
INDICTMENT FOR MALFEAs-
ANCE rs QUAsHED.

at. PAUL, MINI, Jan 29.-Ex- Mayor
Ames of Minneapolis il a free man.
The supreme court today quashed
the indictment against him.
The court held mat the Indictment
was faulty. Judges start, Collins AMI
Lewis concurred IN the majority opin-
ion that the offense was not proven,
while Judges Lovely and Brown dis
agree with that part Of the opinion Of
the majority. DR.. Ames was charged
and convicted in the district court OF
Hennepin county of receiving money IL
legally as mayor Of Minneapolis from
women.
He was indicted FOR that offense Feb-
4 1903, and after a trial of several
weeks. during which much sensational
testimony was introduced was found
guilty May and sentenced TO a term
10 prison Of six years An appeal was
taken 10 the supreme court in Decenl-
yer or the ground that the indictment
was not properly drawn in that it was
omnibus in character. charging, i'm fact
more than one crime. This contention
was sustained by the supreme court
today. DR.. Ames was mayor Of Min
leapolis four terms.
The majority opinion Of the coUrl.
written by Judge Lewis, and concurred
IN by Chief Justice Start and Justice
Collins, was a surprise TO the defense
as well as TO the state.
Where Justice Got Mixed.
The court says the Indictment was
valid and charged but one offense but
declares that the state did not prov"
the offense charged. After reciting the
charge in the indictment, namely the
receiving of money, $500 from certain
persons in order that they might be
protected from criminal pros cutiOu,
the syllabus says: Held. The indict-
ment stated one O1euse, il being in
feUred that the money was a fund con-
tribUted by the persons named pursuant
10 a joint or common UnueTStand1us
that such contributors should be pro-
tacte5.
Tine und lsputed evidence is :hat &c
tectives and police officers accepted
money from the women specified In tn.
Indictment and others il amounts rang
ing from SO 10 So in consideration IT
which each was promised police protec-
ton: that the detectives and police who
received the money we're agents of de-
fendsnt and not Of those making pay
nents that there was no Joint agree
meut or understanding between those
paying tbe money: that the $500 paid
over to defendant by his agent IN one
sum after IL was paid To him by women
Individuals. was not a general fund
contributed with the understanding thar
those participating should be protect
ed Held. There was failure Of proof
TO sustain the offeCse charged.
Discussing the evidence the court
SAYS: There was nG evidence that
any of the women acteG jointly. OK that
the fund was made up by them or N
their behalf: that there was no evidence
70 Justify the inference that Gardner
(AIayor Ames' clerk was constitute
the agent of the women to take their
money and deliver it to Ames, with
the understanding that in consequence
their houses would be protected
The court further says, There was
q separate and distinct agreement en-
tered into with each person paying any
money
Ia their dissenting opinion justices
Brown and Lovely charged the defend
ant With soliciting number Of brides
or gratis from several distinct women
To our minds the vital question is
not the sufTiciency Of the evidence, but
whether one Of the pisinest principles
OF the fundamental Law upon which the
rights of all citizens depends has been
violated"