The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1904-12-16

From Mondays Daily.
Tomorrow the Brown county grand
jury will meet at New Ulm and will
act on the Gerhard murder case. Coun-
ty Attorney Einar Hoidale is entirely
out of it now. Henry w. Childs of ST
Paul, former attorney general, arrived
in New Ulm Saturday evening to take
charge of the prosecution. He will be
formally appointed tomorrow by Judge
Webber for this duty.
Mr. Hoidale was interviewed on the
subject by Free Press reporter yester-
day. He declares that he has acted
with perfect fairness to all parties at
all stages of the work on this murder
case. Nobody could oblige him to relin-
quish charge of the prosecution. He did
this of his own free will, because
so many people believed him biased in
favor of the accused, DR.. George r.
Koch.
The opposition to his conduct of the
case came, he says, from The New Ulm
Journal and The New Ulm News. In
both cases this opposition was due to
personal enmity against himself. Phil
Up Liesch, proprietor of The Journal, a
republican organ, was always Mr.. Hoi-
dale's personal opponent, the county at
torney being democratic officer, a hos
tility that developed into personal am
tagonism. j. ]. Green, editor and pro-
prietor of The News, democratic or
gan, is bitterly hostile to Mr.. Hoidale,
because a year ago the county attor-
ney caused the arrest of the editors
son on the charge of forgery, at the in
was afterwards adjusted out of court.
This is the explanation the county at
torney gives for the attitude assumed
by these papers toward him.
1t is true that Mr.. Hoidale's law part
ner is ii. n. Somsen, the city attorney,
who is married to DIR. Koch's sister.
This, says the county attorney, has
been made plausible ground for accus-
ing him of partially towards DIR. Koch
Mr.. Hoidale says that Judge Weber
never requested him to resign from the
charge of the prosecution of the Geb-
hard murder case. He says that he HIM
self talked the matter over with the
Judge prior to the mass meeting at
which antagonism to the county attor-
ney was expressed. Mr.. Hoidale told the
Judge that he would request that the
Judge appoint some one in the coun-
ty attorneys place and the judge said
he probably would. Last Saturday morn
request to the judge, saying that his
reason was that his law partner was DIR.
Koch's brother-in law. The Judge at
that time had already made up his mind
to appoint Mr.. Childs.
At noon on Saturday Mr.. Hoidale
met Attorneys Popham and Pfaender
and certain members of the citizens
committee. The hearing of DR.. Koch
was to be at 80 that afternoon. Mr..
Hoidale was intending to request an add
journment until Monday morning to
give Mr.. Childs a chance to arrive and
take charge. The county attorney told
these gentlemen that he met that
he would himself take charge of the
hearing because that was the only
course open to him under the circum-
stances. He further informed them that
he did not recognize the citizens COM
mittee. To the county attorney that
committee has been nonentity. Such
are the statements of Mr.. Hoidale.
Some of the members of the commit
tee told The Free Press man that they
believed that Mr.. Hoidale had been UNI
duly delaying the case. They said that
in their opinion he was doing so in order
to weaken the prosecution. He should
have caused the arrest of DIR. Koch and
then stepped out of the case long ago.
He should not wait until court was
about to convene and then have the
case suddenly turned over to new
man, who has had no time to work upon
it.
Mr. Hoidale says he has stood ready
to issue warrant at any time but had
waited for some citizen to swear out a
complaint. He did not deem it proper to
take the initiative himself. He did not
consider that his duty.
Concerning the case itself and the
probable outcome. Mr.. Hoidale, though
he has been the legal exponent of the
states side so far, did not wish to give
out any kind of a public statement. His
attitude did not appear to be that of a
representative of the state and his feel