The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-11-01

In three of the remaining cases de-
murrers to the Indictment were sus-
tanned and the defendants were dis
missed and the other twenty one cases
We're on motion of the defendants
transferred from Barnes to Foster
| county, also in Burkes district. These
twenty-one cases have never been
brought to trial. The states attorney.
Mr. Shaw, was afterward succeeded as
states attorney by one of the attorneys
for the defendants in those cases and
a case was thus presented where a
judge should have appointed special
/ counsel to prosecute or called upon the
attorney generals office to prosecute.
Neither of these courses were taken by
him, but the cases remained on the
calendar until the May, 1909, term at
which time Judge Burke called Judge
Goss to preside over the court in that
county and the whole twenty one cases
were therefore dismissed by Judge
Goss. Thus out of twenty-seven in
dictments, thus returned, twenty four
have absolutely come to naught.
In the three cases in which the de-
| PENDANTS were convicted, no sentences
have ever been imposed and the defend
ants have at all times, remained at
large unpublished. E
On the last day of the term at which
they were convicted, the states attor-
Iney moved for sentence, which Judge
Burke refused to pronounce at that
time, but stated that he would be in
Bismarck on the following Tuesday
land would impose sentence there. This
proposed proceeding would be abso-
Ilutely illegal, which fact was called to
the judges attention by MIR. Shaw.
Notwithstanding that, Judge Burke
appeared in Bismarck, neither the de-
PENDANTS nor the states attorney being
{present, and while not holding court
and having no right whatever to act
in the premises, told the defendants
attorneys that he would sentence the
defendants to ninety days injail and to
the payment of a fine of $3.50. NO
Judgment of conviction was entered in
accordance with the announcement of
the judge and no Judgment could have
Ibeen entered on such proceeding
The defendants attorneys, however,
prepared notice OF appeal to the SUI
preme court from this pretended SEN
ltence and Judge Burke thereupon made
an order staying all proceedings
against them.
A great deal of adverse criticism of
Judge Burke's conduct arose in Nor
slton county and on OF about Dec. "a,
1909, he prepared a so-called order
flor judgment reciting that the defend
ants had been sentenced in February,
1908, and directed that judgment be
entered and dated back to that time.
This action of the Judge was illegal
and must have been known by him
to be illegal, but however that may be,
the appeal that had been taken to the
supreme court was dismissed or with
drawn In April, 1910, for the reason
that no Judgment had been entered
from which an appeal could be taken
and since that time nothing has been
done to either punish the defendants
under the pretended Judgment or to
4 have a legal sentence passed and a
legal judgment entered and since the
Hast mentioned date, there has not been
anything done in the way of having
Illegal judgment entered and the defend
ants punished.
No excuse can be offered why these
three men were not sentenced in the
PENDANTS are sentenced in other GRIM
Iinal cases and no excuse can be given
why legal judgments have not been
rendered and 1t is claimed that the
Judges proceeding did amount to le-
gal judgment, then there has been a
plain neglect I'm the judges duty in
failing to have defendants punished.
A legitimate inference to be drawn
IL II
won the applause of the prohibitionists
by the proceedings In the beginning,
lthey were thereafter conducted in such
a way as not to incur the displeasure
of the liquer interests and the net re-
suit has been a complete failure to adj
minister justice.
The Importance of these facts is not
that they relate to the prohibition, but
that they disclose in Judge Burke the
utter lack Of Judicial character.
Another judicial Outrage.
we also believe that Judge Burke
has conducted the position of his court
4 in a manner so irregular that 1t can
i not be explained in many instances as
the result of his lack OF learning In
i the law, but that 1t must rather be ex :
planned as induced by a willful disre-
H gard Of the law. We give the follow
ing Illustration:
| On October 20, 1907, about twenty
persons appeared in the district court
lof Logan county, presided over by
Judge Burke, for the purpose Of pro-
curing their naturalization papers.
These proceedings resulted In the APP
parent naturalization of these twenty
persons among. whom was woman