Year: 1879

| S0A oAJ UAAAS save Cu0A 1IOu Iu0 ACCCSAVlOu


of perjury?


CHICAGO,S JUDICIAL SCANDAL.


The testimony before the Congressional
committee at Chicago charged with investi-
eating the allegations of Judge Henry


w. Blodgett, of the United States district
court of that city, grows interesting, and
even the newspapers that denounced the at
temptto procure his impeachment in the
strongest terms, now acknowledge that he
has been guilty OF very questionable con-
duct. As far as the testimony relates to the
sale Of Staats Zeitung stock held by the
bankrupt Boss Hessing, it has been shown
that Blodgett construed it to be his duty to
sell to friend of the bankrupt for five
thousand dollars, when he had bids for more
than double that amount before him. The
claim he puts in that he did rot regard the
! higher bids as responsible is extremely gauzy
| when we understand that the bidders were
backed by the president of the National Bank
| of Illinois, whose check is good for half a
million dollars.


But that is matter of comparatively little
Importance beside the conduct of the Judge
in connection with the indictments found by
the grand jury against his especial pet
Register Hibbard, and in this connection
District Attorney Bangs finds himself about
as deep in the mud as Blodgett is in the
mre. The latter individual testified that the
grand jury took up and considered the case
OF Hibbard contrary to his advice, and
found two indictments, one of which be re-
fused to return into court at Judge Blod-
gett's direction. He thought the jury had
no business to inquire into the matter when
neither the court nor himself had called at
tentlon to the matter-a fact that shows
Bangs to be very poor lawyer or despica-
bic partisan of a man, whose conduct had
been SO notoriously corrupt as to call forth
the condemnation of the bar association of
Chicago. The testimony of the Jurors, too,
shows that both Bangs and Blodgett at
tempted to prevent inquiry into the conduct
of Hibbard, and threw every possible OBJ
struction in the way of an ascertainment
Of the facts, and that finally, when
they had found two indictments against
that official, one for withholding illegal fees
and the other for perjury in making false
returns of fees collected, Blodgett abso-
lutely refused to receive tho latter. His
conduct in the jury room is represented to
have been extremely dictatorial and offensive.
lie tried to browbeat the jurors into sus-
pension of the Investigation, and when be
found he could not bulldoze them he threat
ened to throw out the indictments because
they were improperly found.


Such, in brief, is the testimony thus far
adduced in the pending inquiry. It shows
in the first place that Judge Blodgett has no
clear conception of the duties of judicial
officer. He has had too many favorites, and
has allowed his desire to favor them to in
huence him on the bench to the injury of
those who did not happen to enjoy his favor.
Secondly, it has been shown that he de-
graded the judicial ermine to such an extent
as to 60 before grand jury of the United
States court and plead for clemency to
friend who had been prima facie guilty of
malfeasance in Office, and when he found
oAA"o PAAAAASo WOu1o IOO duSWor us Dur
pose, he resorted to threats. Thirdly, it has
been shown that in his capacity as a Judge
he refused to receive and have entered upon
the record of his court an Indictment for
perjury against a prominent official for
merely personal reason-a stretch of the
judicial authority that ill becomes one who
assumes to be a mediator between the prose-
cutor and him who is prosecuted, and to
decide lmpartially as to the issues involved
1t is very evident that Judge Blodgett has
greatly abused the trust confded to him.
1t IS very evident that he is, by reason of
his prejudices and associations, totally unfit
to occupy seat on the bench. It was
mistake to appoint him to the position, for
his character and his relations to corporations
and individuals ought to have been known
to the appointing power. Few of his judg-
ments have been unbiased where his personal
friendship or former business relations have
entered into the controversy, and none of
them have stood revision from the United
States supreme court. It is very evident
that such man should retire from
the bench at as early a day as possible, but
If he refuses to do so voluntarily, the proper
authorities should see to it that he is remoy
ed, to the end that the error of his appoint
ment may be in a measure atoned for.


AS for District Attorney Bangs, we find it
difficult to restrain our indignation. His
own testimony convicts him of being either
inbecile or knavish. We are inclined to
give him credit for the possession of both
qualities, though undoubtedly the former
predominates in his composition. Ever since
his appointment it has been found necessary
by the government to employ additional
counsel to conduct cases. He has proved
himself impotent in even the most trivial
matters. 1t is our private opinion, publicly
expressed, that he ought to be removed from
office without unnecessary delay, and con-
signed to the Illinois Institute for the
Feeble Minded. Mr.. Hayes will oblige the
GLOBE greatly, and at the same time add to
the reputation of the service, by acting upon
the suggestion.


Franklin Lodge A. O. q. W. Entertainment.


The members of Franklin Lodge No. 8. A. q.
w. w.. are making extensive preparations tn
entertain their friends on the evening Of Feb