Full text of "History of Minnehaha Co." Chapter 12 This file contains the full text of Bailey's History (1899), Chapter 12, pages 216 to 229. Scan and OCR by Joy Fisher, http://www.rootsweb.com/~archreg/vols/00001.html#0000031 This file may be freely copied by individuals and non-profit organizations for their private use. Any other use, including publication, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission by electronic, mechanical, or other means requires the written approval of the file's author. This file is part of the SDGENWEB Archives. If you arrived here inside a frame or from a link from somewhere else, our front door is at http://www.usgwarchives.net/sd/sdfiles.htm CHAPTER XII. SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS SANTA FE SCRIP AND ITS BOGUS ISSUE BY JOHN D. CAMERON IMPEACHMENT OF ALDERMAN SAMPSON - POLITICS. The history of the sale of intoxicating liquors in Minnehaha county, although not differing widely from what it has been in other places with about the same population where local option and prohibition have been tried, yet it would seem to be of sufficient importance to occupy a little space in a work of this kind. Prior to 1862 about the only restriction upon the sale grew out a scarcity of exchange for the commodity. The first territorial legislature passed an act to regulate the sale of spirituous liquors to the extent that it became necessary to procure a license from the county commissioners or the town council of incorporated towns to lawfully sell in less quantities than one pint. The sum to be paid for a license was not to exceed one hundred dollars, nor be less than ten dollars, and in fixing the amount in each individual case the commissioners and council were charged to have "proper regard to the apparent advantages of the applicant's situation for business." Any person disobeying this restrictive measure, upon conviction was liable to a line not exceeding one hundred dollars nor less than thirty dollars, and in case the fine should not be paid, to confinement in the county jail one day for every five dollars of fine. This law took effect May 13, 1862, and from that time there has been trouble in the traffic in quantities of less than a pint. At the next session of the territorial legislature it was made unlawful for any person to sell or expose for sale any intoxicating liquors within two miles of any camp or grove meeting, convened for the purpose of religious worship. At the third session of the territorial legislature an act was passed "concerning licenses," also an act prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors to minors or to any person on Sunday. These acts took effect January 9, 1864. By the provisions of the act concerning licenses, the board of county commissioners and the president and hoard ,of trustees of incorporated towns were given authority to grant licenses to keep saloons, hotels, public houses and groceries, the applicant paying into the treasury for the privilege a sum not exceeding three hundred dollars, nor less than twenty-five dollars, in the discretion of the board, and giving a bond in the sum of five hundred dollars, conditioned that he would "keep an orderly house and not permit any unlawful gaming or riotous conduct in his house." Applications for keeping saloons or groceries might be rejected, and whenever the board should be satisfied that the privilege had been abused, they had the power to revoke the license. The penal code, approved January 11, 1865, provided for punishing persons guilty of selling intoxicating liquors to Indians, habitual drunkards, persons under eighteen years of age and paupers. It also provided that any person found intoxicated in a public place, should be punished by a fine of ten dollars and costs. The next legislation upon this subject was an act approved January 8, 1868, by which a license to run for a period of not less than six months was required for the sale of intoxicating liquors in any quantity less than a quart. It was also made the duty of the county board, at each term of the district court, to deliver to the grand jury a list of all licensed persons, and the grand jury were directed to indict all persons engaged in selling intoxicating liquors without a license. An important feature of this act was the repeal of that portion of the law of 1864 by which groceries were classified with saloons. The legislature on the 10th day of January, 1873, passed "An act to provide against the evils resulting from the sale of intoxicating liquors in the Territory of Dakota," which went into effect in July of the same year. The first section of this act declared it to be unlawful for any person without having first obtained a license, to sell in any quantity intoxicating liquors, to be drank in, upon or about the premises where sold, and that no person should be granted a license without first giving a bond in the sum of three thousand dollars, with two good sureties, conditioned that he would pay all damages to anv person or persons, which might be inflicted upon them, either in person or property, or means of support, by reason of the person so obtaining a license, selling or giving away intoxicating liquors. By this act it was made unlawful to sell to minors, or to cause the intoxication of any person; and all the property of the person selling intoxicating liquors, real and personal, was made liable to seizure and sale to pay any fine or judgment against the person, for the violation of the law. At the same session of the legislature, it was made unlawful to sell or give away any intoxicating liquors on the day of any general or special election. On the 15th day of January, 1875, the legislature passed an act amending the laws enacted in 1868 and 1873. Under this law, one of the conditions of the bond to be given by the person obtaining a license was, that he would keep a quiet and orderly house, and that the bond given could be sued and recovered upon in a civil action for the use of any person injured by reason of the selling of intoxicating liquors by the person obtaining a license. It was also provided, that before the license should be granted, payment should be made in advance. But the most important change was the provision making it competent and lawful for both the county commissioners of any county and also the mayor and city council of any town or city situated therein, to require the payment of a license. Upon the adjournment of the legislature of 1877, all the laws in reference to the sale of intoxicating liquors were in the revised political code. By this code the amount of the bond required for the sale of intoxicating liquors, was reduced from three thousand to five hundred dollars, and one of the conditions of the bond in addition to those before required was, that the place of business should "be closed at the hour of eleven-thirty o'clock p. M. every night." Another new feature of this law was that after notice by any person to a county commissioner or mayor, that a relative was in the habit of getting intoxicated, and of whom he was in the habit of obtaining his liquor, it became the duty of the commissioner or mayor to notify such person not to furnish liquor to such habitual drunkard, and in case he did so, he was liable to a heavy fine, and also to pay the person causing the notice to be given, the sum of five hundred dollars for each offense. The amount to be paid for a license was left in the discretion of the county and city authorities, not to exceed three hundred dollars, nor less than thirty dollars, and both county and city license could be required and a city license could not be taken out without first taking a county license. The territorial legislature in 1879, revised the whole law by the enactment of chapter 26, comprising 23 sections. The first section required a license to sell in quantities less than five gallons, and the amount to be paid for a license per year was left in the discretion of the authorities granting licenses, not to exceed five hundred dollars nor less than two hundred dollars. A bond was required in the sum of five hundred dollars, conditioned to keep a quiet, orderly house, not to permit gambling, and to close at eleven o'clock P. M. every night. The liabilities imposed for selling to an habitual drunkard by former acts were retained. Every person causing the intoxication of another person by the sale or giving away of intoxicating liquors was made liable to pay for his care while intoxicated, and the person who became intoxicated was liable to a fine of not less than five nor more than twenty-five dollars. Commissioners were made liable to fine for taking insufficient bonds, and every person selling in violation of the law was made liable to both fine and imprisonment. Druggists were permitted to sell without license upon a physician's prescription. It was not lawful to sell to minors, and the grand juries were enjoined to indict all persons violating the law. The legislature of 1881 and 1883 made no change in the law, and the legislature of 1885 only prohibited the sale within one-half mile of any agricultural, horticultural or mechanical fair being held under the auspices of the territorial board of agriculture; within three miles of the University of Dakota; and within one mile of that part of the village of Iroquois and Denver, lying in the county of Kingsbury, during the time no license should be granted in Kingsbury county. The legislature of 1887 made no changes in the law of any account, except to raise the maximum fee for a license from three to eight hundred dollars. The first innovation upon the practice of regulating the sale of liquors by license, except in isolated cases, was the enactment of the law March 11, 1887, providing" for prohibition by local option. This act provided for prohibition by counties. By its terms, whenever one- third of the legal voters petitioned the county board to submit the question of prohibition to the voters of the county, it became the duty of the hoard to do so at the next general election after the filing of the petition. Chapter 70 of the session laws of 1887, had no more than become the law of the territory, than the prohibitionists in Minnehaha county commenced to make the "wheels go round" under its provisions. The petition was obtained and submitted to the board at its July session, 1887, and by the board very deliberately examined, resulting" finally in an election being ordered to determine the question in November. After the question had been settled that the people of Minnehaha county would have an opportunity to vote upon the question, the next thing in order of course came about-a campaign for and against the measure. It was a campaign with some new features in it. Women for the first time in the history of the county went to the polls and labored industriously to obtain votes for the measure. When the canvassers were through with their labors, it was known that Minnehaha county was prohibition by a vote of 1,676 for, and 1,288 against. The City of Sioux Falls cast 745 for, and 453 against the measure. Prohibition had been established by law, and the next question was: What would it avail? It must be said that the prohibitionists, realizing that a good many persons would be compelled to stop business at a loss not only of a daily revenue but upon their fixtures, very kindly and generously intimated by both acts and words, that those who would make a beginning towards closing the business of selling intoxicating liquors would not be unduly accelerated in their movements. This disposition was indorsed by a good many of the good people, but it was only a short time before it was evident that the lions were eating the lambs, and that closing up the business in this way would be a lingering experiment, to say the least. Active operations were commenced by way of injunctions. The forces rallied on both sides, and it was for a while a sort of rough and tumble fight. One case went to the supreme court and the state prevailed. After the law had been in operation a few months, the violators became enboldened, and when it was decided by the county commissioners in July, 1889, to resubmit the question to a vote in November, all restraint seemed to be removed, and the law had a standing' place only upon the statute book. The vote cast at the November election was for the sale 2,314, againt the sale 1,314, and this was the end of prohibition in Minnehaha county under the provisions of the local option law. On the 22d day of February, 1889, the President signed the act providing for the admission of South Dakota as a state. This was no sooner done than the prohibitionists began to work for constitutional prohibition, and when the delegates to the constitutional convention assembled, it was soon evident that the question would be submitted to a vote of the people in some form. So desirous were the members of the convention that there should be a strong vote in favor of the constitution to be submitted by them, that the question of constitutional prohibition was submitted to a separate vote. The vote in the county upon this question was 2,244 in favor and 1,442 against. The vote in the state was 40,234 for and 34,510 against. Article 24 of the constitution is as follows: "No person or corporation shall manufacture or aid in the manufacture for sale, any intoxicating liquor; no person shall keep for sale, as a beverage, any intoxicating liquor. The legislature shall by law prescribe regulations for the enforcement of the provisions of this section and provide suitable and adequate penalties for the violation thereof." The first session of the legislature of the State of South Dakota for the enactment of laws, convened January 7, 1890, and adjourned the 7th day of March following. One of the most important matters considered by that body was the framing of a law to enforce prohibition, and as a result of their labors we have chapter 101 of the session laws of 1890, comprising 36 sections, which took effect the first day of May following. It was unskillfully arranged and its meaning obscure, and it would seem that its authors, whenever in doubt just what to do, adopted the plan of covering the subject with blanket provisions, hoping that, in some way, a construction would be put upon them, calculated to destroy the traffic in intoxicating liquors. Of course, it could not be expected, that the law would be a wise one in all respects, but there was no excuse for its unintelligible provisions in reference to jurisdictional matters, that must naturally arise in its attempted execution. While criticising it, it is but just to say, that its provisions were strong enough to make it a terror to evil doers, provided public sentiment had favored its enforcement. It is one thing to enact a law, and quite another to enforce it, and no intelligent person will have the courage to say that there is any other subject upon which penal legislation, here or elsewhere, has ever been enacted that is so dependent upon public sentiment for its execution. The large interests involved, the desire for strong drink, the dislike by persons and communities to be dictated to in matters of this kind, all conspire to make the enforcement of prohibitory laws almost an utter imposibility in certain localities. Minnehaha county, and especially Sioux Falls, is one of those localities. Soon after the first of May in 1890, proceeding's were commenced in Sioux Falls with the view of closing the saloons. C. O. Bailey, then state's attorney, proceeded to take testimony in reference to the sale of intoxicating liquors, but in his innocence failed to subpoena before him such persons as had the required knowledge. It is interesting to know the different phases the defense has taken as time has progressed. At first the witnesses had drank in several places, but their recollection was dim as to when it was, possibly it was before the first of May; it was whiskey and beer, but when it was, they could not remember. The next attempt was made in September, 1890. Testimony was procured and injunctions brought against the Sioux Falls Brewery and about thirty saloons in the county before the first day of January, 1891. Three or four informations were filed against persons, charging them with selling "ntoxicating" liquors as a beverage, at the September term of the county court in 1890. In all these proceedings, W. A. Wilkes, Esq., was associated with the writer in the prosecution, having been employed by the Sioux Falls Committee of One Hundred. In March, 1891, several informations were filed in the county court and jury trials had. In May following" about a dozen indictments were found by the grand jury, charging persons with selling and keeping for sale intoxicating liquors. From that time until 1895, a few violations of the law were brought to the attention of the grand jury, and indictments found, and occasionally an effort would be made to close the saloons not only in Valley Springs, Garretson, Hartford, Baltic and Dell Rapids, but in Sioux Falls. Right here we will devote a little space to the history of the Law and Order leagues that have been organized in Minnehaha county, especially those which were organized after statehood. As soon as the prohibitory law had been enacted, both its friends and enemies looked upon Sioux Falls as the place where its efficiency would be determined. At a very early date the friends of the law in Sioux Falls organized a local league, a branch of the state league, which had been organized for the enforcement of the law, and everything was put on a war footing. Notwithstanding this organization, eighty-three citizens of Sioux Falls signed a call for a mass meeting, to be held on the 7th day of March, 1890, for the purpose of considering the advisability of a still further local organization in aid of enforcement. This meeting was well attended, and the subject of the enforcement of the law was discussed in all its bearings. After a long session, a committee of five was appointed to draft a constitution for the government of an independent local Law and Order league. The meeting adjourned until the 11th day of March, and on that day the committee presented the draft of a constitution to govern a local Law and Order association "to aid in the enforcement of the laws of the state and the ordinances of the city." The work of the committee was unanimously adopted, and the association organized with a full corps of officers. It was about this time that a new feature was injected into the prohibition arena. The "original package decision," rendered by the United States supreme court, gave the liquor dealers power to practically evade the law, and they put on a bold front. The Val Blatz brewing company of Milwaukee put on the streets of Sioux Falls, for the delivery of beer in "original packages," a very fine red wagon, drawn by a very attractive pair of horses "logged out" in great shape. But the prohibitionists of the country went to the fountain head, and secured the passage by Congress of an act that took the "original package" feature off the field of battle. But it is hardly within the scope of this work, and we will rest content with saying that in our opinion it is inexpedient and unwise to attempt by such organizations to aid in the enforcement of law, whether it be for the suppression of the sale of intoxicating liquors, the whipping of immoral persons, or the lynching of horse-thieves. Efforts of this character, when purely in aid of the local officials, are at best ephemeral in character, and when they subside and their stimulating influence is a thing of the past, it is impossible that the lawfully constituted authorities should not be carried back from their outposts with the subsiding wave. But to return to the history of the enforcement of the law in Minnehaha county. The trials to a jury upon informations and indictments were anything but satisfactory. In some cases where the testimony was overwhelmingly conclusive as to the guilt of the persons charged, and no attempt made to contradict the testimony, the jury acquitted or failed to agree. If the crime charged had been burglary, robbery or other crimes of like character, the testimony would have been ample, and a conviction would have resulted. However much such a state of facts was to be deplored, the fact remained that such was the condition of affairs in Minnehaha county during the attempted enforcement of prohibition. In fact, the violation of the prohibitory law was not looked upon by the public like the violation of any other law, and the verdicts of jurors will not rise above public sentiment, and no one but an unreasoning enthusiast will ever expect to enforce a prohibitory law without the aid of a strong, healthy public sentiment in favor of it. The adverse public sentiment not only affects jurors, but it deters public prosecutors in the performance of their duties, and our judges are more or less influenced and intimidated in their actions by it. It was impossible to convict anyone charged with selling intoxicating liquors, unless he was friendless. In some cases where the defendant was known to be guilty of about everything else, and his character was known to the trial jury, a conviction was obtained and the minimum punishment inflicted, but in no other case was there a conviction, with one exception. The testimony upon the trials was usually given by either witnesses who were employed to get the testimony, or by those who testified unwillingly, and after four years of experience with them it is still an open question with the writer which class is the most available. It would be a hard matter to get together twelve jurymen who would believe the first class. There is a widespread prejudice against spotter testimony, as it is called, and verdicts of guilty upon the testimony of "spotters" are not returned. But how is it with the other class? They commence by knowing nothing, and the longer you interrogate them the less they know. Drive them into a corner and you will find that their eyesight is dim -their hearing hard-their sense of smell impaired, and as to their sense of taste, why, it never had been educated to discern liquids. Call their attention to buttermilk and molasses, and a ray of intelligence will brighten up their countenances for a moment, but name beer or whiskey, and they will become as expressionless as a graven image. And this is what public sentiment will do to a witness. The nuisance feature of the law, was at first supposed to be an insurmountable obstacle in the way of maintaining a place of business for the sale of intoxicating liquors. An injunction upon the business and closing the doors, would at first blush seem to be a pretty effectual remedy. But it did not prove to be very damaging to the liquor interests. Before proceedings could be commenced, testimony had to be procured, and it had to be clear and unequivocal that the premises sought to be closed were used for the sale of intoxicating liquors contrary to law. This would appear to be an easy matter, but instead of receiving assistance in obtaining testimony, every conceivable obstacle was thrown in the way of the prosecutor. An unwilling witness, as a rule, never tells the whole truth, and the portion left untold is just what is wanted. If a "spotter" is employed, he requires constant attention, and if his wants are not looked after by his original employer, he gets nourishment from the other side, and when you are ready to use him he is generally to be found in the camp of the enemy. For awhile, all the places closed belonged to innocent parties, and under the statute they proceeded at once to give bonds, that the premises should not be used for a year in the liquor business, and got them released and the action abated. Some of the places enjoined would not sell at auction for ten dollars- the parties occupying them worthless-and when you closed one shanty, they would slide into another hen-house and set up business. One of the circuit judges in the state held that a person engaged in the business of selling intoxicating liquors himself in his own building, could repent, pay the costs, give bonds for one year and be absolved. In short, have the injunction dissolved and the proceedings abated. The platter had been pretty cleanly licked before, but this "lapped out the spoon." Again, it was somewhat troublesome at times to get the necessary and legitimate costs paid. The county board, or rather a majority of the members believing that nothing could come of attempted enforcement, were for the first two years adverse to expense being incurred in liquor prosecutions, and this made it unpleasant for the officials engaged in the work. In 1893, the following request, signed by 256 citizens of Sioux Falls, was sent to the writer, then state's attorney: "Hon. D. R. Bailey, State's Attorney of Minnehaha county: "Dear sir:-We the undersigned, citizens and taxpayers of the City of Sioux Falls, Minnehaha county, do respectfully request that in the future you desist from suing out of court any writ or writs of injunction restraining the sale of liquors in this city, or taking any steps toward enforcing the present prohibitory law. We respectfully suggest that your own experience in seeking to enforce such law must have convinced you of the utter futility of such effort, and call your attention to the 'Fine System' so called, that is in operation in this city, and venture the opinion that it is productive of far better results than the 'Hole in the Wall' system which prevailed prior to the institution of such Fine system. We call your attention to the large sums of money that have been expended in the attempt to enforce the prohibitory law, and request that no further burdens of this nature be imposed upon the citizens and taxpayers of this county." The county commissioners on the 10th day of August, 1893, Commissioner Colton absent, passed a resolution (see proceedings of commissioners of that date) requesting the state's attorney to desist and refrain from bringing any action either civil or criminal under the prohibition act, unless fully satisfied that a conviction could be had; and also gave a little advice to the court in the matter. We do not refer to this for any other purpose than to show that there was an "irrepressible conflict" always being waged, whenever the question of prohibition was brought into the courts in Minnehaha county, and that the impression prevailed that it was impossible to enforce the law. That the utility of any law can be determined best by its enforcement is conceded; that unwise or odious laws had better be repealed than evaded, will be conceded by all good citizens, and that it is not within the province of those appointed to enforce the laws to so manage as to make them a dead letter, will also be admitted; but notwithstanding all this, it is a fact that can not be controverted, that it is the laws, and only the laws, that meet with the approbation of the public, that are heartily and successfully enforced. The legislature of 1895, submitted the question to a vote of the electors at the general election in 1896, whether article twenty-four of the constitution should be repealed. The prohibitionists at once began active work to defeat the proposed amendment, and, on the other hand, those in favor of the license system were not idle. It was a well fought campaign throughout the state. The result was a vote 31,901 for, and 24,910 against the repeal. At the next session of the legislature (1897) a high license law was passed. It is evident that the law makers intended to cover the whole field of licensing, restricting and regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors in such a manner as to remove some of the most objectionable features that usually attend the retailing of intoxicating liquors as a beverage. It has several prohibitive clauses, namely: No one who has served a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary can obtain a license, and no one convicted of keeping a disorderly house after the enactment of the law will be permitted to receive a license. No person under twenty-one years of age can obtain a license for selling intoxicating liquors, and no person without first obtaining a certificate signed by twenty-five legal voters residing in the precinct where he proposes to engage in business; "that he is a person of good moral character, and one who can be safely trusted to engage in the business or calling of selling intoxicating liquors at retail," and no person under twenty-one years of age can become a bartender in a saloon. It is made the duty of all venders of intoxicating liquors to keep the windows or doors of their respective places of business unobstructed by screens, blinds, paint, or other articles, and to have the windows so located that there may bean unobstructed view from the main street into the entire room, and no partitions, tables, chairs or seats are permitted in the place of business, and no games are allowed. All places where intoxicating liquors are sold are required to be closed on Sunday, and on all election days from six o'clock in the morning until six o'clock in the evening, and on each week day night from and after the hour of eleven o'clock until five o'clock the succeeding morning. It is made unlawful for any person to sell, furnish or give away any intoxicating liquors to any minor, or intoxicated person, or to any person in the habit of getting intoxicated, or to any person when forbidden in writing so to do by the husband, wife, parent, child, guardian or employer of such person, or the supervisor of the township, or the president or trustee of a town, mayor of a city, or the board of county commissioners of the county where such person shall reside or temporarily remain. Again there is a local option feature. At the annual municipal election held in any township, town or city, the question of granting permits to sell intoxicating liquors at retail, must be submitted to the legal voters upon the petition of twenty-five legal voters of such township, town or city, and if a majority vote against the granting of permits then the granting of permits is prohibited. Upon the business of manufacturing or selling spiritous or intoxicating liquors at wholesale an annual license of one thousand dollars is required to be paid; upon the business of selling brewed and malt liquors at wholesale, six hundred dollars; and upon the manufacture of same, four hundred; and upon the business of retailing intoxicating liquors, the sum of four hundred dollars must be paid to the county treasurer, and such further sum not less than two hundred dollars, nor more than six hundred dollars to the township, town or city where the business is to be engaged in, as such township, town or city may by ordinance require. All persons before engaging in the sale of intoxicating liquors are required to give a bond in the sum of two thousand dollars, with two good sureties, conditioned, that they will conform to all the requirements of the law and pay all judgments for damages or fines imposed for the violation of any of its provisions. The foregoing, although not a full summary, comprises the main features of the law under which the manufacture and traffic in intoxicating liquors is now being conducted in South Dakota. But the legislature of 1897 did not stop with the enactment of a high license law, but passed the following joint resolution: "Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring therein: That the following amendment to the constitution of the State of South Dakota is hereby agreed to, and which amendment, when approved and ratified, shall become part of the constitution as Article twenty-seven thereof. "The manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors shall be under exclusive state control and shall be conducted by duly authorized agents of the state who shall be paid by salary and not by commissions. All liquors sold shall be first examined by a state chemist and the purity thereof established. "The legislature shall by law prescribe regulations for the enforcement of the provisions of this article and provide suitable and adequate penalties for the violation thereof." This amendment was submitted to the electors at the general election in November, 1898, and was ratified by them by a majority of 1,613. The vote in the county was 1,340 for, and 1,097 against its ratification. This matter was scarcely alluded to during the campaign, and was not made a party measure. The vote itself is evidence of the fact that a large proportion of the people did not take enough interest in the measure to register their votes. We say "it is the law under which the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors is now being conducted" that is, if it can be lawfully conducted at all. As seen above, it was incumbent upon the legislature of 1899 to enact a law for its enforcement, but when it assembled there proved to be such a contrariety of views entertained by the members that no measure proposed could obtain the necessary votes to secure its passage, and the legislature adjourned without enacting any law upon the subject. One thing is certain, the State of South Dakota has a remarkable record upon the liquor question; license, local option, prohibition, and high license, and now, although the constitution of the State prescribes that "the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors shall be conducted- by duly authorized agents of the State, who shall be paid a salary" for so doing, the State is not manufacturing or selling intoxicating liquors. It is evident that the people of the State in the near future will endeavor to rescue the subject from its present entanglement, but what the end will be, no one would dare to predict. SANTA FE SCRIP AND ITS BOGUS ISSUE BY J. D. CAMERON. On the 3d day of March, 1879, Congress passed an act which provided that settlers upon unsurveyed lands could have the same surveyed by applying to the surveyor general and depositing money with some assistant treasurer or other designated depository of the United States to defray the expenses of the survey. Upon the money being deposited the depository was instructed by a circular issued by the commissioner of the general land office to issue triplicate certificates in the sums not less than S200 each, that the settler had deposited such sums, the original certificate to be sent to the secretary of the treasurer, the duplicate to surveyor general of the district in which the land was situated, and the triplicate to the settler. The triplicate could be used by the settler in payment for public land, and it was assignable to other parties for the same use. Large sums of this scrip were issued. At first it sold at a discount, but the demand for it had so increased in 1881 that it left but a small margin. The certificates were printed upon paper ordinarily used for blanks, and no methods were used in their manufacture to make them difficult to counterfeit. It was at this stage of affairs that John D. Cameron, then a resident of Sioux Falls, conceived the idea of counterfeiting this scrip. A large amount of it was manufactured. Of course, at a discount of eight per cent it was an object for bankers and land agents in localities where parties wished to pay for government land to have scrip on hand to supply their customers. To put this into circulation, a bogus firm under the name of Burt & Miller of St. Louis, Mo., sent circulars to the banks and land agents all over the Northwest that they could furnish this scrip, designated as Santa Fe Scrip, at the discount above named. The First National Bank of Sioux Falls ordered $5,000 of it, and the McKinney & Scougal Bank $1,000. The scrip ordered by the First National Bank came to John D. Cameron, and he claimed that he had been appointed agent for the sale of the scrip in Dakota, but the bank having become suspicious, refused to take it. McKinney & Scougal had expressed the money in payment of the scrip ordered, but were warned in time to stop its delivery by the express company. C. H. Winsor of Sioux Falls was sent to St. Louis to look up Burt & Miller, but he was unable to find the parties comprising' the firm, although an office of Burt & Miller was found furnished with a table and two chairs with a boy in charge. But it was a short-lived swindle. The bogus scrip was an exact counterfeit of the original. The conspirators-for Cameron had accomplices-after procuring the paper and type sent a printer from Beloit, Ia., to Canton, S. D., where he printed the bogus scrip. P. A. Haverold of Sioux Falls, was employed to fill out the scrip, but the prospect of getting considerable money in a very short time induced him, while in an intoxicated condition, to disclose to an importunate creditor his expectations of soon having all the money he wanted. The creditor was Guy Weed, deputy United States marshal, and he succeeded in getting from Haverold a pretty full account of the knavish scheme of the conspirators. Weed reported what he had learned to the United States authorities, and they promptly instituted a thorough investigation which resulted in the arrest of Cameron on the 3d day of May, 1882, and the seizure of his office papers which furnished considerable incriminating evidence against him. At the next term of the United States court at Yankton, Cameron, W. D. Russell of Yankton, and E. E. Carpenter of Beloit, were indicted charged in substance with counterfeiting this scrip and conspiring to defraud the government. A large number of witnesses were summoned in the case, about forty being from Sioux Falls. There was a lengthy trial of the case, but it did not result favorably to the government. On two occasions it was continued over the term, and finally a change of venue was taken to St. Louis, Mo. At the first term there the case was continued, although the usual number of witnesses were in attendance. At the next term the case was abandoned by the government. It was an expensive case to all parties concerned, and especially to Mr. Cameron, who not only paid out a large sum of money in his defense, but was compelled to lie in jail some time, being unable to procure bail. Another feature of the case was the suspicion in the community that the escape of Mr. Cameron from punishment was owing to the fact that there were other parties than those indicted who were greatly interested in his acquittal, fearing if he was convicted he might make disclosures that would be unpleasant for them to meet. IMPEACHMENT OF ALDERMAN JOSEPH SAMPSON. Joseph Sampson, who has been a resident of Sioux Falls for several years and engaged principally in grading work upon streets and railroads, was expelled from the city council on June 7, 1895, and his office of alderman from the Sixth ward declared vacant. Mr. Sampson has been a prominent figure in Sioux Falls. He was active in politics, particularly in everything relating to city affairs. He was appointed street commissioner in 1889, and again in 1891, and held the office until November 16, 1892. At the city election in 1893, he was elected alderman from the Sixth ward, and in 1894, he was, elected president of the council. Mayor Williams, owing" to severe illness, left the city for medical treatment on the 20th day of March, 1895, and thereupon Mr. Sampson became the acting mayor of Sioux Falls, and so remained until the 6th day of May, 1895. During the time he was acting mayor he collected from the disorderly houses in the city $767.50. This was deposited in the Union National bank to his credit, and checked out by him on the 27th day of April, as he said, for the purpose of paying certain persons the amount of their claims against the city. This he did not do, but left the city in the early part of May for Wyoming, where his wife had gone a short time before. He was elected alderman from the Sixth ward at the city election in April, and qualified as such at the proper time. Soon after he left, the question as to what had become of the money be-longing to the city that he had checked out in April, was brought to the attention of the city officials, and when they were unable to find that it had been used for any lawful purpose, or that it had been left with anyone in the city, the matter was taken before the grand jury and they returned an indictment against him for embezzlement. Mr. Sampson was easily located at Sundance, Wyoming, and the sheriff at that place took him in charge upon instructions received from the county officials of Minnehaha county, and Sheriff Hubbard went to Sundance with a warrant for his arrest and brought him to Sioux Falls. Soon after his return to Sioux Falls, he was arraigned upon the indictment, and when the time arrived for him to plead, his counsel, John E. Carland and Joseph Kirby, made a motion to quash the indictment, for the reason that Sheriff Hubbard had assisted in drawling the grand jury for the April term of the circuit court, having at the same time suits, in which he was a party, upon the calendar for trial. This motion was sustained by the court, and Mr. Sampson was held in bonds of $1,000, to answer at the next term of court upon the same charge. A good many rumors were in circulation in the city as to what had become of the money. But, as Mr. Sampson had not accounted to the city. Alderman Lien, at the regular monthly meeting of the council on the 3d day of June, offered a resolution, which was adopted without a dissenting vote, calling upon Mr. Sampson to appear before the council on June 7, to show cause why he should not be expelled from the council. The preamble to the resolution set up the facts in reference to his obtaining the money, and his official connection with it, and that he was a member of the city council. On the 7th day of June the council met, and there was a large attendance to witness what was anticipated would prove to be a "great moral show." The proceedings were tame. No dramatic features appeared. The resolution was read, and Mr. Sampson denied that the city council had any authority to expel him, and also denied that the allegations in the charge were true. He admitted drawing the money, and said he still had it in his possession, but that he "would not turn it over until the injunction served on him was dissolved, and the criminal proceeding's against him dropped." When through with his defense, the roll was called upon the resolution, and the vote stood eleven for (Mr. Sampson voting" no), and Mr. Sampson was declared to be no longer a member of the city council of Sioux Falls. It only remains to add that the charges were investigated by the next grand jury, but no indictment was found. POLITICS. The County of Minnehaha was the most populous county in the Territory of Dakota for fifteen years prior to its division and admission into the Union as the states of North and South Dakota, and since that time it has had a larger population than any other county in the State of South Dakota. Owing to the fact that it has the largest city in the state within its limits, the politics of the county has a sort of metropolitan air that is not found elsewhere in the state. During the early days no county had greater influence in territorial affairs than Minnehaha, and the respective parties were able to maintain party lines upon territorial issues. Until 1896, the republican party had a good working majority in the county, but it must be admitted that a good deal of guerrilla warfare was carried on in respect to county officials, and now and then the unexpected would happen and a nominee of the weaker party or an independent candidate be elected. But the great influence of the county in territorial and state politics has been largely due to the fact that it has been the home of a large number of leaders not only in one party organization but in all. It must be conceded that it is the political center of the state, the Mecca that all aspirants for office visit, the birthplace of political schemes for the public welfare. There is no place in the state that enjoys the reputation of having discovered so many men qualified to serve the public as Sioux Falls. At least, the statesmen in Sioux Falls seem to act as a sifting committee, and when an aspirant for office is found wanting in availability he generally has time to devote to his ordinary pursuits. Yes, Minnehaha county is a great county for politics, and it bids fair to remain so for some years to come. During the last decade there has been but few removals from the ranks of its politicians, by death or otherwise, while on the other hand new political prodigies have claimed the attention of the public. The time may come when the disease known as political death may invade the political ranks in Minnehaha county, but so far, although several politicians have been supposed to be dead, it has turned out in the end that they were only hibernating for a season. For political thrift, enterprise and energy, for earnest, vigorous effort with no ulterior selfish end in view but the public good, for self-abnegation and subserviency of all personal ambition, the politicians of Minnehaha county of all degrees, big, little, and diminutive, war horses, mules and colts, taken collectively, by pairs or individually, are the peers of any similar aggregation on the continent.