fidential relations. I acted in that matter as legal advisor of the governor. I am not aware that the privilege of confidential relations can be invoked in a Senate hearing. On the other hand, I am not aware that the governor objects at all to my testifying as to what occurred there. There has been no objection made, and I will state that when Mr. Wilcox and I on the evening of the 7th went into the governor's office to inform him as to our conclusion from our search that day, the facts with reference to which the governor wished to be advised concerned the matter of the removal of Mr. Ekern. Those facts had been stated to me by Mr. Wilcox in the drafting of the forms. I stated the opinion when we spoke with the governor. I am afraid I cannot repeat the exact words that were used, but in substance I stated that if the facts were as stated to me by Mr. Wilcox perhaps an order of removal was justified. I stated further to the governor that, under the circumstances of the case, in view of the fact that although the headquarters, although opened, were not visited by anybody during that day, and also the further fact of the result of the caucus held that morning, indicated to me a disposition on the part of Mr. Ekern and Mr. Ekern's friends to comply with the wishes of the governor in the matter, and, in view of that fact, I recommended lenient action on the part of the governor. It was in response to that suggestion that the governor, as I remember it, stated that he believed Mr. Ekern would continue to make trouble anyhow, and it was just a question of time when he would have to be removed.

Senator Linley:

Q. Did he state what the trouble was, Mr. Belitz? A. Political interference with the plans and program, not only of the executive, but also of the legislature.

Q. Well, did you tell the governor that if Mr. Ekern stated to him that he would comply with his wishes and endeavor to do so that that would remove any objections to his removal? would so state to the governor that then the dignity of the A. The words I used were substantially that if Mr. Ekern executive office was sufficiently safeguarded.

Q. No, but did you tell the governor, as a legal offense, it would be a condonation of any such offense, if there was any

violation of law?

A. I don't quite catch the question, Senator.

Q. Did you tell the Governor that if he had required certain things of Mr. Ekern, gave him his views, and that Mr. Ekern yielded to the views of the Governor and said that he would try to comply with them, and did try to comply with them, whether there would be ground for his removal after that? Did you advise the Governor upon that?

A. I didn't advise him to that effect, Senator.

Q. Didn't you tell him he would not have good grounds for removal if that were true?

A. No, I didn't tell him that.

Q. You advised him-What?

A. I didn't tell him that.

Q. But you thought so?
A. I recognized-

Q. (interrupting) But you thought so?
A. I recognized-

Q. (interrupting) But you thought so.

What?

A. No, I didn't think so, and that is why I am so certain I didn't so state.

Q. Well, what did you think? Did you advise him what to do if he did do that?

A. I thought, as a matter of policy, and as a matter of fairness to Mr. Ekern, that if he so stated to the Governor, that the dignity of the Governor's office would be sufficiently safeguarded if he simply reprimanded Mr. Ekern instead of ordering his removal.

Q. Did the Governor have you look up the question of the power to remove during the recess of the legislature, what conIstituted a recess?

A. Not the question of what constituted a recess. We did not make any such-we simply derived that directly from the wording of Section 970 of the statutes.

Q. Did you advise the Governor that he would have to act before Twelve o'clock noon, if he acted at all?

A. I did.

Examined by Senator Bishop:

Q. Did you, after drafting the complaint that was made. against Mr. Ekern, and the order removing Mr. Ekern, did you go over those with Mr. Wilcox and the Governor?

A. The complaint or affidavit was drafted on the evening of the 7th. When that had been placed in writing, in pencil, we submitted the forms to the Governor and it is then when our interview occurred. Now, the order was drafted on the next day, Senator, but with the order I simply drafted the form, and asked Miss Johnson to typewrite it, and then I left it. The form was handed to Mr. Wilcox, as I remember, and I then left the office and went back to our own office.

Q. I believe you testified that you went over that order with Mr. Wilcox?

A. Not with the order, Senator.

Q. Well, did you go over that order with the Governor?
A. No, sir.

Examined by Senator Husting:

Was it any part of your duties, Mr. Belitz, to act as advisor to the Governor?

A. I did not quite hear you.

Q. Was it any part of your official duties, as assistant revisor of the statutes, to advise the Governor on official matters of that character?

A. Now, I am glad you asked that question, Senator. May I answer that in my own words?

A. During the session of the legislature in 1911 the policy was suggested to us in the work of revision of the statutes that many errors in legislation might be gotten out of the statutes before they became law if we could examine the enrolled acts before they were signed by the Governor. In pursuance of that suggestion I went down to the Governor's office and assisted the Governor's legal agent to examine the Governor's enrolled acts before they were signed by the Governor. That policy worked out very nicely during the session. The same arrangement was made during the present session of the legislature. Now, as an incident to that duty some times enrolled acts and laws were put up to us and examined by us, and in the same way this question came up in regard to my duty of examining enrolled acts.

Q. As I understand, did you not pass upon the merits of this particular case whether or not, under the stated facts, Mr. Ekern should be dismissed?

A. Yes, I did only once, Senator, and that for the purpose of recommending leniency in the case.

Q. Were you ever associated with Governor McGovern in: business?

A. I was for some years associated with him in the practice of law in Milwaukee.

Q. What year?

A. I went there in the year 1907, and remained there until the year 1910.

Q. When you assumed your duties here at Madison?

A. I came directly from their office.

Q. Now, in discussing what would amount to a hearing, was anything discussed between you as to how far the defendant, Mr. Ekern, would be permitted to bring in a defense?

A. A defense?

Q. Yes.

A. I believe I suggested to the Governor that it would meet the clause of the statutes if he merely called in Mr. Ekern himself and took his testimony, in view of the fact that a number of the facts were within the personal knowledge of the Governor himself.

Q. Well, was it not discussed that the statute might be satisfied by a show of a hearing instead of a real hearing?

A. No, sir, that was not discussed nor mentioned. We acted all the way through, at least I know I did, I believe Mr. Wilcox did, in absolute faith, and I believe that also of the Governor. Q. It was discussed, though, that at any rate the hearing must be determined at noon?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Now, in preparing the form, as you say, in submitting the same to the Governor, what did that form contain?

A. You mean the form of the order?

Q. Yes, order of dismissal?

A. Well, I know what the order contained, but I want to say I did not submit that form of the order to the Governor. I wasn't there at all. It was handed to Mr. Wilcox, I believe it was, or it may have been Mr. Wilbur, but I think it was Mr. Wilcox, after it was drafted. Now, that form contained-May I see that form a minute Mr. Aylward?

(Witness handed order).

8-S. J. Ap.

A. (continued) That form contained everything that is now

in typewriting in the order on file here.

G. Then what you call the form was practically a complete order of dismissal?

A. Yes.

Q. Except the date?

A. And the signature of the Governor.

Q. And the signature of the Governor?

A. Yes.

Q. So the order, in substance, was drawn the night before! A. Oh, no, no. Now, don't mistake.

Q. I am speaking now of the night before.

A. The order that was drafted the night before went into the waste basket. It was never completed. I started to draft an order. I submitted that draft-incidentally the Governor came in while I was drafting that. I submitted that form both to the Governor and Mr. Wilcox, and I believe Mr. Wilbur was there at the time. The Governor thereupon suggested that it might not be necessary to use that order at all and therefore he would not draft it until the necessity for it would appear on the next day.

Q. Who informed you the next day there was a necessity for the drafting of the order?

A. I was called down on the telephone by Mr. Wilcox, I be

lieve.

Q. Did Mr. Wilcox take any part in this examination?

A. The examination?

Q. Yes.

A. Well, I understand he did, but I wasn't present at the

hearing.

Q. And at what hour were you called down there?

A. It was about half past ten.

Q. And when was the order completed?

A. You mean the form?

Q. Yes, when did you dictate the form of the order and complete it, except the date and the signature?

A. The order was not dictated. It was written by me in

longhand with a lead pencil.

Q. When?

A. On that morning. On the morning of the 8th.