afterwards filled in, with the typewriter in some places, and afterwards with the pen in others?

A. Some of the papers were drafted before Mr. Anderson's appointment.

Q. Anticipating a move on the part of the Governor and the superintendent of public property which culminated in the siege at the office of the insurance commissioner?

A. I anticipated he might make some attempt to take the office by force,' and that he would send in someone unexpectedly.

Q. And the injunctional order was drafted previous to that time, as you understand it, and afterwards filled in with a pen to conform with the dates and times as specified in the original order as served on the Governor?

A. Well, I don't know as to that, Senator. I presume that was done.

Q. You would not deny, ther, the fact that in the original unjunctional order that the time of service, at least twentyfour hours before the hearing of the motion, as aforesaid, was stricken out, and that the hour of "Four P. M., January 21, 1913", was inserted with a pen, would you?

A. No, I think that was done.

Q. Now, I would like to ask one more question:-I am finding out something about politics in Wisconsin I did not know before Did you take part in any conference with any of the followers of Senator LaFollette as to who should be the delegates to the National Convention?

A. Why, I don't know that I took part in conference. I know that I talked it over with several friends of Senator La Follette.

Q. And the candidacy of Governor McGovern as a delegate-at-large from this state to the National Convention was agreeable to you after this conference you had with him with reference to Senator La Follette's break down in Philadelphia?

A. Well, as I remember it, the candidacy of the delegates had been decided upon and announced previous to this time.

Q. There was no suggestion on your part, or no protest on your part, or any suggestion on the part of Senator La Follette or his friends, that he ought to have some other candi

date for delegate-at-large to the National Convention, after the talk with the Governor!

A. I assumed that anyone who would not stay true to his candidate would retire from the delegation, and if there was any question there the candidate himself would take the initiative.

Examined by Senator Kileen :

Q. After you had the talk with the Governor on Monday evening, how soon after that did you see your attorney?

A. Why, I saw my attorney on Tuesday afternoon, the next day.

Q. And you went over this matter with him on Tuesday afternoon, did you?

A. Well, the question that was up on Tuesday afternoon was whether, or not a removal could be made without a hearing: Q. You went over the matter with him that you had with the Governor on Monday evening?

A. That was the question that was up at that time.

Q. Then you had talked with your attorney before Wednesday!

A. Not on the question of a hearing before the Governor. Not on the question of any appearance at a hearing.

Q. Now, then, how much of a salary did Johnson draw from your office during the last year?

A. I don't know. I have never had that figured up.

Q. About what'salary did he draw?

A. Well, that would be the merest guess for me to try to

tell.

Q. Wasn't it as much as $1400?

A. Salary?

Q. Yes.

A. No, I would think not.

Q. Well, about what would you think then?

A. Well, it is practically impossible to state that. because the work is done just a few days at a time, an examination of a particular company. It is settled up and then perhaps some other examination will come up, and that is settled up. We employed him principally on the fire insurance examination, because of this work.

Q. Why do you say you think it was not $1400?

A. Well, I don't see how he could have gotten in that much time with the other work that he did.

Q. Now, then, isn't it a fact, Mr. Ekern, that you talked with members of the assembly with reference to the speakership at other places than in your own office?

A. The only man I can recall talking with at other places than in my own office is Mr. Allison. I think also that Mr. Hull spoke to me. I know that he called me up.

Q. And how many members of the assembly did you see in your office?

A. What do you mean? See on the speakership?

Q. Talk within reference to the speakership?

A. Well, I have mentioned all that I can recall.

Q. Well, how many is that? How many did you mention? I don't care about the names, just give me the number. A. Three.

Q. Those were the three that you mentioned?

A. Yes, and I am not sure about two of them.

Q. Now, at the time you were talking with those candidates you also talked, you say, in reference to the broader field of politics?

A. Yes.

Q. You talked about both subjects at about the same time, did you?

A. Well, now, with reference to the conversation on the broader field, that conversation referred to my conversation with Judge Rosa and Richards.

Q. That was in connectionMr. Aylward: Just pardon me. tion.

Let him answer the ques

A. (continued) Now, as I thought over that conversation since I am not sure that the speakership was mentioned in that connection, though it may have been.

Senator Kileen:

Q. Didn't you say in your talk that Johnson was the La Follette candidate?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did not make any statement of that kind?

10-S. J. Ap.

A. No, sir, I never made that statement. been true.

It would not have

Q. Did you say in that conversation that you could not be for McGovern and for La Follette, or if you were for MeGov ern you would have to be against La Follette and vice versa! A. That might have been a conclusion from the statement. I don't think that language was used.

Q. Well, just tell me what the language was, then, that you used?

A. I think the language used was that there was a contest between Governor McGovern and Senator La Follette.

Q. And didn't you go any farther than that?

A. And that in this contest it will be inevitable that the people of the state would take sides; persons active in polities would take sides.

Q. Didn't you say that there would be no compromise, that there could be no compromise?

A. I don't recall using that language.

Q. Didn't you say that there was no middle ground?

A. Yes, I think I did, or something of a similar import. Q. Didn't you say that: "If you are for the Governor you are against the Senator?"

A. I don't recall using that language.

Q. Who was it that authorized you to say you could not be

for both the Governor and the Senator!

A. I said that on my own authority. I don't think I said that you could not be for both the Governor and the Senator, I don't think I used that language. But so far as a difference, an estrangement, between them, I made that on my own authority.

Q. At the time you were examined in the Governor's office didn't you say that you said to Mr. Richards, in effect, speaking of the speakership contest: "The fight is on, there can be no compromise. There is no middle ground. It must be between us and the Governor. If you are for him you are not going to be with us. We are not going to let him have anything to say about this speakership."

A. I made the statement that the fight was on, that the question was between you and the Senator La Follette and that there could not be any middle ground."

A.. That part that I stated there, I made that statement oa the hearing in substance.

Q. Well, why did you think a member of the legislature could not be for both the Senator and the Governor?

A. Well, there are a great many reasons for that, Senator. I think that is the matter of common knowledge.

Q. Can you give me some of them?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, give them.

A. Reports had come to me repeatedly that the Governor had said that the action of the delegates who voted against him at Chicago was cause for offense to him, and that he was against all his men, and also that the Governor was not satisfied with the support that he had gotten in the election, not withstanding that support elected him, and there was also reports came to me, in talk, general talk, I think, that the Governor was displeased at the kind of speeches the Senator had made during the campaign, as to what his position was as to the Governor.

Q. Is that all the reason you had for saying that?

A. Well, there are a great many things along that line. The Senator made some very frank statements in his speeches.

Q. How long has Mr. Johnson been in your office working under a salary?

A. Well, he has never worked under salary in my office. The only way he has done any work in my office has been as special examiner, being paid a per diem for the particular days he worked. Now, if the Senate desires, I can have that all drawn off from the records and sent here.

Q. About how much time did he spend in your office during the last year, working as special examiner?

A. Well, that I cannot tell because of the fact that this work is scattered through a few odd days here and there. The principal part of his work was done on an examination of the Northwestern Mutual Life the last part of this last year. I will say further that the matter of these examiners is a matter that is determined on very largely by the Chief Examiner, Mr. Ketcham, who was told to get his men and he would get these men and appoint them, and the bills came through with his O. K.