« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
A. That is not true, Mr. Aylward.
A. (interrupting) Just a moment. Now, I want to answer this, please.
Mr. Aylward: You will have plenty of time.
A. (interrupting I didn't start to draw the order. I started to draw a form for an order.
Q. You started to draw a form for an order of suspension?
Q. Did you know when the Governor talked with Yr. Ekern!
A. No, I didn't know that.
The Chairman: Any member of the committee any questions to ask?
Senator Randolph: Mr. Chairman, I desire to ask the witness a few questions.
Examined by Senator Randolph:
Q. Mr. Belitz, you have testified that you are assistant revisor of the statutes ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Mr. Lyman G. Nash, revisor of the statutes, have any knowledge that you, during office hours, were drawing this form of removal?
A. I don't think he had any knowledge of that specific fact.
Q. You don't think he had any knowledge, directly or indirectly?
A. Not of that specific fact.
Q. Then you were not engaged in revising the statutes on that day?
A. Well, now, in explanation, Senator: Mr. Nash did know
I was looking up this question for the governor.
Examined by Senator Linley.
A. I think it was Mr. Wilbur telephoned up to me about the middle of the afternoon of the 7th of January, and requested me to go down to the State Library and assist Mr. Wilcox in looking up a question of law which Mr. Wilcox would explain to me when I got down to the library.
Q. Did Mr. Wilcox tell you what the facts were connected with the matter?
A. He did not. He did not. Not at that time.
A. I did, that afternoon. I went down in response to the request, met Mr. Wilcox in the library, and the very first thing, he informed me was that he was looking up the construction of section 970 of the statutes, and he wished me to run that statute down for him and tell him what it meant, and what the power of the governor was under that section.
Q. Did you have any facts in mind at all when you looked up the statute?
A. I didn't at first, but subsequently it gradually dawned on me that this might have an application to Mr. Ekern's case, because I had seen in the papers something about some trouble between the governor and Mr. Ekern.
Q. Did you make a writen report of what you concluded in your examination ?
A. I did not.
A. I did to the governor. Mr. Wilcox and I jointly informed the governor of our opinion.
Q. Was that before you had learned the facts, or after?
Q. How long after that was it you talked with Mr. Wilcox about the facts ?
A. About the facts ?
Q. Yes, about the facts involved in Mr. Ekern's case. You said at first you didn't know anything about it.
A. Well, that was in the evening. In the evening when I spoke with Mr. Wilcox about the facts in the case. After look
ing up the question and coming to a conclusion, and advising the guvernor as to our conclusion, the governor requested us to draft forms for such a proceeding, and, in drafting those forms, Mr. Wilcox and I discussed the facts.
Q. What did Mr. Wilcox tell you were the facts ?
A. Well, Senator, I don't remember just exactly how Mr. Wilcox stated those facts to me. We both of us sat down at the table. Dr. Wilcox had a lead pencil and some paper before him, and I believe I started out to dictate a form of an affidavit preferring charges—it was done in about this way: The first paragraph of that affidavit was drafted without any knowledge of the particular facts, on my part. After we had concluded the first paragraph I would suggest a form of language and state to Mr. Wilcox that would be the proper wording to go in, or, according to what the facts are, and left it to him to insert the statement regarding the facts.
Q. Do you mean to say you suggested a hypothetical case for the affidavit ?
A. No, Senator. I suggested a form, a legal form. Knowing of course, in a general way, that the purpose of this proceeding was to investigate this trouble with Mr. Ekern with the possibility of an order of removal ensuing thereon.
Q. And familiar with the court procedure of the state of
A. I am, yes.
Q. Now, what is the proceeding as to the drafting of orders and judgment previous to hearings before courts on matters?
A. Well, those are generally-I may say almost alwaysprepared in advance.
Q. Yes. Anticipating-
Q. And what is the proceeding, if you know it, as to drawing verdicts for juries in criminal actions? Isn't it the fact it is the custom in this state, it is the practice, the verdict of guilty is drawn up, and a verdict of not guilty, in anticipation of submitting it to the jury?
A. Well, I am not really competent to answer that question, Senator, because I have never handled a criminal case.
Q. But as to orders and judgments of the court, it is customary, in fact it is invariably the custom ?
A. It is, in a civil action.
Examined by Senator Bosshard :
Q. In response to the questions of the senator from Brown County, (Senator Burke) you stated it was customary in court procedure for the attorneys on both sides to prepare their findings, or verdicts, or judgments, in anticipation of a verdict or judgment in favor of either side?
A. I don't believe I so stated, but I think that is the custom, the practice, I should say. It is more than custom ; it is practice.
Q. Is it ever the custom for the court trying the case to pre. pare a judgment in advance ?
A. Not that I am aware.
Examined by Senator Skogmo:
Q. Was there more than one form of a finding or judgment drafted that evening?
A. No. The form that I began to draft was never finished that evening.
Q. Did you draft at any time more than one form?
A. Well, never more than one form at one time. I don't mean any disparagement at all, Senator. I drafted two forins of order. That is to say, I started on the evening of the 7th to draft a form for an order, and it was thought an order might not be necessary on the following day when the hearing was had. For that reason the drafting of the order I started on the 7th was not finished.
Q. Then the only form that you drafted is the forn that is now submitted and that was used in the case ?
A. That is the only form I completed.
Q. You drafted no form in case he should find there was no violation of the law, you drafted no form for that particular case?
A. The affidavit was drafted there and also the notice of hear.
A. No, I did not.
Q. The only form that was drafted was one to be used in case it was found that he had violated the statutes ?
A. Yes. It did not occur to us at the time that any form would be necessary in case of a different order.
Examined by Senator Browne:
Q. When was it that you drafted this order that was finally used:
A. That was on the morning of the 8th of January.
A. It was after half past ten. As I say, I went down to the office at about half past ten. I couldn't tell exactly what time it was.
It was about that time. Examinied by Senator Linley: Q. You drafted the complaint too, didn't you, Mr. Belitz? A. The complaint? By that you mean the affidavit? Q. Yes.
A. The affidavit was drafted by Mr. Wilcox and I assisted in the drafting of it up by dictating forms and formal parts of that affidavit, and also suggested the form of language to be used after Mr. Wilcox had stated the facts in connection with the case. I suggested the form of the language to be used to state those facts.
Q. Did you draft this form in the office of the revisor or in the office of the Governor?
A. In the office of the Governor.
ing. The affidavit and the notice of hearing was drafted on evening of the 7th.
Q. Did you advise the Governor there should be a had?