A. I did. That is, it was the joint advice of Mr. Wilcox and myself after consultation and after a search of the library and read the precedents.

Q. Did you advise him it was necessary for Mr. Ekern to be heard at that hearing?

A. I did. I was of opinion that it was necessary, and so advised him.

Mr. Aylward:

Q. Have you a copy of that opinion?

A. That was a verbal opinion, Mr. Aylward.

Q. And that was a verbal opinion that you worked out on Tuesday, that would be on the 7th?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when was it that you gave the Governor this verbal opinion?

A. It was the same afternoon. Now, it may have been in the evening. I think it was in the evening, after supper.

Senator Tomkins:

Q. Was that your opinion at the time you started to draft the first order?

A. That was my opinion and still is.

Mr. Aylward:

Q. In the order that you started to draw at half past ten, the only blank you left to fill in was the exact moment of time when the order was entered?

A. Yes, sir. And of course a blank for the signature. I did not fill it.

Examined by Senator Bosshard:

Q. I would like to ask, Mr. Belitz, did you and Mr. Wilcox and the Governor on final consultation, decide or reach a conclusion as a matter of law that a hearing was actually necessary?

A. Mr. Wilcox and I, after consultation, reached that conclusion and advised the governor to that effect.

Q. That a hearing was necessary?

A. That a hearnig was necessary under Section 970 of the statutes.

Q. Do you know whether it was the intention on the part of

the governor prior to that time to make the order of removal without a hearing?

A. I don't know.

Sen: to: Linley:

Q. Did the Governor tell you that he intended to remove? A. Prior to the time we gave our opinion?

Q. At any time you were preparing these papers?

A. Yes, he did.

Senator Randolph :

In the consultation you had with Mr. Wilcox did you advise the Governor to have a full and complete hearing?

A. Senator, I don't remember whether I used the words "full and complete hearing." I certainly did mean full and complete hearing in the eye of the law.

Q. But did you say: "full and complete hearing"?

A. I don't remember whether I used those terms.

Q. You don't recall?

A. No, I don't remember whether I used those terms. I don't believe I did.

Q. Did you think, Mr. Belitz, that just the pretense or showing of a hearing would be necessary. What conclusion did you come to?

A. No, I certainly did not tell that to the Governor as my conclusion, but I did state this further conclusion in that connection, and that was that the weight of the testimony brought in at the hearing and the conclusion reached by the Governor on those facts presented at the hearing were entirely within his jurisdiction. I did advise him to that effect, because that was the meaning of the words: "satisfactory proof".

Senator Husting:

Q. Did you advise the Governor that it might be dangerous to have no hearing whatever?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Didn't you state to the Governor that it might be deemed a usurpation of power to remove an officer without a hearing when a hearing was contemplated by the statute?

A. I did say to him to the effect that the Michigan court had

decided that to remove an officer, when a statute prescribed a cause for removal, without a hearing, would be an arbitrary usurpation of power which would not be tolerated in a republican form of government.

Q. And which the courts might review?

A. No, I did not say that.

Q. Well, what did you advise him might be the consequence of usurpation of power?

A. I stated nothing with regard to consequences of usurpation of power.

Senator Zophy:

Q. Mr. Belitz, are you under Civil Service?

A. I am not under Civil Service.

Mr. Aylward:

Q. When you advised the Governor, Mr. Belitz, that after the testimony was in, that it was entirely within his discretion what he should do, you meant all the testimony was in, did you not?

A. No, I did not, Mr. Aylward. On the contrary, I advised the Governor further that it was entirely within his discretion as to how much testimony was to be admitted. If sufficient facts were admitted at the hearing to convince him that the proof was satisfactory it would be sufficient to base his conclusion upon.

Q. Well, if that were true then he could have just as onesided a hearing, under your advice, as he wanted?

A. Well, I will say frankly my opinion is that that is what the statute means.

Q. Is that what the Michigan case holds?

A. I don't know whether the Michigan case holds that. Q. The Michigan case to which you refer holds that it must be done in good faith, does it not?

A. Oh, yes, absolutely. Oh, yes. I hadn't any idea at all of advising the Governor that he might act in bad faith. Surely, it was assumed through our entire search and through out entire consultation that the proceedings must be in good faith.

Q. In good faith?

A. Oh, yes; absolutely.

Q. When you said, Mr. Belitz, you never heard of a judge who had his opinion already written before the hearingA. (interrupting) I didn't say that, Mr. Aylward. Q. I thought you said you never heard of such a judge. A. Well, you can have the record read.

Q. I thought you said you never heard of such a judge. Well, have you heard of judges, then, who have had their judgment all written out except just the date of entry, prior to their taking testimony?

A. Well, now, it would take me some time to try to recall all the instances.

Q. Well, don't try to recall them all. Give me a single instance?

A. I don't remember any, no.

Q. You have heard of Lord Bacon, haven't you?

A. Yes, I think I have.

Senator Burke:

Q. Mr. Belitz, I want to ask you this question: Mr. Aylward, from his questions, has given the impression that the judge prepares orders and judgments. Now, the practice in this state is that the attorneys prepare these orders and judg ments in advance sometimes, is that a fact?

A. Well, the orders.

Q. And there is no judgments on orders prepared by any judge?

A. No. But judgments, Senator, I do not believe are prepared in advance.

Q. Well, there are in default cases judgments?

A. Well, now, of course it all depends on what you mean by "judgments". If it is an order, orders are always prepared in advance.

Q. Well, in default divorce cases aren't judgments prepared

in advance?

A. Yes, sir, that is true, in divorce cases.

Senator Randolph: Mr. Chairman, I move you the commit

tee do now rise and report progress.

The motion prevailed.

At 5:30 o'clock P. M., The committee of the whole arose. The President in the Chair.

Senator Scott: Mr. President, I have to report that the com

mittee has made progress.

Senate Chamber, Madison, Wisconsin,

February 5, 1913, 7:30 o'clock P. M.

The Senate was called to order by the President.

Upon motion of Senator Randolph,

The Senate resolved itself into a committee of the whole. Senator Scott in the Chair.

The Chairman: Senators, what is the further pleasure of the committee?

Senator Teasdale: I would ask that the last witness on the stand be requested to take the stand for a question or two.

The Chairman: The last witness will take the stand. Mr. Belitz, consider yourself under oath.

ARTHUR F. BELITZ thereupon resumed the stand for further examination, testified as follows:

Examined by Senator Teasdale:

Q. Mr. Belitz, in reply to a question from Senator Linley you stated before the recess that you had had a talk with the governor in regard to the removal of Mr. Ekern?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When did that conversation take place?

A. That took place on the evening of the 7th of January. Q. And where?

A. In the governor's office.

Q. Was there anything further said at that time, any further conversation between the governor and you in reference to this matter?

A. Well, now, Senator, if I may I would like to put that into my own words.

Senator Teasdale: I would ask you to state what further was said at that time between the governor and you.

Mr. Belitz: Now, I wish to state first that the question of Senator Linley and also this question puts me in a rather delicate position. It may be there is a question involved of con