Audubon County Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Audubon Co., Iowa) 1885-1894, 1886-07-01
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
The Court Continues 60 Receive Tss.
timony I'm the Case.

The Court Continues TO Receive Tss.
timony I'm the Case.
DIES MONIES, June 22.-The defense called
their 1rst witness, w. 7. Hammond, who tcs-
titled that he was insurance clerk in the audi
| TORS office between January aud March, 1885;
and from January, 1886, until the present
time. He identified q record book Of the au-
ditor's Office, In which is kept miscellaneous
account The first entry is made June 3, 1870,
and runs until the 10th Of January, 1875. De.
| Tense asked what was the amount from June,
1870 to January, 1875, recorded as received
| during that time. Prosecution objected to
that on the grounds that fees received during
that time had become matter Of history aud
could not become material In the case. De-
| Tense introduced the book to show the amount
| Of fees received for certified COPIES, Ohiec-
| ton oyerruled, and witness said that according
| to the book there were paid in the following
fees In 1870, 50; in 1871, $3.50; in 1872, S.;
In 1873, sl565; in 1874, S2; in 1875, s. Wit
ness said that from 1875 the miscellaneous
| fees were recorded In Ledger c, and on page 4
| OF that book is found the entry OF the mlscel-
laneous fees for 1875 to be sl3; the last entry
was made Dec Ia, 1875 Witness had not
been able to find any record Of miscellaneous
fees from Dec. II, 1875, to March, 1886. Wit
ness then identified certain letter books OF the
insurance department OF the auditors office,
and the defense offered In evidence a letter
found on page 201 Of letter book d, written 20
j. G. w. Foster by the auditor, dated Oct, IS,
| 1875.
Prosecution objected to the letter, first on
| the grounds OF its date, and that II was written
| by no one now connected with the case in
any way, norwas In any sense material or rele-
| want TO the case. The defense claimed that it
wanted to impeach the testimony OF the wit
ness in regard TO turning fees into the State
| Treasury. Objection sustained-ycas 10, nays
| 10.
After various letters and documents were
| offered In evidence, the defense called b. +.
! Rehkopf, who testified that while employed In
the Auditors office in 1885, and 1884 he was
clerk Of the insurance department Knew Mr..
| Ayers, who at that time was book-kecpcr in
the Office. Defense asked witness what con
versation took place between Ayers aud Brown
| regarding the disposition of fees received from
insurance companies. Objection made, but
oveTuled. Witness said that when the sub
| ployes Ayres said II had been the custom to
| keep 1t for a cigar fund. Soon after witness
came into the Office these fees were equally
divided among tho four, Mr.. Ayers, Brown,
Stewart, and Rehkopf. Mr.. Brown soon turn
ed over the requests and letters Of this kind
to Rehkopf, who always attended TO that kind
of work In the Office.
II. l. Smith, OF Mason City, sworn and testi-
fed that he was appointed by Capt. Lucas as
| bank cxa MINER and during the two months
while acting as such he examined about 40
banks; the prices ranged from $40 to $50 ac-
cording to the amount of capital. No dis
| tinction was made between saving and nom
saving banks Witness kept the money; was
not deputy auditor. The greater portion OF
the fees received was $40.
On examination by Senators witness said he
averaged about five banks week, possibly
not quite that many. Witness examined tho
| Bremen county bank In December, 1882, found
| it in what he considered ''bad shape" Did
not receive any salary from the state nor any
compensation beside the examination fee for
his services. Witness then said that he made
a special trip to see Auditor Lucas about the
Bremen County Bank and he had told the
subsequently learned that it was. Witness
identified his report OF the Bremen County
Bank examination, also his letter to Mr..
| Brown who succeeded Lucas. while witness was
| still working on examination, calling attention
to the condition of the Bremen County Bank,
| TO the large amount Of over-draft, $3.50 900, and
| to the large amount of cash items. two 5000
notes and one for $500: witness was satisfied
| that these had been carried some time. Wit
| ness excused and the Senate adjourned until
a. IN, Wednesday
DEs MONIES, June A.-rhe FIRST witness
| called was James ID. Rowen, foreman Of the
| State printing Office. He testified that In tht
| fall of 1885 there was general proclamation
| of election sent TO the State printer and 800 or
| 800 copies printed and returned to the execu.
| tive Office. Defense asked II the proclamation
contained any reference to the Auditor OF
| state and witness answered mo" The next
| day Mr.. Clark, Executive Clerk, brought over
some additional copy which he wished printed
and inserted In the proclamation. This was
done. Witness was handed printed copy Of
| the proclamation, which he identified as the
| one amended by the slip handed by Mr.. Clark.
Defense then offered the copy of the proclama.
| ton in evidence. which was objected TO by
| prescott on as irrelevant and immaterial Mr..
| Nourse, on behalf Of the defense, argued the
| question, and was answered by Mr.. Weaver.
| The objection to the admission OF the proca-
nation was overruled by yeas, s.; nays 81.
Counsel then read the proclamation OF election
for 1885, In which the Office Of Auditor Of State
| is declared vacant and the people called on 10
elect an Auditor. The clause relative to the
Auditor was the one inserted by Mr.. Clark.
The next witness called was VIM. Conner,
circuit Judge, Of Des Molnes. He identified
the papers in the mandamus suit OFF. W. Cat
tell vs.. John l.. Brown. Witness presided at
the trial o! this case aud delivered a written
| opinion, whice was offered In evidence, as
well as the amended petition and stipulation
Of the parties in the suit.
b. +. Kaufman Of the firm Of Nourse and
| Kaufman, sworn and testified that about
March g. 1895 J. l.. Brown consulted with the
| irm in regard TO the order declaring his Office
vacant Witness identified the order, said the
| frm advised Mr.. Brown that the statute upon
which the Governor based his order Of remov-
al was unconstitutional, and that an attempt
Of removal by the Governor coull be success
|
was also consulted In regard to
the matter and concurred In the opinion Civ
en- by the firm. Nourse & Kaufman were
Browns attorneys in a writ Of mandamus
| against certain cooperative insurance com
aaies they were also Browns attorneys in
an injunction suit against Brown by the Bur
| lington Insurance Company Defense asked
what reason was given by this company for
| llsmissing the suit when Mr. Cattell took pos
scss on OF the Office. Prosecution objected,
bat was overruled. Yeas 13, nays "a
| Various other witnesses were examined, and
among them W. L. Alexander, Adjutant.
| General Of the State, was sworn, and testified
that on March 10 1885, about 2:3O pm. he
| received an order from Gov. b. II. Sherman TO
take possession Of the Auditors office with
the military. The order stated that as John
L. Brown had unlawfClly refused J. W. Cat
tell admission tn the A uditor's Office, wltne IS
was ordered to take such militia as was neces-
sary and proceed and take possession Of the
office. The only time the subject Of the mill
tary was mentioned tefore this was on March
18th, when the Governor sent for wltncss and