St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-01-20
there is question as to whether it is
expedient to make this investigation.
THE vEsTIGATIoN GOES ON.

there is question as to whether it is
eXpedient to make this investigation.
THE INvEs TIGAT ION GOES ON.
Mr.. lIightner moved that the commit
tee proceed to take statements of en-
ployes of the building inspectors Office,
and that the former building inspector
give the names of the employees. The
motion prevailed, and Mr.. Morris, at
request of the chairman, gave the name
of the employees, as follows:
Inspector of buildings, Charles A. F.
Morris; deputy inspector. John c. Mac
Carthy; clerk, j. A. Meyer; assistant
inspectors, George f. Woolsey, Philip
A. Anfang and j. j. Bailey; plumbing
inspector. William p. O'Brien; ele-
vators and fire escapes. t. F. KellIher.
). L. Townley. representing Mr..
Franklin, stated that the proceedings
proposed would lack the dignity of such
inquiry if the parties are not under
oath. $50 far as Mr.. franklin was
concerned he objected to proceeding
without administering an oath. 1 con-
slider that Mr.. Franklin Is the person
chiefly concerned. The charges have
been made by parties not under oath.
LII seems that as far as my client is con-
cerned that it would not be we'll to pro-
| ceed to make an examination now un-
less II be under oath. The CLIQUE has
not responded to be questioned as to its
! broad statement besmirching the char
acter and reputation of Mr.. Franklin.
| AS far as Mr.. Franklin is concerned he
is ready to be examined under oath.
| we ask that some dignity be given to
this proceeding by imposing an oath.
We stand here ready to give our testi-
| mony under oath, and refute our ac-
cusers that are tearing down our in
tegrity and reputation"
Mr.. Van Slyke said he desired to re-
peat that he could not see the advantage
| of proceeding without taking the testl-
| mony under oath.
Mr.. Lightner suggested that the in
vestigation would be, pertinent if the
person to be inyestig gated were mem.
! Der of the assembly.
Mr.. Van Slyke asked Mr.. Lightner if
it were an Investigation of member of
the assembly would he not want wit
nesses under oath?
Mr.. Lightner said that in this case he
wanted to defer to the wishes of the
county attorney. SO as to not interfere
with the criminal law.
Mr.. r.VanSlyke-This seems like child's
play.
Mr.. Lightner-I don't see how this
can be child's play. Let us proceed
with the investigation, and take the
statements of such as are willing to be
heard.
Mr.. Llghtner-We will proceed. Is
there any one from the building in
spector's Office who wants to be heard?
JOHN C. M'CARTHY's STORY.
John G.. Mccarthy, of the building
inspectors Office presented himself to
make statement.
Chairman Markham suggested that
questions be asked. 1t was suggested
that the chairman ask the questions, but
he asked to be excused as he had
enough to- de. and by common co nsent
Mr.. Llghtner was chosen as inquisitor.
1t was decided that no. oath would be
administered.
Mr.. Mccarthy, in answer to question
by Mr.. Lightner. stated that he was
chief deputy in the building inspectors
Office from May "a, 1892, until Nov. l,
1898. He had heard OF the charges
against Mr.. Franklin.
After the ordinance passed the board
of aldermen to put MIR. Morris out of
office it went to the assembly where it
was amended
II made it my duty to see some of the
Rep ublicans to see that it was not
passed by the board of aldermen.
went to Mr.. Jensen and told him it was
bad policy for Republicans to put man
out of office who was not shown to be
incapable. 1 first told him that as he
was sick would not bother him. but he
said to go ahead. l told him it
would do the Republican party
no good to turn man
out unless he was incompetent" He
said he would cut off his right hand
rather than vote for that ordinance.
Mr.. Hickman opposed the ordinance
also. Mr.. Franklin said he would vote
against 1t provided it did not become a
party measure. Mr.. Franklin was in
our Office then, and before he left he
asked as favor that Mr.. Wooisey be
put on the force. This was in June,
1892. In July or August, 1892, we made
up purse for Mr.. Franklin. AS he had
been put on certain committees that
took up his time and was poor man.
We thought we would make up
monthly purse to pay him for his time
for service on committees. l am not
certain whether it was in July or in
August that we made up purse, and L
took him down SIS. He at first refused
to take it. asked him why, and he SAID
he considered it a bribe. l told him it
was not bribe, but to make up for his
loss of time as he did not get a chair
manship. He was q poor man, and he
also belonged to my lodge. the Inde.
pendent Order of Forresters. / felt
kindly to him.
Ibid he take it?"
"Yes, sir"
"How much?''
Fifteen dollars.'
''Dld this occur again?"
Eyes; it continued until I left the
Office, Nov. 1. 1898.
1.-The last time paid was for October,
1S9S."
"Where did you get the money
from?"
From the boys in the office"
"Who are they?'
The force in the office was then named
and the amounts they gave, as follows:
morris. 25; | gave S2.35; O'Brien, 80;
the balance SLIGO each, except for two
months. when only Sl.50 was given.
Mr.. Bailey also paid part of the purse.
This money was paid to me and l
paid it to MIR. Franklin"
"rhis continued fifteen months?'
"Yes."
"Who originated the plan?"
81 refuse to state"
"Did the people who paid this money