St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-01-26

WAS appointed as such assistant IN
spector by Mr.. Morris, the building in
spector, and retained his position until
Nov. !. 1898.
There is no direct evidence that these
monthly contributions were paid to MIR.
Franklin under any positive agreement
that in consideration of its payment he
would vote against the passage OF The
ordinance in question and thereby by
defeating its passage retain Mr.. Morris
i'll office; but from a careful conSldera-
ton of all the evidence the committee is
impelied to the conclusion that Sucn
was the purpose for which the money
was contributed and paid. and that 1t
was received by Mr.. Franklin with full
knowledge of such purpose. And fur
Their that it was at least tacltly under
stood that Mr.. Franklin, as memberot
the board OF aldermen, would use his
official position to retain Mr.. Morris and
his deputy, John c. Mccarthy, and the
other subordinateS, including Mr.. Wool
sey, i'll office.
1t is proper TO state further that while
Mr.. Franklin states that he did not
know from what source this money
was derived, yet he admits that when
Mr.. Morris paid him the SIS in Decem-
Der, 1898, he knew then where the
money came from, and did not refuse
10 receive this sum nor offer 10 return
any which lie had previously received.
And Mr.. Mccarthy states that when he
made the first payment to Mr.. Franklin
he Informed him that it was contrib
uted by the building inspector and the
employees i'll his Office. No intention TO
return any of this money was Indicated
on the part of MIR. Franklin until some
time in January, 1894, when he was no
tiled that the matter had become 10
some extent public. 1t is further 10 be
noted that it was understood among all
the employees i'll the building inspectors
office that this matter should be kept
quiet, and as matter OF fact It was
kept secret by all the parties concerned.
On Jan. 5. 1894, on the eve OF the
publication OF these charges, Mr.. Frank
lin had meeting with Mr.. Mccarthy,
Mr.. WoolSey, Mr.. Meyer, MI kelliher
and other employees, and then expressed
the desire and intention of returning
the money which he mad receiVed,if the
persons contributing the money would
sign certain attldaYitS; The contents OF
these proposed atfidaYiIs do not appear.
The money, hOWeYer,WaS not returned,
and no at1lGaYitS appear to have been
made.
Inc committee is Of the opinion that
the charges made against all the parties
named or paying ana receiving money
for the purpose of influencing an alder
man IN his official action are well
founded and-esIabiiShed.
The common council and your COM
mittee have not any power 20 institute
criminal proceedings or impose any
criminal punishment; but they believe
that the council should express in the
strongest terms its condemnation of the
action of these parties i'll the premises,
and should recommend the discharge
from service of any of the parties now
remaining In the employ of the city.
and your committee therefore recon-
mends such action to the common
council.
While upon these facts there is no
valid excuse for the actions of any of
the parties involved, il is not improper
for the committee to call attention TO
the fact that all of the parties other
than Franklin, Morris and Mccarthy
occupied merely clerical position, the
tenure Of which depended upon the will
Of the Inspector, and that they maze
their contributions upon the demand
or suggestion of the chief deputy in the
office. and with the consent and APP
proval of the building inspector him
self.
The criminal prosecution of any Of
these parties rests with the grand jury,
the county attorney and district court Of
this county, and with them rests the
duty of instituung appropriate criminal
proceedings.
We recommend that copy of this re-