St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-23
STOCKINGS FOR Baby.
Sixth and Robert Sis, ST. Paul, Mimi

turning over of the office to his sue
cessor, to cover this money into the
state treasury, but inasmuch as it had
come to him not in the nature of excess
interest, but as a private emolument or
gift, he soughtalegal advice, and was
. advised by his counsel not to do so.
That said sums had been given to him
in private capacity, and that the state
of Minnesota had no claim whatever
as against. these amounts. Suisse
quently Mr.. Bobleter, upon consulta-
ton with friends and some members
of your committee, and against the adj,
vice Of his counsel, decided that It was
the proper thing to do to cover and
pay this money into the state treasury
This has been done, and the full amount
of $3,024.66 was, on April 90 1895, paid
over by him to the present state treas
urer. Your committee feel called upon
to compliment Mr.. Bobleter upon the
return of, this. money. There is I'M.
sponsibility of public official receiy-
ing private. gifts or emoluments, but
in this case your committee would GER
tainly dissent from the opinion of Mr.,
Bobleter's counsel, whose advice was
that the state had no claim on this
money. We.are of the opinion that the
state did have a claim, and that the
money, when originally paid, should
have been covered into the treasury.
Your committee further desire to re-
port, in connection with this, that no
evidence was. introduced showing or
tending to show, that this sum or any
part thereof, had been paid to Mr.. Bob
Letter for the purpose of inducing him
to deposit state funds in these banks.
Your committee also examined Mr.
Kittleson, an eX-treasurer of this state,
as to whether or not he had received
any excess interest, private gift,.o
emolument from any bank in which he
had deposited state funds This Mr..
Kittleson absolutely and unqualifiedly
denied. An affidavit presented to your
committee from all of the banks with
whom Mr.. Kittleson deposited state
funds proves the absolute correctness
of his statement. We are, therefore, of
the opinion that at no time did Mr..
Kittleson, in his capacity as treasurer,
receive and convert to his own use any
funds whatsoever, belonging to the
state. -
davits from all banks except the two
above mentioned, with whom Col Bob
Letter, as state treasurer, had deposited
funds of the state in which the aff1-
ants positively denied that at any time
had they paid Mr.. Bobleter any, excess
interest to induce him to deposit state
funds in their respective banks.
Your committee subpoenaed and had
hafnrl Thorn II n h.
treasurer, Hennepin county, and upon
being questioned as to whether he had
at any time received from any of the
banks in which, by virtue of his office
as county treasurer of Hennepin coun-i
ty, he had deposited any county funds,
any excess interest, emoluments
or gift as an inducement to de-
post in such banks the county funds
of said county, refused to answer said
question on the ground and for the.
reason that he might in answering it
incriminate himself. The question
was put to Mr.. Peterson, as to each
and every bank in which, during his.
term of office, he had deposited county.
funds, and in every instance he re-
fused to answer said question, by say,
ing that it might incriminate him.
While no direct evidence was intro
duced showing that Mr.. Peterson had
received any such excess interest, gift
or emolument, still your committee
are led to believe from the eyasiye
answers given by Mr.. Peterson HIM
self while on the witness stand. and
his refusal to answer certain cues
lions, that he has been guilty of thus
receiving money which, by right, should
have been covered into the treasury
of Hennepin county.
Your COMMITTEES has not had the time
to examine the books of the different
banks with which Mr. Peterson de-
posted the Hennepin county funds. In
order to determine for an absolute
certainty as to whether Mr.. Peterson
really had diverted any funds belong
ing to Hennepin county to his own
use it would be necessary that the
books of these banks be examined.
A number of other witnesses were
also examined by your committee relat-
i've to the matters charged in Resolu-
ton 2, but no evidence was adduced
by any of them which tended to prove
the allegations so made As, hereto
fore stated, this could only be done by
an examination Of the books of all of
these banks for a number of years
back. and this your COMMITTEES has
found impossible to do, by reason of