The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-06-01
various points of contention on both sides
presented to him in compact form.
MR ZOIT MI A NC c,rr . rn1un.,-

various points of contention on both sides
| presented to him in compact form.
MR.. ZOILMAN'S STATEMENT.
Mr.. Zollman stated that as far as he
cou!d see the action of Mr.. johnson had
opVlated tho necessity of argument to q.
great extent. His knowledge Of Mr. cris~
Wold' he said, was such that he like Mr..
Johnson, could not believe him guilty. Of
any criminal dereliction. However he
could not in all things, defend the course
| winch Mr.. Griswold had evidently fol-
lowed. He did not believe that Mr.. Girls
void mad Intentionally done anvtbing
that would permit fraud or open the door
TO criminal conspiracy but that there
had been careIessness he would not dew
Mr. Zollman referred to Mr.. GrisWold's g
long experience in the office Of the staSA
auditor and the county auditor under
Mr.. Johnson's predecessor, and coptinu-
ing said
1T is not possible. for Mr.. Johnson TO
personally attend to all of the details of
his office, and in this case 1t has been
shown that he had EMPLOYED to Iool-
after the work in question, a man whom
ne considered in every way efficient and
competent and whom he had every right
TO SO consider. The proof of a state Of
facts which might make fraud possible
does not necessarily show fraud The
testimony Of the witnesses brought here
by the state public examiner shows that
TINS money in question was not used to
speculate in tax certificates. Mr.. Light
ner has not appeared here to say tnat
ne was defrauded in any way. 1t Is not
charged that any of the other persons
concerned have been defrauded in any
way. There Is nothing in the testimony
to show tnat any fraud has been perpe-
trated or that there has been any GRIM
iOa1 0STOir hat
void. There Is nothing to show that
Ramsey county has lost dollar or could
lose q dollar through the transactions
which have been described here AS far
as Mr.. Johnson is concerned, there is
nothing here on which to predicate a
charge of malfeasance or even misfeas-
ance in Office
GROSS NEGLIGENCE ADMITTED.
Mr.. Somerby, assistant attorney gen
eral, in summing up the other side of
the case spoke somewhat as follows:
1.-THE question to be decided mere is
whether your eXcellency will summon a
commission 70 determine Mr. Johnson's
right and fitness to retain his Office The
existence of Irregularities is practically
conceded. The charges that warrants
have been dawn in favor of certain per-
sons without the surrender of the Ger
tificates which constitute the county's
vouchers for the money paid; that GER
tificates have been surrendered and not
properly cancelled and that certificates
received, or said to have been received
have not been properly filed, have been,
think, pretty well established. The al
legations that James H. Burns has re-
ceiVed special privileges ard has been
using the funds of Ramsey county to
speculate in tax certificates has been, it
seems to me, proven Whether there has
been damage done thereby we have no
evidence and We do not so claim. If the
tight persons have received the money
it is not because OF care on the part Of
Mr. Johnsop's force of clerks. There is
no room for argument as to the existence
Of gross negligence in that Office. Mr..
Johnson practically admits that when he
! discharges MIR. Griswold. 1t is true that
an official whose department does as
much business. as that Of Mr.. Johnson
must del, end to great evtent upon his
deputies or subordinates. There is moth
ing to show dishonesty on the part Of
Mr.. Johnson or upon the part of Mr.
Griswold either for that matter. Moth
ing further than gross negligence has
been shown. There is then some Ques-
tion as to how far an officer is justified in
trusting to his subordinates.
"Now, as to the question Of whether
your eXcellency may think it proper or
necessary to appoint a commission to in
quire into the official character Of Mr..
Johnson. MIR. Johnson has stated here
that he discharged Mr.. Bourne. Mr.. Girls
wold's predecessor, for irregularities IN
paying premiums on taxes. Bourne was
also a trusted employe and now comes
the case of Griswold. The question is,
has Mr.. Johnson reposed toe much con-
Rdence in mis- deputies"
The public examiner briefly stated his
position relating to the steps he had
taken in the matter. He laid consider
able stress upon the fact that at tho
time of the alleged Irregularities Mr..
johnson was absent from the city, but
! was not on public service
! The governor read the statement given
| above and the incident was declared TO
! be closed.