The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1934-06-05

BISMARCK TRIBUNE,
sition?" Thorp asked. 49,.
1.-THE latter part Of November"
The testimony was objected 10 by
Lanier as immaterial The court in
tervencd to say II suppose the ques-
tons are to bring out the creditabiltty
of the witness"
Thorp said yes sir"
did government investigators call
to see your" Thorp continued.
"Yes."
did you sign any affidavits7"
mo"
Emphasizes Old Story
Thorp, In the cross-examination Of
Leonhard, again brought out that the
administrations purposes, as explain
ed to employees when they were solicit
ed, was to promote a newspaper that
would tell the truth about the ad-
ministration."
And 1t was explained to you II the
administration lasted longer your job
would last longer?" Thorp asked.
Il don't remember that"
Did you think that?"
Il thought possibly it would last
longer II contributed"
L.eonhard said he had paid only one
installment of the pledge and that he
was still working for the highway de-
partment.
r. M. stangler, manager Of the
Bank of North Dakota, was recalled
by the government for the purpose Of
asking him a single question. It was,
During 1888 and since has Governor
LANCER had q bank account Ut the
Bank Of North Dakota?"
mo. SIR" Stangler replied.
Stangler was dismissed with an un-
derstanding by the defense that he
would be recalled for further cross
examination later.
Walter ]. Brophy, highway depart
ment employe since 1929, was called
and dismissed without examination
when Lanier announced that he was
not ready to question the witness. q.
L. Personals, federal emergency re-
lief employe and formerly a member
Of the state highway department for
IA years. followed Brophy on the
stand.
Told Of Job Insurance
Were you solicited previous to May.
1888, (date Of Personius' discharRe)
for five per cent OF your salary?"
Lanier asked.
Personals said he was. by Chaput.
What did he say?"
He put the proposition up to NE
that they were starting q newspaper
and that 1t would be necessary for us
to pay five per cent to run the news
paper. Naturally, we didn't like It.
He said It was job insurance and
needed my job, so signed up for it."
He signed four checks for q little
more than $40 each.
did you have q discussion about
it?" Lanier asked.
eyes," Personals replied, I'VE had
an argument about paying every three
months. We wanted to pay monthly.
He said he would have to take it up
with Vogel and later he informed us
Vogel had said NO, If they had to
have a man come around every month
1t would be too much work.
Did you make any payments?"
Lanier queried.
I paid So" Personals answered.
why didn't you pay the rest Of IT."
Il couldn't afford it,
Did vogel call you into his office
In OCTOBER
Yes
What did he say to you?"
vogel Applied Axe
He waved his hand and said.
You're all through He said Tor the
good OF the highway department,
you're all through Naturally, I
wanted to get at the bottom Of it, but
he wouldn't tell me why / was
through
In cross examining the witness,
Thorp attempted challenge Of the
witness credibility by bringing out
that Personals had been friendly with
government investigators and had aid
ed them in their preliminary investi-
cations among highway employees.
Thorps questions also were directed
to bring out that Vogel had found
that YOU talked too much during
working hours especially about poll
tics.
Personals replied that Vogel might
have" said something to him about
talking too much.
"vogel didn't talk to you about these
payments tof five per cent OF his
salary z" Thorp asked.
NO" was Personius' answer. THE
first time / had any conversation with
him was when he fired me-
State Employees Questioned
District Attorney p. w. Lanier led
four state employees through question
ing about Leader" solicitations.
Judge Andrew Miller permitted the
state employees to testify. after read
ing from the bench two sections Of
the penal code Of North Dakota, one
providing that state officers receiving
and appropriating to their own use
any part Of allowances made for clerk
hire shall be guilty Of misdemean-
or"
The court said II there is a conspir-
acy on the part Of the governor or
other state officials who are defend
ants In the trial, it would be an UNI
lawful transaction and therefore Is
pertinent to the intent Of the de-
fendants-if there was q conspiracy.
There is testimony tending to show
the governor received some Of the
money that went into The Leader
fund.- say tending to show that,
the court commented.
Other developments that came IN
rapid fire succession in Mondays pro-
|ceedings included:
Claims by the government It will
show that funds were withdrawn from
THE Leader" account and q CORE
spending amount deposited to the
governors personal account.
Testimony that r. A. Kinzer, one Of
the defendants and former relief set