Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-04-08
SENATOR KANE'S CHARGE CT At
TEMPTED BRIBERY.

tempted bribery against some person whose
name he positively refuses to give, and I'M
der circumstances which render 1t very
difficult to understand his motive in call
ing the attention of the Senate to the mat
ter at all. If, as he says, some person
came to his room, and there, in the alb
sence of witnesses, offered him $500 in
money to vote for the debris bill, and
promised him $500 more when the bill
passed, it ought to have been obvious to
him that the only possible way of resent
ing the proposition and securing the pun
ishment of the offender, would have been
Even then. however, the conviction of the
alleged bribe-giver would have been i'm
possible, since according to the Senator's
own showing the transaction was not
witnessed by any one but himself, and
his assertion would be balanced by the
denial of the defendant. Conviction for
bribery is always very difficult, but
the case as stated by Mr.. Kane, and as still
further obscured by his peculiar views OF
his personal obligations, presents insur-
mountable difficulties. There can be no
doubt that the existence of very general
suspicion as to the character of the intlu-
ences used about legislative bodies In
these days renders it highly desirable that
whenever conspicuous examples OF virtue
in public men occur, they should be ac-
corded due prominence. 1t is equally de-
sirable that whenever it becomes possible
to fasten charge of bribery upon guilty
person, the prosecution should be urged in
the most vigorous and uncompromising
way But it is very much to be doubted
whether any good effects can result from
the PRONUNCIATION of charges which are not
only incapable of proof as related,
but the investigation of which is ut
terly INSTRUCTED by the fantastic notions
of honor possessed by the accuser. The
law. which does not deal in such
fine-drawn and subtle theories of personal
obligations as govern Senator Kane, char
acterizes the position he has created for
himself as criminal. 1t says that when
anyone is cognizant of crime, but refuses
to give such information as would assist
in the conviction of the criminal, he him
self is guilty of compromising felony. 1t
seems probable that Senator Kane did not
| fully realize the seriousness of the embar
rassment into which his strange doctrines
have plunged him, but it is nevertheless
true that he has exposed himself to very
grave consequences, and even to suspicious
of no little consequence. For the state
ment he has made is not wholly personal in
its implications. He has assumed the ex
istence of systematic attempt to procure
the passage of an important measure by
bribery; and in doing this he has by indi-
rection suggested doubt as to the purity
of the motives of every one of his col
leagues who supports that measure.
He stands before the Senate making an |
ostentatious boast of his incorruptible hon
esty, declaring that somebody has at
tempted to bride him to vote for bill |
which he says is bad one and in max
ing this declaration it is clear that he
leaves it to be inferred that his colleagues
who have not opposed the bill may have
been visited as he was, and may not have
resisted the temptation as he has resisted |
it. All this is inevitably suggested by the
statement he has made, and yet this state
ment yields absolutely no results to analy-
sis, and, singular as it may appear, because
the accuser himself stubbornly refuses to
give the only proof in his power that the
whole story is not fiction. Thus he
brings forward a charge which, rightly re-
garded, is charge against more than
half the Senate. He fixes stigma upon
every man who supports the debris bill.
And yet when a committee of inquiry is
appointed he fatty refuses to proceed |
any further in his revelations. Senator
Kane has told either too much or too little.
Too much, if his story is not true. Too
little, if it is true. He has smirched his |
colleagues, and he has not indicated him. |
SELF He has assumed the extraordinary |
position of ran who is too honest to |
accept bride, but not honest enough to
refrain from compounding felony. SEN
ator Kane has, we believe hitherto borne
the reputation of being an upright man,
but it cannot fail to be perceived that the |
attitude in which he now appears is con-
sisteht with the theory of a conspiracy |
to defeat the debris bill by producing the
suspicion of bribery through statements
so vague as to leave plenty of loopholes
We do not assume that such conspiracy
exists, or that Senator Kane has been a |
party to it. But we are aware that |
desperate and inscriptions efforts have
been made to defeat this bill, and
we cannot but recognize the possibility
that just such trick as we have suggested
might have been resorted to when it be-
came evident that the measure could not
be beaten by honorable means. In any
case Senator Kane has shown contempt of
the Senate, and has made himself liable to
severe punishmentat the hands of that body
There can be no justification for his refusal
to give the name of the alleged offerer of
brides, and he has no right to complain if
the public, and even his own colleagues,
refuse to accept his assurances that he has
been actuated solely by regard for his
honor and the dignity and fair fame of the
Senate.
THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
1t is objected to the bill prohibiting