Sacramento daily record-union., 1881-07-09

~Ao ASoor employed IN tue manu-
facture OF the harness; charged his own
labor st 81 day, and the labor of three con-
victs at oo cents per day $93 in material and
labor had already been charged against the
harness for DR.. McNutt could not ascertain
what said harness would be worth outside of
the prison; workmsn of equal skill with
himself received 81 so aud s5 per day. By
the standard of free labor his own work upon
the harness would be worth that sum per
day; had made harness for others: knew
convict Hartwell; worked in the same shop
with him did not remember his making fur
nituIe remember that he sometimes repaired
chairs. Witness thought Hartwell very
poor mechanic; knew of his Ching some
boards together, but didn't give the boards
sufficient time to stick. Clemetshaw had
never seen any cabinet manufactured in the
prison by Hartwell; had seen him make
some picture frames had to pass through
Hartwells shop; would have known if cab
inets or other furniture had been made.
Upon a close cross-examiuation, witness
admitted that Hartwell had made table
and an aquarium which would not hold
water.
MORAL INSTRUCTOR CUMMINGS
Was the next witness. The examination Of
Cummings consumed almost the entire after
noon. In July, 1880, he had drafted series
of rules and regulations for his department of
the prison. and presented them to the Board
of Directors. The Warden informed him
that he would not allow officers of the prison
to have communication with the Board of
Directors /; that all communications must be
sent through him. In March, $780, had an
alteration with the Warden concerning the
application made by witness to allow the
clerks in his office to eat at the officers table.
wear white shirt, and have such privileges
as were accorded to convict clerks in other
departments. This request was refused had
secured pardon for two or three convicts;
had made application for the pardon of 9TH
ers; had received money from convicts for
the purpose of paying his expenses when trav-
cling in their interest and behalf remem-
bered the sum of $40 as received from
one, aud $40 from another; held
moneys in trust for convicts until
ordered to give up such moneys by the
Warden last May. Lawyers who had taken
until the money was put up. Witness had
obtained money from convicts, and held it in
escrow; if the cenvicts secured their release,
the money was to so to the lawyer if the
attorney failed, the money was to be returned
to the convicts. In one case he had written
to the Governor, asking that two young men
should be pardoned 50 as to keep the arrest
| ing officers, having warrants for their arrest
issued from different Courts in this State,
from reapprehending them; went to the
Warden and proposed that the convicts
should be let out of the back gate, that they
might escape over the hills from the arrest
ing officers. The Warden refused. Had
heard the Warden say that he had let con-
victs out of the back gate rather than have
them rearrested. Upon the occasion of this
application the Warden became excited and
angry, and told him that the request was
highly improper: had had no trouble with
other ministers, but thought himself
in charge of that department of the
prison. Ministers who had heretofor
attended the prison were not interesting to
the prisoners; thought new ministers ought
to be invited had had but one alteration
with minister.
| Cross.examined-Did not understand that
it was a wrong thing to assist prisoners to
escape arrest. The terms of the prisoners
referred TO in the direct testimony would
expire on Monday he wished TO have them
pardoned on the Friday preceding. The
Governor replied to him that it was highly
improper thing for the Executive to do; had
then gone TO the Warden and made the re-
quest that the prisoners should be let out of
the back gate on Monday. so that they might
escape the Sheriff, who held warrant for
their arrest at the front gate. The alterca-
ton had with the minister referred to in the
| direct testimony related to the pernicious
doctrine of that minister
Question-To what doctrine do you refer.
Answer-The minister exhorted his hearers
that they should not give any attention to
any minister save such as represented the
Holy See at Rome had rebuked the min
teachings ought not and would not be allowed
in the prison.
| Questionable teaching you referred to
occurred on day when Catholic services
were held in the prison
Answer-Yes. sir.
Question-It was at a regular Catholic
service of the Catholic Church held in the
prison that the minister declared that his
hearers should listen to no teaching save
such as was given him by authority of the
Pope?
| Answer-Yes, sir.
RESUME OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
During the taking of the testimony of Mr.
| Cummings considerable discussion took place
between the prosecution and members of the
Commission and Judge Schell, Director
of the prison, whilst time was consumed in
the reading of the laws of the State of Cali
fornIa and in the discussion as to the admis-
sibility of the evidence Of the twenty-three
or twenty-four witnesses subpenaed by the
prosecution. Some twelve witnesses had
been examined.
The proceedings to-day were interesting,
and elected much strong feeling. The War
den of the prison has so far declined to cross
examine the witnesses who have testified, ex-
cept in some minor particulars The cross
examination has been by members of the
Commission.
The Commission adjourned to meet on
Tuesday morning. Some four or FIVE wit
| nesses whose names have not heretofore been
mentioned were subpenaed for the prosecu-
| ton. The prosecution has been reinforced
by the appearance of Detective Hanks, and
it is supposed that the new witnesses sub
penaed will give testimony concerning mat
| ters that have not heretofore been presented.
From present appearances the prosecution
will not rest its case before Thursday or Fri
day of next week.