Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-04-03

seeks TO explain the appearance OF this BOOK by
saying that he had it in his pocket but once or
: twice, and that he then had it protected by an
envelope If it had been in an envelope the
/; movement of the arm would have pToduced
/ such friction of the leaves as TO have blurred
/ the writing. But he says he kept 1t mostly III a
J safe. l do not remember that he was kind
enough to tell US in what safe he kept II, except
| for one year when he says 1t was in the safe OF
! General Clunie; nor was the prosecution kind
enough to bring General Clunie here TO explain
! the matter. General Clunie might nave been
/ potent witness for that side OF the case. would
/ not be astonished, however, If some such book
! had existed for more than year. because from
| the very day upon which he became deputy,
Reynolds tells us that with charac erlst1c hdel-
| ity to his principal he applied himself to the
| task of making evidence with which TO defend
himself at the expense of Burns; and it was in
i this work. | understand that Mr.. Reynolds
| claims that he made the tag book.
! Now. if the testimony of Reynolds upon this
subject stood alone, am satisfied that this Jury
| would not believe him. But. unfortunately for
| the prosecution, Mr. Reynolds brought with him
| his partner Alexander Badlam, OF San Francis
! CO. who sought to edd the weight of his veraclty
| to the story about the tag book. This testimony
was intended to injure Burns cause. 1t was not
! intended to benefit Reynolds, unless, as we be-
lieye, he was indirectly interested In the iinal
result Of this trial Mr.. Badlam testlhed that he
| had fre quently seen this little book; that Mr..
| Reynolds took it from his pocket and showed it
! to him nearly every time they met. This Is The
! testimony of the witness which the prosecution
| was so anxious to place upon the stand; and |
! thank the Lord that he was brought here, be-
| cause he demonstr ties that Reynolds testimony
| upon this subject was untrue. | asked this wit
ness whether not it was fact that this little
| book was in his safe for number of years. This
! was a catch question:. acknowledge; and Mr;
I, Badlam answered in the negative. ! then asked
| him whether or not Mr.. Reynolds was mistaken
if he said the book had been left in his safe His
answer, in effect, was, Well, if he put it in my
| safe, it was in an envelope" / submit TO the
jury that he selected a very smooth way OF
GETTING OUT OF \ TIGHT PLACE.
But the book was not in an envelope at those
times described by the witness when il was
| taken from Reynolds pocket and exhibited. II
reasons when induced Mr.. Reynolds, during the
five years last past, wherever he met Mr.. Bad
lam TO take him off in some secret place and call
his attention to this little book. He was then
under the pay of MI. Burns. Why did he desire
to traduce the character of his benefactor? Is
il not the sillieSt of nonsense to say that man
| who was keeping such book for an honest pur
pose, when no controversy was III progress,
| would be constantly seeking somebody for the
| purpose of exhibiting il, and thus making evil
dence where there was no issue on trial or TO be
tried If the statement of Alex. Badlam is true,
| Thomas H. Reynolds knew at the time that
| what that book contained was false, and he was
exhibiting il Tor the purpose of making witness
| OF Badam in case OF his arrest. He YVES max
ing evidence with which TO defend mself for Il
crime OF which he was then aware. do not be-
lieve, however that Thomas II. Reynolds is a
| man of sufficient foresight to have enabled him,
iii 1880, to see the approach of this conflict
| Mr.. Reynolds would also have us believe from
| \. /. Bancroft IL Co. checks. The jury remem
berS that when l handed him one of those
checks upon the back of which his own in
dorsement appeared. he cndeaV0red to explain
| by saying that he must have paid that money to
| Mr.. Burns. His testimony in relation TO amounts
received from General Shanklin was equally
unsatisfactory He testified that he had never
received any of those amounts; that such mon
| cys were kept by Burns in his private Office
| that If he ever received any money from that
source he Immediately paid it to DanfOrtb
Gale or Burns. then produced and showed 10
him in rapid succC sson ten receipts of his own
for amounts which he had testified he never had
| received and he
! SOUGHT TO AVOID THE RESPONSIBILITY
Thus brought TO his own door By declaring
again that If the money paid to HIM he
must have given it 10 DAnforth, Gale or Burns.
This, gentlemen of the jury, is ole OF
the prominent facts in this case, and
concerning it, it is evident that Mr.. Reynolds
! testimony is untrue With his receipts in my
hands. unknown to him, he first denied that
the money was paid to him. Upon the produc-
ton of those receipts, thus convicting him,
| in the most charitable view that We
may take, OF lnistaking the fact, he at
once admits his mistake and then seeks TO throw
the responsibility upon Mr.. Burns by saying
that he paid il to Danorth. Gale or his principal.
He also testified that of the money received
from that source, none was ever paid 10 him by
the other clerks. Let Us test the truth of this
evidence. Daniorth testified that he collected
some Of that money and handed II 10 Mr.. Reyn-
oidS Gale testified that he collected some
money from that source and gave it to MIR.
| Reynolds: and from the time of the commence
ment of the term of Office Of this defendant no
instance has ever been found in which anybody
ever knew or heard of anybody paying to Mr.
| Burns any portion of the money collected from
The S'lrveyor-6cnerals office. We have cstab-
liShed that in an unbrOken line these amounts
have been delivered to Mr.. Reynolds from day
10 day, and We have ShowlI by his own books
| that ior months and months all OF the moneys
| from that source, aggregating thousands upon
thousands of dollars, have not only been left
unrepOued by Mr.. Reynolds, but have been
| taken by somebody, and have never been paid
into the State Treasury These moneys have
been traced into the hands of Mr.. Reynolds and
there lost.
The same may be said OF the money paid in on
account of commissions issued to NOtaries Pub
| lie. This can best Illustrate by reference to
/ the pages of the Controllers report, which |
shall Use as diagram, aud from which Ipropose
| to demonstrate the difference in the aspect of
| affairs during the time of Mr. Reynolds deputy
| ship and the lime which succeeded his dIsinis-
| sal by Mr. Burns. General Hart here took the
Cont oilers report and directed the attention Of
| tire jury 20 the pages showing the difference.
| This column represents deficiencies. You Will
| observe that each one of the items of So aggre-
| eating probably q thousand, has been omitted
| from the books; excepting one, all the balance
| are deficiencies until July 29th, when Reynolds
| was dismissed. Commencing then with the
| OF Reynolds, you find no deficiencies.
| The change was sudden, abrupt. 1t draws the
| line and gives color to this prosecution. The
! change came when Reynolds went ont, when he
| was driven away During the month of August.
! 1852. every dollar that was received into the
| hands of the Secretary of State was placed upon
| the books of his office That circumstance
| shows the difference and demonstrates upon
| whom the responsibility for these deficiencies
! can properly be placed.
THE GIsT-uEM OF TIE PROSECUTION.
Now, gentlemen OF the jury, we have arrived
at that stage in the history OF this case when it
| is proper to consider the immediate item ont of
| which this prosecution arose. The nature of
| the defense, which we have made III this case,
hat hnI IaN
| stands it, is have undertaken to show you,
! and the evidence demonstrates when my
client began to manage his Office without the
assistance OF Thomas H. Reynolds there were
deficiencies amounting To about so 0C0. At that
| time Mr.. Burns was surrounded by the circum-
stances which have tried to describe 10 you, and
| | believe that he then felt all the emotions ana
| experienced all the conflicts which | have
named. have made table of all the figures.
| showing the amounts that were received and
the amounts that were paid into the treasury,
| from that time until the expiration OF his term
of Office. 1t has been the effort of the proSecu-
ton to prove that the defendant has embezzied
| and converted to his own use SlS5, the property
of the State; that said money has never been
| paid into the treasury. It would be Il matter of
but slight concern whether that money was actu-
ally paid into the treasury or paid on behalf of
the State for some useful urpose If, for in
| stance, the money had been paid for ballet pa
per, the worst that could he said OF the transac-
| lion would be that it was diversion of q public
| fund from one account 10 another or the taking
OF SIS dollars out OF one pocket of the State and
putting II INTO the Otnef.
| 1t would neither constitute larceny nor en-
bezzlemeut. The receitts of Mr. Burns Office
| after the dismissal of Mr.. Reynolds were S},67f
for fees 5000 for ballet paper. So7s % for fees
not on the books. SlS5 for California Reports
amounting in all to 81, SIS .. This embraces ali
| the receipts during the time named The
amounts paid out by lIr Burns on behalf of the
State during the same time were as follows
| Amount paid into the treasury, s, ga; amount
paid for ballot paper, evidenced by receipt
| and check which have been introduced here
81 800 making difference OF amounts paid out
over and above amounts received from the LIST
day of August 1881. until the Sth GGy of JanIi-
| airy, 1888, of 1859 %. These facts are proven
| by the evidence of the prosecution, and show
! that instead of embezz,ing money my client
! expended the remnant of his own fortune III
| endeavoring TO meet the deficiencies created by
| his deputy. Let it be understood, therefore,
! that my learned f.iends on the other side are
seriously proposing TO send Mr. Burns to the
/ State Prison because, having received S7,5l3 %
| of the States money, he has been generous
/ enough to pay out SS,594 in her behalf. These
| are the facts Us the evidence establishes them.
THE MOST THAT MAY BE SAID
Concerning the affairs of this office is that Mr..
Burns did not pay the particular amount
! charged into the exact fund into which it ought
| to have been paid under the law. As have
said before, he took it out of one pocket OF the
| State and put it into the other pocket of the
/ Stale, and used his own private fortune make