Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-03-13
AFTERNOON SESSION.

General Hart took the printed report of
the State Controller on the accounts of ID.
NJ. Burns, and read the amounts that had
been paid in by !. ". Shanklin, Surveyor
General, in his monthly settlements, cover
ing the time Reynolds kept the cash and
Textbooks. Witness was asked to look on
the books, and ascertain whether or not
there had been 4 record made of them, and
whether the money had been accounted for
to the State. He could not find the entries.
admitted that he kept both books, but
." had no idea why the omissions were
made.
Qucstion-Is it possible that you could
make so many errors month after month ?
WitnesS-lt don't seem possible
Question-lS it not rue that the only two
amounts for land fees paid i'll during the
three years that You were in the office that
are reported by you, were two payments
made to Mr.. Burns personally and for that
reason were accounted for?
Witness-i have no recollection of ever
receiving any sum from Mr. Shanklin
When | left the Office left the tags put in
the safe by II. NJ. Burns to the amount of
over $4,000. | kept an account of the tags
in the original cash book. They 90 not
appear in the new cash book, because was
directed not to put them in.
Qucstion-Did you knowingly make Il
false transcript of the cash book of the
office of Secretary Of State?
Witness-l did not understand il was To
be used as a cash book for the office.
wanted Mr. Buns to take up the tags He
came 10 me and said he was in position
to do so, and at his request [ made this
cash book. After the book had been made
month. he showing no disposition to
make settlement, l, by the advice of
friends left the Office. lie was to fill in the
amounts that had been omitted as fast as
he could. and finally the whole amount
would have been accounted for. Burns
evidently did not want to leave the orig
inal cash book in the office, when his name
for tags appeared so frequently, so he
checked through the cash book. marking
the items he wanted transcribed into the
new book. Witness detailed at length the
instructions given him by Mr.. Burns con-
corning the making of the new book. If
the amount he checked off for any month
was in excess of the amount paid into the
State Treasury, the balance was carried
over to the next month.
Questionable You have under your en-
plov H D. Gamble during the time that
Mr. Burns was in Honolulu, and did you
at that time know that Mr.. Gamble was
able to forge the name of Mr. Burns ?
This was objected to by the attorneys for
the prosecution upon the ground that it
was irrelevant and immaterial
Mr.. Hart-Wc think the testimony is
very material and important. The question
involved in this case, and in all the Burns
and Reynolds cases, is Which of the two
parties is responsible for the alleged detal-
cations Mr. REYNOLDS in this case assumes
the attitude of the most important witness
for the prosecution, and we expect to prove,
if permitted by this Court, that at the time
of the alleged statement by Mr.. Reynolds
that he had these tags, it was under
stood that Mr.. Burns was in Honolulu,
and beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts
of this State. All that time he had in his
employ Mr. Gamble. whose ability to forge
the name of Mr.. Burns was notorious in
! the Office during the whole of the admins
tration of Burns and Reynolds; that Rey-
nolds went to Gamble and asked him IL
subscribe to an affidavit to be used III these
| cases, which both knew to be untrue, and
which Mr.. Gamble indignantly refused to
sign that this transaction was followed by
a cessation of business connection between
Gamble and Reynolds, but that the fact
stands out while Reynolds was making the
assertion that he had these tags in his pos
! session he knew of the absence OF Mr.