Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-03-02
STATE PRISON IsvE.r1eAr1os.


The Senate State Prison Committee ard the
Ways and Means Committee of the Assembly re
sumed investigation of San Quentin Prison
| matters last evening In the supreme Court
loom.
Grove L. Johnson and ex-senator Pat Reid,
appeared as counsel Tor Warden McComb Mr.
Reddy stated that the letter published as hay
ing been written by John McComb Jr., anl
which has been published as part OF the so
called letters oil exposition, is forgery; iha
young McComb was present and would testif,
upon the subject, and would satisfy the com
mittee that he was entirely innocent of the mat
ter. After brief consultation it was decided
upon the request of Mr.. Reddy, to hear testi
mony upon the subject and at once dispose o.
this branch of the inquiry.
John McCOmb, Jr.. was sworn and testified
He examined the letter purporting TO have beer
written By him, and said he did not write it,
Prison Director ]. X. Luttrell was sworn anG
testified that he was well acquainted with the
Handwriting of John McComb, Jr, and wa.
positive that the letter was not in his hand
writing.
S P Maslin was sworn and testified that he
was familiar with John Met omb, Jr's writing
and that this letter was not his handwriting
]. o. Riley testified that he was well ac
quainted with young McCombs writing, and
the letter in question he was satisfied was. not
in the handwriting of Comb.
Warden Au /, of the Folsom Prison, testified
that he was well acquainted with John Nc
Comb, Jr.'s handwriting, and the letter pre-
scented was not the writing OF said McComb.
to the effect that it was the sense and belief oil
the committee that the letter was not in Nc
Combs handwriting, nor was it written by him.
The examination of Warden MeComb was
then taken up, and he was questioned concern
ing the handwriting on the tissue page torn
from The letter press copy book kept at San
Quentin, and which page consumed the state
ment OF value of certain improvements made at
San Quentin fsom January l, 1888, 10 June so.
1888 described in the RECORD UNION report yes
terday. This statement made amount of said
improvements SS,S26 The second statement,
watch Is III the press copy-book, makes the
amount s26lSi. The witness was asked as TO
the money paid ont for materials in building q
house enumer rated III the Improvements named,
aud Said he could not give amount of money so
used, but his DO k-Eeeper probably could. 1t
came from State prison fund and general appro-
priation for support OF the prison. The cost was
charged TO general repairs account. In the re-
port OF the State Pr son Directors il will be in
cluded under head vi materials purchased.
All items of expenditures at the prison can be
traced in the prison book of accounts.
The letter of May 18th, when l said W. C.
Hendricks seemed to be in scheme to reinstate
his namesake, was written TO an intimate
friend of both of u.s. and was private. Now that
II is made public IL mortifes me exceedingly
that should have so spoken of Mr.. Hendricks
and ! wish here to make apology for doing So
Anderson referred TO in my letter of April l9,
1883, as waiting for an answer about employ
mem. was employed several months, but go into
uisrepute Us To his private accounts and was let
out.
Mr.. Rig tmeyer, referred to in another letter,
was appointed at the request of some Senator
from San Francisco. The use of the term that
" the work on me roads was what We would
have 10 depend uFon to make a show and gain
reputation was simply an exhortation to
faithful WORK. cannot remember why wrote
thai thought Seriveuer won go afser Us about
the cost of keering pr soners. aac that this was
Charleys idea OF Icing cunning.
Dobus was reappointed to the position of
guard partly on account of circumstances con-
n is rlN.
grounds which | desired to have vacated, and
partly because his reappontpent was asked by
the hal man of the Republican state Central
Committee. had said he was a damned losfer
but l had probably formed my opinion upon
wrong information. Where / remark that
Bill desired me TO take care o. Norhey, and
to let Northey know that he had requested it,
| referred by - Bill to Mr.. higgins. Mr.. Hig-
gins had requested in behalf of people living in
the reighhoihond thst Northey be taken proper
care of Northey is the man who was sent
to State Prison from San Francisco upon con-
yiction tor Jury fxi g.
Where | speak Of ira with Ruddick,
refer to County Clerk Ruddiek Of San Francisco.
He put my younger son into a position in his
office and appointed one of his men to posi-
ZION in my Office.
then / said in a letter that the point was to
get Luttrell to champion the bills for the large
expenses TOR the previous month, and prevent
discussion of them before the reporters, | meant
simply to have them properly explained to Mr..
Luttrell, SO he won understand them without
making inquiry at the meeting.
have the statement of account made out by
WalGron, showing where the SIG 0C0 puzzle
went 20. Witness hands statement to Senator
White who is conducting the examinationl
when was this statement made out?
This week Ii is not copy of anything. 1t
is a segregation or aggregation of the items of
expenditure for the first half OF the year 1888.
never had document of which this is copy,
tina. presented to the Board. 1t is made up
from items in my books My son made out a
table of this account at the time, but it was not
shown to the Board of Directors.
When said in letter that Luttrell "had
Topped" and wanted ten stonecutters, he
wanted transfer of ten prisoners to Folsom
prison. here was pressure TO get fifty men
and we needec the men, and it was finally COM
promised by sending ten men.
When / said We ought to keep the reporters
away from the meetings of the Directors, | had
in mind the matter of sale of liquors within the
two-mile limits of the priso1, and ] thought
that II the reporters were present and wrote il
up showing the Illegal sales near the prison il
would stir mp the District Attorney and make ii
unpleasant as to his derelicti5n OF duty.
/ do net remember why | said that we must
not exasgerate III items of account concerning
cost of materials used in the 5000 house, and
not to make any statements which would
cal for an cverhauling of the books. Also can
not renember why expressed myself that the
account was worrying me and wanted TO avoid
the Coleman disaster.
Why wrote that had been greatly annoyed
by the Devlin letter, cannot remember, but il
was concerning some personal disagreement
between us. did not keep the Deviin letter
and cannot remember its contents.
Being again questioned concerning the state
ment torn from the press copy book and the re-
vised statement OF same whereby raise from
$3.50 to s26,1S was made, witness said this is
simply an inventory of property to be carried as
assets showing the values as / regarded them
1t makes no difference about my books bal
ancing. All expenditures for materials are SC
accounted for. As 10 the differences here pre-
sented between the Two statements of the same
items, simply raised the figures from the first
TO the higher statement because l regarded the
first estimate too low.
After some further time spent in questioning
and explanations upon the subject, the iLvesti-
cation was adjourned until this evening at s