The morning call., 1890-10-31

ing: we do not want your service for
nothing. We are willing to agree to pay for
it, if you will assist us to have this matter
brought up. We will pay you $500. and to
which. says Buckley, they did, and L
agreed to assist them and do what could In
the matter.
"The fact is then fairly established that
on Saturday, the day the te!egraphlc dis
patch from the then Clerk of the court was
delivered at Buckeyes place Of business. a
secret interview took place at the room and
place testified and that the result OF the III
terview was the execution and delivery TO
Buckley of q note for $500 for personal or
political services to be rendered by him IN
the cases. So far, not the slightest conflict
exists in the testimony. The three men
agree that night conference was held; that
a corrupt arrangement was made for secur-
ing Buckley'S services for some purpose III
connection with the cases. But Buckley
teStifieS that the statements of Bonnet as to
the services to be rendered are wholly false,
and so Taylor testifes.
A CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE COURT.
"Both tell the same story, namely. that
the note was given to secure the personal
services of Buckley for the purpose OF in
fiuencing members of the Board OF Super
viSoIs to pay the claim. Is that true?
81 find the story improbable, because
there is one thing beyond controversy, and
that is, that Buckley and Tay Tor on Satur.
day knew or did not know of the decision of
the cases. If they did not know, then they
did know OF had every reason 10 believe
that the cases were still pending ana unde-
terEined, and that the claims involved IN
them were not coIlectable from the city or
enforceable against it. Bonnet did not know
thai the cases were decided. That is mani
fest from the circumstance that the fact of
filing the opinions in the eases on Saturday
was not publicly announced until the follow
ing Monday, when it was published for the
first time in the San Francisco Evening Bull
letin. Being alike ignorant that any de-
ciSons had been rendered in the eases, 1t
follows that none OF these parties could have
been actuated by any motive to meet to-
gether to make corrupt arrangement Tor
the collection of claims which the city was
cOnfessing in the courts and there was no
reason why either Bonnet or Taylor should
attempt to bring PERSONAL or political lniu-
ences to bear upon members OF the Beard
of Supervisors TO ray claims upon which
they could not then act.
''On the other hand. if Buckley and Tay-
lor knew that the cases were decided, then
they used their knowledge as veil TO cover
the pretenSe held out TO Bonnet that Buck
ley could get decision of the court in his
favor (right away, and in either case l
think the truth Of B0nnetS testimony as to
what transpired at the private interview on
Saturday night is substantially true-pr0Yed
not OUly by ia the CHCuHlStduCco VI tlG III
teryiew itself, but by the subsequent con-
duet of the parties to it.
Taylor admits that upon a division OF
the spoil among the persons who had be-
come, one way and another, interested in
the cases. he applied $3.50 of Bonnets por-
ton 10 the payment OF The note, and that ne
himself refused 10 pay any part OF II. And,
although Buckley testliieS, L was to receive
$500 to aid these gentlemen in Bringing
these matters up before the Board OF Super
yisors-that is my understanding of It,, yet
he virtually admits no such understanding,
express or implied, existed at the interview
by expressing that he neither took action
nor thought of acting upon such an under
standing.
BUCKLEY AND THE SUPERVISORS.
On his examination on that subject, he
answered as follows:
".Q.-You were to go to them-the MEM
bers of the Board OF SupervlSors-prlvately
Al presume SO.
"'Q-To speak to each member?
Z" Al should judge so.
"Q.-And ask them to pay these ciaimse
A.-No, sir; to ask them to bring bills
up and act upon them.
Odd you make any request Of any
SuperviS +?
"'Q.-Did you go before any committee
OF the board or to any member on this sub
ject?
Al did not.
"Q,-Did you go to the board in ses-
sion?
A.-No, sir.
"'Q.-Did you go to any member of the
board?
A.-No, sir.
"'Q.-What did you do for this $500?
So A.-Nothing.'
"From the conduct and acts of the men,
/ therefore deduced the fact that the note
was not given to pay Buckley for Influence
ing the members Of the Board of Supervi-
SCR, but that it was given for the purpose
testified to by Bonnet.
- | do not overlook the fact that Bon let is
an accomplice to corrupt transactIon and
that his testimony Is tainted, and needs
Confederation, but l find it corroborated, not
by words. but by the acts and deeds of
Buckley and Taylor as they themselves
have testified to.
The question then remains: Is one who
falsely holds himself out as court-broKer
to a Suitnr to cause pending in the court,
and agrees, for large sum of money, TO
procure for him a favorable decision in the
cause, by his professed personal or political
influence with the members of the court,
guilty of contempt of court?
=" / think it needs neither argument nor
authority to show that such an act is a con-
tempt of court The thing is evil, immoral,
invalid and criminal; any contract founded
upon such a transaction would he Illegal and
void, and uncomfortable in the courts and
under the code law of this State il is. in it
self. and independent of any attempt at
fulhllment, contempt of court. The law
declares: Any interference with the
proceedings of court is a contempt OF
court Code Civ Proc, Subd. 9, Sec. 12G)."
SUSPICIOUS MONEY TRANSACTIONS.
Mr. Justice Ross, who is now United
States District Judge, expressed the follow
ing opinion, in which Hon. E. w. MrKlus-
Try, then Il member OF the Supreme Court,
concurred (see page 22l.
81 must therefore find that both Buckley
and Taylor knew of the derlslOn OF this
court in the cases of Bonnet and Parker at
the time of the interview between Taylor,
Bonnet and Buckley, about O'Clock in the
evening of tbe 10th of May. knowledge
of that fact on the part of Buckley and
Taylor, and ignorance OF 1t on the part of
Bonnet, is consistent with the statement OF
bonnet as to what the agreement between
the parties really was, while ii is incon-
sstent with Buckley's and Taylor's state
ment OF it. Then again, the acceptance of
Bonnet's yromssory note by Buckley is
consistent with Buckley's and Taylor's
knowledge OF the decision, for Taylor held
an assignment of Boomers interest in the
actions to secure the payment OF certain adj
vanees he had made him. In case of the
affirmance of the Judgment in the cases of
Bonnet and Parker. Bonnet would have
money and the tote would be good. But
except his interest in these actions, the tes-
,imony shows Bonnet to have been wholly
impecunlOus-so much so, indeed. that about
the time of the transaction iu question he
borrowed $50 of Taylor, Tor which he
gave him his (Bonnvts) note for $50,
and which was subsequently, and within
short time. paid out of the amounts col
lected upon the Judgments in the actions
of Bonnet and Parker. and for the sum OF
S45 borrowed of one Long tine same John
II. Long who is now Secretary OF Buck
lry's uunty Committed he executed to
the latter mis- prrli iSSory note for $500,
which was also paid CUT of the proceeds of
the same judgments. Still another consid-
Grafton points to the same conclusion. and
it is this: Buckley testified that shortly
after Bonnet gave him the $3.50 note lie
Buckley left California for the East, but
before doing so lie turned the note over to
his friend. NJ J. Kelly. who he said could
do as much with The Supervisors rs himself.
But 1t is not pretended that either Buckley
or Kelly ever did or attempted to do any
thing in the matter before the Board OF
Supervisors, but il does appear that after the
m oney had been collected from the city,
upon the settlement between Taylor and
Bonnet Taylor deducted from B0nnet's
portion $3.50. which he paid to Kelly ON the