The record-union., 1891-03-21
ADVERSE TO BRUNER.
A Majority of the Committee Will
Report Against Him.
The Testimony Reviewed at Length
and Closely Analyzed-The ssEXam-
fner'' Roundly Scored Its Charges
Against the Committee.

fOllOW1rg is the report prepared by the
majority of the committee appointed by
the Assembly to investigate the charges
against Assemblyman Bruner. 1t was
presented to the Assembly yesterday
afternoon by Chairman Bledsoe, but the
Assembly refused to receive it until to-
day, when it was announced the minority
report would be presented. This re-
markable proceeding put Mr.. Bledsoe in
an embarrassing position. He had, in
accordance with well-established GUS
tom, allowed the reporters of the morn
ing papers to make copies of the report,
on the understanding that they would
not use it until it was presented.
Mr.. Bledsoe did present the report, and
the reporters were thereby absolved from
any further obligations in the matter
That the Assembly would refuse to re-
celye IL could not have been foreSeen, and
the findings of the committee had been
telegraphed throughout the State before
the Assembly refused to receive the re-
port. Each of the San Francisco evening
papers contained a synopsis of the re-
port, with the findings of the committee,
and the matter having thus been made
public, we herewith present the report in
full:
ASSEMBLY CHAMBER, March 20, 1891.
Mr.. Speaker: The Assembly Committee
on investigation, appointed by you on
the 9th day of March, 1891, to investigate
certain charges of official corruption made
against ASsemblyman Elwood Bruner by
the San Francisco Examiner, has COM
pleted its laborS, and herewith presents
its report:
The committee realizes the very great
importance of the duty which has de-
volved upon it.
Tho
CATION on the evening of the 9TH day of
March, and was in session on the six sue
ceeding nights, besides holding several
day sessions. A large number of wit
nesses were examined, and each member
of the committee listened to the testimony
with close and careful attention. We are
aware of the fact, however that the San
Francisco EcGnlj1leT severely criticised
the committee and persistently condemn
ed its actions, and we desire to assert as
our unqualified opinion that the course
pursued towards this committee by the
ErdDli1ler cannot be commended by any
fair and honest man. In the very begin
ming of the investigation the Examiner
accused this committee of an intention to
whitewash Eiwood Bruner, and day after
day it abused and villified the members
of the committee without reason and with
out excuse. 1t was apparent that the pur-
pose of the ETGnli1ter was to bully and in
timidate the committee into giving q ver-
dict against Mr.. Bruner. But we wish to
say that the purpose was not accomplished
with us. The conclusions to which we
have come in this case are the result of
careful dehberatiOn, close scrutiny of the
testimony, and a purpose to do our whole
duty to the best of our ability, without
favor and without fear. The accusation
against Mr.. Bruner was made by the Err
dHljner on the 5th day of March, 1891, and
was substantially as follows:
hot Il
Sacramento introduced and was infiuen-
al in passing bill to increase the police
II rec of San Francisco; that in return fo1
10 efforts he was promised six positions
h. the San Francisco police force; that he
on empted to sell these positions for S40(
attch, through brokers named Belau
eaaniel Jones and Louis Jones; that re-
d rter for the San Francisco Examiner
p med lStlwell, heard of the traffic, met
n " brokers, and was taken to Bruner
thoot Bruner sold to the said reporter q
tn ition on the police force Of San Fran
pos o for the sum of S400, receiving in
else ment for the same certificate of de-
payit on San Francisco bank; that the
posorter represented to Bruner and the
repkers that the position was purchased
bro Thomas Stoley, who was in fact q
for thical person, and that Bruner gave
my reporter letter of recommendation
thethe Police Commissioners of San Fran
to C o, indorsing the said Stoley and re-
else sting his appointment to the said
gu lice force. To the above accusation
poruner made defense, substantially as
Bellows:
mental in passing a bill giving cities OF
over fifteen thousand inhabitants the
right to increase their police force upon q
certain ratio; that the only object he had
in introducing the bill was that it would
allow the Sacramento police force to be
ircraa cod +hot
tions on the San Francisco police force
were promised him as a reward for his
services in passing the bill; that he never
was offered any inducement of any kind
by any man in reference to said police
force bill; that he believed that there was
q conspiracy on foot, headed by one Andy
Lawrence, against himself and against
the Republican party, to bring into ill
repute the actions of the California AS
Sembly; that in pursuance of this belief
he conceived a plan, and successfully car
'ried ii out, to entrap the conspirators and
bring them to open shame; that in pur-
suance of this plan he did give a letter of
recommendation, asking for a position on
the police for one Stoley, and received
therefor certificate of deposit for four
hundred dollars; that he was acting in
good faith upon the knowledge that Andy
Lawrence was q blacEmailer. and was at
tempting to blackmail him upon the floor
of the Assembly; and that his only OBJ
Ject was TO entrap those who were trying
10 entrap him.
In order to arrive at the truth we have
endeavored to find an answer to the salts
faction of reason and of conscience for
such questions as appeared to be material
to just determination of the inquiry
The questions are:
First-Did any guilty conspiracy exist
between Elwood Bruner and the Police
Commissioners of San Francisco?
Il In har- cfx- -
number OF positions on the police force OF
San Francisco at his disposal?
Third-Was he Offering such positions
for sale through the medium of brokers OF
otherwise?
Fourth-Did he give the recommends
ton of Stoley and receive the 500 there
for as part of a plan to entrap and expose
bad men, or did he do it with the inten-
ton of selling position on the.police
force of San Francisco?
We shall endeavor TO answer these ma
terlal questions in the order above given,
baslng our opinions on the testimony.
and giving our reasons for the conclusions
arrived at. Before doing so, however
We wish to say that many considerations
of mercy have strongly pleaded for an
answer upon all of these questions in
favor of the accused. His youth and his
brilliant attainments; the commanding
position occupied by him in the Legisla-
ture of the State; the knowledge that a
decision against him would bring sorrow
and shame to his innocent wife and
chlldren-these things had their weight
with the committee and urged them TO be
@ AAs9 nNO