Los Angeles herald., 1891-03-25
BRUNER KALSOMINED
A Republican Boodler's Mis-
deeds COndOned.
A Little Censure Mixed With
Much Whitewash.
The Minority Report Swallowed
With Eyes Shut.
The Waste Basket Commtttee's Investi-
cation Also Amounts to Nothing.
Sacramento Notes.
Associstsd Press Dispatches.

Sacramento Notes.
Associated Press Dispatches.
SACRAMENTO, March 24.-The minor
ity report of the committee investi-
eating the charges against Assembly
man Bruner, was presented to the
assembly this morning and was adopted
by vote Of 40 to 81. The Democrat,
voted against it. The only FIVE Repub-
licans who opposed it were Bledsoe,
Baughman, Freeman, Gordon and Hum
ewell.
Nothing has been done with the ma
jority report. It was not even read, so
the report OF the minority stands as the
report Of the house. The committee
says:
1.-THE majority report treats quite
fully of the accusations and evidence,
therefore we do not deem it necessary to
enter into detailed statement of either.
We fully agree with the majority report
that in the introduction. advocacy
and passage of the bill, Mr..
Bruner was actuated by no
other motive than to promote the pub
lie welfare; therefore, the charge of ac-
cepting bribe does not lie against him.
It is in the evidence that Mr.. Bruner
admitted to his brother, when they were
in the library Office, that the certificate
was, as he supposed, part OF a scheme
to entrap him; also, that he told his
brother on the day following that he
had received some money in connection
with the affair, of the Examiner or its
reporters. The evasive answer given to
the reporters by Mr.. Bruner might be
explained from the fact that he was not
fully aware of the method of attack
which had been made upon him, or was
uncertain how he would meet it.
1--WE find from the evidence that Mr..
Brnner suspected that the certificate OF
deposit was probably portion Of the
Examiners plan to ensnare him, and
that he was keeping his own counsel
with regard to the matter, and awaiting
results, as In the contest between him
self and that paper, there is considers
BILE evidence that goes to prove that
Mr.. Bruner's purpose was to get even
with the Examiner in its efforts to en-
trap him. The fact that he had learned
but few days before that there was
something brewing in the newspaper
cauldron, with regard to police appoint
ments in San Francisco, and that he
had spoken to his brother and Judge
Armstrong with regard to the matter;
the fact that the transactions in the
library were carried on without
any particular effort at conceal
ment; the. fact that Mr.. Bruner
- a. ksrv~ oosn %hok
he considered the certificate of deposit
to have been given him in connection
with the Examiners scheme about
which they had discoursed on previ-
ous occasion; the fact that he must
have known that bank certificate
could be easily traced to him in case
there was snare laid to entrap him;
the fact that he deposited the balance
of $3.50 with State Printer Johnston,
instead OF putting it in his own pocket,
and told him that he would explain the
circumstances later, when he we'll knew
Johnston might have had his suspicious
aroused by what occurred in the library
Office the previous evening, and the
further fact that he is q man of more
than ordinary intelligence and sagacity,
all conspire to render it doubtful that
the real purpose in Mr.. Bruner's mind
was to appropriate the money to his
own use.
1--WE also find that in the event that
the certificate should prove to be good
and given in good faith. that Mr.. Bruner
might have kept the $3.50 or have re-
turned it to the man who obtained it
from the bank at his option. We do
not think that Mr.. Leake was liable to
lose $40O, even if Mr.. Bruner's theory OF
the certificate being forgery was cor
rect. Adopting Mr.. Bruner's theory,
we would hardly expect that he would
sacrifice the $3.50 that he gave Belan,
unless he thought he could prove against
the Examiner case of conspiracy. In
such event it is probable that Mr..
Leake would have no ground of offence.
"We do not think it strange that Mr..
Bruner did not proclaim the whole
matter to the assembly at once, if he
were innocent of intent. to appropriate
the money to his own use. Had he
done go, how could the transaction have
been traced to the Examiner? Mr.. Still
we'll testified that he went under an
assumed name, and affixed his assumed
name to the certificate of deposit when
he endorsed 1t, and in every way tried
to conceal his identity and connection
with the Examiner. Had the matter
been heralded to the world by Mr..
Bruner on the Wednesday following
the evening Of the transaction, it is
probable that tile Examiner would
never have been known in connection
with the affair, unless ferreted out by
sklllful detectives; and had the Elk.
aminer been aware that the certificate
had been through Mr.. Leake's
hands, without being endorsed by
Mr. Bruner, and that the $3.50
had been deposited with Mr.. Johnston
it is likewise probable that the Exam
iner would have hesitated to make ths
publication it did with regard to tht
matter.
Considering all the evidence in th'
case, we cannot but entertain reason
able doubt as to the charge that Mr.
Bruner intended to appropriate tn
money to his own use. Such being tn
case, we desire to give the accused th'
benefit OF the doubt, but in doing 60 W!
would charge him with culpable negli
gence in failing to conhde the who'll
matter TO some Of his many friends il
the assembly. Furthermore, be is de
A serving Of the censure Of this asoemb
Ii not having secured himsel4 ond "a