The record-union., 1891-03-21

which would have been excluded in a
court of law. But if the committee erred
in the admission or exclusion of testi-
mony, the error was on the side of mercy
and in favor of the accused.
First-Did any guilty conspiracy exist
| between Elwood Bruner and the Police
| Commissioners of San Francisco?
We are constrained to answer
| this question in the negative. Police
! Commissioners Hammond, Alvord. Tobin
and Crowley of San Francisco were all
examined, and all denied any promise of
| patronage or completely with him. In
| fact, there was no evidence direct or indi-
rect, which in any way connected the
! Police Commissioners of San Francisco
| with Mr.. Bruner in immoral or illegal
! practices with relation to the appoint
ments to the police force.
Second-Did Elwood Bruner have six
or any less number of positions on the
| police force of San Francisco at his dis
| posal?
| To answer this question intelligently
will require brief summary of certain
| evidence. The testimony of Police COM
missioner Crowley, Senator Maher and
| Bruner himself is to the effect that. prior
to the present session of the Legislature,
| Police Commissioner Crowley had bill
prepared, the effect of which would in
crease the police force of San Francisco;
! that j. n. L. Wilson, an attorney of San
/
Maher undertook to introduce the bill in
| the Senate at the request of Police Com
missioner Crowley. Senator Maher, at
| the time he was requested to introduce
| the bill in the Senate, mentioned Bruner's
name to Police Commissioner Crowley,
and Crowley concurred i'll the opinion
| that Bruner would be q proper person to
introduce the bill in the Assembly; in fact,
| Crowley wrote to the Chief of Police of
| Sacramento, who was Interested in the
passage of the bill, stating that Mr. Bru-
ner would introduce the bill in the AS
! sembly. Early in January, Senator
| Maher conversed with Bruner about the
/ bill, and it was understood that Bruner
would introduce the bill in the Assembly.
| On the 18th day of January Bruner did
| introduce the bill in the Assembly, advo-
Gated its passage, and was instrumental
| in passing it. The bill passed the Assem-
| bly, on the I'D day of February. Bruner
had q friend in San Francisco named
| Reed, and Reed had a friend whom he
wished to get on the police force. Reed
! requested Bruner to give him a letter of
recommendation for his friend. Bruner
promised to do what he could for him.
Subsequent TO this, Bruner had a CONVEX
sation with Maher, with regard to Reeds
/ request, and Senator Maher intimated to
Bruner that he (Bruner) would have in
| fluence with the Police Commissioners
| of San Francisco
| Senator Maher testified that he took the
| bill to Bruner and asked him to introduce
| it in the Assembly at the request of Police
! Commissioner Crowley. when he
! thanked Bruner for the interest he had
taken in the bill. Subsequently Bruner
| asked him to help him get man on the
! San Francisco police force. To this Sena-
! tor Maher replied that Bruner would not
need his assistance. thus intimating to
! Bruner that his own influence would be
e-,,4 ia1a 11s.l i
suit.
Police Commissioner Crowley testified
! that the fact that Mr.. Bruner had
! taken an interest in the bill would
| have given weight to his request
| for an appointment on the police
force, and that such request would,
| probably, have been respected. Crowley
also testified that Senator Maher told him
! that Bruner had a friend he would like to
! get on the police force, and Crowley ex-
! pected that Bruner would call and see
| him about it.
We conclude that the testimony with
respect to the preparation, Introduction
and advocacy of the bill, all tends to
show that Bruner had reason to believe,
and did believe, that he could secure at
least one position on the police force of
/ San Francisco. He was not a new hand
in politics. He had been in public life
long enough to know that the successful
!
influence with its friends. The fact that
he had been requested to introduce the
bill; the fact that the bill originated with
the San Francisco Police Commissioners:
the fact that Senator Maher, member OF
the Senate from San Francisco, was the
chief advocate Of the bill in the Legis-
lature and the further fact that Senator
Maher intimated to him that his infiu-
ence would be sufficient with the Com
mlSsioners for an ppointment-these
facts must have been Sufficient to induce
Bruner to believe that he had at least one
position on the San Francisco police force
at his own disposal for suitable person
Third-Was he offering such position
or positions for sale through the medium
OF brokers, or otherwise?
In finding an answer to this question
there must be taken into consideration
several important circumstances. We
have found that he believed that he had
at least one position at his disposal, and
that he had promised it to friend. One
of the most significant circumstances III
connection with this matter is the fact
that after promising to aid his friend, he
suddenly and mysteriously abandoned
any effort in that direction. With the
power to aid his friend, and having prom
ised him that aid, why did he not en-
deavor to secure the position for that
friend? There is no answer to this ques-
ton, except the plain inference that the
project OF Belau and the Jones brothers
came between Bruner and that promise
to his friend. There is question when
the intent was formed in Burners mind
to sell position on the police force OF
San Francisco. But it is immaterial
when that purpose was formed. The
plain and unmiStakable inference to be
drawn from the testimony is that the in
tent was formed. Bruner testified that
the first time Belau intimated to him that
there was money in sale of the position
was on Monday, March ID, the day before
the Stoley letter of recommendation was
written, but it is undisputed that on the
I'D of February Bruner met Belau at the
Grand Hotel, in San Francisco, and had
a conversation with him about appoint
ments to the San Francisco police force.
At that time the police bill had
been signed by the Governor
The bill was approved by the Governor
on the 24th day of February, the day after
! Belau had his first conversation on the
subject with Bruner. The fact was in
evidence that Bruner, in that first con-
versation with Belau, informed Belau
that he would see about the matter: and
actually did use language indicating that
/ Belau's request for the position might be
complied with. He did not, as might
have been expected, inform Belau at that
interview that he had promised to a
friend the only position in his power to
give, and that he could not under any
circumstances comply with Belau's re-
quest. 1t must not be forgotten that
q letter to Bruner was written by his
friend Reed ON January 9th, nearly a
month before the interview with Belau,
asking for Burners aid in appointing a
man on the police force of San Francisco
This letter reads as follows:
HALL. OF RECORDS
| SAN FRANCISCO, January p. 1891
Friend Brtner: | ineloSe you q card OF Mr.
Barnes, whose ambition is to become a police
man. He would be credit TO the force for be