The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-07-22
THE Taylor CASE.

The Faylor case, which is now pending
before Judge Wallace, is in one respect
novelty. Investigations OF charges OF cor
ruption in legislative bodies usually take
place before committees which are not nee
essarily bound by the rules Of evidence, and
which are generally governed, TO some ex-
tent at all events. by partisan spirit. The
two most famous cases of modern times, the
inquiry into the Pacific Mail subsidy and
the investigation of the Credit Mobilier,
were conducted by committees of Congress.
and it was evident that some members OF
the committees were more concerned to sup
press than to elicit the truth. 1t rarely
happens that charges of corruption are got
before court. 1t is so obviously some
body's interest to stifie scandal that contro-
verses growing out of the alleged use OF
money to Influence legislation are generally
settled out of court.
In this case, it seems, Mr.. Taylor was not
settled with. He says that he was the agent
or copartner of certain members OF the State
Senate who agreed to use their positions to
make money out of persons who were or
might be affected by legislation at Sacra-
mento, that he performed his share OF the
work. that money was made by the copart-
nership, but that in the final settlement be-
tween Hiul anu MS pdituciS d otftauSS vi
$1,000 remained due to him which his part
ners refuse 10 pay To recover that sum he
now sues them in the Superior Court.
1t is remarkable that Taylor should have
brought suit in which he can hardly hope
to succeed unless some of the defendants
confess that they committed felony. Men
do not admit themselves 10 be feIous, even
when they are. If the defendants meet the
plaintiffs allegations with persistent deniais
it is hard to see where evidence is to come
from TO con vict them.
On the other hand, II may be said that the
nine Senators may have believed To the last
moment that Taylor wouid not dare to bring
the suit There may. however, be evidence
OF which the public knows nothing TO sus-
tain conviciion without direct admissions
by the defendants. People who engage in
acts which are unlawful often neglect to
cover their tracks at every point 1t Is next
TO an impOssibiliy 20 hide every trace OF
transactions in which money passes.
Enough has been ELECTED already to show
that under Faylor's smoke there is fire.
Frank Freeman, who is described as q sales
man, but whose real business appears to be
that of a lobbyist states that he paid
$40. 900 to a Sacramento banker named Ger
Der. He evaded stating why he paid the
money, or to whom it was to be distributed.
But it is evident that lie did not pay it for
nothing, and that it was not an ordinary
deposit to be checked against at need. Peo-
pie will draw their own co ncusions as TO
the object OF the payment, and its ultimate
destination.
Again, one Henry Schwartz, who describes
| himself as book-maker, and went .;J Sac
ramento to see about the ;;ool bill. swears
that he paid $500 20 Dan Burns for use in
| behalf of the h5ok-makers. Burns is not
| one of tho defendants in this case, and to
connect them with this payment Faylor's
| attorney will have to show that Burns
| acted as their agent. But assuming that
! Schwartz told the truth, hero is presumptive
evidence that money was used, in one case
at all events, TO influence legislation cor
ruptly. Burns could make no law against
booksellers. That is the province of the
Legislature. 1t may, therefore, be fairly
inferred that money paid to secure or defeat
a bill affecting pool-selling, no matter to
whom it was paid, was intended for the
persons who could assist the passage or the
| defeat of the bill.
The public have no sort of doubt of the
facts in the case. Their minds were long
| ago made up that money was used at the
| last session of the Legislature to influence
| legislation, and those who are obseryant
| can guess who got 1t. But it remains to be
seen whether Mr.. Clunie has evidence in
reserve to make his. charges stick.