The record-union., 1891-03-21

San Francisco. Stillwell and Jones met
DICK Belau at the depot or on the cars,
and the three went together to the State
Capitol. What transpired at the Capitol
was related by Stillwell in clear and
connected manner and it was plain that
he was endeavoring to testify to nothing
but the truth. The testimony shows that
StlllWell and Belau met Bruner in one of
the alcoves of the State Library; that
Bruner there wrote and delivered to Still
well the following letter, taking the
name, age and occupation of the person
! to be recommended from a memorandum
prepared by Belau:
SACRAMENTO, Feby, 5, 1891.
To the Police Commissioners Of San Fra7l-
cfSco-DEAR SIRS: / very much desire that
YOU would appoint Mr.. Thomas Stoley upon
the police force of your city. He is man of
good habits, a thorough Republican, and am
satisfied would give entire satisfaction. Very
respectfully, ELwooD BRUSER.
The letter was inclosed in an envelope
which was addressed as follows:
Hon. Police Commissioners,
Old City Han,
San Francisco.
The letter was dated February instead
of March, by mistake. When Bruner
had finished the above letter he received
| rom Stillwell q certificate of deposit ON
the Croker Woolworth Bank of San
Francisco for the sum OF 800. He i'm
mediately gave to Belau the sum of $40.
Then he walked into the private office of
| the library, borrowed $50 from Assistant
| Librarian Leake, turned over to Leake
! the said certificate of deposit as security.
went back out into the library and handed
! Belau $50 more. The total sum given by
Bruner TO Belau was $50. While in the
| private office of the library Bruner asked
! Leake to have the certificate of deposit
J cashed for him on the following morning.
| On Wednesday morning, March 4th,
! Leake sent the certificate of deposit to the
! California State Bank of Sacramento, and
! it was cashed by that bank. Subsequently
! the certificate was sent to San Francisco
for collection, and was refused payment
! by the bank from which it issued. The
certificate was not indorsed by Bruner,
and was indorsed by Assistant Librarian
! Leake. And now we come to q further
consideration of the defense made by
Bruner, that in giving the letter of recon-
mendation and receiving the S400 he was
acting in good faith, with the object of'ex-
posing wicked conspirators and bringing
them to punishment. He testified that
the memorandum from which he wrote
the letter of recommendation was not in
SillwelPs handwriting, therefore a for
gerry must have been committed; he
wanted to entrap the forger; and he
had the certificate of deposit cashed
in order that the forger might be
caught by following the certificate,
| 1ct IL StppSdIS ludG ASSlSLdDU LlDrarlan
Leake was his personal friend of long
standing, and Leake was allowed to run
the risk of losing S400 without caution or
warning. And it further appears that
Bruner paid so ofhis own money to Belau
The committee has been unable to recon-
cile Bruner's theory of forgery with
any theory of innocent intention
on his part. A man of his ability
and legal training would have thought of
many probable events which would pre-
vent the tracing and recovery of the
certificate. The chances that it might be
paid without protest, or lost, or destroyed,
or in many other ways put out of hope of
recovery and use as evidence, would have
! been impressed upon a mind like
Burners with indelible distinctness.
Bruner testified that there were in
the private office of the library, when
he went in to borrow the money of Leake,
State Printer A. J. Johnston, his brother
Alvin Bruner, Assistant Librarian Leake
and William Govan; and that he walked
hurriedly into the room, in an ex-
cited condition. with the certificate
of deposit in his hand, ex-
claiming as he closed the door behind
him, II have got the SIS of b-s."
But this testimony of Bruner, as showing
an intention of exposing conspirators, is
not fully corroborated by the gentlemen
! who were in the room. Mr.. Leake testi-
| fled that Mr.. Bruner seemed to be juhi-
| liant, but he considered the cause to be
! Burners success only a short time before
in defeating in the Assembly bill in
| which he ueake) was interested. Nei-
ther State Printer Johnston nor William
! Govan noticed anything in Bruner's
! manner to excite comment or curiosity.
1t is a remarkable fact that the exclama-
ton was made in q room not more than
twenty by fifteen feet in size, and yet not
one OF the witnesses Gncluding Alvin
Bruner) heard it distinctly enough to re-
member the exact language used. Not
one of the gentlemen present was curious
| enough to ask question, notwithstand-
! ing they were all Bruner's personal
! friends, and one OF them his brother. 1t
! is only charitable to pass this circum
! stance by without further comment, than
1 to express the opinion that whatever
elation Bruner felt was due to some re-
| cent act of his ON the floor of
the Assembly, and whatever exclamation
he made was uttered with relation to that
| act. Another most remarkable fact, the
/ fact most material to the proper decision
of this case, is that Bruner did not con-
| fide in a human soul from the time he re-
ceived the certificate of deposit UP to
| the time when he made his statement on
the floor Of the Assembly. On Tuesday
night, Immediately after receiving the
/ certificate, he was in the presence of warm
personal friends-his brother, Alvin
! Bruner, State Printer Johnston, Govan
and Leake. They were men who had
| known and had been intimate with
| Bruner for years. To no one of them did
| he conffde a single word or thought with
| relation to the matter. He was a member
of a legislative body, whose presiding
officer was known to command respect
and confidence. In him he did not con-
! fide. On the very night of the transac-
! ton, after he had, as he claims, entrapped
the conspirators who had been trying to
entrap him, he sat in his seat on the floor
| of the Assembly, and yet did not rise
| in his place and triumphantly proclaim
| the victory he had achieved, and ask the
Legislature and the people of the State to
sustain him.
| It is true that Judge Armstrong and
Alvin Bruner testified that he intimated
to them that the Examiner, or the Exam
/ ifer reporters, had eonspired to entrap
him. But that was before the transaction
] in the library. After it he did not con-
! fide in them, nor is it true that he con-
fided anything whatever of the matter to
State Printer Johnston, although it is con-
ceded that he did deposit the sum of 500
IN Johnston's safe. We repeat, Bruner
did not confide in a human soul from the
time he received the certificate of deposit
! up to the time when he made his state
ment ON the floor of the Assembly.
Is 1t natural or reasonable to conclude
that man who was trying to entrap his
enemies would have acted in this man
| ner? Would he not have arranged for