The record-union., 1891-03-25

NC Iudjoflty report treats quite Iuliy
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 actu-
ated by no other motive than to promote
the public welfare, therefore the charge of
accepting bribe does not lie against
him.
1t is in evidence that Mr.. Bruner ad-
mltted to his brother, when they were in
the library office, that the certificate was,
as he supposed, a part of the scheme to
entrap him; also, that he told his brother
on the day following that he had re-
celved some money in connection with
Inc aHalr with the Examiner, or its re-
porters.
The eyasive answers given to reporters
Dy Mr.. Bruner might be explained from
the fact that he was not fully aware of the
method ofattack which had been made
upon hlm, or was uncertain as to how he
would meet it.
We find from the evidence that Mr..
Bruner suspected that the certificate of
deposit was probably a portion of the
f%rdDiane7' plan to ensnare him, and that
ne was Keeping his counsel with regard
10 the matter and awaiting results as in a
contest between himself and that paper.
There is considerable evidence that goes
to prove that Mr.. Burners purpose was
to get even with the Examiner in its
efforts to entrap him.
The fact that he had been warned but a
few days before that there was something
brewing IN the newspaper cauldron with
regard to police appointments in San
francisco; the fact 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
=
cealment; the fact that Mr.. Bruner told
his brother on two occasions that he con-
s1dered the certificate of deposit TO have
been given him in connection with the
Examiner scheme, about which they had
conVersed on previous OCCASION; the
fact that he must have known that the
bank certificate could be easily traced
to him in case there was a
snare laid to entrap him; the
fact that he deposited the balance, $3.50,
with State Printer Johnston, instead of
putting it in his own pocket, and told
him that he would explain the circum-
stances later, when he well knew that
Johnston might have had his suspicious
aroused by what occurred at the library
the previous evening, and the further
fact that he is man OF more than ordi-
nary intelligence and Sagacity, all con-
splre to render it doubtful that the real
purpose in Mr.. Burners mind was to ap-
propriate the money to his own use
We also find that in the event that the
given in good faith, that Mr.. Bruner
might have kept the $3.50 or have returned
it to the man who obtained it from the
bank. at his option.
We do not think that MIR. Leake was
liable to lose S400, even if Mr.. Burners
theory OF the certificate being forgery
was correct.
AGpntipu Mr. prpnar,s 4l,oo,,xx
would hardly expect that he would sacri-
flce the $3.50 that he gave Belau unless he
thought that he could prove against the
ErdDliner a case of conspiracy. In such
an event it is probable that Mr.. Leake
would have no ground of offense.
We do not think it strange that Mr..
Bruner did not proclaim the whole mat
ter to the Assembly at once if he were in
nocent of the intent to appropriate the
money to his own use.
Had ne done so how could the transac-
ton have been traced to the Examiner.
Mr.. Stillwell testified that he went un-
der an assumed name, and affixed an
assumed name to the certificate of deposit
when he indorSed it, and in every way
tried to conceal his identity and connec-
ton with the E.rGD,iaaer. Had the matter
been published to the world by Mr..
Bruner on the Wednesday following the
evening of the transaction, it is probable
that the ETa1alne3 would never have
been known in connection with the affair
unless ferreted out by skilled detectives,
and had the E.r0D3i3tef' been aware that the
certificate had been through Mr.. Leake's
hands without being indorsed by Mr..
Bruner and that the $3.50 had been de-
posted with Mr.. johnson, it is likewise
probable that the Examiner would have
hesitated to make the publication that it
did with regard to the matter.
Considering all the evidence in the
case, we cannot but entertain reasonable
and abiding doubt as to the charge that
Mr.. Bruner intended to appropriate the
money to his own use. Such being the
case, we desire to give the accused the
benefit of the doubt.
But in doing so we would charge him
with culpable negligence in failing to con-
hde the whole matter to some of his
many friends in the Assembly. Further
more he is deserving of the censure of
this Assembly in not having secured
himself, and the body of which he is a
member, against the scandal which has
been spread broadcast over this State.
Respectfully submitted.
j. G. MCCALL,
T. III. BARNARD,
w. II. GALBRATTH.
1t was moved by Mr.. Brusie that the
report be adopted.
Mr. Bledsoe said he cared not now what
the House did; he would leave the YER
dict to the people.
The minority report was adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes-Alexander, Barnard, Barnett of
SanFrancisco, Barnett ofSonoma, Beecher,
Brown, Brusie, Bryant, Cargill, Clark,
Culver, Cunningham, Daily, Dennis, Dib-
BILE, Dow, Burner, Estey, Galbraith.
Glynn, Hawley, Hayes, Hooking, Hoey,
Johnson, Jones, Lewis, Lowe, Lux,
Lynch, Marion, Matlock, Mccall, Muir
ply, Phillips, Smith of Butte, Steltz,
Sturtevant, Tennis, Weston, Young-4l.
Noes--Arms, Baughman, Bledsoe,
Dunn, Freeman, Carver, Gordon, Gould,
Hunewill, Jackson, Kellogg, Martin,
Mathews. Mordecai, Murnan, Renfro,
Rice, Robertson, Shanahan, Smith of
Orange, Stabler-21.
tention to the reading of the report and
asked that it be read again. Objected to
and Mr.. Lacey did not vote.
Excused from voting at their own re-
quest|Speaker Coombs and Mr.. Doty.
Present but not voting-Bert, Hail,
Harloe and Lacey.
Others not voting-Ames, Bruner,
Carter, Coffey, Cram, Eal1le, Fowler, Her
sey, Tully, Windrow and Wolfskill.
Recess.
Afternoon Session.
Inc house reaSSembled at o'clock,
Speaker Coombs in the chair.
The substitute for A. B. 597, made
special order from morning session, came
up on final passage. 1t provides that
parties having claims against the State
may prosecute them in the courts. The
bill was defended by Mr.. Bruner and op-
posed by Messrs. Matlock, Shanahan and
Mordecai. On final passage it was lost.
S. B. 53l, providing for a Clerk for the
Supreme Court in Los Angeles, and ap-
for him salary of 81, $50 per
year, was passed.
A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.