The record-union., 1891-03-07
THE CASE OF ASSEMBLYMAN
BRUNER.

BRUNER.
Elsewhere will be found, in his own
language, the statement of the defense
that Assemblyman Bruner will make to
the charges of the San Francisco Ecana-
iner.
The RECORD UNION has said that the
presumption of innocence must obtain
until guilt is established by proofs. That
is common rule which no one will sug-
gest should be suspended.
The Legislature, at the request of the
Assemblyman charged, has ordered an
investigation. Mr.. Bruner has voluntar-
lily, perhaps unnecessarily, made state
ment of his case-that is, he has publicly
laid down the lines of his defense, and
the statement he has made is, therefore,
legitimate public property for criticism
with judicial scrutiny and perfect fair
ness, but without any timidity. For this
case concerns the whole public, and in
wolves the whole State.
Examining the statement, therefore,
which the AssembIyman makes the
scheme Of his defense, it appears that it
lacks breadth and needs betterment to be
maintained before the tribunal of public
opinion. 1t is by no means uncommon,
where charges of venality are preferred,
for counter-charges to be made-it is the
usual tactics in Doodle trials, but it never
has influenced, and never will turn clear
seeing men from honest purpose in a
searching investigation.
The judicial examiner of Mr.. Bruner's
deliberate statement cannot close his eyes
to the fact that he did not, as commonest
prudence would have suggested in case
where an attempt to corrupt or defame
was on foot, take into his confidence the
| Speaker of the House or some officer of
justice.
Mr.. Burners statement is open to the
serious objection also, as defense, that
he did not instantly notify the Police
Commission of San Francisco that he
had recommended the appointment of
''Stoley," and why he did it, and that it
was not to be considered by the COM
mission. To fail in SO vital an essential
in the process of unearthing rascality is
next to suicidal.
When clear-headed man plays with
one who is attempting a gigantic crime,
and plans to throw him, his first move
ment should be to inform the third party
who is to be operated upon and bled of
official position. Failure to do so by Mr..
Bruner will emphasize the charges laid
at his door by the Examiner.
There is lanentable weakness in the
admission that he parted with the one
CHIEF witness of innocence, the fatal
certificate of deposit. Careful preparation
for the exposure of attempted crime
would have made the possession of that
bit Of paper the fuse to the bomb to blow
the boodlers to pieces.
Not less surprising is the statement in
the declared line of defense, that there
was failure to tell those in the Librarians
room the whole story-Democrats and
Republicans alike-the instant he secured
possession of the certificate; nor was
there any obligation to use it to raise
money to pay the boodlers the price of
infamy. Possession of the certificate alb
solved the holder from any and every
promise made in a scheme of exposure. 1t
is unthinkable that other men imperiled
as was Mr.. Bruner would have acted in this
regard as his pleading confesses, and let
pass from possession the proof and the
opportunity that would have armored the
truth beyond all possible assault
Calmly viewed, then, Mr.. Bruner's
statement, which must be accepted as
covering his whole defense, lacks cohe-
sive strength and needs betterment in the
proof. if it is to clear character of black
reproach. The proofs are now to be put
in; they may not be held to strict con-
formity to pleading, but the investigation
must be thorough. There must be moth
ing less than an inquisition that will
reach to the most secret nerve of this
whole transaction.
The era of whitewashing in investiga-
tons is at an end. The Legislature owes
it to itself and to the people to dredge the