The morning call., 1892-05-08
LOBBYING And DOODLE.
How n. p. Perine Got a Bill
Passed at Sacramento.
TWc-Thirds Of the Appropriation Went to
Buckley and Higgins and Nothing to
the Frsar Stone Company.

Aspiring lobbyists missed a golden oppor-
tunity yesterday TO derive a little infOrma-
ton relative to the modus operandi and cost
Of pushing bills through the Legislature,
by not visiting ex-Judge j. G. MaguiTe's
offices. The ex-Judge has been acting as
referee In the Frear Stone Company's suit
for an accounting against Y. P. Perine, and
yesterday the taking Of testimony was re-
sumed. W. c. Graves and eX-Judge Nc
Kissick appeared for Perine and Attorney
Borden for the company.
Jacob Shaen was the first witness called,
and said at present he was United States
assistant appraiser, and that he became ac-
quainted with the late William T. Higgins
in 1874, and acted as his private secretary
from 1873 to the time of his death. When
asked if he had attended many of the ses-
sions of the Legislature with Higgins, he
replied: "Wel, yes. / only missed a por-
ton Of one during my connection with Mr.
Higgins, and that was In the latter part Of
1873 or 1879"
In 1889, when Perine's bills. supposedly
in behalf of the Frear Stone Company,
passed, Shaen stated that Higgins and he
were in Sacramento
Higgins staid but few days. as he was
taken sick" said Shaen, 'but he left a mum
Der of personal matters in my hands"
Ibid Mr.. Higgins consult you in regard
TO any legislative bills?" asked Attorney
Borden.
mo, sir"
Would you have been likely to know
about any bills in which he had an in
terest?"
81 think So"
DO you know whether or not Mr. Hig-
gins had any interest in bill presented to
The Assembly by Assemblyman Stork %
81 do think EO a SforK wa a Dam0-
eTat and Higgins a Republican"
Tie witness declined to answer whether
or not he had communication with any per-
sons interested in bills with Higgins, and in
answer to another question said that to his
knowledge Higgins had no relations with
Perine in connection with Assembly bill /.
Mr.. Sbaen was then asked whether he
thought it was necessary for man to spend
60 days at a session OF the Legislature to
have bill passed, but the question was
ruled out by Referee Mcguire as not con-
corning a matter for expert opinion.
Shaen then told how a bill could be intro
duced into the Legislature, and described
the different channels through which 1t
drifted before getting properly before the
legislators.
Witness did not know whether or not
Higgins had a contract with PeTne, where
by be was TO receive 20 per cent OF the
money obtained from the State on the bill
introduced by Assemblyman StOrk. He
also stated that he had nothing 10 do with
Higgins financial business and cOnse-
QueDuy did not know whether he had at
any time received money tor pushing bills
through tie Legislature They lived at
frst-cass hotels and dlned in French res
taurants while in Sacramento, but Shaen
could not tell the cost of living.
EaORY's TESTIMONY.
J. s. Emory Of Oakland, a director OF the
company and one of the plaintiffs in the
suit, succeeded Shaen on the stand. lie
explained that the company went into
liquidation in 1873, and Perine, who was
superintendent, presented bill for about
$1,000 for services and expenses and it was
paid Then last dividend was declared,
leaving only u small sum in the treasury.
In answer TO several questions relative to
Perine's trip TO Sacramento. Mr.. Emory
stated Mr. Perine was not en-
DlOyed by the company, so far as l know,
TO get the bill through the Legislature. He
was a director in The company. and pre-
sumo he went there on his own accord.
The board of directors did not employ him
to 60 there, and Perine never informed me
that he was to go. l saw him in Sacra-
mcnto. and ascertained that he was work