The record-union., 1893-02-27
ATTORNEY GENERAL HART.
HIS CASE FINALLY SUBMITTED TO
THE COMMITTEE.
Unsuccessful Attempt to Get the Cen
eral to Testify in the Case
VIII Report To-Day.

The committee appointed to investigate
the charges brought against Attorney
General Hart met in Supreme Courtroom
No. at O'Clock P. NJ. Saturday.
! General Barnes, counsel for General
Hart, appeared confident and smiling,
and his associate attorney, Mr. Stone, also
seemed to be pleased at something or
other.
Attorney Devlin, for the committee
also showed up in good spirits, and joked
the General on his reputation for being a
bulldozer, which he declared he had de-
MED and stood sponsor to the fact that he
was one of the gentlest, most genial and
lnoflensive gentleman he had ever met.
General Hart moved quietly among his
many friends, and was evidently glad
that the investigation had so nearly
reached conclusion.
Deputy Attorney-GeneralL LAWSON. who
at the first days investigation came in for
a generous amount of condemnation from
the different State officials, was also
present.
The committee sat loosely around the
table, patiently discussing the coyote bill
while they waited for the appearance of
Chairman Mathews of Tehama. The
oOClO1 Hduy ldSI w 6uu0SudN night, sat out
a couple of lonely hours awaiting the ad-
vent of the committee which failed 10 ap-
pear and was evidently administering 10
| them dose of their own prescription.
while he quietly laid away French dim
ner at downtown restaurant, in COM
pany with a number of friends.
Chairman Mathews put in an appear
ance at 4:O5 O'Clock, when it was discov-
cred that Committeeman Tindall and
Kahn had disappeared. He at once went
in search of the absentees, whom he soon
! terreted out, and then raped the COM
mittee to order.
| Attorney Devlin asked that General
Hart be sworn and placed upon the stand.
General Barnes said that General Hart
did not choose to testify.
| Mr.. Devlin said it was not a question
| of choice on the part of the Attorney
General, and that il he refused to be
sworn he might be fined for contempt of
| the committee.
General Barnes said that that rule an
piled only to criminal cases in the courts.
Mr.. Devlin read section of the Penal
| Code to show that the charge alleged
| against General Hart was criminal.
Chairman Mathews was not inclined to
swear the Attorney-General.
| Mr.. Devlin said he wished to question
| General Hart directly upon the charges
made against him.
! General Barnes said he had previously
supposed that General Hart was here con-
sequent upon the report of an Assembly
committee, and not upon the warrant Of
criminal court. He further said that as
yet no case had been made against the
Attorney General which called for his
testimony in rebuttal. He declared that
the testimony before the committee
| proved cOnclusively that General Hart
had performed his duty, his whole duty,
and nothing else.
Mr.. Devlin said if he was not per-
mitted to place General Hart upon the
stand the investigation would rest.
General Barnes read a number of de-
| cisions by the court to sustain General
Hart in his action taken in retaining the
money arising from the Harbor Commits
sion cases until the courts decided to
which fund it properly belonged. He
contended that General Hart not only had
right to hold the money pending the
order for the proper distribution of the
same, but that it was his duty to do So
The State, he argued, had not been out
one cent by the t1ansa ction, and he pro-
tested against placing General Hart upon
the stand TO rebut evidence going to
prove concluslyely his innocence of the
charge. He referred to Deputy District
Attorney General Layson as one being
full of idiosyncrasies, who grew wild
when questioned, and even then exon
Grated General Hart from any charge of
dereliction of duty.
"Why should General Hart" continued
General Barnes, ''be placed upon the
stand and probed with questions by
hired attorney, that are in themselves an
insult. when not one scintiIla of evidence
goes to prove him guilty of the charges
brought against him? Why should he be
roasted? 1t reminds me of an attorney l
once knew who. when examining wit
ness, would say, Are you the Smith who
was convicted of horse stealing in Illi-
nois?' The witness would OF course re-
ply, 'Nop The next question would be,
| Are you the Smith who was convicted OF
house breaking in Texas?' and the wit
ness would cry NOT and, gentlemen,
almost everyone within hearing of the
reply would believe he was that same
] Smith. II, then, the brilliant young at