The morning call., 1894-07-28
BOTH CHARGED WITH PERJURY.

Charles P. Higgins, the Montgomery
street druggist, and Charles Heyneman,
dealer in paper, were charged with per-
jury by the United States District Attor-
ney yesterday, and warrants were issued
for their arrest. Higgins was informed by
a faithful friend that the warrants had
been issued, and he at once secured bonds
men and repaired to the Office of Commits
sioner Heacock in the Federal building.
His bail was set at $500. and the sUretles
so providently secured were accepted by
the Commissioner. They we're James
Glib, Merchant-street manufacturer of
cocktails, and a. w. Fink. dealer in
poultry.
a Deputy Marshal, armed with war
rant for Heyneman's arrest, camped on
the papeT-dealer's trail early in the day,
but late In the afternoon he returned to
the office with the information that he
could not find his map.
Higgins and Heyneman were denounced
as perjuTers by United States Commits
sIoner Heac0ck just one month ago, and
many have wondered why they were not
arrested then. Higgins, by his actions,
showed that he did not expect to be pun
ished. His name was mentioned in weekly
papers as a candidate for Supervisor on
the Republican ticket, and it was whis-
pered that he had an !ndestructible pull
with Federal officials who would save him
from prosecution.
The trial at which Higgins and Heyne-
man testified falsely was that Of Wong
Sing Non, Chinese who had arrived from
China and claimed the right to land as
merchant. The Monaghan showed the
Collector of the Port a certificate dated
four years ago ana sigped by Higgins and
HeyDeman, who declared that he was a
merchant well known TO them. The pho
IOgraph on the certificate was compared
with that of the genuine Wong Sing Non
on. file at the CustOm-hOuse. The pictures
were not alike and the Collector refused
TO land the applicant. Wong Sing Mons
friends at once secured his release from
the vessel on a writ Of haDeas corpus and
the case came up for trial before Commits
siOner Heacock on June 81.
Higgins and Heyneman as signers to the
certificate were called as witnesses. They
identified the applicant as Wong Sing
Non. Heyneman, whose father was
president OF the Pioneer Wooe1- mills at
the time, swore that the Chinaman was
member of firm who kept store at 315
Pacific street four years ago, that he knew
him we'll and sometimes collected money
from him. Heyneman swore that the firm
cuTios and did not appear to think 1t
strange that such store should be kept in
such a place. He distinctly remembered
signing the certificate when Wong Sing
Non went to China four years ago. Big
gins memory was as good as Heyneman's.
He distinctly recollected the novelty store
and the applicant. He used to sell Wong
Sing Non soaps and small articles, and
when the pagan returned TO his native
land he signed his certificate.
The Government produced score of
witnesses who were prepared to testify
that there never had been such store at
SO Pacific street as Higgins and Heyne-
mann described. One of them was a
saloOn-keeper named Wilson, who rented
the place on Pacific street four years ago
and had his receipts from the landlord.
HIS evidence was corroborated by the
present tenant, who swoTe that 315 Pacific
street was saloon four years ago.
There is DO necessity TO prOlong this
case,'' said Commissioner Heacock an
gTiiy. How Chinese will faisify and
peTlure themselves to avoid the provisions
of the exclusion act L do not so greatly
wonder. but how white witnesses like
Messrs. Heyneman and Higgins, the two
witnesses brought here to testify in this
case for the purpose of filing the require
ments of the McCreary act can SO testify
and perJure themselves L cannot under
stand. This case is a dead fraud and is
only supported by perjury, and | recon-
mend the remand of the petitioner"
Wong Sing Non was remanded and sent
back to China, but nothing was done to
the Two business men charged with per.
Jury. Commissioner Heacock spoke on
several occasions to United States Attor-
ney Garter about the case, but that official
excused his inactivity on the ground that
his hands were full with the strikers. 1t
probably took at least half an hour to
draw up the complaint.
The Federal law against perjury is as
follows:
Every person who having taken an oath be-
fore competent tribunal, officer or person. in
any case In which law Of the United States
authorizes an oath 10 be administered that he
VIII testify, declare, depeSe or certify truly or
That any written testimony, declaration, depoSl.
tion or certificate by him subscribed as true
willfully and contrary 10 such OATH states or
subscribes any material matter which he does
NOT believe TO be true, is guilty Of perjury and
shah be punished by a fine of not more than
$1,000 and by imprisonment at hard labor for
not more than five years, and shall, moreover
thereafter be incapable OIL giving testimony in
any court of the United States until such lime
as judgment against him is reversed.
While Higgins and his D0ndsmen were
in the Commissioner Office, Attorney
Garter was asked by reporter if 1t was
true that he had caused a warrant to be
issued for their arrest.
United States Attorney whether he has
caused warrant TO be issued or not" he
snapped, land L don't care - what
you say about it. Such a question is i'm
pertinent"
We'll. if that question is impairment"
said the unabashed inquisitOr, 'Pm 60
ing 10 ask you another. Why did you
allow month to pass before you took
action AGAINST these men ?'
The United States District Attorney
answered with an oath that he would re-
ply to that question when he got ready.
1t has been said that your son is very
Intimate with Mr.. Higgins?" the tor
mentor remarked
II don't know and ! don't care -
whether be is or not. Mr.. Higgins is a
friend Of mine and l don't care -
what you say about it,
There the interview closed AID the
blasphemous attorney retired to his pri-
vate room to give his temperature a
chance to snbside.