Arizona republican., 1894-10-05
certified copy made by Charles. M. Bruce of certain records.

things that are matters of record only in the auditors office.
 This record made on sheet 7 is as fol- lows. "July 8, 1892, N. o. Murphy. To amount expended by him on account of the Loan Commission while east as delegate to the Republican conven- tion."
 MT. Bruce certifes that this is 8 cor rect copy of the record and he puts his seal of office on it.
 Here is copy of the record, not 8 copy that was certified to by Bruce un- der the seal of the territory, copy of the vouchers or bills. It reads: 'N. o. Murphy, debtor to amounts actually paid on account of loan commission. 'relegraphing ........................$4 43 % Stenographer ........................... 10 50 Expenses while east attending loan com | mission business. ss..................-. 15O co
 s2os 50
 ''I hereby certify that the above ac- count is correct and that I have actually expended that amount. Signed N. O.. Murphy"
 | What in the name of God did Mir. Bruce put in that it was for attendance by Gov. Murphy st the Minneapolis convention. Where did they get that charge?
 There is no such charge anywhere. Just think of it! And Bruce the cus- todian of the seal of your territoryl puts it in there and certifies to 1t as correct copy of the records. And here is the certificate of the secretary certifying to what is not true, because 1t is not there.
 Now you see how much candor, good faith and Christian charity is in this. Stop and think of it. Take it in and don't forget it. Here they are trying to rob Oaks Murphy of the dearest thing to him in life, next to his wife and baby, as dear as the apple of his eye, his fair fame and his good name as an honest man.
 Frank Heney is courageous man, as brainy man as in Arizona, but he should see before he makes such charges against such man that he is careful that he makes no such mistakes.
 You can see that the loan commission committed no em mbezzlement-are guilty of no theft, but that they did the work as any honest men might do it.
 I have here letter that I will read you. It is:
 PHGN1x, Ariz., Sept. "A, 1894. Joseph H. Klbbey, Esq.
 "On Saturday,, September P, 1894, at the city of Phoenix, I called upon Charles M. Bruce, secretary of the ter ritory of Arizona, and I requested him to show me the accounts of the loan commission referred to in his pu blished certificate upon the alleged certified copy of the report that appeared in The Saturday Review. Mir. Bruce said to me that there were no accounts of the territorial loan commis- sion in his office and that such accounts were not kept at his office but keept in the loan commission records in the office of the territorial auditor. That at the time he signed the published certificate which appear ed in TheiSaturdsy Review of Septem- Der "A he had no accounts of the loan commission in his office.
 "Mr. Bruce then explained to me that 8 committe of democratic lawyers mem- bers of the recent territorial democratic convention had called on him and had prepared the certificate in question, and requested him to sign the same in his official capacity. That up- on such request he had signed the said prepared certificate. At the said in- stance MT. Bruce showed me his letter press copy of the same account and said they were the accounts referred to in his certificate. The statements which appeared in the letter did not bear any evidence upon their face that they had been copied from the accounts of the loan commission. Mir. Bruce stated that he had no personal knowl- edge of their accounts, or of their cor rectness, and mad no knowledge whether the accounts shown in the let ter press book were taken from the rec ords of the territorial loan commission of Arizona. MT. Bruce exhibited copy of letter, which he read to me. This letter was addressed to Francis. J. Heney under date of August 1894.
 It embodied request to the attorney general to bring at once an action in the territorial district court for the pur- pose of determining the right of the loan commission Of Arizona to pay for what were deemed necessary services in carrying out the provisions Of the fund ina act of congress for Arizona.
 ''The letter referred to promise on the part of the attorney-general tC bring the action in question soon after he went into office and the embarrass ment of the loan commission in carry ing out the provision of the funding act without sbeing sallowed pay for ser vice and the business of funding, etc. etc.
 MT. Bruce referred to the fact that MT. Boon, the auditor had drawn his warrant and received his pay as a mem Der of the loan commission of Arizona MT. Devereux, the assistant secretary had drawn his salary as secretary of th' loan commission. That MT. Hughes son of Governor Hughes, had alst drawn his salary as secretary of tha