The San Francisco call., 1896-08-14

Pev. Peter C. Yorke-DEAB SIR: In my hrst
letter to YOU said: eIf after reading THIS let
teryou do not feel fully satisfied with the facts
herein given, shall be most happy 10 RESPOND
to any cues ons or TO furnish any oral or
documentary corroborative evidence whleh
you may think wise to request.
In response to this, ana alter having read
nv letter, YOU saw fit to address me an open
letter, which published in full in The CALL
of Thursday morning. Your letter is now be-
fore me. and 1 note therein seven questions
which YOU have asked me TO answer more
fully than did in my former letter.
Your first question is this:
Is 1T true after Marshall had made this cor
rupt proposition, namely that Hudelson and
the other leaders of the A. 2. A. would sell out
the order for $50 000 more or less-ls 1t true
that YOU then referred said Marshall to John
D. Spreckels, the local leader OF the Republican
pGrty7
NV answer is that Marshall called upon me
and made statements regarding his power in
the order and the intention of himself and
Others whose names gave in my first letter to
use their influence in the order for their selfish
purposes He requested of me letter to Mr..
Spreckels, that he might be received by that
gentleman and thereby enabled to present mis-
plans and purposes. l declined to give him
letter l did not refer said Marshall TO MI.
Spreckels with any corrupt proposition or any
proposition; but did say that if he had polit-
ieaI matters which he desired to discuss with
Mr.. Spreckels he would find him at his office
on Market street.
Answering your second question:
II.
Is if true that ct the Sacramento Republican
Convention the A. P. A. faction, headed by the
Rev Benjamin Hudelson, co-operated with
John D. Spreckels and controlled the conyen-
ton?
I was not at Sacramento at the meeting of
the Republican State Convention. therefore
can only answer on the testimony OF others. 1
have, however, made diligent inquiry of Mr.
Spreckels and of other gentlemen who were at
the convention. and who were in position to
know, and am assured and speak with au-
thority when l say that Mr.. Spreckels entered
into no combination with B. F. Hudelson at
Sacramento, nor did he before the meeting at
Sacramento, nor has he since entered into
such combination or understanding. Mr..
spreckels has already made similar denial OF
this over his own signature.
Question No. 3.
Is it true that this cooperation was the re-
suit OF a com mbination between the Rev. Ben
iamin Hudelson and John D. Spreckels by
which, as proposed by Marshall in January,
the Rev. Benjamin Hudelson agreed TO throw
the solid A. P. a. vote to the side OF John D..
Spreckels?
AS l said above in answer to question No 2
l know of no such combination and l am
assured that there was no such arrangement
made, and now affirm from my knowledge
and belief that there was no arrangement,
combination or understanding entered into at
Sacramento as the result of any agreement
made between Marshall, Hudelson or any
other member of the American Protective
Association with John D. Spreckels. know
OF no testimony that would sustain this charge,
but il there are those so low 10 make these
charges 1 can reply that they have perjured
themselves and do periure themselves when
they make such statements.
Answering your question No. 4:
".
Was 1t not the threat 10 publish
First-The combination between the Rev
Ben jamin Hudelson and others to sell the
A. P. A., and
seeond-The subsequent corrupt proposition
made to you by Marshall IN the January OF this
year?
that caused the stealing OF the documents
containing the expose on the 10th OF April
and the loss of MarshalPs front teeth four days
later?
As TO the stealing of Marshalrs affidavit,
am OF the opinion that G. W. Owens could best
testify as to the motives which induced MIN to
take the affidavit from the hand of one Wood
worth. l was assured by Woodworth that
Owens did so take the affidavit, and gave it to
NJ T. Brewer.
can answer the remainder of question No.
by saying that it was not any threat on the
part of Marshall to publish the affidavit that
caused the loss of his front teeth. The full ex-
plsnation of that matter Mr.. spreckels ard
myself will be called upon TO make before the
court in the case now pending.
Question No. b:
Can you explain the fact that though you
knew that the Rev. Benjamin Hudelson AMI
Henry f. Marshall were engaged in this cor
rupt proposition TO sell out the A. P A. you
still permitted the said Rev. Benjamin F.
Hudelson to appear in your columns as q rep
resentative of the snti-Catholic side OF the
controversy and that you retained Henry F.
Marshall, who admitted to you that he was q
corrupt politician, in your employ until after
the episode of the front teeth in the following
April?
THE CALL did admit articles signed by B. F.
Hudelson relative TO the great religious con-
troversy IN which you took such q conspicu-
Gus part; but THE CALL did not indorse the
truth of any statements made by B. F. Hudel-
son, nor did it indorse him personally OF 9TH
erwise H. F. Marshall was not employed by
me after his blackmailing scheme had been
fully developed. l desire to respate now that
Marshall was not at thai time member OF the
regular staff of THE CALL; but was employed
st odd times in special detail matter, and
never even in this capacity after his charac-
ter was fully unders TODD by me.
Question No. o.:
Do you consider that the Rev Benjamin F.