The San Francisco call., 1896-08-13

that Marshall Swore that q furtner conslueIa-
ton was the initiation of Mr.. Spreckels' candl-
date for United States Senator into the A T.
A., and you remember that after the Reg.
Benjamin Hudelson had withdrawn ms conn,
dence from Marshall said Marshall tesuneu
that he was ''totally in the dark as TO what
arrangements he (the Rev. Benjamin Hudel-
SOM finally concluded with Mr.. John ID.
Spreckels."
Mr. sHoRTRIDGE CoRRoBoRATEs MARSHALL
One of the chief points in dispute among the
members of the American Protective Associa-
ton has been the existence of this committee
and the reason OF its existence. Your letter
sets that dispute at rest: Before the loth Oh
January at a time when the conSpirators were
already shifting success, Marshall told you OIL
its objects. "He said" to quote from your
letter. Famong other things, that he and other
leaders of the American Protective Assocla-
ton mentioning the Rev. Donald NJ. Ross, one
Woodwork, B. F. Hudelson, and Mr.. owens,
desired to make something out OF politics;
that they did not propose 10 give all their time
and work jor nothing; that they had con-
cluded TO demand $2500 per month from then
until the election in November and then, II
they were successful, they were to ask tor
$50, 600 more"
AS you will see, with the exception OF the
detail about the United States senatorship and
the names of the other conspirators, your let
ter corroborates Marshalls affidavit. Even II
we did not have the testimony of NJ. t. Brewer
and George W. Owens, this, to my mind, would
be conclusive evidence OF the fact that at the
beginning of this year the Rev. Benjamin
already blocked out a plan to sell the votes OF
their followers in lump.
THE GRAND JURY.
OF course l need not dilate on the immoral
ity OF such plan. 1t is crime against popu-
lnr liberties in comparison to which fra udu-
lent registration or the stuffing of the ballot
box is trivial offense. The attention OF the
Grand Jury has been already called to this
matter, but the Grand Jury has refused to act.
AS citizen of San Francisco l Ggain call the
attention of the Grand Jury to this charge.
You, the editor of great daily paper, now
make it your own, and if the members of this
Grand Jury, who are making so much ado
about political corruption, do not al least
investigate the matter honest men will set
them down. Individually and collectively, as
posing humbugS.
SATISFACTORY ANSWER
Now, as to your connection with this con-
spiracy, think that your letter is eminently
satisfactory. You state that Marshall did not
present the letter to you and that the first
time you saw it was in the affidavit. This
statement corroborates all the testimony
which has been adduced in the case. The let
ter was recalled and burned before you had
seen it. Why or wherefore it makes no differ
ence now.
But there is Just one point on which your
letter is not clear and on which it is necessary
TO have a definite statement. l will put it in
the form OF a question: Is 1t true that alter
Marshall had made this corrupt proposition
namely, that Hudelson and the other leaders
OF the A. P. A. would sell out the order for
$50, 900 more or less-is it true that you then
referred said Marshall to John d. Spreckels,
the local leader of the Republican party?
THE SACRAMENTO CONVENTION.
Let me now come to a subject which has not
been touched in your letter, but which has
formed the necessary complement of the first
count against The CALL. You may remembe
that the occasion of the first charges made by
the Monitor was the Repu blican convention
at Sacramento. Your paper claimed, and
believe with truth, that Mr.. John D. Spreekels
controlled the convention, or, If he did not
control it, that he got all he wanted from it.
But the paper edited by the Rev. Benjamin
Hudelson also claimed the same convention
as "Grand Victory" and asserted that 1.-The
A. P. A. captures the Repu Dlican State Con-
ven tom and that ''the association secured all
1t demanded" week afterward H. W. Quit
cow proclaimed from the platform OF Metro.
congratulation is that we have not
only captured the Republican convention
but the Catholic church, 1t was matter of
notoriety that the Rev. Benjamin F. Hudelson
was in Sacramento during the convention
marshaling his cohorts. and it is matter OF
equal notoriety that che supported the John
D. SDreckels faction of the Republican party"
Con cerning this matter 1 wish TO ask you, Is
it true that at the Sacramento Republican con-
vention the A. P. A. faction, headed by the
Rev. Ben jamin Hudelson, co-operated with
Mr. John Spreckels to secure control of the
convention? and is it true that this co-opera-
ton was the result of a combination between
the Rev. Ben jamin Hudelson and Mr.. John d.
Spreckels by which, as proposed by Marshall
in January, the Rev. Benjamin Hudelson
agreed to throw the A. P. A. votes to the size
OF Mr.. John D. Spreckels?
THE STEALING OF The AFFIDAVIT.
might also remind you, though you have
not men toned It in your letter, that certain
difficulties arose, on April IA, the day before
the primaries, which were held in preparation
for the convention, at which the Rev. Benja-
min Hudelson carried out his combination
with John D. Spreckels. Henry F. Marshall
hod ooda Of n wit nr1 Ami
the corrupt proposition, namely, that Hudel-
son and the other leaders of the A. p A.
should sell the order to John D. Spreckels.
There is nothing substantial in that atfida Wit
which you did not know in January and
TO which you do not now testify The
affidavit says that combination of the
leading A. P A.'s had ageed to sell the order.
Your letter says the same. The affidavit says
that the terms were $4,000, more or less;
your letter says the same. The affidavit says
that Marshall spoke to you on the proposition;
your letter says the same. The affidavit says
that Marshall got a letter from Hudelson
authorizing him to act; your letter says the
same.
Before the Republican primaries In this
City the threat was made to publish that
affidavit in the Monitor. In order to prevent
the execution of that threat the affidavit was
stolen on the 10th OF April, and four days
afterward Marshall was beaten within an inch
of his life. AS the matter is still sub judice
shall not mention where or by whom.
Now 1 wish to inquire: Is it not true tn at
it was the threat to publish
First-The combination between the Rev.
Renjamin Hudelson and others to sell the
A 2. A, and
Second-The subsequent corrupt proposition
made to you by Marshall in the January of
this year.
Was it not the threat to publish these things
that caused the stealing of the documents con-
tanning the expose and the subsequent loss OF
MarshalPs front teeth?
Moreover, while I do not wish to protract
this letter beyond reasonable limits, as a mat
ter of common morality l should like an ex-
PLANTATION of the fact that though you knew
that the Rev. Benjamin Hudelson and Henry
+. Marshall were engaged in this corrupt
proposition to sell out the A. P. A. you still
permitted the said Rev. Benjamin +. Hudelson
to appear in your columns as a representative
of the anti-Catholic side of the controversy
and that you retained Henry F. Marshall, who
admitted to you that he was q corrupt politi-
clan, in your employ until after the episode of
the front teeth in the following April?
HUDELsoNs CHARGE.
The last and most terrible charge brought
against you in the Monitor was that you were
TO be seen and induced to send Marshall as q
spy into Catholic institutions Concerning
cou hat lyv,