The San Francisco call., 1897-03-06
EXAMINER
FAKERS IN
A BAD BOX
Continued from First Page.

day. Will come up soon. What's the matter?
Answer Oakland. q. W. BAKER.
SACRAMENTO, CAL. Feb II, 1897
George ". Baker, Oakland, CAL: Some opposl-
ion threatened. No hurry. Will explain
when see you. A. L. FR1CK.
Judge Frick said that he had given per-
mission to Mr.. Jaynes to produce the
originals when found.
Senator Voorhels was called to the
stand, and, in reply to questions, said: Il
never had any teegraphic Correspondence
with any one concerning that bill. l
never saw the bill or knew that 1t was
introduced until it had passed the AS
sembly, and never knew that such Dill
existed until it came before the Senate
81 am charged with having introduced
bill in the Senate. That Is aosoluleiy
false" added the Senator.
| do you know, directly or indirectly,
that any Assemblyman was offered or
paid any money 2" asked Valentine.
mo, sir; nor any Senator" replied
VOORHEES,.
| Alvinza Hayward was called next, and
said that he had no recollection OF having
received any kilograms from Senator Voor-
| heis in relation to bill 273 He would con-
sent that any such telegrams might be
produced He had not been in Sacra-
mento for over a year and knew OF no
bribery.
! Al Murphy, better known as "Blinker,"
testified that he was "a newspaper man,
connected with the Examiner"
''Do you know of any bribery in the
| Legislature?" was asked.
mo, sir" replied Murphy.
"Dd you furnish any information to
! the Examiner on which this item was
based? Do you know of any Assembly
man receiving money to influence his
vote on Assembly bill 273?'
mo, SIR" was the reply. Murphy
added that he did not write any portion
of the article and did not know that ary
money had been paid to any member of
the Legislature.
| "Have you any knowledge whatever OF
any bribery in connection with any mat
| ters of Legislation here?"
81 have not" replied Murphy.
s'Do you know who wrote the article ?"
| II could almost say SO, but 1 don't
| know positively"
"Do you know who wrote part OF itp'
! YES"
"Who?"
81. L. Levings. He spoke to me about
bribery in the Senate. with reference to a
Senator in connection with this pilI.'
| do you know that any money was of
fered or paid to any member of the As
sembly as a bribe?"
| IL have no such knowledge"
| L. l.. Levings, one of the Examiner
staff, was the next witness, and when he
was asked whether he wrote the article
Clunie vehemently objected. In fact, he
objected to every QUESTION that would
throw any light or give any information
rs to whether there aad bsen any bribery.
| Levings explained that ne was in very
embarrassing position. The information
which he had given the Examiner was
| the property OF that paper, he being only
an employe He could not give any of
his information without the consent OF
| the Examiner. and he could not betray
any confidence that had been reposed in
him. When he was asked whether he
knew that even single Assem- blyman
had been bribed Clunie objected. Lev
| ings said that he thought he could direct
the committee to place where they could
get information as to the truth or falsity
of the charge OF bribery, and when asked
where, he replied by referring the COM
mittee to the Western Union Telegraph
| Company.
| When asked whether that was where he
got his information knight objected.
| When asked whether Levings could fur.
nish the name of any individual who
could give the com mittee even the least
| inflammation K piuht nj hiaCtod apojp
"Suppose that an operator in the West
ern Union Telegraph Office in Sacramento
told this eporter-suppose he gave him a
hint" said Knight, s'about bribery and
said that things were getting very crooked
and there was suspicion of bribery
going on, do you think this witness would
have right to expose and disgrace that
young man?"
Knight in the same breath remarked
| that he did not wish to be understood as
casting any reflections upon the operator.
Valentine, wearied OF the attempt of the
Examiner TO hide behind the slandered
telegraph operator, made a little speech
in which he said: 1--WE come right now
to the plain bold statement Of asking this
witness, as represen tatlve of the Ex-
aminer, for the facts, if any, on which he
has written this article and scattered it
broadcast over the whole State besmirch-
ing every mem Der of the Legislature. We
ask him the plain question, what was it?
We ask him if the Examiner will refuse
to permit him to answer that question"
Knight objected again, an d Chairman
Beishaw remarked that he admired
Knights gall, whereupon knight said that
| it was the first time in his experience that
he knew legislative committee TO accuse
lawyer of having gall.
| TIE committee vainly tried for half
hour or more to get Levings to tell the
facts on which he based the article,
| but as Levings had no facts his attorneys
vehemently objected time and time again,
until the committee (Mead and Ryan,
Democrats, voting no) adjudged him
guilty of contempt. but deferred action
on sending him to jail until the Senate
/ committee could take whack at him in
| the evening.
| @. II. Jessen, another Examiner corre-
| spondent, testified that he knew nothing
about any bribery in the Legislature or
about the article.
| The committee then adjourned until 8
O'Clock on Monday morning.
|
| DARE NOT ANSWER.
Being Afraid to Confess the Fake
! Examiner Fakers May Be