The San Francisco call., 1897-03-05
PILLOR|ED
BEFORE THE
PEOPLE
The Faking Examiner "
Strangling in It's Vile
Slanders.
BLUFFS AND sQUIRMS AT
SACRAMENTO.
Produces Not a Word of Evil
dence in Support of Its
Bribery Charges.
FAILED IN AN EFFORT TO BOSS
THE INVESTIGATION.
Its Attorneys Used Insulting Lam
guage Before the COMMITTEES for
Futile Purpose.
FAILED IN AN EFFORT TO BOSS
THE INVESTIGATION.
Its Attorneys Used Insulting Ian
guage Before the COMMITTEES for
Futile Purpose.

SACRAMENTO, CAL, March AS
sem blyman Caminetti acted in the role OF
major domo of the Examiners fishing
excursion to-day and made a last effort to
save the paper from being pilloried before
the people of this State as u faker and q
libeler of the 'beyond a shadow of a
doubt kind. In return for his kindly
meant but unsuccessful endeavor he was
insulted in the afternoon before the AS
sembly investigating committee by A. J.
Clunie, who is a lawyer and thinks he is q
politician.
The Assembly committee had not been
in session an hour before 1t became evil
dent that the Examiner had not had a
particle of evidence on which its charge of
bribery had been made and that the whole
libel had been prom pted by statements
made by William T. Baggett, an attorney
for the Hale & Norcross people, while he
was chatng over something that dis
pleased him.
He told Managing Editor Lawrence that
Mr.. Eichoff had told him that some one
else had told Eichoff that they had heard
somebody say that there WAS rumor
floating around to the effect that probably
money was used in securing the passage
af Caminettfs bill through the Legisla-
ture. Without investigating the rumor,
and having nothing else but Baggett's
statement to depend upon, the Examiner,
in glowing headlines, charged Senators
and AssembIymen with having been
brlbed. The charge was made in the most
direct and positive way, yet when Lawyer
Baggett testified before the committee to-
ba doaIorod Tndar oath bo did
not know that any money had been used
n the matter, directly or indirectly.
Not the slightest shred of a fact was
ELECTED to-day that would even lend color
to the charge made by the Examiner.
George A knight and Mr.. Clunie made
considerab noise about what they pro-
posed TO do, and at times Mr.. Clunie, by
his disrespectful manner toward the CON-
mittee seemed to be inviting his own ex-
pulsion from the room.
If this had been done it would have
been an excellent text for him and the
Examiner to have harped upon, and to
have pleaded that the committee did not
wish to allow the Examiner the benefit of
counsel. The committeeman, however
kept their temper, even when Caminetti
rose from his chair and pluckily hurled
defiance into Mr.. Clunie's teeth, although
Chairman Belshaw, Clarke, Mead and
Hill spoke very sharply 10 both Clunie
and Knight, and intimated that they
would not allow any subterfuges or any
straying away from the issue before the
committee.
Not having a peg to hang their case
upon Ulunie and Knight, the former as
sumine the role OF senior counsel, beat the
air with their voices to divert attention
from their poverty of facts. Clunie wanted
the Senate committee called in to sit in
Joint session with the Assembly commit
tee. He seemed to want to do everything
that the committee did not want to do,
and to prove everything except the issue
on trial. He took the ground that the
Examiner was on trial, but that statement
was corrected by Belshaw, who informed
Clun1e that il was not the understanding
of the committee that the Examiner was
on trial.
Their object was to investigate charges
of bribery which had appeared in that
paper in its issue of February q. They
proposed to interrogate the managing ed
itor and the correspondents of the Exami-
ner to find out, If possible, the grounds
for publishing the iibelous article. Ii
they had any facts to back up the charge
of bribery the committee wanted to know
them.
Knight remarked that while it might he
true mat the Examiner was not on trial
that paper had publ shed an article of
sufficient importance to draw the atten-
ton of the LEGISLATURE to the facts pu b.
lished. Suppose that those facts could be
proved?
s'You have to take one fact from one
witness and another fact from another" !"
added Knight, industriously seeking to
tho hole ont Df which ne Was try.
ing to pull his client.
"Suppose we put the managing editor of
the Examiner on the stand, and he should
saw that he was in Los Angeles at The time
of the publication of the article, and that
he knew nothing about it? Or take the
. CORES pondent here in Sacramento and put
him on the stand, and you should tiEd
that what he knows was simply hearsay,
which would not be admissible as evil
dence. and therefore the Examiner might
be placed in the attitude OF publishing
something that was not true. The Ex-
aminer should be allowed to take up the
case and step by step produce facts from
which Won could reasonably conclude that
the statements made in the article were
irue. 1t is very seldom that you can get
man to go on the stand and confess that
he has given or received brlbe, buL when
Won find q man who cannot pay his board
hill being seen closeled with a weIl-known
LOBBYIST and the next day he has money
to pay all his bills and throw money away
you are justified in drawing an inference
from that"
Here knight made significant admis-
sion, which caused every one in the room
to smile.
81 know that the law is against us, he
said, "in one way, inasmuch as the com
mittee has the right to pursue the investi-
CATION in its own way. If it is the desire
of the COMMITTEES to finl out the truth, we
want to know it,"
Don't you think that the burden of
proof i'm this matter lies with the Exam
iner?" asked Chairman Belshaw.
Suppose that the article is libelous.
replied Knight. Suppose We take the
position that it is true and published with