The San Francisco call., 1897-06-13
THOUGHT FRICk
WAS OBLIGINC
Banker BowleS Concludes
q Deposition About
Lobbying.
He Ee'ieved That the Attorney
Was Working for the Fun
of the Thing.
Testimony That Valuable Ssrvices
Were Rendered Iu ing the Lest
legislature.
OAKLAND OFFICE SAN Francisco CALL, !
qOS BROAD WaV Juna -

Jus broadway, June i. !
Banker BowIes testified to-day that he
thought Attorney Frick was rendering
valuable services to MIN and G.. w. Nc
Near at Sacramento for the fun of it, or,
as he deposed, that they were voluntary
services
Mr.. Bowles also testified that he did en-
gage Mr.. Frick TO do work for them and
that whie at Sacramento be advanced
him various sums of money which were to
be deducted from whatever amount nigh
ultimately be agreed upon as the valus OF
such services.
Mr.. Bowles also testified that he had
never written letter to Mr.. Frick asking
him TO stay at Sacramento TIL the Mead
Dill relating to wharf franchises was finally
passed. But when shown the letter, he
changed his mind. When the deposition
was concluded 1t was difficult for Attorney
Chapman, whoitook it, 20 be quite positive
as to what Mr.. BowIes had stated and
what he had denied.
The defendant sated that the object of
the bill was 70 protect their property al
Port Costa from the statute OF 1898, re-
curing all franchises for wharves 10 be
sold TO the highest bidder. He was GER
tain that he had not reques ed Frick TO
render any services for him or for George
W. Men ear; but he admitted that Frick
~
mat he had paid HIM sums aggregatDg
$lGO for his personal expenses while
there, and that such sum was 10 be de-
Quoted from the amount to be ultimately
paid Frick. He stated that neither he
nor NJ Near had offered aLy bill 10 the
Legislature other than the bill finally
passed, and which granted them all the
relief to which they considered them
selves cOnscieDtiousiY entitled because Of
the valua bic improvements they had made
al Port Costa.
In answer to questioning Mr.. Bowles
said that he thought MIR. Fricks services
were entirely voluntary, but was "A little
perplexed when MIR. Chapman reminded
HIM that in the earlier part OF the deposit
ton taken yesterday he denied that Mr.
Frick had rendered MIN any services lie
had no idea OF the value of the interests
OF the corporation, in " hich he is a stock
holder, L Port Costa, and could not place
any value upon the relief afforded them
by the bill.
lie admitted that in his presence Attor-
ney trlck had dictated several letters to &
s'enographer res ardIng the bill, and also
admitted that Fr1ck had Introduced 10
him certain mem bers Of the Legislature
had made an argument in favor of The bill
before the committee and that when Sena-
tor Wilmington doubted the constitution
ally OF the bill Frick prepared a brief
which satisfied the Senator on that poiht
Attorney Chapman then asked Mr.
BOwies If his family and Mr. Frick or Mr.
McNear and Mr. Frick were on social and
visiting terms, If they were prev ously
under any obligation to one another, if
they were relatives 10 each other. or if
there was anything IN existence which
would suggest that Mr.. Frick should go
10 Sacramento and work for several weeks
in the interests of Mr., Men ar or Mr..
BOwles as a voluntary proposition.
All of these questions Mr.. Bowles an
swered decidedly in the NEGATIVE. A let
ter was put IN evidence from MIR. NcNear
10 Mr.. BowIes, IN which 1t was stated that
the writer thought $500 would be a reason
able compen sation for the services rem
dered by Mr.. FrIck, and this concluded
The deposition.