The San Francisco call., 1897-03-12


the lobby, nor to any one whom the
association had endorsed, for fear that if
they came forward the bill would be
defeated by that .act.
| Clunie, kicking his way out of the snow
slide, came smilingly into the cross-exam-
nation. He thought that a pleasant
place in which 10 cast bis fishing lines
was the office of the LIQUOR dealers Asso-
citation, and he wanted 10 know If the
liquor-d callers would not send their books
up TO Sacramento for his inspection. Mr..
| Baker quietly responded that he denied
| the right of Clunie to inquire into the
private affairs of his clients.
| Mr.. Valentine said that absolutely
nothing had been presented to the COM
mittee TO show that there was any found
alton for the Examiners charges. "Mr.
| Clune has sat here for nearly two hours
in the hope that he would get on to some
thing" added Valentine. "but he has abb
| solutely failed to bring single iota OF
evidence that would throw any light on
this charge made by the Examiner. This
latter proposition is ridiculous and alb
| surd and we have no time to fritter away
on it. If the gentleman is sincere in his
! desire to assist this committee In ascer-
tanning whether or not there are m members
of this Legislature who have been brIbed
he should direct his inquiries to that
point"
Clunie smiled an Examiner smile, which
the same is an unutterable thing founded
on rumor Chairman Belshaw remarked
that it did not make any difference who
presented or prepared the bill. That had
nothing to do with the case. The PROPOSE
ton was, Had any member of the As
sembly Deen bribed?
| Mr.. Baker went OH to say that he had
spoken about the bill to G. D. Lane,
Alvinza Hay ward, Assem- blyman Cami-
netti and Senators Langford and VOORHEES,.
He might have talked with Assem- blyman
Dibble. but he was not positive as to that.
| He had asked Mr.. Dargie to see Assem- bly,
| man Leavtt about the bill. He had also
sent a telegram to Mr.. Herrin in relation
to the matter.
'Will you consent to the production of
that telegram" asked Clunie.
Mr.. Baker was quick with his response.
~ will, if the Examiner viii consent to
the production OF its kilograms relating to
this bill.'
valuable mine of information that would
be developed if the Examiners kilograms
showing how the libel was cooked up
could be produced. Mr.. Clunie smiled
also, but did not consent.
Mr.. Baker went on TO say that Senator
Morehouse had made a very virulent at
tack on the bill, evi entity under mis-
conception as TO its object. and he had
asked Mr.. Hayward and Mr.. Cross mot
the Assem- yman by that name) by tele-
graph 10 see Mr.. Herrin and request him
to use his influence with Senator More
| house to cease his opposition. After the
bail had passed Mr.. Baker told Senator
Morehouse that he had been altogether
mistaken in the view he had taken OF the
bill.
w. T. Herrin was sworn and made his
statement IN a straightforward manner. He
said that he had no correspondence what
ever with any member OF the Assem- bly,,
but he bad sent to Senator Morehouse the
telegram which had been published in
The CALL Alvinza Hayward was client
| OF his, and Mr.. Hayward and Mr.. Baker
had asked him to help the bill. In dis
cusslng the bill with the two gentlemen
named Mr.. Herr. n had understood its pro-
visions to be that a person could get q
change of venue merely on making an
affidavit that the Judge was biased with
| out further showing.
Il thought that was wrong" said Mr..
Herrin, land l stated MY objections 10
Mr.. Hayward, who had taken Mr.. Bakers
side OF the argument, and Mr. Hayward
said that If such a law existed when the
Hale & Norcross case was tried he could
have secured a fair judgment. told him
that no case would justify the passage of
a pad law
Mr.. Herrin went on 10 tell how Mr..
Baker had named several States in which
similar law was in force. He himself
had sent no kilograms with reference to
that bill to any member of the Asse bly,,
and with the exception OF Alvinza Hay
ward he had no client interested in the
bill. Mr.. Hayward's language was that
Mr.. Baker had come to his office and in
formed him that Senator Morehouse was
opposing the bill, and Baker was very
anxious to have Mr.. Herrin ask the Sena-
tor to cease his opposition.
Mr.. Herrin replied to MIR. Hayward: al
don't like to interfere in this matter or
have anything TO do with it. II is mat
ter o! no interest TO me, and l would
rather not have anything TO do with it,
Then Mr.. Hayward said, Il wish you
| would, and he was so emphatic in that re-
| quest that Il SAID, Very we'll; l will do
wha: l cam and l sent the dispatch.
ut is a common saying without any
truth whatever that the Southern Pacific
Com pany is behind this bill or lhat-at
least the Examiner says so-and 1t is for
that reason that didn [ want to interfere
in the matter; but Mr.. Hayward asked it
as personal favor, and that is why did
what | have testified TO. l attached no
importance to the Hale g. Norcross suit.
The probability is that after the Supreme
Court has got through with it there Will
not be very much lett in the way of new
trial. l have known Senator Morehouse
for fifteen years before l became connected
with the railroad pany. We had been
young men together. and therefore l felt
that / could ask him to do me d favor"
The committee adjourned until 8 o'clock
tomorrow.
IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLE.
Passage of the BIN to Ply tho Claim of
Dennis J0rdan.
II