The San Francisco call., 1897-03-06

until they consent to answer the questions
which they bai ked at tonight.
Not one scintilla of evidence OF any
kind, oral or documentary, was obtained
to show that there was any foundation for
the Examiners fake of last Saturday.
There were the same attempts at bully
Raging witnesses and bulldozing the COM
mittce and its attorney that were made
before the Assembly committee, but the
frmness and dignity of Chairman Dlckln-
son of the committee and OF Senator
Morehouse, who acted as attorney Tor the
Senate In the matter, soon MADE lrfe-
pressible Andy Clunie realize that his
capers would neither be effective nor toll
Grated.
There were also the same transparent
attempts to cloud the issue by the legal
representatives of the Examiner, VINO
were REINFORCED in the person OF Garref
McEnerney, that had been made on other
occasions. TEey continued to try to make
1t appear that the fact that the Examiner
had published its story on rumor ana
hearsay only cut no figure In the case,
and that the Examiner had now the right
to go on fishing excursion into the rec
ords of the Western Union Telegraph
Office, the Postal Telegraph Office, on the
waters of the seas, on shore and even INTO
the clouds above to secure testimony, II
any there was. to prove that bribery had
been committed in connection with AS
sembly bill 273.
But the com mittee and his attorneys
knew their duties, their rights and the
law too well to be coaxed. beguiled or
driven from the real object OF the lnvesti-
CATION. This was clearly enunciated by
Chairman Dickinson, who said that the
Examiner had made the charges OF
bribery. and if those charges were true the
Examiner should have the information
necessary to prove them, and should be
only too glad to furnish that information
to the committee. By doing so, he lnti-
mated, it would be doing the State
great public service and would at the same
time lift from itself the cloud of suspicion
that now rested upon it and made it ap-
pear that its bribery charges were abso-
Iutely without foundation, and that its
story relative to the matter was a pure
fake.
During the arguments that interspersed
the taking of simony, Attorney Knight
virtually admitted that the article had
heen published simply on idle rumors and
unreliable hearsay.
The Supreme Court room, where the
inquiry was held, was crowded to suffoca-
ton. all the Senators being in attendance,
the Senate having ad djoufned to be present.
Andrew M. Lawrence, managing editor
of the Examiner, was the first witness
called. With little preliminary interroga-
ton. Senator Morehouse got right into the
heart of the matter.
"Do you know who wrote the article?'
he asked.
"I would like to consult my attorney"
answered the witness
After consultation with both knight
and Clunie the latter objected to the ques-
t1ons on the statutory ground that they
were incompetent. irrelevant and imma-
terial.
No attention was paid to the objection,
and the witness replied, 81 know by hear
say"
"Do you know of your own knowledge
who wrote the article?'
The same objection was made but again
ignored. and the same reply was given.
''Do you know OF any fact or circum-
stance set forth in the article last Satur-
day OF your own knowledge?"
II had been informed by member of
the staff that there were kilograms in the
Western Union Office that would show
there was bribery" answered the witness.
according to the preconcerted plan to at
tempt to make the Western Union a
STUN bling block in the investigation. and
possibly shield for the takers.
DO you know this OF your own knowl-
edge?"
81 do not"
do you know any Senator or Assem-
blyman who received money to vote for
this bilI?"
81 do not"
To all further questioning Lawrence
gave replies intending TO convey the idea
that he had no knowledge of the article
until after its publication. notwithstand-
ing that he was at the time in charge of
the Examiner as managing and news ed
itor and had full control of its columns.
He was excused and L. L. Levings, one
of the Sacramento legislative correspond
ents of the Examiner, was put on the
stand. Levings went through the same
programme he had carried out before the
Assembly committee. he claimed to have
knowledge of the facts upon which the
Examiner article was based, but evaded
answering the question if he had fur
nished the data upon which the article
was written.
Clunie claimed that the writing con-
tanning such data was the best evidence,
and that Morehouse had no legal right to
make the witness testify orally on the
matter.
Then Morehouse put the Examiner on
record in its attitude tending to block the
investigation. He said:
This investigation is an investigation
of the Legislature of California. The Sem
ate is under charge of bribery published
in the Examiner. 1t either had or had
not these facts in its possession at the
time that article was published. 1t can
take the stand and tell us all the facts,
and that is all We want, and when we have
the facts we will bring the parties here
who can prove bribery or did the bribing.
The man who wrote the article is the best
witness"
Clunie tried his sidetracking buster by
suggesting that Bagget, Jaynes or Hay
ward be put on the stand, but Dickinson
quietly but effectively took all the steam
out OF him by remarking: I'VE propose
to start at the fountain head OF the source
whence these charges flowed. We ask