The San Francisco call., 1897-03-05

| Hayward and Senator VOORHEES, were as
( thick together as Andy Lawrence and
| William Baggett, but the attempt failed.
| Mr.. Hayward frankly stated that up to
| year or two ago he had assisted Senator
| VOORHEES, in his political ambition, but he
| did not do SO in the last campaign.
CluEie asked whether Mr.. Hayward did
not send word to the mines to have the
men vote for or against certain candi-
| dates. and MIR. Hayward made a fat
denial of the insinuaton. The most he
| had ever done was to speak favorably of
! any friend OF his who might be running
| for Office.
Be shaw asked the direct question, "Did
you ever send up word to your men to
vote for Mr.. Voorheis"'
mo, SIR" replied the witness.
"Have you ever given Senator VOORHEES,
any money!" asked Clunie.
"No, sir; not a dollar in my life.
Hill asked what had Senator VOORHEES,
| election to do with the subject matter OF
the investigation, and the question gave
Ciunie an opportunity of adopting the
tactics of his client and throwing out an
| insinuation, under the guise of a hypo-
thetical case, that if Mr.. Hayward had
| bill in view to be introduced at this ses-
sion, he might have loaned Senator Voor-
heis $1,000 or $4,000 during the campaign.
This was in line with the conduct OF the
defense all through the investigation. 1t
| WAS always Wudt AaSo beSl, Dob
never what was.
Mr., HAYWARD was asked whether he had
ever had any correspondence with Senator
| VOORHEES, during the last election cam
| paign, and he replied that he bad not,
and that he never had any corre-
spondence with the Senator in relation to
| Assembly bill 273.
Attorney Morgenstern was next on the
| stand. He gave quite different version
] of n from, hat relata1 nv Mr. Rappett.
He said that Baggett appeared to be very
much discouraged because he had come
up too late to defeat the bill. He told
! Morgensteru that the people to whom he
| had spoken had already made up their
minds to vote for the bill. Baggett said
that he understood that the boys got
certain amount of money for voting on
the bill, and that some of them had not
| got their money. 81 would like 10 have
this thing reopened," said Baggett, $50
that those who didr't get their money
could come in, and you had better see
| them"
Morgenstern replied to this invitation
| that he had no interest whatever in the
matter, but that he would do what he
could to help his disconsolate friend Bag
gett. He understood that Baggett had
said that certain men had been paid for
votes, or for kee ping quiet on the bill, and
! the witness had said that he had heard
that he amount was not the same as that
stated by Baggett, but that it was another
amount
"Do you know that any money was paid
10 any Assembyman? asked Hill.
| mo, SIR was the reply.
ITO any Assemblyman or to any Sem
ator?'
mo, SIT, and 1 don't believe that any
was paid"
Morgenstern added that after the libel
| appeared in the Examiner these rumors OF
bribery became prevalent.
You kept a file of those bills and
watched them all in the interest of the
people? asked Clunie, with a sneer.
! Yes, sir; in the interest of the people,"
was the reply. In reply to question he
said that the bill was slipped through
very slick without attracting much atten-
ton. He did not believe that any money
was used. Money was always raw, crude
work.
Major George B. GiIlis. the hero of
! forty-tve years experience in legislative
! life, was the next witness. He said that
he told Baggett that he could not beat the
! bill without coin, ana that he (Gillis) had
heard that it was sometimes q handy
! thing to have coin around when a bill was
| to be defeated.
| He told Baggett at the same time that
| he was as handy a man as Mr.. Baggett
was but that he. Gillis could not do any
|
with Senator Morehouse, and the Senator
said that he thought he would vote
against the bill. On the next day he voted
/ for 1t. There had never been a money
| proposition in any transaction he had
| ever had with any members OF either
| house.
Clunie here offered to prove the truth of
| the Examiner libel in so far as the Senate
was concerned, and as he had expected
Chairman Belshaw replied that they were
not investigating the charges arainst the
Senate. The Senate had comm ittee OF
lis own fer that purpose. They were SIM
ply investigating the charges against tho
| Assem- big.
Mead made a clever hit when he said:
''Mr. Clunie offers to prove before the As
sembly com mittee that the Senate has
been bribed. Now l will ask him if he in
tends TO offer before the Senate committee
to prove that the Assembly was bribed ?"
Judge Frick of Alameda was called to
the stand for the purpose of proving that
he was acquainted with George w. Baker.
He said that Baker was attorney Tor the
Liquor dealers Association, and that that
association desired the passage Of Csmi-
netti's bill because he had found many
Justices of the Peace, in prohibition dis
tricts where the anti-liquor sentiment was
strong. were prone to be swayed by bias.
Clunic apparently lost his head at this
questions having no foundation. in fact.
but designed to make an effect upon the
unthinking. He tried TO make it appear
that there had been bad feeiing between
Baker and Judge Frick, but signally
failed.
Frank Jaynes, superintendent of the
| Western Union Telegrapa Company, was
asked by Clunie to produce all dispatches
that might have passed between Mr.. Hay
ward and Senator Voorneis and Mr..
Baker and Judge Frick.
Mr.. Jaynes replied that he would pro-
duce the m if they were specified. knight
wanted the whole office, but the commit
tee directed Mr.. Jaynes to bring three
dispatches which were not relevant to the
Gaze.
| Assem- bly, man Caminetti, the next wit
| ness, said that he knew nothing whateve
| of the charges OF bribery. He introduced
the bill after considerable study. He
knew that the Liquor-deaers' Association
wanted the bill and that Mr.. Baker repre-
sented that association. He never had
| any conversation with Lane or Hayward
| about the bill. II never spoke to single
Assem- blyman about the bill, and never
asked anybody to support it,"
Caminelti said that he had seen many
| in nstances in which the law would be an
NEW