The San Francisco call., 1897-03-08

San Francisco Examiner in which paper the
charges of bribery appeared, and also AL MUIR
| San Francisco Daily Examiner from the State
Capitol, and So L. L. Levings. who was and is
correspondent of the San Francisco Daily
Examiner and the reputed author OF the art1-
Gle headed Bribery in Aid OF Thievery," pub
lished in the san Francisco Daily Examiner on
| the 9th of February, 1897. upon which said
! article the resolution appointing your commit
! tee was made.
I That upon the hearing of said charges and
| the examination of said witnesses on said 9th
| day of March, 1897. the said y. NJ. Lawrence
was duly sworn and after stating under oath
| that he was The editor of the San Francisco
Daily Examiner and had read the article IN
question, your committee in furtherancc OF
the interests Tor which it was appointed ana
| desirous of securing the Information from Mr..
Lawrence in regard to the publication OF said
| article, through Senator Morenouse actlng as
! counsel for the Senate, propounded the
| following questions and the following an
swers were given and the proceedings took
| through Senator Morehouse, propounded TO
sald A. NJ Lawrence the following qnes tions:
Question by Senator Morehouse-Did you
have or see any writings 1nde pendent OF a teIe
graphic dispatch or dispatches concerning the
article N question?
This question was objected to by counsel for
witness, and the objection being overruled,
Senator Morehouse propounded the following
question: Did you have any writing concern
ing this article other than the telegraphic dis
patches? which question was objected to by
counsel for witness, and the objection being
overruled by your committee witness
ans wered as follows: Al had no other in
Question by Senator Morehouse-Other in
formation in writing? Al decline to tell
you.
Senator Morehouse-I insist on an answer.
Ayes.
Question by Senator Morehouse-From
whom? Which question was objected to, and
your committee overruled the objection, ana
! thereupon senator Morehouse repeated the
| question, as follows: From Whom? Al
| ueciine to answer.
! Question by Senator Morehouse-Where is
| that writing now? Which question was OBJ
! jected to, and the chairman OF the committee
| directed the witness to answer, which he de-
clined to do; thereupon Senator Morehouse
| propounded the following question: "N mere
| is the writing nowp' Al have not the re-
motest idea.
Question-what did you do with itf An
swer-I destroyed ii or threw it away.
! Q.-How did you destroy that Mr.. Law
| renee? Al decline TO answer.
Q-The contents of the writing. did it or did
it not have relation to the subject natter OF
the article printed in the San Francisco Daily
Examiner last Saturday headed bribery in
AID OF Thieyery''? which question the witness
declined to answer. Thercupon Senator More
| house asked the witness what was the con-
| ents of the writing which he had destroyed or
| thrown away, and the witness declined to
answer the question or to give any 1nlor-
| nation OF the contents of the paper or
| document which he had destroyed or thrown
! away or the source from which he derived
| it, and your committee report that as
| ihe San Francisco Daily Examiner has made
the charges set forth in the article hereinbefore
referred TO, and was supposed to have ana are
/ presumed 10 have the information in their
possession upon which the article is based,
and that it cannot proceed further with the
/ examin alton of said witness until the further
action of this Senate in their behalf
And upon the said examination of witnesses
| so held as aforesaid, on the 5th day of
! March, 1897, said witness, Al Murphy was
placed upon the witnessstand, and, after
/ being duly sworn, he testified that he
! connected with the San Francisco Daily Ex-
| aminer and q correspondent for that paper.
Among other things, the following proceedings
! were had:
Question by Senator Morehouse-Do you
| know of your own knowledge OF any commu-
nication from the city OF Sacramento to any
person connected with the Examiner either on
/ last Saturday or two weeks or ten days prior
to that time? Witness-Of any personally?
Senator Seawall-Yes. Witness-Would that
| include myself?
OF you sent any communication to the
Examiner? A.-Of any communication that
might have seen? do not think can answer
! that question unless Mr.. Hearst consents to
my doing so.
Odd you see any communication written
/ by any person connected with the Examiner
! which you know of your own knowledge to
| have baen forwarded to that paper concerning
the subject matter in question? Al shall
/ have TO decline 10 answer that question for
! the same reason given. do not desire to be
| in contempt of the committee, but shall have
to decline to answer :he question under these
circumstances.
| Senator Seawell-I understand that you re-
fuse to answer unless released by the manager.
| A.--That is IT, Senator.
| Mr.. Chairman-The ruling is made upon the
| question submit tied. Witness-l refuse TO an-
! swer that.
Mr.. Chairman-That is not the question.
Senator Morehouse-The only purpose of the
| question is to find out who furnished the in
formation. that is all.
Mr. McEnerney-We have stated our posi-
ton in the matter and will adhere TO it,
! Senator Morehouse-I will ask you, Mr..
Murphy, If you know who the author of
the article headed BRIBERY in Aid of THEY
cry" published in the San Francisco Exam
iner? Al do not know absolutely. l can
| guess, but do not know absolu tely. can
! tell more or less by the style OF the article. l
! think know, but 1 could not say positively.
! Ana your committee reports that it will be
! thus seen that your committee cannot proceed
further with the examination of said witness
| for the reason that he, the said witness, the
same as the said A. SI. Lawrence, refuses TO
| answer questions pertinent to the issue or To
! furnish Toy our committee Information claimed
! 10 be in the possession OF the San Francisco
| Examiner.
And on the said 5th day of March, 1897, at
| the time and place aforesaid, your committee
had before it as a witness l.. L. Levings, also
| reporter and cores pondent OF the San Fran
! cisco Daily Examiner, and after he was duly
! sworn and testified as to his relation to the
| San Francisco Daily Examiner, the following
occurred during the course OF said examine
| lion:
Question by Senator Morehouse-Do you
know of your own knowledge of any telegram
| sent by any member of the Senate or received
| by any member of the Senate to influence his
! vote for or against TO withhold mis- vote
Assembly bill 273? Al shall decline to
answer and wish to explain.
Mr.. Chairman-State your reasons. I sug-
gest that you answer the question.
! Senator Morehouse-Why do you decline 10
| answer? A.-Because should it be within nv
knowledge of any telegram having passed be-
| tween mem bers OF the Senate and persons out
side relative to this matter, and | should be
required TO answer as to my knowledge I
! would be violating the confidence that would
not only ruin me as a newspaper man. but
would be giving away information that be-
| longs to my employers, which my employers
| pay for, and which is their property and not
mine.
| Mr.. Chairman-It is the sense OF the com.
! mlttee that the explanation is not suffi Gent
| the question will be repeated 10 him. and
thereupon the reporter repeated the question
Aforesaid, and The witness said: II ask per-
mission 10 have time to answer, and would
like 10 make further explanation in order that
the committee may not think am acting ar
bitrarily." The question was thcreupon re.
peated 10 the witness, and the witness an
swered, II decline TO answer"
And your committee hereby reports that it
will be seen that the aforesaid witnesses, all
of whom are connected with the San Fran
cisco Examiner, refuse and decline to answer
the questions propounGed TO them relative to