The San Francisco call., 1897-03-09
ASSEMBLY INVESTIGATION
Counsel for the Western Union
Argues Against Obsying tho
Dragnet Subpoena.

Dragnet Subpoena.
SACRAMENTO, CAL, March 8.-The
Assembly investigating committee went
through very dull day. One Assembly
man after another was called up and was
asked set of the most comprehensive
questions by Valentine, as TO whether
they had been approached by any one,
member or outsider, and solicited for his
vote or influence for or against the bill
whether they knew of any member hav-
ing been SO approached or bribed, or
whether they had ever heard of any
such things. They all replied in the
negative.
Senator Morehouse appeared before the
committee and testified that he had not
heard even the rumor of bribery In con-
nection with the name of any member OF
the Assem- bly, or the Senate. On being
asked whether he had received any tele-
grams in relation to Caminettfs bill,
273, he replied that he had received q dis
patch from W. F. Herrin after the roll
had been called in the Senate on the bill,
and after the bill had been passed. He
had not the dispatch with him, but would
go and get it. He added that Senator
Langford had requested him as a special
favor to vote for the bill.
In the afternoon Superintendent Jaynes
of the Western Union Telegraph Com
pany appeared before the Assem- bly, COM
mittee with his attorney, r. B. Carpenter,
to oppose the subpoena duces tecum re-
quiring him to produce before the COM
mittee all kilograms sent or received by
each one of the fifty -one members of the
Assembly who voted for the passage OF
Caminetti's bill. At the beginning OF
Judge Carpenters argument Senator
Morehonse handed to the committee dis
patch reading as follows:
SAN FRANCISCO. Feb. %. 1897.
To Hon. III. v. Morehouse Sacramento: Please
let up in your opposition 10 Assembly bill
273. Will explain when I see you.
WILLIAM F. HERRIN.
Judge Carpenter argued that the SUBJ
pena was not binding. The subject mat
ter of the dispatches must be given, other
wise his client could not be compelled to
answer. The subject matter should be
particularized.
Assemblyman Valentine argued that
the proceedingsIin the Supreme Court were
based upon a proceeding in the lower
court. but that in an investig alton by a
legislative committee the law allowed
more latitude. In the case of D. 0. Nc
Caitby the rule was laid down that the
Legislature had greater powers than the
courts. He thought that the committee
had power to issue the subpoena for all
telegrams relating to Assembly bill 273.
Clunie said that there was later de-
cision by District Court Judge Morrow, in
which he said that the description given
II the subpoena was sufficient. That case
was to be found in the sixty-third Federal
reports.
Chairman Belshaw read the evidence of
Alvinza Hayward and Senator VOORHEES,,
giving their consent to the production of
all kilograms sent by or received by them
in relation to Assembly bill 273.
'The case of ex parte Jaynes is not over
ruled by the District Judge of the United
States" said Judge Carpenter. II sug-
mittee and as to the proposition that this
Legislature is above the law and the
courts there is no authority for such a
statement and / utterly scout it. The law
that protects the humblest citizen guides
the highest official. This dragnet subpoena
is of no avail and of no force. There is no
allegation in any OF those kilograms that
any member of either house was bribed.
This dragnet through the telegraph office
to rake up and bring up all the kilograms
OF the company in the hope OF finding that
there has been some offense against the
law is not valid subpoena and my client
cannot be compelled to produce those
kilograms and that is just what they say
in the SEVENTEEN California reports. You
must ask for the telegram which tends to
prove a crime and what that telegram
specifies. 1t is simply an effort to find
some testimony that you absolutely know
nothing about"
The committee adjourned until to-mor.
row morning at o'clock.