The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-18
SPEAKER WRIGHT HOLDS
HIS HIGH OFFICE WITHOUT
AUTHORITY OF THE LAWS
He Took a False Oath When He SWore TO His Bill Of
Election Expenditures.
THE LEGAL PENALTY PROVIDED IS FORFEITURE
Men Who Served the Dgra Officials Purity Committee Declare That They
Failed Sign Report Of His Expenses Required by the
Statutes Such Document Exists the sigma
lures Are FOgeeS
THE LEGAL PENALTY PROVIDED IS FORFEITURE

that Pringle had given him strong
battle and on the following day might
assemble the more powerful force at
the polls.
Wright and some of his friends
sought and obtained therefore a con-
ference with Pringle. The fight of
Frank c. Jordan for County Clerk of
Alameda was involved and Pringle,
who was Jordan's friend. and fearful Of
the antagonistic influence of Wright.
agreed to withdraw. Wright promised
to pay Pringle $3.50 to pay, in part at
least. what Pringle had expended in
the campaign. On the following day,
the day of the primary election, Wright
gave Pringle $3.50 in coin.
Two facts in that transaction are
significant. 1t should not be forgotten
that Wright subsequently took legal
oath that he spent no more than $74 to
secure his election. It should be re-
membered that Pringle and his friends
and also the friends of Wright, under
stood thoroughly that Wright was not
paying his own money to Pringle. On
the night of the conference Wright de-
clared that he did not have the money,
but would give it to Pringle on the fol-
lowing day Wright had not yet found
an angel in Milton j. Green. The
friends of Wright winked knowingly
when he paid the money and some
body said the railroad building cast
long shadow. Wherever the money
came from Wright was prompt in pay
ment.
He was profuse also in promise, al
though he was treading close upon the
] ~, .off hn a w n
! Pringle that he would use his influence
to secure for Pringle position at the
LEGISLATURE worth Sc a day, or Fed
eral or State appointment that the re-
! tiring aspirant might seek. Pringle was
| at liberty to accept the IS for hlmSel
! or for any one else of his choosing
! Pringle had set his cap for the Secre-
! taryshiD Of the California Code Com
mission, and Wright nodded approval
That concluded the negotiations
! through which Wright secured his
nomination for the Assembly. He con-
| strued one of the transactions to mean
the corruption of his friend Pringle.
| Over three times the amount tnat
Wright swore was his expenditure had
already been spent and an illegal prom
ise had been given. But Wright had
only begun his campaign. The Call is
| in a position to prove that Wright ex-
pended after his nomination and be-
| fore his election the sum of 500 that
was used exclusively for election pur-
poses. This sum was not spent per-
sonally by Wright, but was given by
him to be used in his political interest.
/ This money was not accounted for in
the sworn statement OF expenditures
| that Wright subsequently made.
The Speaker of the Assembly is
therefore guilty of perjury and subject
under the law to forfeiture of his
seat. The statute permits no discre-
ton in the matter and provides es-
pecially for the penalty.
When Howard E. Wright was nomi-
mated for the Assembly he appointed
the following to act as his auditing
committee under the purity of elections
law: w. B. Pringle, Frank PARCELS,
/ william II. Waste, Arthur Elston and
H. S. Pugh. This committee is COM
manded by law to supervise the cleo
tion expenses of the candidate it repre-
sents and to make oath that the
amount finally sworn to is correct.
Each member of the committee must
sign the document under oath. The re-
mort. In the case of legislative officers,
is then filed with the Secretary of
State. Many officers nave also flled the
reports of their purity committees with
the Recorders of their counties as a
matter of double security. There Is a
nrovision in the law that invalidates
the election of an officer If the report
of the purity committee be not properly
and honestly made and filed.
The records of this State fail to re-
veal the existence of a report by
Pringle, PARCELS, Waste, Elston and
Pugh in favor of Howard E. Wright.
Such a report should be in
the Office Of the Secretary of
State, but ii is not there, and there is
nothing to show that it ever was there.
The greatest diligence has been exer-
cised in a search for this report, but 1t
cannot be found. 1t might have been
in the office OF the Recorder of Ala
media County or that of the County
Clerk, but it is in neither. These facts
in themselves would be dangerous to
Howard E. Wright, but there is in
! connection with this affair another fact