The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-22
FULL STENOGRAPHIC REPORT OF The INVESTIGATION.

had with Mr. Benjamin was not referred
to by Mr.. Green especially, so far as you
say, anything about the details OF what
that conversation was?
A. If it was referred to it was merely
casual-just that this conversation was
had with him and l wanted him to I'M
derstand that there was not any money
needed there.
Q. Now, this testimony that you have
given in answer to the questions by the
chairman is to show to this committee
why it was that you drew the inference
that you testified to the other day = is
A. Draw your own inference from the
@. Draw. my own inference from the
testimony? Well, you can answer my
question You have given this testimony,
and, as l understand it, is is for the pur-
pose of showing to this committee why
you say you got the inference that you
did in your testimony the other day, is 1t
not?
A. I have related the whole incident as
l then did.
for? You related it in answer to the
questions put to you by the chairman,
didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In which he asked you what the. cir
cumstances were that caused you to draw
this inference? Isn't that true? And then
you related those circumstances?
A. Yes. If you want my secretary Will
be pleased to get him. or if you want any
gentleman that Mr.. Benjamin talked with
The chairman--Were these CONVERSE
lions, any of them, in the presence or any
other person?
A. Not directly: but my private secre-
tary was excused from the room.
Q. He was not present, then?
after he left.
matter that desire to call your attention
to- Unless your motion to reconsider the
matter of the issuance of those subpenas
the other night is pressed, those suppe-
mas will be ordered.
Mr.. MelAck-What subpenas, MI Chalr-
man?
The chairman--There are the suPpenas'
as I remember them, for Nj. H. de Young,
William F. Herrin, John d. Spreckels, {.
Wylie matter, l think, is altogether SUI
perffuous, but the Lamberson matter l
think is of some consequence.
Mr.. Mellick-Take them up sep G1l oa Gs
cannot you? Take the Lambersqn case
The chairman-In the case oil Ianno
son, to reconsider that 1 hope the motoh
won't be pressed.
as TO that.
The chairman-The clerk will issue
subpoena for Charles G. Lamberson or
Visalia How about Mr.. de YoungE mus
far the history of the committee mas oeen
that anybody that asked for a subpoena
has got it-has got it on rumor or what
ever it was. My own feeling, gentlemen
of the committee, is this: That we ought
not, probably, TO have been as free IN
that matter as we have been in the past,
and that the same amount OIL ileeuoih
should not be taken in the future.
Mr.. Lardner-I feel that the time Is
about to come when the taking up OF
every idle rumor, without the name OF
the party is given, should be dlsconun-
ued That is how feel apoq nd IL eiv IL the tbe
name and the place of the conversation
so we can be reasonably sure OF some
thing, it would be different; but mere ldle
rurnor and a refusal TO give the name, l
view that with some reluctance, with
some doubts.
Mr.. Melnck-Do you refer to the Lam
berson case?
Mr.. Mellick-I just want TO say TO put
myself on record in the Lamberson case
want to put my statement TINS way:
Personally think 1t is absolutely useless
to send for Lamberson,. but II the rest Oh
YOU wish to send for him, send.
Mr.. Lardner-State your reasons why;
Mr.. Mellick-For the, reasons that Mr..
Racon's statement to this committee was
that some person whom he Goula not re- s.
member had said that Larnberson SAID
that Mr.. Cosper had said somet an1I9;
think that he should be sent for.
Mr.. Bacon-No, l did not say it that
way. Mr.. MeIlick j don't think you had
better discuss that any more
Mr.. Mellick-1t is none OF your business
whether 1 discuss it or not. :,
Mr.. Bacon-All right. 1 will tell you
what | said, then.
Mr. Bacon-I will. What is the use to
rehearse that? l do not care to adVer-
tise that thing any further. Mr.. Melllck
II is in the record what l said and what
YOU said. and there is no use taking UP the
time of the committee discussing It,
Mr.. Mellick-It is none of your business
whether 1 take up the time of the commit
Mr., Bacon guess that is true. Go on
and take it up.
Mr.. MellickEAs I say, just simply put
my protest in, and if the rest Oh you want
him why. all right.
MI. La Baree-I think it is settled in re-
gard to Mr.. Lamberson, and probably IN
regard to these other propositions, l
to this effect-that If any more accusa-
lions are made they be in writing. l Of
fer a resolution to that effect.
The chairman do not know how the
committee feels on that proposition. 1t
strikes me like this: The word ACCUSE.
ton is a strong one. do not reel as II
it ought to be incumbent upon TINS COM
nittee to insist that a written accusation
should be made before witness Is sent
for to prove anything; but II man comes
forward here and in writing states GER
tain facts that he expects TO prove and
gives the names of the individuals by
whom he expects to prove them, 1t seems
to me that ought to be as strong an ac-
cusation as we need.
Mr. La Baree-Well then, l amend my
motion to that effect.
The chairman--IS there second?
Mr.. Lardner-I second the motion.
The chairman-Then / will state the
question this way and see if you agree
with me upon it: 1t is moved and sec
onded that henceforth when we call wit
nesses by issuance of subpenas 1t shall
be only upon a written statement of the
matter expected to be proved, together
with the names Of the persons by whom
they expect to prove those facts. Are
there any remarks?
Mr. Mellick-Don't you think 1t would
be well to put that thing in writing in
Mr.. de Young?
The chairman do as far as l am per-
sonally concerned. You ask in regard
to mel am only one.
Mr. Mellick-Mr. Chairman. / can see
some reason why we should have Mr..
Herrin and Mr.. Spreckes-I mean Mr..
Herrin and Mr.. de Young-a little reason
in 1t, by reason of that same Call article
saying that our Speaker had gotten $500
from Mr.. Herrin, although I think It
ought to have been brought up here, con-
Meeting Burns with It, or something, but
the committee has overruled me and is
going to issue the subpenas anyhow. But
in the case of Spreckels we haven't any
statementshere that he knows anything in
the case except that Mr.. Burnett stated
the other day that Leake referred to some
higher authority knowing something, and
thought that must be Mr.. SpreckelS
Mr. Rurnetf-Mr Chairman aS T under