The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-02-22
CHARGES AGAINST M'CUNE.
Continued from page u

AOOuliiutu page ID
ture should be summoned. glad to have
them summoned, but ne demands. gem
tlemen, that some finding shall be
made, some examination should be had
as to these specific charges that he NAV
answer the innuendoes and complaints
that are made here. We cannot SEP
that it is possible for these sugges-
tons TO be confirmed.
In that view we move to strike out
that fourth paragraph"
Mr.. Evans-Mr. Chairman and gen
tlelnen Of the committee, I see nothing
III paragraph four that can in any man
ner cast any reflection upon any mem
Der of the legislature. 1 will read it.
(Reads)
Argued by counsel
WHITNEY WAS WILLING.
Mr.. Whitney-Since my name has
been specified in this complaint. 1 have
merely this to say: / have very little
respect for Dame Rumor and for an ig-
norant public opinion. prejudice and
even mobocratic instincts. For an en-
lightened public opinion | have the
greatest regard, and in Difference and
to that, and in reply to this allegation
which l consider one almost an asper-
sion, I can say that 1 am perfectly
willing and even anxious to go upon the
all that ! know.
Mr.. SOrenson-Ir. Chairman. I want
to say individually that l have no care
whatever for the charges or for the ru-
nlors that are afloat concerning MEM
bers of this legislature personally. In
dividually / am ready and willing at
any time 10 go upon this stand or any
other, but IL seems TO me that if any
suspicion rests upon any members of
the legislature the proper thing would
be to have them subpoenaed and ap-
pear before this honorable body, and
that il would be unnecessary to drag
them all in. 1 therefore move you that
this fourth c!spse or section or para
graph he stricken out.
Mr.. Cummings second the motion.
The motion to strike out was agreed
20 unanimously.
LAW RECALLED.
Albert a. Law, being recalled as a
witness for further cross examination.
testified as follows:
Questions by Mr.. Dickson:
Mr.. Law, have you any objection now
to giving us the names of the parties
who, prior TO the time when you made
the charge yesterday evening and veri-
fed it, had informed you Mr.. McCune
and others acting in his behalf had
bribed and attempted to bride divers
other members of the legislature? Did
you ask if l had any objection?
Yes? No sir.
Who. prior to the time when you
flied the first verified charge here, had
given YOU any such information? Mr..
Nebeker: he gave me the information
himself.
The information that you now nave
embodied in the charge filed here this
morning? Yes. sir.
And who else? And Mr.. Jackson gave
me the information that was specified
in his case. When? On Saturday.
Who else-by the way, when did Mr..
Nebeker give you his information? l
think it was either Friday or Satur
day
Friday or Saturday? Who else? I
heard Representative Cook make the
statement that is charged against Farr
on the floor of the joint assembly.
on Saturday? Saturday; yes. sir.
Who else? 1 think that is all that is
specified. isn't it?
So you heard Mr.. Farr make his
denial and Mr. Cook explain in reDly
10 Mr.. Earr that he did not mean to
be understood as he had been under
stood By MI. Farr, on the floor of the
house? WIN you please repeat the
question?
Question read.)
Yes, sir; ] heard both statements.
And you heard Mr. Cooks disclaimer
tao. Didn't YOU? Yes, sir.
SO that, apart from that. the only
parties who had given you any infor- I
nation Of ans bribery or attem0ted
bribery were Mr. Nebeker and MI |
JACKSON: Yes. sir
one o: them had given you the in
formation or Friday, and the other you /
can ] say l. may have been Friday; /
/ wouldn't be DCSitiVe.
am asking FOR your recollection 4
about il, and the other one Saturday? /
Yes, sir.
FIRST RUMORS OF BRIBERY.
Up to that time you had had no in !
formation Of any bribery or atteE-ted .
bribery? Only vague runners, OF /
course.
Let me read You the third paragraph /
of the charges fled by you this morn
ins-by the ay you didn't verify these :
charges: l signed my name TO them
You verified the original charge? Yes,
ST.
owore 10 il? Yes, sir
You didn't swear 10 the charges here
that you We're informed and believed as
You mere state? Yes; l am perfectly
willing 10 swear TO II.
You didn't, though? No; l didn't, l
said I didn't.
l call your Alteration TO the third par
asTaph tH@adiag). Third. l further
charge, Oh information and belief, that
some time within the month last past
Representative Farr. while or the Ore
gon ShoIc Line railroad train, between
Logan ana Salt Lake. and Al a time
when he. the said Farr. was voting for
the said McCune, stated 10 Representa-
tive Cook. in substance. that ne. FarT, /
would bet that q he. Cook. would. with
the two Nebekers and one other man,
vote for McCune they could set S20,000
u So, e0O?"
Ir. EVans-Twenty-fiv thousand-it
should he twenty-five.
Mr.. DickSon-lt Is thiTty-fve.
Mr.. Evans-it is typographical er-
TOR = that IS 50.
MIR. Ean Cott--It is twenty-five.
Twenty or twenty-five thousand dol
lars for SO doing-havinS heard the re-
marks OF Mir. Cook in the Joint con-
Vention on Saturday having heard Ut
The same time Mr.. Fairs denial of
what he understood 10 be implied in
the remarks of Mr.. Cook, and having
heard Mir. Cooks DISCLAIMER in response
70 Ar. FAIR, why did you embody this
il here al all? Simply because that the
fact remained ana MI. Farr did not
decay that part of Mr. Cooks statement
that he had made that assertion that
is embodied in the complaint; Mr..
FAIR, 4 ! understand his denial, went
only so Tar as the assertion made by
Mr. Cook against Farr. that he had
got all that he went in for; that is the
way l understood Mr.. Fairs denial.
You understood Mr.. Farr- TO admit
this-uD TO Friday you had had no in
formation whatever of any bribery or
bribery? No specific infor-
nation.
Nobody was pursuing you with an