The San Francisco call., 1899-09-16

ton from drink when he made it and
didn't know what he was doing. Wit
ness denied that he had told Braunhart
he was drunk when he made the affi-
davtt, although he did recolIect that he
had said he did not remember what was
IN it.
Witness said that the most recent
conversation he had had with Braun
hart was on the morning before the
Port Warden testified in the Hearst
case
What was it?' asked McEnerney,
and after McGoyern had detailed it he
dropped him uqickly.
'Braunhart told me he had been
subpenaed in the case" said McGov-
ern, and said he was going to use my
name. I says What are you going to
use my name fOr?' and he says You
are a reputable man. or something
like that, And am going TO use your
name as having said that Dunn's repu-
tation was bad I says Don't you do
ii, because you can't verify it. 1 never
said Dunn's reputation was bad, or
anything of the kind
Braunhart did use McGovern's name
after that and that is why he is ac-
cused- He also used the name of ex-
Senator Bart Burke, who also testified
last night that he did not TecoIleCt ever
having said anything to Braunhart
about Dunn's character.
McEnerney got from Burke the fact
that the ex-senator and Braunhart
had had a conversation at the Baldwin
Hotel in 1896. at which Braunhart had
asked him for pointers on the hold-over
Senators and at which the railroad"
and anti-railroad proclivfties of the
men under review were discussed gen
orally Burke entirely failed TO recall
any references that had been made TO
Dunn, and was inclined 10 the belief
that the name of that Senator had not
come up, notwithstanding the fact that
BraUnhart had so sworn in the Dunn
Hearst case.
McEnerney took the ex-senator back
TO the days OF the session Of '95 and
tried every possible method known to
the cross-examiuer to draw from him
something that would support his case.
but Burke, while he had had his own
opinions concerning Senators who were
railroad and others who could be
reached was 10th to state that he
had mentioned Dunn's name to Braun
hart as one Of them. He said he had
some recollection OF the charge that
Senator Biggy had made at that ses-
sion that Senator Dunn had approached
him with a proposition to go into q
combine for money. He said he re-
garded Biggy as a truthful man. but
had heard nothing of the evidence be-
fore the committee and knew the mat
ter had not been pushed.
Did you ever alter your belief that
Biggy's statement was true?"
Burke paused g long while before he
answered.
Il would rather be excused from
answering that question"
A low whistle sounded In the court
room, as If somebody had been sur
prised The court looked daggers, but
could not find the culprit.
u insist upon it," said McEnerney.
Il certainly think said Burke, that
Senator Biggy believed it to be true
1 think he told what be believed to be
true I don't know whether it was true
or not"
On redirect examination Burke re-
membered that in making the charge
Biggy had not mentioned any Senator's
name.
I'm that Senate" asked MCGOWAN,
wasn't the test of railroad or anti-rail-
road, a Senator's vote on the back tax
bill?''
-. was"
Didn't Senator Dunn vote with you
on that bill?"
Yes, sir; that's my recollection"
Ambrose A Watson and Edwin s.
BiddIe. courtroom clerk and stenog-
rapher, respectively, of department 5,
Superior Court, testified to the proceed
ings in that court IN Dunn vs. Hearst,
and produced the record which was
placed in evidence.
The hearing will be resumed at IL
o'clock this morning, with Braunhart
on the stand in his own behalf.