The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-19

lutely nothing done that was illegitimate
or dishonest; that he would not buy his
way into the United States Senate. Mr..
Green has already testified-testified last
;ntBht-that he never furnished money to
ANY body with the understanding or upon
Inc promise, as condition of furnishing
80 that money, that the candidate Cor the
90 legislature should vote for Mr.. Grant.
. now, If this proceeding is to run into
lIlaI or an accounting OF the amount OF
money that MI Green expended in all of
- chose ways 1t seems to me that there is
F. no question that the investigation will
. consume time with no result at all. We
.. Will 90 clear outside Of the resolution
:tlat authorized and created this commit
tee ana viii do nothing at all except to
- drag along this investigation TO the detri-
.ment OF Mr.. Grants campaign, when il
VIII not result in the disclosure of any
.Ihlng detrimental to mis- campaign. On
d.. tnat ground we desire that Mr.. Green
span not so into that any farther. II
:":lhere IS any specific place that Mr.. Green
e. used any money that you think is ille-
p. gltlmate or improper it is perfectly proper
Hor you TO ask about 1t; but to introduce
"a dragnet here and drag this State from
lone end 10 the other, when the inVesti-
cation, or the inception of this invest
: cation, was a motion of Mr., Wright S,
:. made in his own behalf that his conduct
WITH respect 10 this election should be in
Nestigated-we think 1t is entirely i'm
:.Droper and uncaled for.
The chairman-The opinion of the chair
is that the only safe way for this Leg
:. stature to get at that question is to know
.WAere money was expended first; sec
,.ondly, as 10 how it was expended, and
therefore determine whether it was prop
-:ek!y expended or not. Gentlemen OF the
'-CQmmlttee, the question is before you.
:: Mr., Mellick-I think il is a proper Ques-
.%Qnf Except perhaps by not putting the
.-NIeSuon in general way you might be-
g<5 and ask as TO one district after an
-.other-Mr. Bacon did not seem to object
.]Q:that-instead of asking Mr.. Green to go
:el4&ad and detail the whole thing.
-. The chatrman-That is the same ques-
*tleIt, only by different method.
1T - he witness-Now,. Mr.. Mellick should
J. make this exception, however, that ii must
:<2e. where money was improperly ex-
= The chairman-No, I do not ask where it
/. was improperly expended, because l do
MOT want YOU TO be the judge. l want the
ceInmittee to be the judge of that.
:: Mr. Mellick-Taking the case of Mr..
Wright, 1t has not been shown yet nor
has. anybody decided yet that the money
Vas improperly used. and we are to be
: The Judges Of that after we get the testi-
!. :MT> Bacon-Then, as I understand you,
MI chairman, do you propose to take
each Assembly district in this State and
ASK MT. Green II any money was eXpend
ed in that district? l think that you will
Hid that there has been expense incurred
IN every Assembly district In the State
:: The chairman-That is very possible.
-: Mr.. Bacon-And to ask Mr.. Green to go
d: :+nto the details of that expenditure, it
+=WouLq be an utter lmpossibility. You can
readily see that 1t would be a matter of
absolute impossibility, and it is a futile
thing for this committee to expect a man
.:l0 sit down and show exactly where
.*:eEeFY dollar of money was expended in
every Assembly district in this State.
:. New do not desire to limit this investi-
.igatloH at aldo not desire to limit 1t or
. 81 Vert II from any legitimate inquiry
:. put 1t seems to me, gentlemen, that in
:Ia!rneSs to Mr. Grant and under a fair
=C@nstrucIion of your resolution, you are
p" proceeding clear outside of that fair con-
T.. ,sIZyuctlon when you go into that sort of
. +lhHg when there has been nothing shown
.here except this Incident of the payment
Qf money TO Mr.. Wright, which Mr. Green
. %.las already explained, which Mr. Leake
. 5: ALREADY, explained, which Mr.. Wright
IT he chairman-You would not under
rI9ke to argue to this committee, Mr.
*t5acon, that the resolution introduced in
=. Ne Assembly confines the investigation
20: 2Lr Wright. You certainly do not
IneaE that when the resolution is so clear
as: it. Is. Your skill as an attorney will
show you better than that
= BIZ .Bacon--Yes now I will raise that
> 9 GIes$len, and have raised it twice be-
sitlre.' as 10 what scope this is to take
f.he.. chairman-And the chair told YOU
THAT that must be matter of develop
:: :" Mr. BacOn-I certainly have no desire. |
-sll%: Chairman, to attempt to control the !
action. Of the committee. All l desire to
.@s ..i!2 Was what that action should be.
:%4he chairman-Wel, we cannot tell you
IN advance, Mr.. Bacon.
! Mr.. Mellick-In order to get at the mo-
tive in the start l would like to ask
Question Of Mr. Green and that is this:
How does it come that you paid money
In: the different legislative fights rather
than in the State Central Committee
fund?
!. : a. can answer that question by saying
that The State Central Committee was in
terested in the election Of the State ticket
proper and a Congressional ticket. and, so
far. as l am aware. had no part in the
: election or the campaign for the election
-.ofthe members of the Legislature. Sec
.eifluly, the committee, or at least the head
Gift was known to be unfriendly to Mr.
l4rdnt, and it would have certainly been
very poor judgment for US to have per-
,nfrtted the State Central Committee to
: have expended any money in the election
.ofEa Republican Legislature which might
D.: have been unfriendly to Mr.. Grant.
!" @ But. take for instance, the case of
s.Alr. Wright. The 5000 was put in before
-; he" was nominated Was it known then
= that. the head of the ticket was unfriend-
: 1y 10 Mr.. Grants candidacy?
: a. The head OF the State Central Com
-. Mr. MeIlick-How does it come that you
did not put the money into the campaign
fund of the different counties, then?
. -. a, Well. I did in a great many in
: stances. In majority of the cases 1t was
= dome just that very way.
Q. And 1t has been accounted for I'M
der the purity of election laws?
4. | do not know anything about that.
:: Q. We have a purity Of election law
Now, the money that, was not put into
. the campaign fund has not been ac-
: counted for by the candidate, has it?
:. a. / do not know. have not under
: taken 10 follow that out to its end.
...:Mr. Mellick-Now, If we go to work
= and ask you what districts this money
: has been paid into, and find out 1T has not
: 6een accounted for in the purity of cleo
:: ton laws, it seems to me that would be
All Legitimate expenditure Of money.
"A, II may be on the part Of the COM
!. fliitee or some particular person, but 1
cer.tainly did not contribute any money
-: to- be: expended illegitimately, and l made
3lO::HIegitimate contribution.
70: The point l am getting at Is
:. t}3fS: :.OUr inquiry being directed along
the Zines that our chairman undertakes
;: iiQ&. to carry out, and 1t should be shown
+ that the money had been expended lille
ultimately, why, then, II would be proper
for US to report that case.
j.: "A; :: We'll, is this. investigation for the
e.: putpC.se of ascertaining whether members
or the candidates, or the election com.
= uli$tee. or the various candidates, or the
Several county central committees have
Y0Lnplied with the law?
g o, No, sir; whether any Senatorial can
didate has expended money illegitimately.
"A. Well, l answer that no, so far s
. Mr.. Grant is concerned, absolutely.
. : The chairman wish to ask Mr.. Green
with reference 20 the First Assembly Dis
80 trlct Of this State wherein Mr.. c. r. Jill
CC W. oil cd n he A