The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-21


flee for the 5000 volun-
tarily. I told that he
was on his way to Colonel
Burns to get money to
help him in his candidacy
He had said he disliked to
go to Burns for money
because Mr.. Grant was
his preference This was
told me by gentleman
not in politics hate to
bring his name in.
Now, what does the foregoing prove? That
Wright announced himself for Grant He
cepted honorable man, openly taking position
to stand by it and take the consequences He had
expected something different, but it was not offered
He then made it known that he going to Burns
for money and took that this should get to the
ears of Green, and it did. Wright went to Green's
office and got 5000 1t was squeezed out of Green by
the threat to go to Burns. Wright and Green swear
that they played Damon and Pythias to each other
BIT Green's testimony shows that there was no such
relation. else Wright, needing money, would no
have threatened get it of Burns in order to squeeze
it out of Grant The relation financial entirely
and who doubts that the consideration was to be
Wright's vote for Grant? That Green understood
it is perfectly plain. If he did not why does he say
under oath that Wright "a political harlot be-
cause he voted for Burns?
Turning now to Wrght's testimony. He admits
getting the $1,000 and that 5000 OF used in the
primaries in the Seventh Ward in Oakland in brass
bands, printing, canvassing, etc, and that he "won
out in that ward for the delegation by six votes
Now he had no opponent for the nomination but
Prirge, and later he swore that he paid Pringle
$500 to withdraw candidate and he withdrew
This left Wright without opposition in his district
shown by his own testimony, and therefore the expen
diture of the whole 5000 in his primary campaign
unnecessary H admits under oath that he took
$1,000 from Green, that he knew Green was Grants
manager and he admits that he told Mr.. Spreckels
and Mr. Leake to the help OF The Call in his
Speakership fight, that he was not under obligation
to any individual corporation.
1t would be interesting to know just what the
Speaker considers an obligation. He took large
sum from Grant, and the assistance OF The Call
which he solicited, but felt free of obligation in
each case! Grant and The Call were antagonistic
and both antagonized Burns. 1t will be interesting
to know the nature OF the obligation Burns which
led him to violate the other two.
It is perfectly well understood that Green knew
he was putting Wright under obligations to Grant
and that Wright knew it. The transfer of the large
sum of $I65o was the only needed evidence OF
contract which required further record in text
in words Morally and in equity the offer and its
acceptance completed the transaction just as much as
though written agreement was made before no
tary. Green's testimony that he learned that Wright
was the way to Burns for money that he
learned he his way to put himself under obi
cations to Burns that involved his for Senator
and by ntercepting him he secured the obligation for
Grant
The coarsest of practical politicians understood this
perfectly, and there need be difficulty in seeing it
on the part OF those who not practical politicians
That The Call has perfect confidence in its case is
certified by publication of every word of the tes-
timony Heretofore the style of report by investi-
eating committees has been: Your committee has
heard all the testimony and the people have not In
this the people, the final jury, are hearing the
testimony exactly taken, in the columns of The
Call, and we submit to their judgment.