The record-union., 1899-01-21
4 QUARTER OF A MILLION.
THAT rs WHAT SPEAKER
WRIGHT ASKS FOR.
He Has Filed His Complaint
Against John D. spreckels
and Others.

Yesterday afternoon Howard E.
Wright, Speaker of the Assembly, filed
IN the Superior Court, through Deviln
q Devlin and sHoll & Dunn, his attor-
neys, suit against John D. Spreckeis'
W. s. Leake, L. Z. Levings, Hugh
Burke, ]. L. Gillis and C. K. Lipman'
asking for damages to the amount OF a
quarter of a million. The text OF the
complaint, which explains his cause o.
action, is as follows:
In the Superior Court of the County
of Sacramento, State of California
Howard E. Wright. plaintiff. VS.. John
D. Spreckels, w. S. Leake, L. L. Lev
ings, Hugh Burke, ]. L. Gillis and
Charles X. Lipman, defendants.
PLAINTIFF COMPLAINING AL
LEGES.
First-That at all times herein named
the defendant, John D. Spreckels, was
the owner, publisher and proprietor OF,
and the defendant, w. S. Leake, was
the general manager and superintend-
ent of. and the defendants. L. L. Lev
ings and Hugh Burke, were the report
ers upon and writer's for, certain daily
newspaper printed and published in the
city and county of San Francisco, in
the State of California, called the
Call" That at all of said times the
defendants, ]. L. Gillis and Charles K.
Lipman, were vendors and distributors
of said newspaper.
Second-That at all of said times said
newspaper had and now has in this
county, as we'll as in all other counties
of the State of California, and in ad-
Joining States, large number of read
ers, subscribers and purchasers, and
large circulation as a daily newspaper.
That the plaintiff is informed and be-
lie res that it had at all of said times a
large circulation in the city of Sacra-
mento, California, aggregating two
thousand copies or thereabouts, and is
widely distributed and extensively read.
Third-That the plaintiff is now and
at all the times herein mentioned was
ard has been member of the Legisla-
ture of the State of California, and
Speaker of the Assembly thereof.
Fourth-That on the 10Th day of jan
uary, A. D. 1899, the defendants pub
lished, and caused to be published, in
said newspaper, namely, in said the
"Cal1," an article of and concerning the
plaintiff herein, in the words and f1g-
ures following with the head lines and
in the manner herein set out, to-wit:
s'Alameda's Repudiated Assemblyman
Admits That He Got Grants Money
Howard E. Wright Sold Himself
and Wouldn't Stay Bought-Speaker
of the Assembly Admits Receiving
Money From Grant-Conclusive Proof
of His venality-Played Triple Trai-
tor, First to His Honesty. Second to
His Constituents, and Then to the
Man Who Had Relieved His Finan-
cial Distress.
Call Headquarters,
Sacramento, Jan. 14th.
Howard E. Wright Of Berkeley,
Speaker Of the Assembly, received
81, $50 from U. S. Grant, Jr., through
his political manager, Milton S. Green,
in return for the promise that he would
vote for Grant for United States Sen
ator.
Mr.. Wright has failed to keep his
promise and carry out his part of the
bargain and sale. Instead Of voting for
Grant he has elected to cast his Sena-
torial ballot for D. M. Burns, in de-
fiance of the wishes of the people who
elected him. He would not stay bought.
The nature and amount of the obliga-
ton acknowledged by Mr.. Wright
when he cast his vote for Burns are
only partially known. Precise knowl-
edge on this point is unnecessary, as
the rules of trade are sufficiently ia
miliar to the people of this State to
enable them to form a reasonably cor
rect judgment in the matter, the
amount paid by Grant being known.
Mr. Green acknowledged having paid
Mr. Wright the money, and also that
he paid it for the purpose mentioned.
Mr.. Wright admits having received the
money from Mr.. Green, and also that it
was paid to him under the distinct un-
derstanding that he should vote for U.
s. Grant for Senator. There can be no
mistake. Aside from Mr. Wright's ad-
mission and Mr.. Green's acknowledge
ment. there are letters and receipts in
existence which fully prove the facts
as they are here stated.
There are two other matters upon
which Mr. Wright touches in his admis-
sion, which should be mentioned at this
point. One is the statement, the truth
of which cannot be vouched for at this
time by the Call that Wright went to
w. F. Herrin, manager of the South
ern Pacific Company's Political Bureau.
and asked for 81 200 with which to de-
fray his election expenses. Mr.. Herrin.
according to the statement, declined to
pay over so large an amount of money
at one time, but compromised by paying
Mr. Wright $500.
'sThe other is Mr.. Wright's sworn
statement of the amount of money ex-
pended by him during the campaign as
provided for by the purity of election
law. According to Mr.. Wright's sworn
statement now on file in the office OF
the County Clerk of Alameda County,
he spent a maximum sum of S74 dur
ing the campaign. In his confession
Mr.. Wright declares that the money
he received from Milton Green in return
for his promises of support of the Sem
atorial candidacy of U. s. Grant was
nut into his own campaign in order tc
insure his election to the Assembly In
making this statement Mr.. Wright
confesses himself perjurer.
"Finally, Mr. Wright acknowledges
that he is going to continue to vote for
and work for D. M. Burns, and that M
intends to ease his conscience by max