The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-18

was a charge in the newspaper of i'm
Mr. Meliick-'I will help you out as to
how / am willing to go ahead, as mem
ber of this committee. For instance, II
the chairman calls Mr. Grant, we put
him on here and we ask nm question;
you, as his attorney can OBJECT 10
that question; and as far as l
am concerned, am willing Wiling 10
committee; but then we can decide, under
the resolution, whether we are asking
proper questions or not we are not Try
ing to shut you out as an attorney ana
adviser of Mr.. Grant except when IN
the investigation we ask certain ques-
ton. Then you can decide or you can
under this resolution or not. But we have
got to go right in and do something"
Mr.. Bacon-"Well, | cannot help but
see, Mr.. Chairman and other members of
the committee, that it could not be any
thing but proper to start this investiga-
ton in a logical way"
Mr.. Meliick-"Who decides what is
logical?"
Mr.. Bacon-"You do. I am not decid-
ing, am simply making the suggestion
that that would be the logical way to do
it; have somebody come in here and make max,
statement of something done improp-
erly; and then, If there is no such, state
ment made, there is no need for any IN
VeStigation.'
The chairman-"Your idea, then, would
be that a charge be made"
Mr.. Bacon-"No, sir; L don't say that. :"
The chairman-"That counsel for the
person supporting the charge should in
vestigate and offer his testimony in sup
port of that charge, and the other side
the other parties-must bring testimony
to prove the falsity of the charge. Is
that right?"
Mr.. Bacon-"Mr. Chairman, my posi-
ton is simply this: that that article in
The Call stands in just exactly the same
stead as an Indictment. Now, if you were
in a court of justice, or anywhere on
earth where the ordinary rules of, evil
dence obtain the first procedure is to sub
stantiate the charges. Why is 1t unfair
why is it unbuSinesSlike TO do that?'a
The chairman-'It looks to me as If
this committee is a unique committee in
one respect, that it has not a likeness to
a court-not a general likeness, more in
vestigation of any supposed wrong, and
that the procedure that has grown up in
the practice of the courts is not such a
procedure as will affect the purposes of
this investigation. If the committee, any
OF them, feel differently about the matter,
will be glad to hear from them
Mr.. Lardner-"Mr. Chairman as an at
torney, l know but one way to get at
these matters If there is a charge made
let those who make the charge attempt
to substantiate it, and then those who
deny the Charge attempt to refute it. I do
not know how to get at it in any other
way"
The chairman-"The difficulty about the
matter is that we have no specific
charge"
Mr.. Lardner-"Well, there must be
plaintiff and defendant, one way or the
other-or an affirmative and a negative"
Mr.. McEnerney-"I would like to inquire
# there is a copy of the resolution before
the committee"
The chairman-"Yes. Would you like
Mr.. McEnerney-"I will read It, The
first paragraph of the preamble, Mr.
Chairman, is:
Whereas. Direct charges have been made that
improper means have been used to influence the
action OF the Hon. Howard E. Wright, a men,
Der of and Speaker of the Assembly, in the
election Of a United States Senator by the
Legislature, and whereas, it has been charged
that some persons have used and are using IL
legal methods to influence the action of mem
bers of the Assembly in said election, and
whereas, etc.
Now, it seems to me that those two
paragraphs carry a charge. The Clients
whom Mr.. Pillsbury and myself represent
have made the charges"
That the preamble to those resolutions
speaks ABOUT a charge"
Mr.. McEnerney-''Ye S, sir" =
The chairman But that. no sucn
charge. so far as this committee may
know and so far as the members thereof
may know personally, has been made to
the Assembly"
Mr.. McEnerney-'"T is. true. But the
Assembly, in the exercise of that inherent
power which ii possesses, to preserve the
members, has taken notice of a public
charge of that character, and this COM.
mittee has met to hear and determine
those matters. Now, the charge has been
made by certain individuals Those GER
tain individuals claim to be able to sub
stantiate the charge. This committee does
not know by whom the charges can be
Substantiated; it does not know that they
can be substantiated by Mr.. Grant. or by
Mr.. Wright or by Mr.. Green or any one
else. The charges having been made by
the clients whom we represent, they are
the sole owners and in the possession of
facts which would enable the proof of
those facts to be eXpeditionsly brought
forward. OF course, have no desire to
take issue with Mr.. Mellick about the re-
suits of interference by attorneys in COM
mittees. Portions of these charges, as
they are set forth in these resolutions, are
specific in character. For centuries the
way to prove facts has been for me man
who makes the allegation to bring for
ward the proof, and that experience in
the courts has commended itself to the
judgment of mankind generally. OF
course, we have no desire to intrude our
selves into this controversy; but having
made the charges, our clients deem it
their duty to appear before the committee
and to say that they are in possession of
be proven, and If the committee will give
us short time to make a beginning, then
If we consume unnecessarily and fruit
lessly the time of the committee you can
drive us out of the ROOM
The chairman-"You our suggestion is a
kind one. What does the committee think
of 1t? I understand you, Mr.. McEnerney,
to propose this line of procedure: That
yourselves, representing The Call and the
men who made this charge through The
Call desire to present to this committee
evidence in support of the charges that
have been talked about in this resolu-
tion?'
Mr.. McEnerney-''Yes sir. To proceed
Just as though 1t were a civil action,
where the burden of proof was upon the
person making the charge, calling what
witnesses we please and conducting the
examination under the direction of the
committee. OF course, if we waste the
time, why, the committee will not toler-
ate us. It is undoubtedly true that it
needs no formal charge to set an iDvesti-
eating committee in motion. That has
been repeatedly decided in the courts.
The Legislature, for the purpose of pre-
serving, as | said before, the integrity of
the body and it's members, is in duty
bound to taken notice of charges reflect
ing upon either. And it could set in mo-
ton, and it has the right in this proceed
ing to set in motion and conduct the in
quiry without the aid or cooperation or
assistance of those who claim to be in
possession of the facts. But supposng
that we made the charge upon the state
ment made by Mr.. Grant-the committee
would not know that Mr.. Grant had ever
made the statement. 1t would not go
upon the particular item of proof we
founded the charge against him, and it
would go on, ii seems to me, consuming