The San Francisco call., 1905-02-10
|RENA NARkABLE
DEBATE IN
THE SENATE
Investigators Report
on Scandal Leads
to War of Words
SEYMOUR SCORED
S6lVdge D0fi6S Opin-
ion of Public in dn
Attack on Attorney
M NIXI HEEENHr
SEYMOUR SCORED
MANY DEFENDERS
speeIal pIspateh o rhs can.

SpeSidl Dispdtcn 70 4nT Cau.
SACRAMENTO. Feb. s.-Actuated
by the highest principles of jus
tice, majority of the Senate purged
that body to-day of the odium cast
upon it by the criminal acts or
Senators Bunkers, Emnons. French
and Wright. After one of the most re-
Harkable debates in the history of the
Legislature of the State twenty
two members Of the Senate
voted to deny the right to the accused
bcodlers to appear before the special
investigating committee. take the ~ath.
testify TO what they thought best and
then escape the consequence Of their
acts under a technicality OF the crimi-
nal law.
Those that voted to grant no privi-
lcges to the accused under which they
might escape prosecution in. the
criminal courts were Anderson. Bauer,
Belshaw. Broughton, Carter. Coggins.
Curtin, Diggs, Hahn. Leavitt. Lukens,
Leeke. Lynch, Mattos, Mckee, Ralston,
Rambo, Rowell. Rush, Sanford. Ward
and Woodward. Those that voted to
give the accused the right to testify.
basing their vote on various lines OF
reasoning. were: Greenwell. Haskins.
Irish, Keane, Markey, Nelson. Pendle-
son, Welch and Wolfe The accused
were not called on to vote and Muen-
ter was absent.
The debate was precipIfated by a re-
port presented this morning by Sena-
ter Belshaw. as chairman of the spe-
cial investigating committee. I'm keep
iEg with decision OF the committee
last night to submit to the Senate the
question of whether or not the accused
Senators should be sworn. the decision
so to do having been reached after
District Attorney Seymour had de-
roanded that the accused be denied the
right TO testify, that criminal prosecu-
ton might not be defeated under the
provisions of section 36 of the Code
os Criminal Procedure. This report is
as follows:
BELSHAw's REPORT.
Mr.. President: Your special COM
mittee OF FIVE. appointed pursuant to a
resolution adopted by the Senate on
the 30th day of January. A. ID. 1905. to
investigate the charges contained in
an affidavit rejecting upon the honor.
integrity and conduct OF certain mem
bers OF the Senate. contained In said
affidavit, beg leave TO report:
That at q session OF said commit
tee. held In the Senate chamber
Wednesday evening. February 8. 1905.
one OF said accused Senators. to wit:
Senator E j. Emnons, presented him
self before the committee and request
ed to be sworn and examined as wit
ness. That thereupon A. NJ Seymour
Esq. District Attorney Of the County
OF Sacramento, State Of California. adj
dressed the committee and objected to
the administration of the oath to said
Senator e. ]. Emmons or to the taking
OF his testimony as a witness under
OATH specifying the following reasons
for his objections: That under the
provisions OF the law II said Sen
ator Emmons or any OF the other ac-
cused Senators were permitted to tes-
tify as witness under oath before
this committee 1t would preclude any
future criminal prosecution on the part
Of the pecple Of the State OF California
against any such Senator so testifying.
s.The Chairman of the committee, for
the committee. asked the accused SEN
ators if they ware willing to make vol
untary statements before the commit
tee without being sworn, and the said
senators. by their counsel. replied that
they would not
~Whereupon II was unanimously re-
solved by the committee that this mat
ter be reported TO the Senate in order
that this committee might receive the
instructions of the Senate on this ques-
ton. Your said committee therefore
presents the following interrogatory to
the Senate. on which It requests def.
mite Instructions:
shall the committee refuse to
swear any or either OF said four ac-
cused Senators and decline to receive
their testimony under oath2"
FIND NEW CHAMPION
But one undisnifed incident marked
r,,~.f;rs.ca r>w. pn~. rol,.v~n