The San Francisco call., 1905-02-10
LukenS' Resolution Taking
Case Out Of Hands Of
the Senate Is Adopted

can be upheld and we must not fail
to see this way"
MANTLE OF CHARITY.
Hahn said that he felt he voiced the
sentiments of all of his colleagues when
he said that he thought the present was
the most trying moment Of his life. He
said that he was ready if he thought
the interests of justice would be sub
served to throw the mantle of charity
around the accused, but he could see
no way in which the Senate could in
honor place the accused in a position
where they would be absolved from
punishment for bribery If they are
proven guilty.
Are we to place these men in a DO
sition," he continued, where they can
not be punished for their crimes if they
are guilty? Shall we say that though
we know they are guilty we do not pur-
pose seeing them punished, 1t is ter
rible to think here about what we must
do perhaps when it comes to final
vote on this question. The courts are
open to these men and under the law
they are guaranteed a fair and impair
tial trial and in voting upon these res
olutions it rests with us to say whether
the law shall take it's course.
Senator Ralston said he thought the
integrity of the Senate was involved
and he thought the Investigation
should continue to the end. He did not
believe Simpsons resolution should be
adopted and said that he would vote
against 1t when the call was made.
\ Senator Wolfe then took UP the argu-
ment against the effort that was being
made to deny the accused the right to
testify. He advanced, he said the
broad principle that every man is en-
titled to a hearing and that the Senate.
by denying these men the right to
vote would prejudge them guilty. there
by casting aside the presumption that
every man accused is innocent until
proved guilty.
WOLFE A DEFENDER. u
Continuing Senator Wolfe said
1T is the duty of the Senate to put
this committee in a composition where
it can hear evidence for and against
the accused men, thus enabling the
committee to bring in a report SO the
Senate may be able to reach conclu-
sion.
NO greater punishment could be in
f1icted upon a Senator than to brand
him a felon and send him adrift in the
world There is not Senator on the
floor but who would rather be rotting
in his grave than to be SO branded bv
the Senate.
Put the Senators under OATH and if
they testify falsely prosecute them for
perjury. The majesty of the law can
be Vindicated by guaranteeing these
men a fair trial by the Senate, and then
let the able and fearless District At
torney of Sacramento County act as he
sees fit afterward. This Senate has no
assurance that the Grand Jury of Sac
ramento County would do it's duty if
the Senate refused to act"
At the conclusion of Wolfes address
adjournment was taken until o'clock
When the Senate reconvened Short
ridge reoDened the debate. He demand
ed that the Senate grant the right to
the accused to be heard, basing his ar
gument on the broad principles of JUS
tice as he saw them, and though his
address was a brilliant effort the only
effect it produced was a general regard
for his eloQuence and little for his the
ory
Senator Shortridge argued that Dis
trict Attorney Seymour of Sacramento
County had misinterpreted the law,
which says, mo person sworn and ex-
amined before either house of the Leg
islature or any committee thereof can
be held to answer criminally or be sub
ject to any penalty or forfeiture for
any fact or act touching which he is re-
quired to testify"
SHORTRIDGE FOR LAW.
The Senator contended that the men
are not required to testify, and he be-
lieved they should be sworn He said
the action of the Senate would not bar
prosecution by the courts-that they
could be punished either for bribery or
for falsely testifying.
Shortridge said he was always for the
law, and he stood for the rights Of the
accused Senators. Laws had been made
giving rights and protection to men,
and they were entitled to offer their
defense under the law. He did not
think it would be right to gag these
men, to bind, to cruelty them, just be-
cause of public opinion. Senator Short
ridge reminded the Senators that they
had not made the existing law; it had
been on the books for long time.
Shortridge said the Senate would be
violating one of the most sacred rights
of men, handed down for ages, If 1t
denied the right to testify Popular
opinion seems against the men, the
newspapers are against them, the peo-
pie are inf1amed and are demanding
punishment without hearing, but per-
sonally he proposed to plead for the
Senators because they had God given,
a constitutional right to be heard
IMPORTANT POINT.
Anderson again entered the debate
at this point and said that whatever
decision should be reached regarding
whether or not the accused should be
given the right to testify he did not
believe the investigation should stop,
as provided in the resolution presented
by Simpson. An important point that
suggested itself to him was that last
night Jordan, in making his confess
sion, testified directly opposite to
Clarence Grange and it was apparent
that more evidence was necessary, TO
establish. If possible. which of the two
told the truth. IF Mr.. Grange and his
associates deliberately placed tempta-
tion in the way of these men before
they made demand upon them,s il
they ever did" said Anderson, they
are more guilty than the accused SEN
ators granting for the nurnose of ar