The San Francisco call., 1910-11-03
CHARLES Finch
MENTIONED IN
GRAFT SCANDAL
Go Between Jesse Marks Names
Furniture Agent on the
Witness Stand
Grand Jury Hears Sufficient
Evidence for Indictment
of Blackburn

IN testimony given before the grand
surv al work on the intercounty graft
Of the san Mateo supervisors. a new
name was introduced into the scandal
by Jesse Marks. the go between. It
IS the name Of Charles Finch. an agent
for courthouse furniture. Jail interiors
and such wares. who IS brought into
frequent intercourse with the approach
able supervisors and officials Of coun-
ties and cities throughout the state.
Jesse Marks mentioned Finch's name
casually. Il is possible that when the
grand 5ary meets again tonight with
Charles Marshall in the witness chair
E'lnch's name VIII be mentioned more
At the session Of the grand jury
held on Tuesday might sufficient evi-
oencc was given against Supervisor
Daniel +. Blackburn 10 base indict
5nents upon. While there is little
DOUBT that true bills win be returned
against the pcscaderO dentist, still the
feelings Of the grand jurors are yet
divided on the question of turning
. san Francisco into a renOvatory for the
benefit Of san MateO county. The sem
-tflsent among some Of the jurors is
that san Francisco need not borrow
san Ms teo's troubles, but the majority
IS in favor of a rigid investigation into
the graft across the county line and
will indict ali Offenders whose crimes
were committed i'm this city.
BLACKBURN IN COURT
Blackburn. now under arrest on the
charge of accepting 2 bribe Of 1858
from Charles Marshall. agent for the
II. s Croker COMPANY. had his second
appearance in the police court yester-
day morning.
The case was continued by consent
until November .. 10 give the grand
jury the opportunity to indict for the
crime charged in the warrant.
@ II. Croker. president OF the II.
p 8. CrockeT company, has not Vet been
subpenaed before the grand jury and
may not be called. although il is ex-
.pected that he viii be q witness at the
'rriai Of Blackburn. and whoever else
may he implicated in the furniture
p scandal Neither have the books Of
the CroCker company been called for.
Crocker was reticent yesterday. He
stated that he had been instructed not
10 speak about the case nor 70 give
out any figures which might throw
light on the transactions between Mar
shan and the county Of San Mateo.
At the district attorneys Office Il
was stated that no such Instructions
had been given Crocker. nor had any
Instructions been given bin. Probably
his own attorney had been consulted
about the case.
FINCH INTRODUCED
The interjection Of Charles Finch
into the san Mateo mixup was the
most interesting Of the developments
Of Tuesday night Finch, according
10. the information given the grand
- jury. had some relations with Charles
MARSHALL. the exact nature of which
was not developed.
II was common talk in San Mateo
County at the time, 1906, when the
~Crocker contract was first awarded. that
Finch was closely watching the move
fents Of the furniture deal It IS be-
T. jieVed to have been through his instru-
mentality that the first bids received
BY the county Were rejected TO make
way for the Crocker bids.
one theory in the case. which has
-. been much discussed in the trade in
this city, is that the II. s. Crocker
company secured much Of its material
for the filing OF the furniture contract
from other firms. c. II. CrOcker, be
fore the era of reticence, stated that
fact 10 q Call reporter, and on being
questioned intimated that Marshall
might have received the alleged bribe
money from subcontractors.
The grand jury viii trace the sub
contracts. AS yet Charles Finch has
not been connected with them.
At the grand jury investigation on
Tuesday night 1t was learned that the
county Of San NIateO had paid to the
- 7. s Crocker company S25,O3O on the
contract price Of S25,535.S4. The first
payment was in July for $4,000. and
the second claim for the belance Of
sJ0,536.84 was allowed by the board OF
supervisors, but the furniture fund did
not contain that much. There is still
balance due the II. s. Crocker COM
panv Of S506.S3. These payments were
received by Charles Marshall
WHERE DID MONEY cor
OF the first payment of $4,000 only
$4,000 was turned into the Crocker
company, and Of the second payment
Of s10,030 the fun amount was not
turned over to the Crockers, it is al
legged. The difference represents the
money which the supervisors might.
have received. These facts will be
verified in court when the books Of the
Il :. Crocker company are produced.
The fate Of former. Supervisors Julius
Eikerenkotter and Joseph Debendetti
Is stilI in doubt. Their terms Of Office
have expired. But IL is believed that
Debendetti received his portion Of the
bride money as recently as July.
Judge Refers to Corruption
ISpecial Dispatch 10 The Call