The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, August 10, 1895, Page 5

THE SAN FRANCISUO CALL, SATURDAY, AUGUST 10, 189Y5. JUROR BROWN STILL N THE DURRANT CASE, Mr. Barnes Desires to Excuse Him From Serving. HE RISES TO EXPLAIN. The Real Reason Why He Failed to Convict M. B. Howell. NO BRIBES WERE OFFERED. Counsel for the Defense Oblect to the District Attorney’s Motion. THE DURRANT CASE IN A MINUTE—BRIEF REVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS. Juror Walter . Brown had his opportunity yesterday. He was given full leave by Judge Murphy to make a statement concerning his action as a jurror in the Howell coune terfeiting case, and he made good ute of the privilege. It was &ll brought about by & request from District At- torney Barnes for permission from the court to use & peremptory challenge on Mr. Brown and excuse him from daty in the case. The defense vigorously objected, but the court al- lowed Mr. Barnes to examine the juror, also against the protest of Durrant’s counsel, to show cause why his request should not be granted. In response to questions Mr. Brown told the story of his connection with the How= ell case, giving as well the full story of the visits of reporters to his residence on last Tuesday night. Judge Murphy took the matter under advise- ment, and will give his decision on Monday morning. Eighteen veniremen were examined during the day, but not an extra juror was secured. An order for 200 more was made by the court and drawn. Half of them will appear in court on Monday, the remainder on Tuesday. Out of these it is supposed the necessary jurors will be secured. It is thought that Judge Murphy will take sction this morning on the request of General Dickinson for citations for contempt for the newspaper editors of the City, se. The ladies were 1n the majority in De- partment 3 of the Superior Court yesterday when court cenvened, and they held the balance of numbers through ail the morn- ing proceedings. The majority of them were well dressed and pretty, but the prisoner maintained an apparent indiffer- ence to all the feminine glances, which would have been thought remarkable in any one else. His demeanor in court, however. ever since the trial began has been studiously composed, until now it would take some very startling occurrence to startle him into anything like curiosity. Even the pale young woman who has ex- pressed su a yearning 1o present him with pea blossoms was entirely overlooked by the youthful accused. Judge Murphy ordered the call of the jurors in the box the moment he took his seat, and the nine having responded promptly, his Honor inquired as to the whereabouts of defaulting veniremen, for whom attachm ents had been issued, But one of them, G. A. Zeil, an insurance man, was present, and he convinced his Honor that he had not been served to appear asa venireman until the evening before. Alfred Bo uvier of the Baldwin Theater stated to court that his business would suffer ere he compelled to serve on the jury. He was excused. At this point the District Attorney arose and attempted to attract the attention of the -court. Everybody present felt that something important was about to ensue. “If your Honor please,” he began, *‘be- ing the box 1 desire to—"" that's as far as he got. , ill hear you,” replied his Honor, “after we get through with these examina- tions. Mr. Clerk, call the names of three gentlemen from the box.” Mr. Barnes sat down, and Messrs. G. A. Zeil, 8. M. Capp and N. F. Walter were sworn. The District Attorney made his fore statement of the case and the examination began. Zeil, an insurance man, residing lay street, was challenged and ex- cused on the ground that he could not reconcile his conscience to returning a ver- dict ‘on circumstantial evidence where the death penalty would ensue. 8. M. Capp, residing at 745 Golden Gate avenue, was challenged by the defense and excused for the reason that he had an opinion on the case which only strong evidence would remove. N. F. Waiter, re- siding at 1022 O’Farrell street, was excused on the same ground. E. M. Taylor was challenged for the same reason and al- lowed to depart. S. Strauss of 1452 Leavenworth street had conscientious scruples against_the in- fliction of the death penalty. He was challenged by the prosecution and excused. J. J. Applegate of 117 Stockton street bhad apswered all the questions of the prosecution and defense satisfactorily and seemed to possess all the qualifications necessary to the making of a new juror when it was discovered that his name was noton the last assessment-rell. He was challenged for this reason and excused. P. J. Cleary of 708 Octavia street had a stron%opimon on the case and his chal- lenge by the defense was allowed. R. G. Horn of 626 Twenty-third street had such an opinion that he did not be- lieve he could be a fairand impartial juror. He wuécbnllenged and the challenge was allo 2 N. R. Ellis, a contractor, living at 911 Twenty-fifth street, was also challenged, and excused on the ground that he ha formed an opinion which it would take strong evidence to remove. cNab of 922 Twenty-first street knew many perso; who attended Emmanuel Baptist Church, and had a strong opinion on the case. A challenge to him was allowed. 3R, Valencia streets, stated that he would not bring in a verdict of guilty on circumstan- tial evidence where the penalty would be death. J. E. A. Healms of 2113 Howard. street was challenged for the reason that he had a strong opinion on the case. B. Mish was excused for the reason that he had conscientious scruples against the infliction of thedeath penalty. C. 8. Fech- neimer of 1631 Broadway and E. W. Briggs, the cigar man, were both challenged and excused by reason of the possession of a strong opinion. M. Lippman, residing at 1740 Taylor street, explained that he was suffering from an illness which would prevent him acting as a juror, and was excused by con- sent. J. Gilsen of 410 Hyde street possessed an opinion which it would require strong evi- dence to remove. J. Cahill had conscien- tious scruples against the infliction of the death penalty. Each was challenged and excused. “] am inférmed,” said. his Honor, ‘‘that this exhausts the box. Did I understand, Mr.?,Barnes, that you had something to say?”’ “Yes, your Honor,” replied the District Attorney, “I desire to ask the court for ermission, under section 1068 of the Penal Jode, to address further inquiries to a juror already sworn and accepted in this case, in order to show cause, 1if possible, why the court should permit me to exer- cise a peremptory challenge as provided therein. The juror whom I desire to ex- amine is Mr. Walter 8. Brown, and at the Rohde, who resides at Mission and ! conclusion of my examination of Mr. Brown I shall then move the court for leave tointerpose a peremptory challenge.” “If the court please,” said General Dick- inson, ‘“we object to such permission being given, on the ground that it is improper that it should be done at this time, and that it is not in the manner in which the showing should be made *’ . “The objection is overruled," said Judge Murphy. “This question was directly passed upon in a recent decision of the Su- preme Court in the case of Bammerly.” “Yes, sir,” said Mr. Deuprey, ‘“‘but no good cause is shown here, if your Honor please.” “Yes, sir,” said Judge Murphy, “the gentleman asks leave to show cause.” “We take an exception,’” said Mr. Deu- rey. P8 would like to_ state further, if your Honor, please,’” said Mr. Barnes, ‘“‘that the matter upon which I desire to examine Mr. Brown was not known to me at the time he was passed and accepted.” “Matters which you have discovered since?” inquired his Honor. “Yes, sir; since that time.” “We object,” again came from the de- fense. “The objection is overruled,” said the court once more. “If the court ase, we reserve an excep- tion to the ruling,” said General Dickin- son, “‘and suggest that the examination be confined to such questions as might have been put to the juror on the first occasion.” “I will not pass on the questions until they are asked,” said Judge Murphy. jections categorically. ruled. 3 A verdict was not rendered,” said Mr. Brown. “The jury disagreed.”” ‘“Was that jury, of which you were a member, the subject of investigation be- fore the United States Grand Jury subse- quent to the discharge of the trial jury?’’ ‘‘We object to that question,” exclaimed Mr. Deuprey, who had his finger raised warningly at Mr. Brown not to answer, :‘on the ground that it seeks to obtain in- formation concerning the proceeaings of a secret body.” The same general objection as before were also added and all overruled. ‘‘1 was summoned on three occasions,” | replied Mr. Brown, “‘to appear before that Grand Jury, but on all these three occa- sions I was at home sick in bed. I desire, if T am atlowed, to make a statement.” They were over- now. “I was summoned on three occasions and on these I was sick in bed and then I was summoned to appear and show cause and I was questioned by the Grand Jury in connection with the M. B. Howell case. | I can explain the questions if you wish.” “If you will, explain the subject-matter of the investigation,” said Mr. Barnes. Mr. Deuprey was energetic in his objec- tion to this, stating that it was a matter of very great consideration what were the proceedings before the Federal Grand Jury. It was also highly improper, he thought. “The object of these interrogations,” said Judge Murphy, ‘‘as I understand | them, is to see whether, from information received by the District Attorney subject | to this gentleman being sworn as a juror, | there is ground for a challenge, or upon | which the court could allow the District | Attorney to exercise a peremptory chal- lenge.” ! His Honor continued that he did not “If’rou desire you can make a statement | Mr. Barnes, “as to whether you had been approached by any verson seeking to influ- ence your vote or opinion or action?’ The usual objection was overruled. “They didn’t question my conduct in the case,” said Mr. Brown, “but they asked me in reference to being approached.” “I understood from your answer, Mr. Brown, that they questioned you as to whether you had been approached by some person, that person seeking to influence your vote, opinion or action as a juror in the case. Isthat correct?” +I will answer that,” was the reply, after Mr. Deuprey’s objection had been over- ruled, “'by stating that I told them I had not been approached by any one with a view to influencing me in the matter. I might say that the question before the Grand Jury was that a_charge, or accusa- tion, or information had been presented to the Grand Jury to the effect that jurors had been oribed. That was the question, the subject matter, considered by the Grand Jury when I was summoned before it.”” “Mr. Brown, since this jury has been impaneled, since you have been sworn in as a juror in this case, has any one ap- proached you—not to influence you in any way, but to get a statement from you, or an interview from you, upon any matters connected with this case. or with reference to your qualifications as a juror?” “This present case? No, sir.”’ “Have zyou heen interviewed by any newspaper men since you have been im- paneled?” “No, sir; not on anything connected with this case.” *“Were you interviewed by a reporter on the Examiner in relation to this Howell matter?” “I was approached by a reporter for the Examiner, also of THg CarL.~ A Chronicle man reached my house between midnight and 1 o’clock in the morning, when I was in bed and asleev.” Juror Brown explains W S .Barnes on<the case of uror Brown “We make a specific objection, then,” said General Dickinson, “to the examina- tion of the juror as to his qualifications, and state that no prover showing has been made by affidavit, or by no means here which justify the granting of this request; and that the defense is entitled, under what the further information is and similar specific reasons why the matter should be permitted to be examined into.” “The objection is overruled and you have your exception,” said his Honor. Mr. Brown was asked; to take a seat in the corner of the jury-box nearest the Dis- trict Attorney, and everybody in the court- room prepared to listen to the questions and take in all the phases of the legal com- contemplated. “Mr. Brown,” commenced the District Attorney, *‘1 desire to ask you a few ques- tions, and it is possible that in asking them the attorneys for the defendant may desire to object to some, so I will ask you to hesitate for a moment before replying to them, so that defendant’s counsel may }‘invf the opportunity of objecting if they axtee.7 Mr. Brown nodded his head in assent. “Mr. Brown,” continued the District Attorney, ‘‘have you ever served as a juror in the.United States District Court?” The defense was as prompt with its ob- jection as had been anticipated. “We object to that, if your Honor please,” exclaimed Mr. Deuprey, ‘‘that that could not be under any circumstances a subject-matter for consideration by the court in relation to the qualifications for a juror sitting in this case, and is, therefore, immaterial, irrelevant and incompetent and improper for any purpose whatever; and that it does not present any 1ssue.” “The objection is overruled,” said the court. The question was read and Mr. Brown made answer. I did, sir,”” he replied. “T served for four months in Judge Morrow’s court in 1892, beginning in May and ending in Sep- tember.” . “Did you serve as a juror upon a trial jury that was impanelied on the 26th of August, 1892, for the purpose of trying one M. B. Howell on a charge of counterfeit- ing?” §ir. Deuprey again objected for the de- fense on the ground that the question did not go to the subject-matter of the quali- fication and competency of the juror, and that that was an issue in regard to_coun- terfeitinig, whereas this was in relation to a crime. “1 take it,”” said the court, “that this matter is simply introductory, to identify the court and cause. The objection is over- ¢ ile the stenographer read the ques- tion, Mr. Brown took a notebook frogz his pocket and examined one of its pages. “I was,” he replied, ‘“‘on the 26th day of August accepted as a juror, and the trial begnn on that day in the afternoon.” “Do you . remember when the trial ended ?” Another objection from the_ defense was interposed and overruled, and the witness answered: “The trial ended, and the jurors were discharged on Sunday, the 4th day of Sep- tember, at about 12 o’clock midday.” 'D;’r} the jury render a verdict in that case Mr, Deuprey objected to this question on the ground that the record was the best evidence, and - then ‘renewed his other ob- such circumstances, to be advised asto | bat, which, it was plainly evident, was | | understand that there are any rules of evidence by which a court was bound in matters of thisnaturg, but stated that there was a very serious question in his ind | as to whether or not the details of an ex- | amination before a Grand Jury could be gone into. “I do not understand,” he said, “that | the rule of secrecy applies to any person, | but a€Grand Jury and grand jurors are not | obliged to talk of the matters before them, | except in case_of perjury committed be- | fore them. There is one other case where | this principle is applied, and that is that a trial juror is; not allowed to impeach his own verdict. Now, as to the minute de- tails of this examination, I think there might be a very serious objection.” “Well, if your Honor please,” said Mr. Barnes, “perhaps [ framed my question | incorreetly."” | I will permit the District Attorney,” | said his Honor, “to ask this question, ‘Whether or not the gentleman’s action and conduct as one of the jurors was the subject-matter of investigation before the United States Grand Jury 2’ ”’ “I submit, your Honor, that that would be worse still.”” “Well, sir, I shall allow that question,”’ replied the court. ““Was not your vote and conduct while | a member of the Howell jury the subject of_investigation by that Grand Jury?” Mr. Deuprey again objected on the ground that the record was the best evi- dence, iollowinF this with the objections made previously. He waxed very indig- nant and stated that any ‘‘dirty scrub” | could file a complaint before a secret body against any gentleman and he would be compelled to submit. “Now we submit,” he continued, “that unless the record shows what the result was, that it is prejudicial to this present | investigation, this question should not be | asked.” Judge Murphy stated that he was not aware that there was any record kept of | the proceedings of a Grand Jury, and, he conciuded, “I presume that I have had as much experience as some other people, and I have never known that anything except the filing and presentment of in- ‘(]iictmenls was a record of the Grand ury.” Mr. De|:iprey insisted that the report of the Grand Jury was a record, but Judge Murphy overruled the objection, stating that he did not know of any such record. “‘As that question is framed,” said Mr. Brown, ‘‘my answer would be no.” “While you were before the United States Grand Jury were you questioned as to the reasons wkich induced you to give your vote in the trial jury in the particu- lar manner in which you did ?” “I was not,” answered Mr. Brown, after the objection of Mr. Deuprey had been overruled. “You said that as my question was framed, Mr. Brown—my question before the last one,’” said the District Attorney, “that you would answer it ‘no’ ?” 1 might state—" “We object to his statement,” exclaimed Mr. Deuprey. “The objection is overruled,” said his Honor, “I will allow him to make any statement or explanation.” “I will state,” said Mr. Brown, “that when I was before the Grand Jury that body considered no question relating in any way, shape or manner as to the reason why any juror had reached his verdict 1n that case.” “Didn’t they question your conduct as a juror in the counterfeiting case,” asked Deuprey obrects “Did you give these gentlemen an inter- view on the subject?'’ **No, sir.”’ *“You declined to make a statement to them ?” “I did; yes, sir. I might explain all that in a very few words—the nature of the interview with these newspapers, if you will allow me.” “You_have a right to explain,” stated Judge Murphy, “and 1 will give you full opportunity.” tinued ‘Mr. Brown, “‘an article appeared in the Post on the Howell case. About 10 o'clock that night the doorbell of our house rang as we were about to retire. A gentle- man presented himself at the door and in- formcd me that he was a reporter. He had first asked me if I was W. 8. Brown. “You noticed an article in the Post in this City and County printed last Tues- day, subsequent to your being sworn in this case?'’ “I dia not read it, sir; just glanced over the headlines. The reporter asked me if T was a juror in the Durrant case and I told him I'was. He stated thathe did not want to interview me on that case, but oo an- other matter. I told him I did not want to be interviewed on any subject, but he said it was a matter of importance, saying, ‘There is an_article in the Post charging you with being bribed as a juror in the Howell ease.’ My reply to him was that the Howell case was three years ago and | that it had taken the newspaper men.a long time to find out about it. I then told him I did not care to make any statement, and Le said be did not want to make any m connection with the Durrant case, but wanted to know what this charge was. I looked at the headlines and he told me it was at the bottom. Ilooked and saw an article charging me with having been bribed. 1 told him it was not true in any way, and then he asked me how the jury stood. I said, ‘That is a matter of record and you can easily get it.” He said: ‘Is it true that the jury stood five to seven?’ and I said ‘Yes, sir; that is true.’ He then asked e if [ had any statement to make, and I said thatif I had I would ask per- mission of the court and if the court wished me to make a statement 1 would gladly do so. “About half an hour afterward,” con- tinued Mr. Brown, “a young man came from the Examiner. He said, ‘Mr. Brown, I do not care to say anything to you about the Durrant case, but I want to speak in reference to the Howell matter. I told him I understood the character of the arti- cle, and he asked me if I wanted to make any statement. He said, ‘Will you ac- knowledge or deny that statement in the guper charging you with having been ribed as a juror?’ and I said, ‘I deny it emphatically,” and the reporter walked away. “Between 12 and 1 o’clock in the morn- ing a gentleman came and rang the bell and was answered by a young man, a mem- ber of our family, from the window over- looking the entrance from the street. He said he was a Chronicle reporter and wanted to see me. The young man said I did not want to see any newspaper men and he did not wish to wake me up. The reporter said the matter was of very great importance and he wanted to see Brown. Mr. Howell, the young man, came tu me and 1 requested Mr. Howell to say to the reporter that I had nothing to talk about at that particular time, and the re- porter left. That is the whole sum and substance of it."”’ “Was this Mr. Howell connected with the Howell of the counterfeiting case?’ asked Judge Murphy. *‘None whatever,” was thereply. ‘He is a son of General Howell, who is now in Australia, and beisin the real estate house of Baldwin & Hammond.” “I merely asked this question, Mr. Brown, in justice to yourself,” said his Honor, “that no mistaken impressions might go out.” “I might state further,” said Mr. Brown, “that the question and answers in the Ex- aminer purported to have been asked me and answered by me were not asked and were not answered. The only question asked me was if I would accept or deny that accusation, and I told him I would deny it.” “Now, Mr. Brown,” said his Honor, “you requested to be allowed to make a statement to the court. Do you desire to make a further statement?”” “I would like to say a few words,” was the reply. & “Weask,” said Mr. Deuprey, “that he be granted that nnvilefe." “ have said,” replied his Honor, dryly, “that he would be allowed to make ihat statement, and he will.” ““Well, your Honor,” began Mr. Brown, “‘On Tuesday night, I think it was,”” con-’ “I would say in reeard to what hxpvenedl before the Grand Jugy— “Well,” said his Honor, “I don't know whether they want that.”” 7 “Well,” said General Dickinson, ‘‘we have gotten the result of it.” “If you call for it, then,” said the Juage, “we will have it.” “We desire, then,” said Mr. Deuprey, with some asperty, “to save our excep- tion. We had put it on a different ground —on the ground that he had no right to make it; but now that that is the ruling of the court we submit that we should not be called upon to consent.” This was delivered in a high key and the tones of Mr. Deuprey seemed to grate on his Honor’s nerves. “There is no need of excitement, Mr. Deuprey,” he exclaimed. “Ipnm not excited,” said the attorney, +I am simply earnest.” § “I am in earnest myself,”” said his Honor, ‘“very much in earnest. I am earn- est in my ruliu’g that he isentitled to make his statement.”” Then turning to the juror he added: “If there is no objection, you can go on and make a full statement.” Mr. Deuprey then stated that the de- fense would stick to the exception. Mr. Brown began his statement. He told that the trial lasted nine days and thatevery ballot resulted seven for acquittal and five for conviction. There was no at- tempt, he said, on the part of himself or any one else to pledge any one, to secrecy in any way, shape or manner and there was no member of the jury who attempted to influence anry one in reaching his corn- clusion. All the evidence in the case was positive evidence. Mr. Brown then went on to explain why it was he had taken the stand in the matter he had. He recited the testimony of one Phillips, a waiter in a Sacramento restaur- ant, who had stated that one evening Howell had tipped him a quarter, which he had immediately placed in his vest pocket. Next day he went to the express office and discovered that the money was bad. He admitted that he had received several other quarter, tigu from gentlemen, but had put them all in his trousers pocket. Asked why he nad donhe this, he could not tell. The testimony of a fruit-dealer and of a barkeeper was of about the same char- acter, said Mr. Brown, not convincing in the least. : Mr. Brown stated that after the jury had been discharged he had accompanied the then District Attorney to his office, and in the presence of Mr. Harris, the Secret Ser- vice agent,and another man he had fur- nished him the fullest information con- cerning the action of the jury. “My verdict,” continued” Mr. Brown, “‘was reached solely upon positive evidence of these three witnesses. As to the ques- tions asked and the answers given by me when examined asa juror on that case, I am satisfied that if the questions on cir- cumstantial evidence were similar to the questions here my answers would be prac- tically the same.” “You stated,” said Mr. Barnes, “before frou began that statement that the pub- ished Interview with you in the Examiner by q\ylesfi(m and answer was not a correct one?"” “Yes, sir; thgse questions were not asked as the Examiner printed them.” “Did you read that article in the Exam- iner—did you read the purported inter- view with you?"’ “No, sir. It wasread in my presence.”’ «If your Honor please,” said the trict Attorney, turning to the Judge, *'T ask now for leave to be permitted to use a remptory challenge upon Mr. Walter S, rown, a juror sworn and impaneled to try this case.” *Upon what ground? Upon the ground that you were not familiar with these facts at the time the juror was examined?’”’ “Upon the ground,” replied Mr. Barnes, “that I was not familiar with these facts when Mr. Brown ~was impaneled and sworn or I would have then excused Mr. Brown by means of a peremptory chal- lenge. But not haying had possession of those facts at that time, and only having come into possession of them since he has been sworn, I ask leave to exhaust a per- emptory challenge, as I should have done had I been so informed.”” “We object,”” said Mr. Deuprey, most emphatically, ‘‘on the ground that there has been no showing of any kind or char- acter to justify such a proceedlng; and on the further ground that it would an in- sinuation and a reflection against an hon- orable gentleman in this community and one who has shown himself to be a compe- tent juror in every ;inrticulnr. In other words, that it would allow the press of the City and County of San Francisco to dis- integrate and destroy the right of trial by jury because a single reporter takes upon himself the privilege of interviewing jurors who decline to be interviewed. We object on the ground that it is a direct violation of the constitutional right of this defen- dant to be d’ by fair and impartial jurors; that it is a ‘direct violation of his right under the constitution to be tried by one who has been accepted as a qualified and competent juror and who shows no condition of mind that would cause him to be considered either disqualified or in- competent to sit as a juror.” Mr. Deuprey continued in most em- phatic tones that to allow the exercise of a peremptory challenge at this time would allow the impression to go forth that Mr. Brown was incompetent, and would give to that same public some ground for be- believing in the insinuation against an honorable gentleman. “I do not care to hear any argument in this matter. I will dispose of it Monday morning. At that time I will give such reasons as 1 deem necessary for my action.” *If your Honor please,”” said Mr. Barnes, “I would like to say, in justice to this Eentlemnn, that it may go forth as coming rom me that no insinuation of any char- acter is intended against Mr. Brown as a man or a citizen, but that I consider it to have been my duty to have produced this matter—a duty which would have been sufficient, in my judgment, to have caused me to interpose a peremptory challenge at the time he was accepted.” Mr. Barnes sat down and Judge Murphy announced again that he would determine the matter Monday. He then admonished the jurors, particularly as to the danger from interviews, and excused them until 10 o’clock Monday morning. The eourt ordered a recess until 1 o’clock, at which time, he stated, 200 more venire- men would be drawn to be examined in the case. Upon reconvening the 200 names were drawn and an order given for 100 re- turnable Monday and4 100 on Tuesday, co'xn adjourning until this morning at 10 o’clock. BAZAAR AT ST. DOMINIC’S. Ladles Who Will Preside atthe Week's Festival in Aid of the Church. The ladies of St. Dominic’s parish, in the Western Addition, are making prepara- tions for a bazaar to be held at their church early next month. The bazaar is intended to be on a different plan from former fairs, and the ladies say it will have many agreeable features, including con- certs and literary entertainments every evening during the week it is to run. There will be six distinct booths, ex- clusive of tables for wares and other at- tractions, and the booths have been as- signed to active workers in the churzh. Mrs, P. J. White will have the Holy Name booth; Mrs. Carville, St. Rose’s booth: Mrs. Hannify, Sacred Heart booth; Mrs. Tracey, Guadalupe booth, and Mrs. Thompson, Third Order of 8t. Dominic booth. The members of the Young Ladies’ Ro: Society of 8t. Dominic will unite in working for the success of the Rosary and Christian Doctrine booth, and the Young Men’s Holy Name Society in connection with St. Dominic’s Church will have the management of the shooting gal- lery and amusement features of the bazaar. Constant Uses of Borax. Dissolved in water it should occupy a promi- nent place on every washstand. Itis very effective in cleaning glass, silver- ware, brass or marble. It is equally useful in the nursery as a cure {oF s0%e month, bites oOf 1nsacts, ;x?ckly heat, inflammation, or most skin diseases. The housewife finds that -ants, ‘bugs and moths dislike it, and will avoid places where itissproad, . ' - PR THE NEW GRAND JURY, It Is Asked to Investigate the! Methods of the Solid Eight. K. M. SMITH'S OPEN LETTER. Ex-County Clerk Haley’s Record in Office—~Two Indictments Found. The Grand Jury held a long session yes- terday afternoon. The Deputy Sheriff at- tending received instructions to exclude newspaper reporters from the outer room where witnesses await the pleasure of the jury. John A. Hosmer, Assistant District At- torney, attended the session yesterday, but declined to divuige the names of the wit- nesses examined. The methods of the Solid Eight in re- gard to the granting of a franchise to the Southern Pacific Company in preference to other bidders are likely to receive atten- tion in consequence of the following open letter: To the Honorable Grand Jury of the City and County of San Francisco — GENTLEMEN: The twelve Judges of the City and County of San Francisco have regularly and earefully selected you out of a large number of citizens to act in eapacity of a Grand Jury. Your high stanaing as citizens, your character and integrity were the principal qualifications which caused you 1o be chosen ; po&sessing such requisites and merits, you commanded the respect and full confidence of the entire_court that you are fit and proper persons to diligently and fearlessly inquire into any and all publicoffenses against the people of the State. You can do no greater service to the public than to inquire into the divers ways and cir- cuitous means of eight public officials, mem- bers of the Board of Supe: ors of the City and County of San Francisco, sometimes called honorable, to wit: Joseph King, Supervisor Pirst Ward. Peter A. Scully, Supervisor Second Ward, Charles . Benjamin, Supervisor Third Ward, Alphonse Hirsch. Supervisor Fourth Ward. Edward C. Hughes. Supervisor Sixth Ward Christopher Dunker, Supervisor Seventh Ward. Altred Morgenstern, Supervisor Ninth Ward. Edward L. Wagner, Superyisor Twelith Ward. 1 desire to call your attention to but one of the disreputable, unlawful and fraudulent acts of the said local legislators, a crime committed on the 8th day of July, 1895, when the said majority members of the Board of Supervisors gave to the Market-street Railway Company | seven miles of the public streets, not for the purpose of constructing a street-railway there- on, but with the object and intention of keep- ing the greater part of said streets out of use by any competing compeny, and to crush out opposition and enable it to more fully monopo- lize the street-railroad business over a large territory of the said City and County. It is quite needless to state that the Board of Supervisors are constitutsd by law guardians of the property interest of the City and County, and govern and control its revenues. That the 1 expressly commands said officials, when ug of the property-right of the munici- pality, to secure the highest price therefor. You will find upon investigation that the said public officials willfully disregarded the law, betrayed the public interest and acted as guardiansof the pro v interest of the South- that instead of endeav- oring to sell the privileges hereinbefore men- tioned for the Highest price, as the law requires, the said mentioned Supervisors have joined in the fraud and with the object and intention of preventing any bidding according to the law they are endeavoring to sell the said privileges at the lowest price for the term of half a cen- tury; they have refused to require 8 yearly revenue, as other companies now pay, whicl during the time would smount to thousands of dollars, and in behalf of the monopoly they have caused to be advertised the resolution of i tention to sell, in such a manner and form dictated and ordered to them from Fourth and Townsend streets, so that the privilege and franchise is of great valua to the Market-street Railway Company and undacceptable and yalue- 1eSs to Any person, COmpANy OF other COrpoTa- tion; that by reason of théir misconduct and neglect of official duty the law declares that they are guilty of misdemeanor and malfeas- ance in office. Your attention is also called to a decision rendered by the Superior Court of said City and County on the 6th day of August, 1893, wherein the court says when construing the law under which the Supervisors are mow acting, “if the eight members of the Board of Supervisors have been guilty of any willful or corrupt misconduct 1n office, they must be pro- ceeded against as provided by other sections of the Penal Code, beginning with section 755, which section provides that accusations may be presented by the Grand Jury against municipal officers for willful or corrupt mis- conduct in office.” An outraged and patient people now expect you to take action, and demand that their faithless servants be compelled to answer before the bar of justice. Respectfully yours, K. M. SMITH, 1128 Market street. The jury further considered the conduct of Police Judge Campbell in dismissing the case against two men who were arrested last June for inflicting a cruel wrong on a weak-mindzd girl. Evidently testimony was presented to the jury tending to show that a crime had been committed, for late in the afternoon two indictments were found. The persons against whom in- dictments were returned are John Kinne and Martin Hynes. Warrants have been issued for their arrest. A report gained headway yesterday to the effect that the Grand Jury would con- sider the alleged frauds growing out of the working of the Hale & Norcross mine under the management of H. M. Levy. In reply to inquiries Jere Lynch said during the afternoon that he had not been before the jury. Inquiry at the office of the Dis- trict Aftorney did not elicit the informa- tion that the mining case had been con- sidered. Facts coming to light yesterday show that the jury is preparing to make a thorough investigation of the manage- ment of the County Clerk’s office under the administration of Haley. Special inquiry is being made regarding the failure of Haley to comply with the law bearing upon the collection of the inheritance tax. ROYAL Baking Powder has been awarded highest honors at every world’s fair where exhibited. WALL | £2|WINDOW PAPER == | SHADES Largest Stock and Lowest Priees. G.W.CLARK & CO. 653 Market Street. SAMPLES SENT. FOR FIVE DOLLARS And upward we will izuarantee to furnish the ! Buy no belt tiil examine Dr. Pamphlet No. 7 Pierce's. 2 tells all about it. ‘Uall or write for a free copy. ddress: MAGNETIC TRUSS CO. (DR. PIERCE & SON), 704 Sacramento st., 8. F. A LADIES' GRILL ROON Has been established in the Palace Hotel N ACCOUNT OF REPEATED DEMANDS ‘made on the management. It takes the piace of the clty restaurant, with direct _entranco trom Market st ies shopping will find this a most Qesirable place to lunch, Prompt service and mod- erate charges, such as have given the gentlemen’s onal reputation, will prevai Grillroom an international depari ATTORNEY - AT . LA VW, 5 NEW TO-DAY. [ THE SATURDAY ] BULLETIN Fo THE: ] ! BULLETIN | ntain: This Evening Will “OUR IMPOSING POLITICS, By ARTHUR McEWEN. | [ THE ] BULLETIN | ‘This Evening Will Contain: “HISTORY OF THFE FIRST CONSTITUTION | OF CALIFORNIA,” By JOHN BONNER. [ETHE -] BULLETIN || This Evening Will Contain: “LIFE AND CHARACTER OF JOHN C. CREMONY,” By GEORGE E. BARNES, [ THE 7] BULLETIN ‘This Evening Will Contain: “YARN OF THE BARK HESPER,” By JAMES S. TYLER. [ THE ] BULLETIN || This Evening Will Conta Interviews with D. M. DELMAS, GARRET MCENERNEY, ARTHUR McEWEN, THOMAS MAGEE and W. H. MILLS, on “SHALL THE BOY GO TO COLLEGE [EhE BULLETIN || This Evening Will Contain: “DRAMATIC REVIEW OF THE WEEK,"” By GEORGE E. BARNES, [ THE ] BULLETIN This, Evening Will Contal) WOMEN'S DEPARTMENT, CONTAINING ALL THE NEWEST FASHIONS. EoHE BULLETIN This Evening Will Contain: A PAGE OF THE LATEST SPORTING EVENTS and ALL THE NEWS OF THE WORLD, A Modern, Up-to-Date Afternoon Metropolitan Newspaper. Excels All Others. Do You Want Manhood? 0 YOU WISH TO RECOVER THAT which you have 108t by the sins of the past? Early excesses, exposure and bad E habits have wasted the vi- tal powers of millions. Re- lace the vigor n your system and make your up the vital forces with Dr. Sanden’s Elec- tric Belt and Electricity is life. Send for Sanaen's cele- Suspensory. the pocket edition of brated work, “Three Classes of Men,” by mail, sealed, free. DR. SANDEN’S ELECTRIC BELT Cures nervous debility, loss of memory, lame back, rheumatism, kidney and blad< der troubles, indigestion, vital weakness, varicocele and all ailments resulting from excesses, exposure, overwork, eic.m8! will be forfeited if the current canmot be felt immediately upon charging i, Wan ranted for years. SANDEN ELECTRIC CO., Council Building, Portland, Or. COME QUICKLY. OUR FIRE AD HAS DOUBLED OUR SALES. i Wi DESES ARE MAREKED m PLAIN FIGURES AND SoLD AT COST. This offer will holdfiod only afew days. GEORGE H. FULLER DESK CO., 638-and 640 Mission street, LI PO TAI JR.’S Herb Sanitarium, No. 727 Washington St, Cor. Brenham Place, above the plaza, San Francisco, Cal. Office hours—9 A. M. to * 12 M.,1to4and5to 8 Sax FRANCISCO, June 1, 1895. 613 Geary street. After three years of acute suffering from brome chitis and insomnia and having been treated dur- ing this time by physicians of both the old and new schools without the slightest improvement I con- sulted Dr. Li Po Tai Jr., who at once found the direct cause of the trouble. After a course of treat ment with him I e oo e mysel? cured. [ feel I owe my life to his skill. DORA LONG. T0 RENT IN SANTA CRUZ, Elegantly Furnished Private Home, VWIIH STABLES, HORSES, CARRIAGES, greenhouse, etc. ‘Surrounding grounds highly smproved and elovated, commanding. the Anest view in 7. &-‘mculnu address B. C., room 225, For further Crocker Bulldi JURPATTN G A. DANZIGEHR, i 21 CROCKER BUILDING. i i