The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, January 14, 1899, Page 1

VOLUME LXXXV—-NO., 45, SAN FRANCISCO, SATURDAY, JANUARY 14, 1899. PRICE FIVE CENTS. LAMEDA'S DISLOYAL REPRESENTATIVE SINKS DEEPER IN THE MIRE OF DISGRACE ON THE ROLL DISHONOR NAMES ARE PLAGED Jilson of Siskiyou and Wright -of Alameda Are Alone Shame. BURNS" WEAKNESS FULLY DEMONSTRATED Notwithstanding All the Influence of the Southern Pacific and the Disreputable Touts the Mine-Jumper's Chances Have Not Slightest HEADQUARTERS, SACRA-| MENTO Cal, Jan. 13—C, B, JILSON | OF SISKIYOU AND HOWARD E.| WRIGHT OF ALAMEDA tand slost t roll of dishanor. four ballots sreputables candidacy of | was never more | trated than it was to- failed, after four ballots to make a gain of s a single vote. Twenty- orded to his credit | lot was' taken on Since then eight ballots 1d his total gain has One of these was Jil- nduced to cast his vote of a political The other d the people easons known didate who has ente: h a flare of trumpet; gth. i of their won- .d the reports el aythical strength, ing why they have been m p of a capricious master. T )t object to carrying out ord ey are humiliated to learn tt serving a master whose | is imaginary and who in i to pc as a political Ca unsoph ted 1 n the political manas Pacific C of the | whose rvant Dan | wn to be, have grown sus- | truth of the pretensions | and have taken steps to ndent understanding of ituation as it exists in . Herrin g this city Thomas J.‘ most trusted lobbv- i, with instructions | ntly of Burns and his | 1 ascertain the sentiment of the members of the | make a conservative | * chances of ultimate | d carried out his orders. st night he returned to San Fran- | » report to his chief. Mr. Herrin | e that his protege unning. What course he to be seen. | there has and r has been to force honest > for Burns. Bvi- | 1 to-day when threat- | liscrimin, t-W. D semblyman faom Sac- r of freight rates | vote for Burns. prietor of a large but the rail- | nittee declared in The Burns forces are that Knights has ressure that has on him and that ns to-morrow. This a s of the manner in gislators are being prostituted rrupt forces that are behind d his candidacy. | 5. Wright's plea that he | n Burns because four Jus- | tices of the Supreme Court espoused the | .cause of the “colonel” has created much | “comment_around the hotels and the pitol. Th considerable indigna- | .tion over the suggestion that the ('H\n’lg i politics in the rank | by Wright. The exy i “If the Supreme Court i torial contest it i that they should know it at once. If | the c is not in the mire of the squabble it is due to the Judges that the people should be informed of the fact.” Speaker Wright cites one member of | the court as the last son with whom | he discussed the Senatorial situatien | and declares that this member favored | . the election of Burns. In this regard | the finger of suspicion points to Jus- . tine McFarland, who was here vester. | does not want Democratic votes, but | ward forms of decency. OF | NO NEW in Their Increased in the Degree. day and mingled with the throng of s in the Golden E: Eagle Hotel. Of the Democrats it is known that ators Langford, Boggs and Ashe declared their intention to vote neral W. H. L. Barnes whenever that the votes will the the number required for his e It is common report and ‘believed to be true that Senators Hal]l and Feeney of San Francisco are ready to vote for Dan Burns whenever their votes may be desired by the “olonel,” Burns is quoted as saying that he prefers that his support should come wholly from Republican members of The cold inside truth Demo- > vofes, little tr about throwing out a line to friends in the opposing party. One Democrat has signified his purpose to r Irving M. Scott. Burns, perceiving that the crowds of disreputable touts thathave been hang- ing around his headquarters since the beginning of the Senatorial contest were adding disgrace to his campaign, now seeking to bring to the front a t of men a degree higher in the out- Special efforts have been made to bring them here from San Francisco and interior coun- ties. The loungers about Burns' quarters do not show the slighte: of elation. On the contrary, they pear gloomy and low spirited. himself is the only cheerful individual in the bunch. confidence. not inspire his followers. He keeps well advised of what Is going on in other camps and gains, SPEAKER WRIGHT SEALS HIS DISHONOR WITH A LIE Howard E. -Wright, Speaker of the Assembly, has deliberately placed himself in a posi- tion few public men would care’ to occupy. In an effort to justify his action in changing his vote from Bulla to Burns Mr. Wright said that he had been influenced - by . four. Justices of the Supreme Court.. Mr. Wright declared that his final decision to vote for Burns had been determined by a conversation which he held with a Justice of the Supreme Court within twenty-four hours of the time when he cast his first ballot for Burns. The Justices of the Supreme Court declare emphatically that they have not even dis- cussed the Senatorial contest. - All the members of the high tribunal say that they never saw Wright, and not even by suggestion advised him to vote one way or the other in the Sena- torial fight. More than this, the Justices declare that they advised no member of the Legisla- ture in reference to his vote. It is very clear that the Justices of the Supreme Court are lying or Mr. Wright is doing so. The public is left to judge who is guilty. The only member of the Supreme Court who was in Sacramento within twenty-four hours of the time that Wright cast his vote for Burns was Justice McFarland, who says that he did not interest himself in the slightest degree in the Senatorial fight and did not even speak to Mr. Wright. Justice Garoutte was in Sacramento the night of the inaugural ball, but he says he had absolutely no conversation with Wright. " THe Justices are naturally angry that their mames should be falsely used by a politician and that they should be so misrepresented as they have been by the Speaker. The only member of the Supreme Court who would not discuss the affair yesterday was Justice Jackson Temple, a Democrat, who is not concerned in any way in the Senatorial contest. Interviews with the other Justices are as follows: CHIEF JUSTICE BEATTY : I have not concerned myself in any way in the Senatorial contest, and 1 do not know that any other Justice of the Su- preme Court has done so. I have not expressed a preference for any candi- date to Mr. Wright or to any one else. What time there is at my disposal is consumed by the business of the Supreme Court. As Mr, Wright did not mention my name I cannot say that he intended, in his remarks, to refer to me. JUSTICE VAN DYKE: AsIam a Democrat I presume that Mr. Wright did not refer to me in his statement. As a matter of course, I am taking no interest in the Senatorial contest and have not spoken to any one regarding it. Ihave not spoken to Mr. Wright or to any one else, a' 4 know nothing about the affair. If I were to ex&ress a preference | woul” 4o so, as 4 Demo- crat, for my friend, Stephen M, White.« ; = JUSTICE GAROUTTE: I was at Sacramento for the inaugural ball, but not to do politics. I refuse to give an opinion on the Senatorial muddle, Burns and myself are from the same county, and, as I understand it, the people of Yolo are strong for Burns. I did not see Wright or give him any advice. JUSTICE HENSHAW : on the Senatorial question. the matter. 1 have neither seen Mr. Wright nor advised him In fact, I have not expressed an opinion on JUSTICE HARRISON: 1 have not expressed any opinion on the Sena- torial contest to any one. 1 have not held any conversation with Mr, Wright, nor have I ever seen him. JUSTICE McFARLAND: If anybody says 1 was in Sacramento to make Burns’ fight or to advise Wright how to vote he is telling an untruth, I went to Sacramento yesterday to attend the funeral of my friend, Charles Watt, and every moment of my time was consumed in connection with that sad matter. diate {1 1] of and everything important in the councils of Burns accurate information Grant. He knew in advance of yes- terday that Huber was going over from Bulla to Grant, and knew, of course, that Wright's furlough to 1:0se as an He assumes an air of but the assumption does some w imme- | Continued on Second Page. A BILL WHICH HAS ATTRACTED THE LEGISTATORS' ATTENTIaN -~ & = EX-SHERIF 3 JUDGE STERRY anevnenie. B : AND OF SAN l \\{Hw’ i JOHN WAISTCOAT JOAQUIN , \ ][ MITCHELL THROUGH \w l‘; TALK \ INSTINGT, Iy %i 1 SENATOR. " J KEEPS H15 '\m\ A U EvEs on X K THE ¢ Wl S m.‘x BURNS - PUSH . ALAMEDA GOUNTY HAS NOT ABATED No One Has Yet Been Found to Speak a Good Word for Wright. HIS RESIGNATION 15 NOW SUGGESTED \All of His Former Supporters Are Bitter in Their Open Denunciation of His Betrayal of Their Trust and His Honor. Speaker Wright’s Confession. That Supported Wright. “Mr. Wright gives no good ground for the belief that the peo- ple of Alameda County would vote for Mr. Burns if they understood him as he, Mr. Wright, does. The action of Mr. Wright is worse than a mistake of judgment or a blunder; it is, from any aspect in which it may be viewed, deplorable, disastrous alike to the reputa- tion and political future of Mr. Wright, and to the interests of the party in this county.”—Extract from Friday’s Enquirer, a Paper “I want the people of my district to study Burns and know him as I have learned to know him, and then they will not disapprove of my course. The people of Alameda County also would decide in favor of Burns if they understood him as I do.”’—Extract from 903- Broadway, Jan. 13. very best political friends this morning is the sole topic of con- versation in Alameda County to-day. The opinions printed in The Call are those of men' in the very front rank of the Republican party in Speaker ‘Wright's Assembly district. It would be impossible to present a stronger ar- raignment of any man in public office, and it must not be supposed that the | printed words adequately express the | feelings of those who uttered them. ’They do not. Between the lines much | can be inferred that was spoken but SENATOR. LUCHSINGER TAKES THE FLOOR . . which would not look well in print, and as a politiclan Mr. Wright no doubt fully understands this. In no portion of Mr. Wright's district could a voter, whether Republican or of any other faith, be found who would say a good word for Mr. Burns or his most recent convert, Speaker Wright. In Mr. Wright's explanation of his vote he says that he was spoken to of Mr. Burns by several prominent men in his district. Berkeley and East Oakland demand to know the names of the men whom he claims are friendly to Burns. Mr. Wright szid that he cannot name them because it would “arouse com- ment.” The thousands in the district who are opposed to Mr. Burns are quite willlng to go on record in their oppo- sition to Burns and they are at a loss to know why any of Mr. Burns’' friends, published L on Se B mn b e wopw ae ) Bu Be B RE TS I BN OB OB Oakland Office San Francisco Call, | if he have any in the Fifty-first Assem- The downfall of Howard Wright and | guarded from publicity | H-E-Eu-NE-E-E-ER bly _District, have to be so carefully Either there are none or they are ashamed of their position. - The Fifty-first District be- lieves there are none. A communication was brought to The Call office to-day by an East Oakland Republican which reads: “Editor Call: I would suggest that the Republican voters in Wright's dis- | trict get up and sign a petition request- ing Wright to resign and no longer disgrace the position he now holds by the suffrages of a deluded constitu- ency.” While this is hardly likely to'be done it can truthfully be said that it fairly expresses the opinion of the voters from Mr. Wright's district. If Mr. Wright desires to know the proportion of the friends and opponents of Mr. Burns in the Fifty-first District and would be bound by such a vote the district would supply him with the data in very short order. It is, however, believed that Mr. Wright is no longer possessed of the power to dictate to himself in this mat- ter and that he intends to continue tiil the last ballot to ignore the wishes of the people whose only regret now is that they voted to place him in a posi- | tion of trust, for which he has proved unworthy. As the bulletins of the ballots for United States Senator at Sacramento to-day reached Oakland there were many who expected to see that Mr. | Wright had repented his folly and had cast his vote for some reputable candi- date. As no such chdnge was recorded it was conceded on all sides that Mr. Wright had dug his political grave. In Berkeley little knots of politicians stood around expressing their indigna- | tlon at being duped, and some of the more exasperated hinted that a bonfire with an effigy and tar and feathers would be a very appropriate incident to the scandal which now disgraces the Fifty-first District through its repre- sentative. Nor is this statement ex- aggerated, for although referred to by Mr. Wright's present friends as ‘“rice eaters” -and praying politicians, the Speaker’s constituents have a very | forceful way of expressing themselves. Judge Willlams, the chairman of the Republican City Central Committee, lives in Howard Wright's ward, and al- though he said that had he known last vember that Wright was going to vote for Burns Wright would never have been elected, he also said a great deal more which is not altogether ex- . pressed by his remark: ‘I feel perfectly | disgusted, and that doesn't half express my feelings.” Berkeley and East Oakland are also disgusted, and this remark does not ex- press half their feelings. Two weeks ago when a scandal re- garding ballot machines was being ven- tilated Howard Wright gave to a Dem- ocratic paper an interview in which he stated very positively that any one who should be seen by him on the floor of the convention and whom he was satis- fied was not there for any honest pur- pose would be made the victim of the Speaker’s constitutional right to rule him off the floor. There are hundreds in Berkeley and East Oakland to-day who are asking if Mr. Wright's love of consistency will lead him to order him- self out of the Assembly. “God forgive me,” said Dr. Foster, ‘for working and shouting and voting for Howard Wright. I thought he was one of the best men in East Oakland, and I cannot sufficiently express my sorrow and surprise that he should think more of the railroad crowd than he does of the people he was sent to represent. I am one of those who are not anxious to know Mr. Burns as Mr. Wright says he ‘knows’' him.” The Oakland Enquirer, which was one of the papers that expressed falth in Howard Wright in the past, comes out »