The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, January 17, 1899, Page 1

The VOLUME L3 V—-NO. 48. Call SAN FRANCISCO, TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1899. PRICE FIVE CENTS INVESTIGATION INTO THE USE OF MONEY LIGAT WILL Now BE THROWN ON WRIGHT'S ACTIONS The Investigation Starts OF and All the Truth Will Be Made Public. MUST FACE AN OFFICIAL ACCUSATION The Facts of the Guilt Are Too Patent to Permit of Mis- construction and All the Committee’s Inspection.” HEADQUARTERS, SACRA- There is to be an of- by the lower house of the charge that 3. Wright, Speaker of the As- $1650 from U. S. political manager, , in return for the prom- would vote for Grant for ided upon to-day n was adopted by the ing the appointment ke the investiga- the investigation sure, t at the request of Mr. 1, but to have done less mand an investigation and ith as good grace as was the circ Had ne so the result would have under umstances. t was decided last Wright tive investigation and the facts deter- of possible r or not Mr. an red charged against Mr. of The Call is The facts of his ) patent to permit of mis- imn 1 and the proofs are at hand submitted to the commit- may be that the facts would It néver have become public property had firiot been that Wright ref bougt to stay ing money from Gra through 1} n Green, under an erstanding that he would do all in his wer to support Grant's Sena- didacy, Wright turned traftor fter coquetting for a few ballots his final and fixed 1e malodorous candidacy ant and espouse the cause of been alleged against That is a matter for future con- ave not conse- | It may be noted here | and nature of the con- | out to induce Wright to | -0 000 ° 00000000000 0000000000000000000 Proofs Are Ready for the 1 Wright a confidence operator of high degree, a man without conscience or | principle and a person who stood sev- eral degrees lower in the criminal scale | than a common pickpocket. Green related in detail how Wright had applied to Grant and his political managers for funds with which to conduct his (Wright’s) campaign; how | | he had declared his willingness to | support and vote for Grant, and how upon the expected understanding that he would do this Wright was first paid $200, which sum was to be used by him to buy off a man named Pringle, who wanted the nom- district: Othet cash sums were given | to Wright, amounting, so Green as- serted, to more than one thousand | dollars. | With this information to guide him, | a representative of this paper went to i“‘rlght and flatly accused him of all that Green had charged. Wright con- | fessed the truth of every charge made against him by Green. He, made a { clean breast of the whole disgusting transaction and added detalls and dates that had been overlooked or for- gotten by the accuser. He then begged that the publication of the facts as he had confessed them and as Green had asserted them be suppressed, and of- { fered, if this were done, to pull Dan Burns out of the Senatorial fight. Knowing that this paper is and has op- posed Burns’ candidacy, Wright sought to bribe it to silence by offering to aid it in defeating the man who had, by some potent means, induced him to desert Grant. It was an act worthy of the man who proposed it. Here are the names of the Assembly- men to whom has been assigned the duty of ascertaining the truth or fals- | ity of the charges against Speaker [ Wright: E. T. COSPER of Tulare, Chairman. | W. S. MELLICK ‘of Los Angeles. W. H. LA BAREE of Trinity. OWEN WADE of Napa. W. B. LARDNER of Placer. | WIL I MEADE of Los Angeles. | 3. B. SANFORD of Mendocino. | There is every reason to belleve that ‘o000 © 0V 000000000 0 | | | 1ave heen equivalent to a plea | ination for the Assembly in Wright's | Guilty or innocent, he was | IN THE SENATORIAL CONTEST HAS BEGUN 0000000000000 000000 .-H—.—.—-.—.—.—.—-.—H—.—I SPEAKER WRIGHT ADDS ANOTHER LIE T0 HIS DISHONORABLE PUBLIC RECORD The investigation which Howard E. Wright, Speaker qf the Assembly, has called down upon himself has revealed this conscienceless politician in a new role of dishonor. Through his betrayal of his constituents and his treachery to his friends Wright has exposed a mire of political filth in which he is the offending figure. In attempting to justify his crowning -act of disgrace Wright had consideration neither for his friends nor for men in high places. The Call has shown how he maliciously and utterly without warrant used the names of the Justices of the Supreme Court to bolster his falling fortunes. He lied about the Justices of the Supreme Court, and on the following day he lied about one of his closest friends, W. J. Pringle. In attempting to explain what he had done with the money he had received from U. S. Grant Jr, through Milton J. Green, the Speaker of the Assembly declared that he had paid W. J. Pringle $200 to withdraw from the fight for the Assembly in the Fifty-first Assembly District. Wright and Pringle were contestants for the Republican nomination, which was an equivalent to an election in that district. Wright has demonstrated himself to be the most dangerous sort of a liar. He some- times falsifies on a slender basis of the truth. While the struggle for the Republican nomina- tion for the Assembly in the Fifty-first District was in progress Wright not only paid Pringle $200, but $250. This is the truth, as Mr. Pringle frankly and candidly admitted yesterday. But Wright has attempted to besmirch the reputation of his political opponent and personal friend by declaring that the money was paid to buy Pringle to retire from the fight. Mr. Pringle, who has won an enviable reputation as Councilman in Oakland, naturally resents the attack upon his integrity. He admits that Wright paid him $250 and that he withdrew from the contest. The-money, he says, was part payment for his campaign ex- penses, but his withdrawal was for an altogether different reason, as he explains in the state- ment that will follow. Mr. Pringle’s first denial that he had received any money from Wright was due to a misunderstanding. Mr. Pringle wished to convey emphatically at that time the impression that he had not received a dollar from Wright or any one else to retire from the fight. : The statement of Pringle is as follows: ““l again say that I have never been offered money by any one as a con- sideration for withdrawing from the contest for Assemblyman from the Fifty- first District. | did withdraw in order to assist.my friend, Frank C. Jordan, who was a candidate for County Clerk, and to whom | was under obligations, know- ing that the office to which he aspired was very much more important to him than mine to me. : “Through the action-of mutual friends -I-recéived from Howard Wright $250, a portion Of the expenses | had already incurred in the campaign. My canvass of the district, together with my printing, cards, expenses for buggies, previously ordered, and house meetings, brought the amount, in all, to over $300. Inexpending this sum | realized that the nomination practically meant election, and as a consequence | devoted my energies to winning out at the primary. “l never for one moment would have listened to any monetary offer to withdraw from any political contest, and | hope my public record has been such as to satisfy the community in this regard. “The facts are that my withdrawal—as every one knows who was con- nected with the workings of the campaign—was purely in the interests of har- mony and to aid in electing Frank Jordan County Clerk. He had been very kind to me, assisting me greatly in the Council fight, it having been my First ex- perience in politics, and | had repeatedly said that if my candidacy in any way would be a stumbling-block to him I would withdraw. “It soon became apparent that Wright’s personal friends felt piqued at my candidacy, and might make it an issue in the Seventh Ward by supporting the opposition ticket, as | was tied up with the Jordan-Melvin ticket. | knew the primary would be a very close one, and so, although | was urged by many to stay in the race, I decided to step out, in order to devote my full strength to the Jordan interests. “Some of our mutual friends who were helping in the campaign agreed with me that this was the proper course to pursue, as it would bring us support from Berkeley and prevent further opposition in the Seventh Ward. These are the facts.” ) 090900 0-0-0-0 000000000 000000 0600060000 will be called upon to clear itself and | made by the members of the commit- punish the offender in such manner as may be deemed wise and expedient. The initial work of the committee The Jones-Wardell Contest. tee. After some discussion the matter| CALL HEADQUARTERS, was'left to the chairman to select the reporter and also the clerk. 00000 0 0 0 0 00000000000 06000 000060000000 000060000 0000000606000006 Lam o ] SACRA- MENTO, Jan. 16.—Leon Jones' contest, of When it became known to Green that } this committee, many of the members Wright had taken Grant's money &nd | of which have taken prominent and ac- then deserted him he gave evidence of | tive parts in matters important to the natural indignation. He told | State at former sessions of the Legis- e Legis. the.story of his wrongs to several per- ‘ lature and have thus established for §0n€, among others being two represen- | themselves a position above criticism, tatives of this paper, and was unspar- will act fairly with Mr. Wright as wall o e s puEp as with his accusers. But one result 11ig in his condemnation of a man who, can follow such an investigation, Having sold his honor, refused to abide | Speaker Wright will be forced to face he bargain he had made. He called | an official accusation and the Assembly 3 very CHARGES AGAINST WRIGHT T0 BE INVESTIGATED. certainly gives promise of speedy and thorough work. The committee met in | room 73 of the Capitol building at & p. m., all the members being present. Chairman Cosper said that several applications had been made to him for the position of stenographer and clerk of the committee, and that he desired to study particularly the qualifications of the stenographer, but was ready to recelve any suggestions that might be V600000 IV000E20CO0022B DD WHEREAS, Direct charges have been made that improper means have been used to influence the action of Hon. Howard E. Wright, a member of and Speaker of the Assembly, in the electivon of a United States Senator by the Legislature; and WHEREAS, It has been charged that some persons have used and are using illegal methods to influence the action of members of the Assembly in said election; and WHEREAS, it has been indirectly charged that members of the Assem- bly hav? been improperly influenced in their votes for United States Sena- tor; and WHEREAS, Such charges have been given wide publicity and should be investigated to the end that if found to be true, the guilty should be pun- ished; and if found to be untrue, the originator thereof should be punished; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That a select committee of seven members of the Assembly be appointed by the Speaker pro tem. to immediately and fully, thoroughly and carefully investigate each and all of said charges, whether direct or in- direct, and also to investigate in like manner the methodswused to influence members of the Assembly in their votes for a United States Senator, and that said committee have full power to send for persons, books, telegrams and papers, and to employ a clerk and stenographer, and that it have leave to sit during the session of the Assembly, and that said committee report fully -as speedily as possible, with such recommendations as it may deem proper. Mr. Mellick said that he desired to push the investigation night and day until they had completed their work; that the committee should outline the course intended to be pursuéd, and then push it to an early completion. Chalrman Cosper suggested that the committee meet in executive gession and then the matter could be discussed by the members as to what scope the investigation should take under the resolution, but the majority of the members were opposed to an executive session. A long discussion ensued as to the particular matter to be investigated. The members all agreed that the charge was specific as to Speaker Wright, but as to the other matters contained in the resolution some doubt existed as to what method should be pursued. It was decided to start the investiga- tion by subpoenaing the following wit- nesses to appear before the committee at such time as the committee should adjourn: U. S. Grant Jr., Milton J. Green, Dan M. Burns, Howard E. Wright, L. L. Levings, W. S.. Leake, Richard Colver, H. James, E. F.'Moran. Mr. Mellick made a motion to.that effect, seconded by Mr. Sanford, and it was carried unanimously. The chairman suggested that a larger room would be provided for the next meeting. The committee then ad- journed. until to-morrow at 2:30 o’clock p. m. This evening -Chairman Cosper appointed John C. Wray clerk of the committee. s Now that the investigation has been vnaugurated it is to be hoped.that the work of the committee. will result in bringing to light the reprehensible and sometimes criminal methods that have marked the conduct of the Senatorial campaign of Mr. Grant and Colonel Burns. If this is done there {s some house of Congress who will not- be a discredit to the.State. . b il el likelthood that a man may be selected |' to represent California Jn the upper | . -and Went Through Insolvency. Justus 8. Wardell’s seat in the Assembly was Inaugurated before the Assembly's Committee on Elections this evening and in the two precincts counted Jones gamed two votes. As only thirteen votes sepa- rate the rivals the gain is an important one. Assemblyman Frank Powers ap- peared for the contestant, Leon Jones, and ex-Senator Henry C. Gesford acted for Assemblyman Wardell. All ballots were critically examined and objections were frequently made. The ballots were brought to the capltal by Registrar Wil- lam J. Biggy and his deputy, L. J. ‘Welch. On adjournment the ballots were sealed in a safe and representatives of the contestant, contestee, the Registrar and the committee were posted to watch the sealed safe in which they were in- closed. The committee will continue its count at 9 o’clock to-morrow morning. AND Denied Under Oath a Debt to CALL HEADQUARTERS, SACRA- MENTO, Jan. 16.—Howard E. Wright, Speaker of the Assembly, has not only disgraced the high and honorable public position which he holds, but the facts go to.show that his business and com- mercial transactions are characterized by dishonesty. The evidence clearly establishes, to the satisfaction of any unprejudiced mind, that this party, Howard E. Wright, is a combination of is seldom reproduced. For eome time this man Wright has been masquerading before the people as a would-be reformer and an hon- orable man. But the mask has been torn from his face and he is now be- ing exposed to the public in his true' colors. The cloak of the hypocrite has been taken from. his shoulders and Howard E. Wright is being presented for what he is. For these exposures that are being made Wright has no one to blame but himself. The record he has made, the misconduct and dishonesty he has been guilty of, is all that is being laid be- fore the reading public. For everything that is or has been printed there is ample justification, for this person is Speaker of the California Assembly, one of the most honorable positions that can be held by any citi- zen of the State. Charges have been made affecting his standing as a mem- ber of the Legislature and going to show that he accepted money and promised to vote for a certain candi- date for United States Senator. He has risen on the floor of the Assembly and, assuming an air of injured inno- cence, like the true hypocrite that he is, he has declared that he is an hon- est man. But there is here in Sacramento a gentleman who states that Howard E. Wright is one of the most dishonorable and despicable characters he has ever met with in all his long life and busi- ness’ career. That gentleman is John Blair, a member of the 'W. B. Knights Company, one of the best-known busi- ness houses in this part of the State and the largest house of its kind—hides and tanning—on the coast. . John Blair is one of Sacramento’s re- spected citizens. Everybody here knows him as a man who would be the last person in the world to do or say anything that would tarnish the character or reputation of a fellow citi- zen without ample cause and just!n('. tion. John Blair states that Wright is la | knave and scoundrel, ‘and he has the | facts behind him to back up his asser- | tion. He holds the paper—notes of hand knave and scoundrel, the like of which | HOWARD E, WRIGHT BRANDED AS A KNAVE A SCOUNDREL The Mask Under Which He Has Long Been Masquerading Is Now Torn Off. CREDITORS DEFRAUDED OF THOUSANDS John Blair and Then Swore in His Petition for Insolvency That the Money Was Justly Due. ‘~nf the Wright person for $21,000 ap- proximately, and Wright not only has | arranged matters so that it is not pos- | sible for Mr. Blair to realize a dollar on the overdue notes, but he indicates Enfl intention of ever liquidating the in- | debtedness. This is the reason why John Blair thinks that the Speaker of the Cali- fornia Assembly is a scoundrel and a knave. Mr. Blair told the story of Wright's duplicity and dishonesty to a | Call representative yesterday afternoon at his place of business on Front street. In plain, straightforward languags, without any attempt to make the case | stronger than the facts really war- ranted, Mr. Blair related the tale. “You see, it was this way. L. G. Har- | vey was a partner of H. E. Wright in | the real estate business at 520 Mont- | Bomery street, San Francisco. Harvey, whom I consider an honorable man, | was indebted to me in quite a sum, and |I went to San Francisco to see ahout it. I called on Harvey and he prompt- |1y exhibited to me the books of the | firm which, upon examination, I found showed that Wright was not only | overdrawn, but he had obtained money | in other ways until he was indebted [to Harvey in the sum of $21,000. For | this sum Wright had given Harvey his |notes. Harvey turned these notes over {to me as security for his indebtedness to me. “Some time, either just before or just after this, Harvey had informed a | member of Wright's family of this in< debtedness, and this greatly displeased | him, for it seems that Wright had not told them anything about it. The re- sult was, the firm broke up. “In' December, 1896, before the notes were outlawed, I instructed my attor- neys, Carson & Savage, of San Fran- cigco, to institute suit against Wright in the Superior Court of San Francisco to collect the amount of the notes. “I hired a searcher of the records to examine into Wright’s affairs and ‘he found that Wright had transferred all of his property to his wife and after I instituted the suit he voluntarily went through insolvency in order to defraud me of my money. “No, I never expect to receive one dollar of my money. Wright has some wealthy relatives who are very close to him and I thought perhaps they might compromise his debt, but they never did. “I think in the light of facts when I say that this man Wright is a scoundrel I tell only the truth and in exposing him a service is being done in the protection that is thereby afforded the general public from further impo- sition at the hands of this knave. “L. G. Harvey, I think, is a victim | of the wiles of this man Wright, for he has been almost ruined by him. I do not think that Harvey is a dishonest man at all. But when Wright goes down on one side of the street honest men should pass on the other side, for St flMer&érMmfiszZ LSNP One of the Notes of Hand H. E. Wright Gave to His Business Associate, L. G Harvey, in Set’ tlement of a Debt of $21,000, Upon Which Note Suit Was Instituted, and, Pending * the Legal Proceedings to Collect It, Wright Transferred His Property to His Wife