The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, January 17, 1899, Page 2

THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, UESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1899. one of Wright §4812 60 of date er notes are Harvey That served with wa ition for Insolvency. an of his years 1 in making efined tr left to terate. m with Harvey & wtion of n who the Speak- of Wr house Mr to a ate constitu- interest. with a great aker Wright is accused by John of Sacramento of having de him of his just rights to the f more n twenty thousand ation is not con- o a verbal allegatior as shown s in the suit filed nd county of cemby ), 189 relations of Mr. v were decided- He jor ( pe Franc The . Har v to th son of the reckless manner nducted the affairs W shape ac- ledgment indebtedn by ght in the sum of twenty odd thou- with legal interest, an Wri sand unt n: i he course of busin were tr acramento f d the Wr M »ss transactions red to John r value received. ns Blair of J deme d E , and it, refused to Blair was finally com- suit for collection. This December, 1896. At elected to e of the law- en n the session was end- ed to make a shows and did so, with the 1 and statutory pleas for which were s v the a ing in case ti g into the follow. H year. The nest and upright manner in which Mr. Wright met these cla for settlement of his notes of s be better understood whe: t Wright did not file e suit until the 24th of. states that he has ef upon the sub- t to enable him to answer of the t clause of the In other words, the an- th that the transfer of notes » Harvey to Blair was 1, and that defendant is not bound mation or be ete for sets) by and is not indebted to the He erefore prays the t the court that the plain. by his action and nd action herein, and that ndant be dismissed with nd abo action. The court records indicate in a very th: Mr. Wright w ¢ in his declaration that he e Plaintiff Biair hing on the notes held against him leman. This proposition is the fact that about the er in the suit was filed Wright, to protect himself consequences of that suit and n army of other credit- , filed a voluntary petition in insol- vency in which he declared himself a debtor for moneys borrowed and other- Y obtained in the sum of $86,117. 1In is petition Wright swore, in order to an order of re- ™ ar that I have not eated - or ac- debt for a greater.sum ran I ho; tly and truly owe,” In order to und Wright’s ‘high i round prevaricator, rne in m i du the The answer says that he owes Blair nothing. The petition gives his sworn liabilities. In = that petition - Mr. Wri was certainly careful to_not perjure himself, and he acknowledges the following debts: John ‘Blair . . . . . $2,500 Jobn Blalr i ol 4,813 John Blair--. .' , . . 9,250 John Blair . . . e-ts 559 John .- Biadr: o J g Ry 8,668 Mr. Wright's assets were’ listed at that tim s follows “Homestead, none; personal property, mnone; -per- sonal property exempt from execution, wearf ap el, $100." In this same petition, ‘which is a fi- nancial wonder in its Wright ac- knowledgzes debts which will lead the public to believe that he found his special dupes among women who were so unfortunate as to possess money they were using at the time it was needed in the interest of Wright. The inventory in the sworn list of creditors presented by him contains the follow- ing items that call for no comment: Arabella Pratt, Oakland, loan, 8271; Gertrude L. Smith, Oakland, loan, $111; Emily A. P. Smith, San Francisco, rents, $3398; Mrs. R. H. Winston, San Francisco, loan, $7925;‘ in | member of | filed | = -~ TRANSACTIONS | The Debis He Swore to in His the | ent time | latter gentle- | was | g to Harvey notes in the | maker of the notes, | honor | ate was exempt from | sful enough to | 1 that this pe- | Mrs. E. L. Dickinson, Palo Alto, loan, 1 $5000; W. F. Burbank, Los Angeles, 5 cents; Sarah A. Thornton, San Francisco, loan, $428. California are active po- the ap- the people of g the career of this business dodger, ist of the debts from which ght was released on 7, will be perused with | al interest at this time: ! | said firm. ./ San L. Dickinson..|Palo Alto . 1 F. M. Wellman. San Francisco Jean W. Wright Berkeley San Fran . Oakland San Francisco....| \[Placerville | there existed and for a long time prior | thereto there had existed a copartnership between the defendant and one Le Roy G. Harvey, under the firm name of Le Roy Harvey & Co., doing_business at the ; of San Francisco,~ State "Rt on said day the said | copartnership was _dissolved and said | Howard E. Wright retiring and the said | Le Roy G. Harvey assuming all the in- | debtedness and taking all the assets of 1L That on said day the said parties made, Nature of Debt Security for Debt. $1,900/Loan . ne. . Sausalito 2,000 Loan . None. ./San Francisco. 500/ Legal service: ne. acramento 947 Loan . ne. ‘|8an Francisco 2,500 Loan . ; de Laguna. - |Stockton 2{Loan rabella_Pratt . Oakland .| 27 Loan t. of G. L. Sn .'San Franc : Oakland e. |Life Ins. policy and 3000 shares Kl 5 Loan | 5,000 Loan . 16,801 Loan 12,500 Surety to Amer- icanBank and | Trust Co 1,000 Loan ... 1750/ Loan . Placerville 2 Loan . John ‘[Placerville 50 Assumpt’n D % nership debts. None. John Blair. .|Placerville Account_...... None. | John Blalr . Placerville 3,668 A1l { i on {n assets/None. Total -$36.117 | The annexed is a copy of the original | complaint in the suit of John Blair vs. rd E. Wright to recover on the | of hand given by Wright. which | | in his answer he says he does not owe | | and which in his petition in insclvency | | he swears he does owe: | GOMPLAINT OF. BLAIR AGAINST H. E.° WRIGHT. | In the Superior. Court of the City ana | | County of San Francisco, State of California.—John Blair, plaintiff, vs. Howard E. Wright, defendant. Plaintiff claims of the defendant and for cause of action alleges: | I That on the 6th day of May, 1835, at| the city and county of San Francisco, | State of California, the defendant made, executed and delivered to Le Roy 'G. | Harvey & Co. his certain promissary note | in writing, which said promissory note fs | in the words and figures following: | | te (without grace) rder of Le Roy G. Har- | | vey & Co. twenty-five hundred dollars, for | value received, with interest at eight (8) per | cent per annum until pald, both principal and | interest payable only in United States gold coin (Signed) H. E. WRIGHT. 1L That thereafter said promissory note was by mesne assignments signed, trans- ferred and assigned to plaintiff. who is now the lawful owner and holder thereof. 1IL Thdt no part of said prineipal sum of | twenpty-five hundred dollars ($2500) nor the | interest thereon, according to the terms | fof said promissory mote, has been paid, but that the whole of said principal sum of twenty-five hundred (32500) dollars, | together with interest thereon, from May 6, 1895, at the rate of eight (3) per cent annum, is now whoily due, owing, | per > and unpaid, from the defendant e plaintiff. 3 'or a second cause of action: 2 That on the 7th day of May, 1895, at the | city and county of San Francisco, State | of California, the defendant made, exe- cuted and delivered to Le Roy G. Harvey & Co. his certain promissory note in writ- which said promissory note is in the s and figures following, to wits 2 60. SAN FRANCI , May Tth, 1895. One year aftér.date (without grace) I prom- ise to pay to the order of Le Roy G. Harvey & Co. forty-eight hundred and twelve and 60/100 dollars, for value recelved, and interest at eight (§) per cent per annum until paid, both principal and interest payable only in United States goid coin, (Signed) H. E. WRIGHT. 1L That the said promissory note was fter by mesne assignments duly gned and transferred to plaintiff, who now the lawful owner and holder thereof. TIL That no part of said principal sum of forty-clght hundred and tweive and 60-100 nor the interest thereon, according to the terms of said promissory note, has been paid, but that the whole of the sald prin- cipal sum of forty-eight hundred ~and twelve and_60-190, together with interest from May Tth, 13%, at pi;fm (8) per cent per annum, i§ now wholly due, owing, payable and unpaid from defendant to plaintift. ror a third cause of action: That on December the 14th, 1895, at the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, the defendant made, exe- cuted &nd delivered to Le Roy G. Harvey his_certain promissory note in writing, which said promissory note is in the words and figures following, to wit: i | | | 50 84, SAN FRANCISCO, December 14th, 189, One day.after date (without grace) 1 prom- ise to pay to the order of Le Roy G. Harvey nine thousand two hundred and fifty and $4/100 dollars, for value received, with interest at -3 of one (1) per ‘cent per month until paid, both prnicipal and interest payable only in Inited States gold coin, (Signed) . H. B. WRIGHT. 1L That sald promissory note was there- | after by mesne assignments duly assigned and transferred to plaintiff, who is now the lawful owner and holder thereof. IIL. | That no part of said principal sum of | nine thousand two hundred and fifty and | | 84-100, nor the interest thereon, according to the terms of said promissory note, has been paid, but that the whole of said | principal sum of nine thousand two hun- dred and fifty and 84-100 doilars, to- gether with the Interest thereon at the rate of two-thirds of one (1) Fer cent per | month, from December 14, 1895, is now wholly due, owing, payable and unpaid from the defendant to the plaintiff. For a fourth cause of action: I That on the l4ia day of December, 1895, at the city and county of San Francisco. | State of California, an account was start- ed between one Le Roy G. Harvey and the defendant, and upon_such statement a balance of five bundred and fifty-nine and 43-100 dollars was found due to the said Le Roy G. Harvey from the defendant. 1L That the defendant agreed to pay to sajd Leroy G. Harvey the uul‘z)l ynlnl‘\‘c‘: of five hundred and iifty-nine and 43-100 dollars. IIL. That the said account, ciaim and de- mand was before the commencement of, this action by instrument in writing duly assigned and transferred to_ plaintiff, who !s{nuw the lawful owner and holder there- i w. That the defendant has not pald th same, but that the whole of S613 buth o five hundred _and fifty-nine and 43-100 dollars, together witl the interest thereon at the rate of seven (1) per cent per annum from December 14ith, 1895, is now wholly due, owing, payable and unpaid from the defendant to the plaintifr. ¥or a fifth cause of action: L That on the 14th day of December,, 189, | | vaiue ; bent | themselves, executed and delivered each to the other in duplicate, a certain written instrume... in the words following, to wit: It is hereby mutually agreed and understood that the accounts of Allen & Wright and J. V. Lawrence, which show in the memorandums of this date, being listed therein at their face value under bills receivable, are considered of doubtrul value, and as soon as thelr actual shall be ascertained it shall be incum- upon the undersigned to apportion to individually, such. profits or such loss as may result from the settlement. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands and seals at the city and county of and resides in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, and that the plaintiff is absent from the said city and county of San Francisco and affiant therefore makes this verification. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of December, 189. % THEODORE SAVAGE. WRIGHT'S ANSWER TO BLAIR'S COMPLAINT In his answer to the complaint filed by John Blair, Howard E. Wright makes 2 sweeping denial of the indebtedness, and sets forth: “For answer to the alleged first cause of action in sald complaint the said defendant avers that he has no information or belief upon the subject sufficient to enable him to answer the al- legation of said alleged first cause of ac- tion in said complaint, that the promisso- ry note described and set out in said al- leged first cause of action was, after May Tth, 1895, the day of the date of said note, by mesne assignments duly assigned and transferred to plaintiff, who is now the lawful owner and holder thereof; and placing his denial on that ground, the sald defendant denies that the said promis- sory mnote described and set out in sald alleged first cause of action in said com- plaint was, after May T7th, 1895, or at any time, or at all, by mesne assignment or otherwise, duly, or otherwise, assigned and transferred or assigned or trans- ferred to the said plaintiff, or that the said plaintiff is now, or ever was, the law ful owner and holder of said promissory fote, or the owner or holder thereof at all. 2—“The said defendant further answer- ing said alleged first cause of action de- nies that the alleged principal sum of twenty-five hundred (32500) dellars upon said promissory note so described and set out in said alleged first cause of ac- tion in said complaint with interest there- on from May 6th, 1895, or from any other date or time, at eight per cent per annum or at any other rate, or any sum what- ever of principal or interest, is now, er ever was due, wholly or otherwise due, owing, payable or unpaid upon said prom- issory note. or otherwise, or at all from the defendant to the said plaintiff.” For answer to the second cause for complaint, the payment of the note for $4812 60, with interest from May 7, 1895, at 8 per cent per annum. Wright sets up identically the same defense as in the first allegation. In the third cause for action in addi- tion to the above answer Wright makes the following further and separate an- swer and defense: That on the 14th day of December, 5, the said defendant and one Le Roy Harvey were, and for a long time ¥ r thereto had been, partners doing business at the city and county of San s and is the identical promissory note de- | against Wright by John Blair of Sacra- scribed and set out in said alleged thir:_lli mento, said that they were true, and that | cause of ‘action in said cemplaint, an that the sole consideration thereof was and is the aforesald assumption thereof, and agreement and promise to pay, all the liabilities, of the said firm of Le Roy G. Harvey. “4. That at the time of the execution and delivery to the said Le Rof G. Har- vey of the said promissory note last above mentioned, to wit, on the said 14th day of Decembdr, 1895, the said Le Roy G. Har- vey was unknown to this defendant, but as he, the said Harvey, then and there well'Knew, and ever since has been, and still is, wholly and hopelessly insolvent and unable to pay his debts on any of the said liabilities of the said firm of Le Roy G. Harvey & Co. which he, the said Harvey, assumed and agreed and prom- ised to pay, as aforesald, and that al- though labliities of the said firm, which the said Harvey so assumed, and agreed and promised to pay, to an amount ex- ceeding the face value of said last men- tloned ({]romlssnry note, matured and be- came due and payable long before the commencement of this action, the sald Le Roy G. Harvey did not pay, and has never paid any part of said liabilities and, by reason of his aforesaid insolvency, s now, and will ever be, as this defendant is {nformed and verily believes, and upon his information and belief a unable to pay any part of liabilities of "the said firm, consequence thereof the consideration for the said promissory note for nine thousand two hundred and fifty dollars and eighty- four cents (39250 84) last above mentioned has, and had, long before the commence- ment of this action, wholly failed and come to naught, and the said promissory note is without consideration and void. 5. That at the maturity of said last mentioned promissory noté for said sum of nine thousand two hundred and fifty dollars and - eighty-four cents (§9250 84), and after the failure of the consideration thereof by reason of said Le Roy G. Har- vey’s failure to pay matured liabilities of sald firm of Le Roy G. Harvey & ceeding the face value of safd note, and also by reason of the said Harvegs utter and hopeless insolvency and inability to pfle’ any part of said or any liabilities of said firm, as_herein before alleged, the said Le Roy G. Harvey, as this defendant is Informed ana verily believes, and upon his information and belief avers, made a pretended assignment of said last men- tioned promissory note without any val- uable consideration or other considera- tion whatever to John Blair, the plaintiff herein, he, the said Blair, then and there having full knowledge of the true and only consideration for said note, of the aforesald total failure of the said consid- eration, and of the consequent invalidit. of sald note, as well as of the sald Har- vey's insolvency and other ts causing said failure of consideration as aforesaid, and of all the other facts alleged in this further and separate answer and defense to the said alleged third cause of action in said complaint, which pretended as- signment was and Is one of the alleged ‘mesne assignments’ referred to in said alleged third cause of action, and that GROVE JOHNSON DENOUNCES THE PRESS ON THE FLOOR OF THE ASSEMBLY San Francieco, State of California, this l4th day of December, 1585. (8igned) LE ROY G. HARVEY, (Seal.) (Signed) HOWARD E. WRIGHT, (Seal.) 111 That the face value of said accounts of Allen & Wright and J. V. Lawrence was the sum of seven thousand three hundred and thirty-six and 86-100 dollars. IV That the sald accounts were of no value and proved to be of no value and the said Allen & Wright and J. Lawrence to be wholly insolvent, and the said accounts to be a loss, and that one-half of said loss, amounting to the sum of three thou- sand six hundred and sixty-eight and 43-100 dollars, became and was due and ayable from the defendant to the said e Roy G. Harvey. V. That before the commencement of this action the said Le Roy G. Harvey, by an instrumentin writing,duly assigned and transferred the said claim and demand to the plaintiff; who is now the lawful owner and holder thereof. VI That the defendant has not paid the same nor any part thereof, but that the said sum of three thousand six hundred and sixty-eight and 43-100 dollars, together with the interest thereon at the rate of seven (7) per cent per annum from Decem- ber the 1l4th, 1885, is now wholly due, owing, payable and unpaid from the de- fendant to the plaintiff. 5 ‘Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for the sum of twenty thousand seven hundred and ninety-one and 80-100 dollars, together with the inter- est thereon as aforesaid and for costs of suit and for general relief. Dated S8an Francisco, December 9, 1896, 'ARSON & SAVAGE, Attorneys for Plaintiff. State of California, City and County of San Francisco—ss. Theodore Savage, being duly sworn, de- poses and says: That he has read the foregoing com- plaint and knows the contents thereof, and the same is true to his own knowl- edge excepting as to such matters as are therein stated upon information and be- lief and as to those matters that he be- lieves it to be true. Affiant further de- poses that he is one of the attorneys for the plaintiff in the above entitled action Francisco, State of California, under the firm name and style of Le Roy G. Harvey & Co., and that on the said lith day of December, 1895, the said partners, by mutual consent, dissolved their said co- partnership. “2. That at the time of the dissolution of said copartnership, as aforesaid, on the said 14th day of December, 1805, it was ascertained and determined that the lia- bilities of the said firm of Le Roy G. Harvey & Co. exceeded the value of all its assefs by the sum of eighteen thou- sand five hundred and one dollars and sixty-eight cents ($18,501 68); that it was, at the time of said dissolution, mutually agreed and understood that the said de- fendant, Howard E. Wright, should re- tire from said firm and should assign and relinquish to the said Le Roy G. Harvey his share of the assets thereof, and showd make and deliver to the said Harvey his promissory note for one-half of the afore- sald excess of the liabilitles of the said firm over the value of its as- sets, and that in consideration thereof the said Le Roy G. Harvey should assume and pay all the liabilities of said firm ~and should .retain all the assets thereof; that in pursuance of said agreement and understanding the said defendant, Howard E. Wright, did on the said 14th day of December, 1885, at the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, retire from sald firm and assign and transfer by a written as- signment in due form his share of the as- sets thereof to the said Le Roy G. Harvey and make and deliver to the sald Harvey his promissory note in writing for one- half of the excess of the liabilities of said firm over the value of Its assets, to wit, for the sum of nine thousand two hun- dred and fify dollars and eighty-four cents (§9250 §4), and that in further pur- suance of the agreemest and understand- ing aforesaid the said Le Roy G. Harvey did on the said 14th day of December, 1895, at the city, county and State afore- said, in consideration of said assignhment to him of sald defendant’'s share of the assets of said firm, and in further con- sideration of the making and delivery to him of said promissory note last above mentioned, assume and agree and promise to pay all the liabilities of said firm, and did then and there assume and take unto himself all the assets of said firm. “3. That the said promissory note for nine thousand two hundred and fifty dol- lars and eighty-four cents (§9250 84) was no other assignment of said last men. tioned note than the said pretended as- signment thereof has ever been made to the sald plaintiff as this defendant is informed and verily believes and upon his information and belief avers.' For agswer to the alleged fourth cause of action Wright “avers that he has no information or belief on the subject suf- ficient to enable him to answer the alle- gation of said fourth cause of action that the account, clalm and demand therein described and set forth” was duly as- signed to plaintiff before the commence- ment of this action, and placinf his de- nial on that ground, the defendant dogs deny that the account was so assigned, or that the plaintiff is the lawful owner and holder thereof. And defendan: fur- ther denies that the sum of $559 43, or any rsrt of it, with interest thereon, is due he plaintiff. For answer to the alleged fifth cause of action, Wright “denies upon and ac- cording to his information and belief, that the accounts of Allen & Wright and of J. V. Lawrence” ever were or proved ' to be of no value, “‘or that the said Allen & Wright or J. V. Lawrence ever proved to be wholly insolvent, or insolvent at all,” or that the accounts ever proved to be ‘a loss amounting to $3668 43, or any part of that sum. Further, that he has no in- formation or belief that Le Roy G. Har- vey ever assigned that claim to plaintift, and he makes denial that such claim was so assifned. or that the sum of $3668 43 s owing whollysor in part to the plaintiff. As a separate answer to this cause for action Wright sets forth the dissolution of co-partnership between himself and Harvey, and that among the assets of the firm were certain accounts of Allen & Wright and J. V. Lawrence, havlnf a face value of $7336 8; that upon the dissolution er&ht and Harvey exe-~ cuted in duplicate that agreement relat- ing to these accounts which is describedin the fifth cause of action in the complaint; that the sole consideration for the execu- tion and delivery of the instrument by the defendant was the assumption of the lia- bilities of the firm. MORE OF WRIGHT'S BUSINESS METHODS Le Roy G. Harvey, Wright's former partner, when told of the charges made the court records proved the proposition. “I do not desire to go into any contro- versy,” said he, “but I want to say that Mr. Blair is one of the most honorable and high minded men I ever knew. The suit was a proper one, and was brought in good faith. The complaint tells the story in a formal business way, and the facts therein are correct. These notes on which Blair sues for collection were given me by Wright when we dissolved part- nership. In the course of busine 1 transferred them to Blair, and when he tried to collect on them Wright refused to pay on the grounds set forth in his answer. This refusal brought on the suit. “At the time of the filing of the sult Wright was a member elect of the Legis- lature, and before the summons could be served he was in Sacramento, and during the session could not, under the statutes, be served. Before the suft was tried | Wright went into insolvency, with no as sets, and as a consequence there —was nothing upon which a judgment could be satisfied if obtained. That is about all there is to the case, and I assure you it is not a pleasant subject to talk upon. Mr. Wright's conduct is being carefully shown up by the papers, and as 1 am quit of him I do not care to take any hand In this mattes “\Was this debt, for the payment of which Wright gave you notes, a part of his investment in the business or for over- dr:]:n.‘s from the funds of the firm?" was asked. “The notes were for moneys taken out of the business,” replied Mrs Harvey, “and which was due me on the settle- ment when we dissolved partnership. The experience of Harvey and other people who have had business dealings with Wright, as indicated by his petition in insolvency, was in a measure like that of the California Title Insurance and Trust Company. In 1897 Wright lobbied a bill through the Legislature which re- duced the liabilities of trust companies to the State in the shape of guarantee de- posits from $200,000 to $100,000. The com- pany thought he was the right man for the position of manager, and they gave him the place at a fine salary. It did not take the corporation long to find that they had secured the wrong man, fn Mr. Wright. His methods were anything but satisfactory, and the financial results such as to make stockholders roar. The idea was finally conveyed to Wright that it would be agreeable to the company if he would send in his resignation. This the young man did, and made it take effect at a future date. After Wright had left the service of the corporation it was announced that he had left a tag in the cash drawer for $350, The former manager had gone to Los Angeles, and the secretary was at last directed to write the gentleman and request him to make the tag good. Wright took his own time to comply with the demand, and in the meantime the Title Insurance Com- pany notified the Pacific Surety Company, which was on Wright's bend, that they would not be released from the hond until such time as Wright pdid the $350. Henry L. Davis, former president of the Trust Company, when asked about the experience with Wright, stated that > directors had ‘‘accepted” Mr. Wright's resignation and that it was a fact that after he had left the cashier reported that there was a tag of Wright's in the cash drawer for $350. “We were not pleased with the matter,” sald Mr. Davis, “and had the secretary write to Mr. Wright to pay. As a matter of fact, we were not uneasy about the sum, as we were protected by the Surety Company. We finally. got our money ail right, and are satsfied to have things as they are.” ALAMEDA CITIZENS VOICE THEIR DISAPPROVAL ALAMEDA, Jan. 16. — The citizens of Alameda stamped with their disapproval fo-night the candidacy of U. 8. Grant Jr. for the United States Senate. At a meet- ing of the Municipal League, attended by over three hundred;of the representative men of the community, the name of the candidate from Southern California was greeted with a storm of hisses, cat-calls and howls. The demonstration came about when Tom Carpenter, at the request of Health Officer J. T. McLean, introduced a resolu- tion instructing Senator Taylor and As- semblyman Knowland to cast their votes for Grant for United Statés Senator. At the mention of Grant's name men in the assemblage stood up,_and howled and Carpenter’s voice was drowned in a storm of hisses. The chairman lost complete control of the meeting, and the indigna- tion was so manifest that Carpenter withdrew the resolution after the chair- man attempted to pacify matters by de- claring it out of order. The league also showed its attitude to- ward Dan Burns by refusing to place Senator Taylor in nomination for the City Attorneyship until he demonstrated by another week’s voting that he would not cast his ballot for the man from Mexico. Taylor is now City Attorney and the only candidate in the field for renomination. When the league got down to naming a candidate for the position the meeting was brought to an unexpected close with- out taking action. After adjournment the members stated Taylor would not get their indorsement if he voted for Burns, and that the adjournment was taken to give him an opportunity to prove that he would stand true to his colors. SNt A CAUSTIC COMMENT ON WRIGHT'S ACTION WASHINGTON, Jan. 16.—Dispatches from Sacramento telling of corruption in the Senatorial fight were read with amazement here and elsewhere in the East. The Washington Times makes this caus- tic editorial comment: “Reports from California and Montana about the corrupt use of money in Senatorial fights in those States are almost incredible. Those who read the statement of the Speaker of the California Assembly will want a doctor to examine their minds for evidence of in- sanity. It does not seem possible that it can read as it does. He frankly admits that he sold his vote for Grant for Sen- ator, but finding that he cannot vote for him, probably because he has been of- fered more by another candidate, he promises to return the money in a few days, presumably when the other fellow whacks up. “It is not a new ;hln% to have it charged that money was being used to buy a Senatorship, but accusations in the past have rarely been specific; they have always been very general in their char- acter, making it impossible for the law fo get hold of the guilty parties. Facts and figures are given, however, of a_very convineing nature, and if Speaker How- ard E. Wright of the California Legis- lature has not been misquoted there is immediate work ahead for the Grand Jury at Sacramento. Mr. Wright ad- mits having been paid the sum of $1650 by an agent of U. S. Grant Jr. to' vote for him. fle says frankly that there were circumstances which prevented his carrying out his contract. Ever since the first ballot he has voted for Burns, candidate of the Southern Pacific Rail- road. The circumstances are not men- tioned by Speaker Wright, but it is not difficult to guess that they consist of a large retainer to vote for the railroad candidate. No more brazen confession probably ever was made. The amazing part of the whole thing is that Wright appears to treat the matter lightly. ‘He expects to return Grant his money,' he says, ‘in a few days’' and then matters will be all right. He evidently expects to_continue as Speaker of the California Legislature,” GROVE JOHNSON WILL FIGHT THE CHARTER CALL HEADQUARTERS, SACRA- MENTO, Jan. 16.—The defenders and friends of San Francisco's charter were warned to-day that Grove L. Johnson, some time Congressman, now a member of the embly, will come out to-mor- row morning in active opposition to the new plan of government. For weeks past he has been gathering together every point of law that has any bearing on the weak points in the charter and has thoroughly acquainted himself with its every phase, at whose instigation it has not transpired. Johnson will not rely ugon any strength or following he has in the Assembly, for he has none, but will have his fight upon the constitutionality of several of the sec- tions that have been already brought into question, i Judge Henry N. Clement hurried to this as soon as he received word of John- s intentions, and to-night is locked up h his law books and a stenographer at the Golden Eagle Hotel. He promises to provide Johnson with all the law points he may want when the matter of the charter comes up as_the special or- der to-morrow morning after the reading of the journal. - A GRANT-BULLA CONFERENCE WANTED RTERS, SACRA- semblyman Belshaw rt supporter of Senator Buila. He is also a man of in- dependent thought and action and he gen- erally speaks in language not to be mis- taken. This evening in the Golden Eagle corri- dor Mr. Belshaw stated publicly that it was his opinion that it would be an excel- lent idea for the supporters of the Sena- CALL HEADQU MENTO, Jan. 16.— of Contra C torial candidacy .of Mr. Grant and the Assemblymen and Senators from Los An- geles ty to have a friendly meeting for the purpos consultation. Mr. Belsha he thought that if the Grant mana ould show to the Los Angeles Count lators that with th elght votes Grant could be elected S tor, then the elght ve of Los Angeles County would go to Grant. .The Assemblyman from Contra Costa was very emphatic i i atement and he said that he saw why such a conference h d cou and fri 1i of amity be held in a spirit ship. Later Milton J. ger, wes s Mr. Grant to meet the , Grant’s mana- i whether or nc supporters would be willi lla_contingent ‘from 1 geles County and discuss the prospe Grant's election and how- they would be affected by recelving the eight solid Republican votes of Los Angeles County. Mr. Green was very much pleased with the idea and stated that he would be will- Gr n and : ink, speaking for the Grant people, to hold such a conference as had been Sus- gested at as early a date as possible. M Green at once sét out to bring it abc But he has a hard task in front of him. There are a number of people sibly supporting Bulla, but they in the fight for Burns. Any propos| looking_to the Los Angel County dele- gation leaving Bulla and going to Grant they will oppose with all the ardor they possess. g But the man who suggested this meet- inig, Assemblyman Belshaw, every one admits Is an honest and conscientious supporter of Senator Bulla. This fact ives the proposition some weight despite fhe 0ppo: fioh it will meet with from the Burns men who are in the Bulla camp under a cloak. . Senator Bulla’s nine supporters cau- cused to-night and agreed to stand with him on ballot to-morrow. There seems to be no disagreement and there was no talk of going to ; other candidate. AN WHO WILL SWEAR THAT HE I8 Derfect and that he needs nothing to make M bliss complete is & fool. Now, think for e oment—are there not some things in_this World that you have not got that you would much like to have? Do you enjoy your food? Do you enjoy vour sleep? Do you enjoy life generally? Or Is there always something facking? Now, If you cannot enfoy life to the full, it_shows that you lack vifality in some The great To get yoursel? in trim again at_once if you are all depressed or run ~wn. Do you have hlght sweats? Do you feel “shakv’? Do you feel gloomy instead of being bright and vigor- ous? Are vou afraid to look your gweetheart or your sister In the eye? Are you, in a word, only ‘half a man" fnstead of being, as you oughit to be, & grand specimen of creation? It you are not all you should be, why not take Steps to place yourself on manhood's plane again? Think of it! Hudyan The vegetable remedy-treatment introduced by the doctors of the highest standing on this continent, cures all such cases as yours ia. Vim, vigor, life, hope and assurance all re- stored. Circulars and most convinéing testi- mony is yours for the asking. And If you have any other trouble—a blood disorder, for instance—write and get free advice. Why not try to-day? CONSULT THE DOCTORS FREE. AUDSON MEDICAL INSTITUTE, Stockton, Market and Ellis Sts., BAN FRANCISCO. SAN FRANCISCO'S GREATEST ART EVENT 125 GEARY STREET, Xdjoining City of Paris Dry Goeds Company. e N SECOND DAY'S EXHIBITION OF THE FERDINAND ROSSI COLLECTION OF RARE ART TREASURES, Will be sold at auction (positively) Wednes- dayJanuary 18, and three days following, at 11 a. m. and § p. m, I suffered terpibly from roaring’ in my head during an attack of catarrh, and became very deaf, used Ely's Cream Balm and in three weeks could hear as well as ever.—A. E. Newman, Graling, Mich. Cream Balm is placed into the nostrils, spread over the membrane and is absorbed. Relief is immediate and a cure follows. It {s not ar ing—does mot produce sneezing. = Largeé, 50 Trial_Size, 10c: at Drugglsts or by mail ELY BROTHERS, 56 Warren st., New York. 0 Leading Opticians, 14-16 Kecarny Strect. Use Use Woodbury’s B Woodbury’s Facial Soap. Faoial Cream. i Skin diseases, scaly eruptions, pimples, black- heads and blood disorders cured by JOHN H. WOODBURY, 2 W. 23d st., New York, and 163 State st., Chicago. Send 10 cents for Beauty B°§k‘ and receive sample each of Faclal Soap an m, free. b