The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, January 18, 1899, Page 1

Call VOLUME XXXV—-NO. 49. SAN FRANCISCO, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1899. PRICE FIVE CENTS. S ORY OF HOWARD WRIGHT'S DUPLICITY TOLD TO THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE SPEAKER WRIGHT HOLDS HIS HIGH OFFICE WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF THE LAWS He Took a False Oath When He Swore to His Bill of Election Expenditures. THE LEGAL PENALTY PROVIDED IS FORFEITURE Men Who Served as the Disgraced Official's Purity Committee Declare That They Failed to Sign a Report of His Expenses as Required by the Statutes—If Such a Document Exists the Sigma- tures Are Forgeries. The Call has now in its|that Pringle had given him a strong | that is fatal to the Speaker of the As- battle and on the following day might | sembly. possession evidence to prove that Howard E. Wright, Speaker of the Assembly, is guilty of of- fenses that, under the law, are punishable by heavy penalties. There is no necessity to elaborate on the nature of the felony that Wright has commit- ted nor any need to char- acterize further the ethics of this man, who has, by his public acts, disgraced himseli, betrayed his friends and constituents and outraged the decency of the State. Mr. Wright, by the authority of his own oath, is a perjurer. Among the official docu- ments of Alameda County is the record of his lying oath. The Call also charges that Howard E. Wright is either a forger, an acces- sory to a forgery or a vio- lator of thelegal conditions under which he was elected to the Assembly. Mr. Wright has sworn to a false oath in his state- ment of his election ex- penses. He has therefore forieited, under the law, his right to the seat which he has dishonored in the Assembly. He did not se- cure the signatures of the committee which, the law of the State prescribes, must audit his election ex- penses. The report of that com-| mittee is not on file in the office of the Secretary of State, where the law de- clares it shall be. 1f an, document, purporting to be a report of the purity committee, exists, and is €igned, the signatures are forgeries, and Mr. Wright, for a second reason, has submitted himself to the penalty of a forfeiture of his seat in the Assembly and - to prosecution for a guilty participation in a felony. These are accusa- tions which, in the proof, raise Howard E. Wright to the evil dignity of a pubiic malefactor. The facts upon the foundation of which The Call prefers these serious charges against the Speaker of the As- sembly may best be stated chronologic- ally. Mr. Wright and Willlam B. Pringle were rivals for the Republican nomination to the Assembly in the Fifty-fipst District. The Republican nomination was equivalent to an elec- t and the contestants knew f{t. Every energy therefore was given to win at the primary election. On the @va of that electlon Wright realized assemble the more powerful force at the polls. Wright and some of his friends sought and obtained therefore a con- ference with Pringle. The fight of Frank C. Jordan for County Clerk of Alameda was involved and Pringle, who was Jordan’s friend, and fearful of the antagonistic influence of Wright, | 1ast night H. S. Pugh, one of t Wright promised | bers of the committee, mi agreed to withdraw. | to pay Pringle $250 to pay, in part at least, what Pringle. had expended the campaign. On the following day, the day of the primary election, Wright gave Pringle $250 in coin. Two facts in that transaction are significant. It should not be fyrgotten | | that Wright subsequently took a legal | oath that he spent no more than $74 to secure his election. It should be re- membered that Pringle and his friends and also the friends of Wright, under- stood thoroughly that Wright was not paying his own money to Pringle. On the night of the conference Wright de- clared that he did not have the money, but would give it to Pringle on the fol- lowing day. Wright had not yet found an angel in Milton J. Green. The friends of Wright winked knowingly when he paid the money and some- body said the railroad building cast a long shadow. Wherever the money came from Wright was prompt in pay- ment. He was profuse also in promise, al- though he was treading close upon the interdicted domain of the law. He told Pringle that he would use his influence to secure for Pringle a position at the Legislature worth $6 a day, or a Fed- eral or State appointment that the re- tiring aspirant might seek. Pringle was at liberty to accept the $6 for himself or for any one else of his choosing. Pringle had set his cap for the secre- ta hip of the California Code Com- mission, and Wright nodded approval. That concluded the through which Wright nomination for the Assembly. He con- strued one of the transactions tg mean the corruption of his friend Pringle. Over three times the amount that Wright swore was his expenditure had | already been spent and an illegal prom- ise had been given. But Wright had | only begun his campaign. The Call is | in a position to prove that Wright ex- | pended after his nomination and be- | fore his election the sum of $100 that | was used exclusively for election pur- | poses. This sum was not spent per- | sonally by Wright, but was given by | him to be used in his political interest. This money was not accounted for in | the sworn statement of expenditures that Wright subsequently made. ; The Speaker of the Assembly is therefore guilty of perjury and subject under the law to a forfeiture of his | seat. The statute permits no discre- | tion in the matter and provides es- | peclally for the penalty. | " When Howard E. Wright was nomi- | nated for the Assembly he appointed | the following to act as his auditing committee under the purity of elections |law: W. B. Pringle, Frank Parcells, | Willlam H. Waste, Arthur Elston and | H. 8. Pugh. This committee is com- manded by law to supervise the elec- | tion expenses of the candidate it repre- | sents and to make oath that the | amount finally sworn to is correct. | Each member of the committee must | sign the document under oath. The re- | port, in the case of legislative officers, is then filed with the Secretary of State. Many officers have also filed the | reports of their purity committees with | the Recorders of their counties as a | matter of double security. There is a | provision in the law that invalidates | the election of an officer if the report | of the purity committee be not properly and honestly made and filed. The records of this State fail to re- veal the existence of a report by | Pringle, Parcells, Waste, Elston and Pugh in favor of Howard E. Wright. Such a report should be in the office of the Secretary of State, but it i8 not there, and there is nothing to show that it ever was there. The greatest diligence has been exer- cised in a search for this report, but it cannot be found. It might have been in the office of the Recorder of Ala- meda County or that of the County Clerk, but it is in neither. These facts in themselves would be dangerous- to Howard E. Wright, but there is in connection with this affair another fact negotiations | secured his | | himself we did not do so. The purity committee appointed by Howard E. Wright has not signed a re- port of his election expenditures as pro- vided by law, and the penalty is the forfeiting of the seat that the Speaker now occupies. If there is anywhere in existence a document which purports to be such a report at least three of the signatures are forgeries. In discussing this most serious affair he mem=, minced” no words. “I neither saw nor signed a in | report of exfiendnures for Wright,” said Mr. Pugl “If such a report is in existence and my name is attached to it the signature is a forgery. If the names of at least two of my associates on that committee are attached to such a document these signatures also are forgeries. ‘““We never signed the report for the simple reason that it was never pre- sented to us by Wright. We had our own private affairs to attend to and since he did not concern himself with what was naturally of importance to That is all I know about the affair.” No further evidence is necessary to prove that Howard E. Wright is not entitled to his seat in the Assembly. He was not legally elected to the posi- tion and the Statutes provide what the consequences shall be. In discussing the same affair Frank Parcells said: *‘I did sign one document for Howard Wright. I did not know I was on his purity committee until one day I re- ceived a document from him by mail. I was Informed that it was necessary to sign it so that it could be filed in time, and I was asked to deliver it to A. W. Bishop, which I did. It may seem careless, but I did not look at the nature of the document other than to see that it had some signatures upon it, and then, being in a hurry, I signed it. T suppose it was his election ac- count, but of this I am not certain. Tt may have been a certificate of nomi- nation. In any event I did not super- vise any of his expeditures and know nothing about his expenses.” GREEN'S STATEMENT PREDICATED ON A LIE CALL HEADQUARTERS, SACRA- MENTO, Jan. 17.—Miiton J. Green to- night gave to the press the following interview: “I did not hear the testimony given by Mr. Leake of The Call before the Assembly Investigating Committee, and therefore have no opportunity of denying certain statements made by him. I have just been told that he tes- tified I had either said to him or to Speaker Wright that I had given money to Senator Cutter and Assem- blymen Jilson and Raw. I desire to denounce this statement as an absolute and unqualified lie. Mr. Leake did not testify that Green had said “To him or to Speaker Wright that I (Green) had given money to Senator Cutter and Assemblymen Jil- son and Raw.” What Mr., Leake did testify to was to the effect that Wright had asked him if he had heard of Sena- tor Cutter receiving financial assistance in his campaign and if he had heard of Asgemblymen Jilson and Raw receiv- ing assistance in their fight for elec- tion. Mr. Leake testified that he had heard that they had been, but did not testify that Wright gave Green as his authority for the assertion. Mr. Leake distinctly stated in his testimony that Mr. Green had only told him of the as- gistance he had given Howard E. ‘Wright and Raw. ‘When Mr. Leake heard that Mr. Green had given his interview to the press he promptly laid before Green the facts as to what he did testify to and clearly demonstrated that Green’s in- terview was founded on a misstate- ment on what his evidence really was. Mr. Green admits that he did not hear Mr. Leake’s testimony, but based his interview on statements made to Sena- tor Cutter by an outsider. Mr. Green insisted on sending out the interview to the press even after it was shown to him that it was predicated on a lie. The verbatim report of the testimony appearing in this issue of The Call shows exactly what Mr. Leake testified to as far as Assemblymen Raw and Jilson and Senator Cutter are con- cerned. The verbatim report is identi- 4 cal with the official stenographic rec- ord of the testimony. i e S BURNS’ PLAN IS TO . " BLOCK LEGISEATION CALL HEADQUARTERS, BSACRA- | MENTO, Jan. 17.—Three ballots for | United States Senator were taken to-day and no special significance was attached to either. The followers of Burns made an effort to prevent the adjournment of the joint convention, but the motive of the resistance was plain. It {s now the Burns programme to block legislation and pug- ish the legislators. The members who recognize that the prospect of agreement is remote are willing to meet daily, as the constitution of the United States requires, and to take at least one ballot. Many members who hold that the business of the Legislature should proceed favor a plan of going ahead with such legisla- tlon as the interests of the State demand. It is not essential that more than one hour’s time a day should be occupled in the session of the joint convention. Tne touts are not willing there should be any- thing in the Legislature but pulling and hauling over the Senatorial struggle. By holding fast to such a programme they expect to wear out the patlence of the people and force a caucus. The Call intends that the people shall know the plans of the Burns push. It would not be a great misfortune to the State if the Legislature should adjourn without electing a United States Sena- tor, but it would be a lasting disgrace to tns commonwealth if Burns were cho- sen to represent California in the Segate of the United States. When the contest is narrowed down to a question of endurance the people can hold out as long as the touts can afford to remain in Sacramento. Meanwhile leading members of the Republican party who made the victory for the State ticket possible may call D. M. Burns, Major Mc- Laughlin, J. Alva Watt and Paris Kil- burn to account for making a claim at Sacramento to represent the party. The Republican State Central Committee is not in favor of Dan Burns for Senator. The establishment of State committee headquarters in the Golden Eagle Hotel to boost Burns ought to be rebuked by gepubllcan voters in every county of the tate. T-;le Republican State Central Commit- tee ought to meet in San Francisco and quickly call off Major McLaughlin, Paris Kilburn and Alva Wagt. They have the right of individuals to be here and support the candidate of their choice, but lgey have no business or color of right to represent the Republican or- gul:lllauon nrr‘(c::momll):.. T t‘”’t{: well as any can u! question’ of selecting a- kot R 0 Stephen M, White could be submitt to a popular . vote in t‘fil&mfil‘ “xflne- tenths of the Republicans would pro- nounce against Dan Burns. The boodling of Grant's agents is no more desplcable than the fraudulént methods _employed by the touts to pre- vent an honest expression on the part of the representatives of the people. The discipline that the major needs should be administered by the stalwart voters be- longing to the Republican party and they represent quite a respectable majority of the tapayers of California. The use of Dan Burns of the Republican head- uarters in the Palace Hotel at San rancisco was sufficiently repulsive to disgust many earnest and _high-minded Republicans, who contributed of their means and energies to make the ri?at en victory for the pv‘nwo possible. Burns and McLaughlin come to Sacra- mento and set uF the claim they control the party organization their assumption demands rebuke. The Democrats in the Legislature to- day saw the Burns scheme to block busi- ness by prolonging the session of the joint Kl ‘When the roll call was de- assembly. manded on_the proposition to adjourn after the third ballot had been taken Senator Ashe voted to adjourn. His example was followed by other Demo- crats. The touts fancy that opposition to adjourn may delude some people with the notion that Burns has strength in re- serve which he intends to call at some particular ballot, but this talk of reserved Etrength is & bluff. Conditions may arise by which Burns would be able to line up three of four men who are not at present in his camp, but he is well advised that he cannot win as long as Republicans refuse to go into caucus. Under the cover of a secret ballot in caucus Burns might disclose more strength than he can rally in the open. When it comes to underhanded, low-down political jobbery, knavery and chincanery the touts can glve odds to anyvbody in Grant’s camp. Grant has a higger sack to go down in than Burns ever had. al- though hints are thrown out that Can- delaria is richer than ever and if the col- onel was prepared to enter upon a cam- aign of bribery and corruption he could guy up everything in sight. Much of the talk about Burns’ wealth is airy non- genge, The sums accredited to him as contributions to the Republican cause were given by others. ‘he mafnstay of Burns at this time is the patronage. The impression is spread abroad that Gov- ernor Gage intends to recognize only such clalmants as the major and-the colonel recommend as worthy. ile the Gov- ernor has no sympathy or respect for the Grant candidacy, he is not going to sur- render the management of State affairs to the touts. It may be all right in politics for the touts to hold out the promise that Gage intends to recognize them and their friends alone, but the Governor will have something to say when the appointments are made to positions under his adminis- tration. NO INDICATION OF : ! BREAKING THE DEADLOCK CALL HEADQUARTERS, SACRA- MENTO, Jan. 17.—Three more ballots and the deadlock. is not even sprung. On neither of the ballots of to-day for. Sena- tor was there a change by so much as a vote. The list of absentees was rather larger than usual, but the absent ones had paired with those who were present and the relative positions of the leaders d the same. "l?(‘:-';‘teeen joint ballots have been taken to date and there is not the slightest in- dlcatmn‘ tha‘t t}:e breaking of the dead- minent. 1ok sembiyman Raw of El Dorado was absent again to-day because of sickness. He was paired with Rickard of San Fran- clsco, but Speaker “’rlght did not turn up throughout the session and Rickard agflted the pair to him and cast his usual vote for Burns. Kelsey of Santa Clara was also absent and was paired with Assemblyman Mer- Tl inetti of Amador and Glenn of Co- lusa were also among the missing and Stephen M. White, the honorary candi- date of the minority lost two votes be- cause of it.’ \ The result of the ballot 1s as follows: Barnes, 10 . Bulla, & Scott, 1. Paterson, De Vri 2. White . e;' ¥ e, 3 A3 53 ot Twelve members absent. THE CALL'S CHARGES AGAINST WRIGHT 000 : M * WERE SUBSTANTIATED The Whole Unlovely Truth Given to the - Light by Witnesses to the Transaction. THE SPEAKER GOT GRANT’S MONEY FOR HIS VOTE. Story of a Man Who Seeks to Gratify His Ambition for High Position by Corrupting Men in Whom the People of the State Repose Trust and How Momey Was Spent for Him. R. MELLICK—This whole $1650 was Mr. Grant’s money? MR. GREEN—Yes; I think it was. The $750 was. city at the time I received the letter. MR. LARDNER—Who drew the check? How was the money paid? . MR. GREEN—I think that Grant drew the check; that is my recollection. CHAIRMAN-—That is the $goo check? MR. GREEN—No; the $750 check. * CHAIRMAN—Did you take any rece: MR. GREEN—No, sir. MR. LARDNER—Was this $900 an absolute gift or was it expected that it was to be repaid? MR. GREEN—Well—it was a contribution to the fund; don’t expect to be repaid at all. [Extract from Green’s testimony before the investigating committee.] ! * * * * * * I think Mr. Grant was in the ipt for the $goo contribution? % —0—0-0-0-0-0-90-0-000 606069 e 99000000000 000000000000¢ CALL HEADQUARTERS, SACRA- MENTO, Jan. 17.—The story of How- ard B. Wright's degradation was tald to-night to the Assembly committee appointed to investigate the charges made against him by The Call. The whole unlovely truth was told as it had previously been confessed by Wright. Then Milton J. Green, po- litical manager of the Senatorfal cam- paign of U. 8. Grant, retold the story and added to it details that had been overlooked, forgotten or suppressed by ‘Wright. In a word, the investigating commit- tee has now indisputable evidence that Howard E. Wright, Speaker of the As- gembly, received $1650 from U. S. Grant through his agent, Milton J. Green, in return for a promise and implicit un- derstanding that Wright would support Grant for United States Senator. To be sure, the story as told by Green was not told willingly. The de- talls of the bargain were dragged from him by bits. He was a reluctant witness and his testimony was marked by a cloud of reluctant evasions, out of whicH the questioners with great diffi- culty extracted fragments of the truth, until, by piecing them together, the facts as they exist were displayed to e It was not a pleasant tale, to hear. It no more nor less than a relation of how a man whose ambition leads him to seek a high position is seeking to gratify that ambition by\con’uptlng legislators. Milton J. Green is the manager of U. S. Grant’s Senatorial campaign. He is the man who handled the money that was paid to Howard E. Wright. He admitted to-night under onth_tha.t the money paid -to Wright was Grant's money, and that it was money provided by Grant for the purpose of promoting his Senatorial campaign. There is nothing left to be told. The Call's charges have been substantiated by the sworn testimony of the man who han- dled the money, and by one of the per- sons to whom Wright confess€d the truth. i 3 ‘When the Investigating committee 'met this afternoon the great throng of legislators-and spectators in attend- ance testified to the deep interest the investigation is attracting here. Assemblyman Meade of Los Angeles, who is one of the two minority mem- bers of the committee, appeared bhefore the committee and stated that he would refuse to serve. He gave no reason for his declination, but said that if his resignation 'was not accepted there | would be a vacancy on the committee, as he would not attend its sessions. It was decided to report the matter to the Assembly. The suggestion of Committeeman Sanford, recommending that Assemblyman Burnett be ap- pointed in Meade’s place, was adopted. Formal proceedings were instituted by Chairman Cosper by calling U. S. Grant to the witness stand. Walter R. Bacon, a Los Angeles attorney, an- nounced that he appeared for Grant. He protested against the decision of the committee to place Grant on the stand as the first witness and declared that his client was not accused and was therefore not called upon to make a de- fense. Mr. Bacon was informed that there was no desire on the part of the committee to make Mr. Grant a de- fendant, but that it was deemed proper | to take his testimony in order to make a proper investigation of the charges made ‘by The Call against Speaker Wright. Garret. McEnerney, who, with H. 8. Pillsbury, appeared on behalf of The Call, asked the indulgence of the com- mittee to make a statement. He said The Call having made the charges stood ready to substantiate them, but that in order to do so, to the satisfac- tion of the committee and to the best interests of the Legislature and the peo- ple' of the State, The Call should be permitted to produce its evidence and call its witnesses in such manner as should be dictated by a full knowledge of the facts. This was opposed by Committeeman Mellick, who said he was afraid that the time of the com- mittee would be taken up with useless questioning and legal argument. His mind was set at rest on this point by Mr. McEnerney, who declared that if he were permitted to call witnesses in order he would agree to get at the heart of the matter so expeditiously that there would be no cause for com- plaint. This view of the matter was taken by a majority of the committee and it was agreed that Mr. McEnerney 'should be allowed to proceed in his own way. When Mr. McEnerney asked that Speaker Wright be called as the first witness {t developed that he had not keen subpoenaed. After a delay of a half hour, the sergeant at arms suc- ceeded in finding Mr. Wright. When he appeared before the committee he 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0090 sald he was not prepared to take the witness stand and give his testimony, as he had had no opportunity to con- sult with his attorneys. He also said he was awaiting the arrival of impor- tant papers. By consent of Mr. Mc- Enerney and Mr. Pillsbury, Wright was excused until the evening session. Tha committee then adjourned until 7:30 o’clock in the evening. When the committee reassembled some discussion was had as to how far the attorneys for interested parties were to be permitted to participate in the proceedings. The question was finally settled by the introduction and adcption of a resolution to the effest that the course of the investigation should be directed by the committee. The first witness called was W. S. Leake, manager of The Call. He tes- tified in detail as to conversations had by kim with Wright and Green, the subjéct-matter of which has been pub- lished in these columns, and formed the basis of the charge against Wright. | The next witness was Milton J. Green. Tha substance of what he testified to has been outlined in the foregoing par- agraphs. A verbatim report of all the testimony given, as well as all dis- cussion before the committee, will be founé@ in another place in this paper. A careful perusal of it will prove in- tefesvlng to those persons who have looked with incredulity upon the charges made against Speaker Wright. BELSHAW’S BILL AS AMENDED WILL PASS SACRAMENTO, Jan. 17.—Senate bill 199 by Cutter of Yuba County will pass:the Assembly with two slight amendments. This was decided by the Republican ma- jority in caucus this afternbon. The amendements are that there shall be four assistant minute clerks, instead of two as in the bill, and that all appointments shall lie over for a day on the journal, in order that they may be investigated. As the bill stands now there will be thirty 0dd new employes, with an added daily expense of about $113 more than under the Belshaw act. The bill was presented in caucus by Assemblyman Valentine of Los Ange!es and was practically agreed to by Belshaw, but he wanted to tack on as an amendment that if any further employes were to be hired it should only be done by a four-fifths vote. The caucus would not stand for it, and Belshaw with a larse following bolted the proceeding. They flled out of the court- room where the caucus was being held into the Cx‘pltol rotunda and flatly refused to go any further with the matter until it is introduced in the Assembly, when they propose to fight it to a standstill. Bel- shaw claims that after he and his sup- orters bolted there was not a quorum left in the caucus and that any subse- quent action was void. He refuses to be bound by its action, and claims that none other of the members are, and is gel[lnfi ready for a bitter fight when the bil comes up to-morrow- after the charter has been considered.