Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-06-24
THE STATE PRISON CHARGES.

public, at once caused special reporter to |
be- sent to San Quentin to inquire into the
matter. The results OF that inquiry we
published yesterday. Mr.. Ames denies
one and all OF the charges preferred
against him by the Mercury, and offers
explanations on several points which are
at least plausible 1t was due to him to
ascertain his statement of the case, and
now the public have both the accusation
and the answer to it. Whether there re-
mains. after all has been said, euoug h sub
stance in the indictment TO necessitate an
official inquiry, remains to be determined.
Those who have brought the charges may
of course object that in a case of this kind
it is not enough to obtain the denials OF
the accused parties, or even to procure the
Endorsement of their conduct by those
who are under them In Office. The MeT-
curry indeed asserted yesterday that it
stands prepared to demonstrate the truth
of all it has alleged, and virtually that it
challenges an investigation. It is for Gov
ernor Perkins and the Board of State
Prison Directors to decide whether an
official inquiry shall be held, but since the
Board has itself been charged with receiv-
ing presents from the Warden, and infer
entially with being controlled by him, it is
to be feared that an investigation by that
body might be regarded by suspicious peo-
pie as only patent method of white
washing.
The Mercury, having made its charges
in very positive and unambiguous way,
is of course under obligations to show that
it had substantial justification for all it has
published. At present its averments are
denied by the accused party, and it cannot
afford to lie under the inlputation of having
wantonly illuminated that official. The
matter has gone too far to be suppressed
or abandoned. There must be complete
vindication OF Mr.. Ames, or there must be
a complete conviction of the Mercury. 1t
is very serious thing to charge State
officer with habitual drunkenness, with
abusing and even robbing the convicts,
with tyrannizing over his subordinates,
and with having alliances with eonvicts.
| No journal is warranted in making such
statements unless it is prepared to prove
them, and the Mercury must realize that
it is now called upon to prove what it has
| alleged, and that nothing short of positive
evidence can be accepted.
Thus far the testimony is all of an ear
pGrte character. One asserts, the other
denies but neither the assertion nor the
denial are such as to justify the formation
of definite opinions. It is no doubt OF the
first importance that the Warden of the
State Prison tif not skilled penologist. as
he ought to bel should be sober, discreet,
just, upright, and possessed of self
restraint. There is no position in which
hasty temper, disposition to tyrannize.
a tendency to be capricious, or habits of
intemperance can do more harm than in
the Wardenship of the State Prison. We
have no prison system in this State. Even
with the best intentions on the part Of the
prison officers the penitentiary is, as Judge
Freelon characterized it recently. school
of vice, where bad men are made worse
and comparatively good men are made bad.
Bat evil as the general arrangements are,
and destitute of reformatory character,
they may be made tenfold more mischievous
by being intrusted TO incompetent and
untrustworthy hands, and nothing s)uld
excuse the Board for retaining in office a
Warden who should be convicted of such
offenses as the Mercury has alleged against
Mr.. Ames.
1t is extremely unlikely that the case
viii be allowed to rest here, however.
Even if the Warden and the Board should
make the mistake of concluding an in
quiry unnecessary, the journal which made
the charges is bound to vindicate its course
by demonstrating the validity OF its state.
men.s, and it cannot do this without ad.
vanoing testimony which will make an in
vestigation unavoidable. The wisest and
indeed the only thoroughly defsnsible
course for the Board is to order an official
| inquiry forthwith, and call upon the
Mercury to come forward and prove its
charges. OF course the Board can in no
event prevent the proof of them from be-
ing made, supposing the evidence to be in
existence, but it may make the demonstra-
ton official, aad by taking this course it
will give equal weight to the vindication
Of the Warden should the testimony
against him be inadequate. We presume
that Mr.. Ames himself viii be as eager as
anyone for full and impartial inquiry.
Certainly he cannot afford to let the
matter 60 with his unsupported denial
alone to clear himself. He must prepare
10 rebuff the most damaging evidence his
aecuser can bring forward, and he must
realize that this evidence viii in the nature
of the case be published whether or not
there Is an official inquiry It would be
graceful and prudent recognition OF the
inevitable for the Board to order all
inquiry forthwith, and prompt action on
its part seems the more necessary because
it has been included in the condemnation.
The matter is one Of very great importance,
and it must be taken hold of and attended
to without delay. Any attempt to ignore
the charges, or to suppress inquiry, would
be productive of calamitous results, and
would do more to confirm existing doubts
and suspicious than anything else that
could possibly be thought Of
NOT ENCOURAGING.
The experience of the new Tichborne
claimant is fresh illustration of the doom
of prophets in their own country. The
people among whom this person has lived
appear somewhat eager to adduce facts
which tend to cast doubt upon his story.
His peiyhhor in Vallejo co so far ne 70