Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-06-07

columns to Judge Hunt committed an I'M
propriety which justified his complaint.
But having said this. we may be permitted
to suggest that under the circumstances
such recourse, however unwarrantable,
was not surprising, nor can it be
attributed to any sinister motives.
The RECORD UNION has always
been extremely careful to abstain from
such comments as could be regarded as
ATTEMPT to influence Judicial decisions.
No journal in the country is probably
freer from blame in that regard. The ar
ticle on the Placerville Railroad case, how.
ever, was in no sense open to the interpre-
tation which some papers, commenting
upon Judge Hunts complaint, have given
to it. 1t was simply recapitulation of
the principal facts in one of the most ex.
traordinary cases on record. 1t was re.
minder to all whom it might concern that
for more tnan two years the people of Sac.
ramento, Ell Dorado and Amador counties
have been deprived of the use of the Pla..
cerville Railroad by judicial proceeding
for which no necessity appeared to exist !;
that great injury had been thus inflicted
upon innocent parties having no connection
with the matters in issue; that receiver
had been appointed who, instead of operat-
ing the road, had destroyed Its property
value entirely for the time being, by aus
pending its operation and that for these
and other reasons the public were war
ranted in demanding speedy settlement
of the case.
To show that the postponenlent of ju-
dicial decision win and does injure the
public interests is not to attempt to in.
huence the Court improperly. On the con-
trary, it is wholly within the limits of jus.
tifable journalistic action. The RECORD.
UNION, in this matter, has been speaking
for the people of the counties affected by
Judge Hunts proceedings, These people
have perfect right to hearing in the
premises. They have sustained serious
losses through the wholly unnecessary
| tying up of the Placeryille Railroad, and
Judge Hunt has no right to be astonished
that, community should express impa-
thence, or even indignation. under these
circumstances. A Judge who is so very
sensitive to popular criticism. however,
ought to be equally careful not to invite it,
and there are some things connected with
the appointment of receiver in this case
which no Court could expect to escape
censure. The appointment as receiver Of
one Of the parties in interest was a step
which cannot be justified, and which must
be characterized as irregular, to cay the
least. The neglect of the Court to call for
an accounting by the receiver is another
very strange and inexphcable irregularity.
The apparent Indifference of the Court to
the virtual destruction of the property by
the receiver also iustiiss adverse comment.
And in fscs the whole conduct of the case
has evinced SO remarkable an indisposition
to recognize or protect the public interests
put in jeopardy that we are considerably
surprised to find Judge Hunt complaining
even when anonymous correspondents
doubtless members Of the injured COM
munity) endeavor to stimulate him to
action.
Since making his complaint of these rash
but by no means causeless communications,
he has postponed the case for two months
more, perhaps in order to convince every
body that he is quite impervious to public
opinion. But it remains true that, from
whatever cause, his Court has thus far
wholly failed of the purpose for which
Judicial tribunals were instituted, SO far as
the Placerville Railroad case is concerned.
1t remains true that the judicial action in
that case mas been against public policy !;
that it has been so ordered as to produce
a railroad that it has amounted to con-
fsoation and destruction Of valuable prop
erty that it has injured thousands of
citizens, and has done good to none that
it has been disastrous to all concerned,
ands beneficial to nobody, unless, indeed,
the receiver is to profit by his purely NOM
inal charge. And when Court adopts
such methods, and for no reason that any
one can discern thus subjects the people
Of these counties to serious loss and injury,
we submit that the Court is depending
altogether too much upon its sup.
posititiOus dignity if it imagines
that the public will be content
to accept all these evils at its
hands without demanding to know why
they are inflicted, or without raising its
voice to insist on the termination of con.
dition of things which is intolerable. If
Judge Hunt thinks that the kind of pro.
test referred to is contempt of Court, we
take leave to differ from him. When the
people see justice they are generally intel.
ligent enough to recognize it. When they
cannot perceive the justice of Judicial
proceeding it is open to serious question
whether justice is there. The people of
these counties do not believe that the
Placerville Railroad ought to have been
stopped at all. They do not believe that
there was any necessity for stopping it.
They do not believe that there is any
justification for further postponement of
settlement in the case. And these opin.
ions appear SO reasonable to all who have
examined the record of the case that we
do not think any unprejudiced mind can
reach different conclusions. II it is con-
tempt of Court to hold these views, and
to express them, Judge Hunt will have
large contract on his hands should he
essay to punish all the offenders.