Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-02-09

and lrresponslDle OuVcry OF peIsohs eN
newspapers. Mr.. Foote has not before
seen fit to purge himself of this calumnious
misrepresentation.
From the report of the Gail of June p,
1883, reporting the proceedings of the
Board of the 26.h, we extract the follow
ing:
Mr.. uumphreys-There is no reason why this
schedule should be Fl al II we hEd at tine ehu Oh
month that the railroads can STAND more
we will make them. will join with you 10 make
them.
Mr.. Foote-I don't believe this schedule will sat
isfy the public don't desire to introduce mere the
political features of this matter think, however,
a tbree.cent rate would help our party
MT Carpenter-We are not here as the represent
atiyes of party. We are sworn ottlcers
Herein Mr. Foote is represented to have
said: 81 think, however, three-cent
rate would help our party" A compari-
son of the Calls report with that OF the
Bulletin reveals differences sufficient to
prove that the report was not made by the
same reporter. In the one there is short
colloquy between Mr.. Carpenter and Mr.
Foote. In the other Mr.. Foote is not re-
ported as having answered Mr.. Csrpen-
ter's statement to the effect that political
considerations should rot govern the action
of the Board, because the members were
sworn officers.
The following is from the report of the
Examiner Referring to the three-cent
rate, Mr.. Foote said d" l think it will
have the effect to stop public excitement
I think we would help the party to which
we belong very materially by such . reduc'
ton"
Carpenter tcoldly)-"We are acting as
officers now.
So, then, the Examiner, which hastens
to send a reporter to interview Mr.. Foote,
is itself responsible for the statement that
Mr.. Foote used the language attributed to
him by the RECORD. UNION.
The variance thus proven does not lie
between the REcORD.UNIoN and Mr..
Foote, but rather between the E.camine'
and Mr.. Foote. In truth, however,
the concensus of these reports establishes
beyond doubt the fact that Mr.. Foote did
use the language attributed to him, and
that in making his denial he goes back
upon his own expressions, conscious at last
Of the ridiculous light in which they place
him IS a public officer.
These reports of the proceedings Of the
Board have certainly not escaped the atten-
ton Of Mr.. Foote. He certainly was ap :
prised from the morning of June 9th that
he had been represented az saying a
three-cent rate would help our party" If
the republication of that statement in the
RECORD UNION and the logical differences
derived therefrom are hurtful to Mr.. Foote,
how is II that their original publication in
the Bulletin, Gail and Chronicle were not
equally hurtful? Why is it that Mr.. Foote
now desj.es to repudiate the sentiment ex.
pressed by the language, and why has he
permitted himself so long to remain under
the imputation of having used it?
The reason is not far to seek. When the
language stood alone Mr.. Foote evidently
thought it very pretty statement OF the
whole case. When the logical differences
derivable from this language were clearly
presented, Mr.. Foote saw the unfavorable
light in which it presented him as a Com
missioner and FASTENED to repudiate its use.
Whether this Interpretation of his silence
be justified by the fact, or be amenable to
the charge of uncharitsbleness, the fact re.
mains that the RECORD UNION based its
statements upon the published reports OF
its contemporaries in San Francisco. All
questions of veracity, therefore, are be-
tween Mr.. Foote and our San Francisco
contemporaries, and if the former should
prove that he has been misrepresented,
or his language misconstrued, by the
San Francisco daily papers, we shall neither
be surprised nor grieved. However this
may be, Mr.. Foote'S inability to think
il a straight lire finds singular illustration
in the statements made by him in the in
terview with the Examiner reporter. That
interview was published TO purge himself
Of the charge Of having been influenced by
outside pressure rather than controlled by
that calm Judicial judgment which consti-
tutes the only proper mental attitude Of
a public, and especially judicial, officer.
And yet in the very statements intended
to deny this, Mr.. Foote is reported as say
ing, / believed during that discussion, as
I think now, that the pledge given the
Democratic party, which nominated and
elected our Commission, should be kept.
I did not and do not now believe that the
six and four-cent schedule was a fulfill
msnt Of that pledge" Further on he
says, d" think a candidate should never
make pledges 10 the people before an cleo
ton unless he has investigated the subject
and is prepared, upon the light he then
has, to carry them out, if the people trust
him and elect him"
Nj Foote is still "harping on my
daughter In the same breath in which
he declares that political considerations did
not control his action, he also declares that
he believes the pledges given the
Democratic party should have been kept
But he also believes that a candidate
should never make pledges to the PEG.
pie before an election unless he had in
vestigated the subject, etc. Mr.. Foote is
a lawyer, and it should be better under.
stood by him than by the non professional
mind, that the ex parte investigation OF
judicial question by citizen, and the con.
clusion reached by such investigation, is
matter quite distinct from thatinstitu by
q judicial officer, invoking sworn testi-
mony bearing upon both sides and finding
conclusions Of law and fact based upon that
testimony. When Mr.. Foote says that he
believes the pledges given to the Demo-
cratic party should have been kept, he ap-
pears to be wholly oblivious to the fact
that he is repudiating constitutional meth
DDS and is substituting regulation by po-
Htioal convention for regulation by con-
stitutional tribunal. The readiness with
which Mr. Foota repudiated the statement