Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-09-22
THU BAR ASSOCIATION ON THE BUCK
LEY CASE

The Bar Association of San Francisco.
to which the Supreme Court some weeks
ago referred the matter of the charge that
cases had been advanced upon the calendar
OF the Court through the influence of
political boss Chris. Buckley, has reported.
The Association finds that Buckley did use
his influence with attorneys in the cases to
have two certain causes substituted as to
date of hearing for other cases having
precedence, and thus earlier decisions of
the cases were had. and that for such serv-
ice Buckley received the plump sum of
5000. But the Association finds that no
member of the Supreme Court was con-
cerned in the transaction, or was cognizant
OF 1t. The Association finds also that the
City and County Attorney, Mr.. Cowdery,
took the appeals in the cases, the city being
defendant in them. After his retiracy from
the office, he informed the plaintiffs attor.
ney that there was point in the cases, not
then made known, which was fatal to the
plaintiffs actions. Thereupon he accepted
retaining fee from the plaintiff, binding
him not to be retained by the city and not
to disclose the fatal point, and the plant
IFS attorney, Whittemore, was party to
the transaction, and paid over the money.
These acts the Association holds to be in
contempt of court as to Buckley and those
he dealt with, and it advises the Supreme
Court to cite the boss, the plaintiff Bon
net, and party named Taylor, to whom
he-had transferred the claims on which
the actions were based, as security for
money advanced, before the Court to be
punished for contempt. The Association
profiers the Court committee of LAWYERS
to consult with the Acknowledgement and
prosecute the contempt proceedings. They
also advise that Cowdery and the ,laint-
IFS attorney, Whittemore, be cited to show
cause why they should not be broken at
the bar for unprofesSional conduct in re-
gard TO the retention of Cowdery in the
cases.
This is a pretty kettle of fish. 1t is
gratifying to know that the report clears
away the faintest suspicion that may have
oeen entertained of the Court having any
part IN the matter e is equally
gratifying 10 know that the lawyers of San
Francisco have the courage to condemn
unproiessional conduct, and to hold some
OF their own members to examination for
what appears to be a very scaly proceeding.
Worse by far than the pretension of Buck
ley that he could procure an early decision
from the Court, is the charge that the ex-
City Attorney took a fee not to disclose 4
point fatal 10 the case of one suing the eitv
which he had but lately served as an St
torney. If the knowledge he had of the
point, he acquired as the peoples repre-
sentative, ii was worse than unprofessional
for him to seerete it. True he was not CITY
Attorney when the appeals were heard.
but he took the appeals, and presumably
then knew of the point that would prove
fatal to plaintiffs case, if it was raised in
the Supreme Court. He had, therefore, no
right to accept fee not to disclose that
knowledge. This is the Judgment of his
own association, and if it is confirmed by
the Supreme Court he ought to be, and
doubtless Will be punished. But until the /