Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-05-21
THE BRIBERY CASE.

somewhat prominent in business and poll
tics were brought before a Superior Judge
for contempt, the charge of attempted
| bribery being, under oath, made bv
three jurors in an action for dam
ages to the person against the Geary
Street Railway Company of San
Francisco. The jurors recited that
the men had approached them with offers
OF money to secure a verdict for defendant.
No defense was made, and the Court i'm
posed fine of $500 on each of the three
charged. Their attorney retired, and in
brief time returned with the 81 800 and
paid it into Court. The city press is quite
unanimous in condemning the Judgment.
The Post says it disgraces the Courts
and that it is IAN outrage on Justice" The
CAL pronounces the fine dwarfng of a
felony to misdemeanor," if the contempt
proceeding is to be the end of the matter.
The Chronicle is of the opinion that to let
the men go with the fine alone. will
amount to a "legalizing, at a fixed price,
Of the business of tampering with juries."
The Bulletin holds that the swiftness of
punishment in the shape of fine " will
not satisfy the public mind, if it is to be
considered bar to the more ignominious
punishment provided by the code" The
EGdn'iney is panied, surprised and indig-
nant, and declares all the surroundings of
the case to be suspicious The matter has
been referred to the District Attorney.
who viii examine into it, with view of
bringing the subject before the next Grand
Jury. At best, this is an impotent ending
Of this stage of the matter The men
should not have been fined, but sent to
Jail for the contempt. Section 90 of the
Penal Code provides that every person
who corruptly attempts to influence a
juror, or any person summoned or drawn
as juror, by means of any threat, in
timidation, persuasion or entreaty, or by
means of any promise, or assurance of any
pecuniary or other advantage, is punish
able by fine not exceeding $4,000.
or by Imprisonment in the State
Prison not exceeding five wears"
Section 80 of the same Code declares that
Every person who gives, or offers to give,
a bride to any Judicial officer, Juror,
referee, with intent to in
iuence his vote, decision or opinion,
is punishable by imprisonment in the State
Prison not less that one nor more than ten
years" 1t would seem, from these pro-
visions, that the facts recited in the aft
davits justifying the judgment in the con-
tempt cases, ought to have been sufficient
to forttfy the District Attorney in at once
causing the arrest of the men charged.
Suppose these men desired to escape; what
ample opportunity has been given them
and probably still is. They have no bail
bond filed, no property pledged for their
appearance, are not hidden by any legal
authority to remain within the jurisdic-
ton of the Court Certainly the slowness
with which the law has moved in these
cases indicates Indifference concerning its
execution. 1t is preposterous to suppose
had Creighton, Northey and Doane
been men little known, comparatively
friendleSs and without political influence,
that they would be accorded exemption
from arrest for q moment. On the mere
suggestion Of the crime with which they
are charged, some officer in San Francisco
would have been swift to clap
them in prison, pending inquiry into
the detailed facts No opportunity
would have been given them to get out of
the way. The attempt to bride jurors is
one of the most serious and dangerous of
crimes. 1t strikes viciously at the chief
safeguard of our liberties 1t is so grave
an oflense that it would seem to merit be-
ing ranked with treason to the Govern
ment itself The security of the property
OF the company, in the interest of which it
interviewed, depends upon the purity of
the iury-box. That there should be post
ponement, therefore, in securing the persons
of men charged with the crime is incom
prehensible. An inquiry that will project
itself into the foreground of this matter is
that which leads the public generally to
ask, Who paid the 81 800 of fine? An
other, companion to it, is, What has the
Directory of the street railway to say about
the imputation cast upon the honesty of
the conduct of its members? Should not
they be heard from? Is it possible that
they are men of business and good society
in San Francisco, and, it may be, some of
them protesting to practice codes of morals
under forms of religion, and still can afford
to remain silent? If the company fur
nished the money, or was cognizant that it
was furnished, or to be supplied, to make
good the attempt to bride, is not every
one of the members of the company having
that knowledge, and failing to protest
against and disclose it, as guilty as those
who appear to have acted in their inter-
ests to shield them from the consequences
of an adverse verdict?