San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1891-12-22
The Daily Eight.
ECHOES FROM WEST END.

WEST END btS. 4C'1s
The question was asked yesterday
what the supreme court would do II
our late grand jury bring their several
suits against Judge King, for having
unlawfulIy imposed fine of $50 each
a yainst them, and in default of pay
ment having them sent to jail and the
case of Mr.. Garfield vs.. Gresham, ct
a. was cited. 1 don't know how such
suit would be decided, or that any
has been contemplated, butt do know
that there is no analogy In the two
distinct cases. Mr.. Garfield was
the talented reporter OF
daily paper and found pleasure
in reciting the oddities of one OF our
legislative bodies; day after day, he
ridiculed, lampooned and offended
our lawgivers, until they denied him
access to their meeting ground, when
he appeared in defiance of their will,
the SGT. at arms arrested him, and
his suit, resultant upon his voluntary
acts. before his arrest, ended by the
supreme court sustaining the men,
bers of the Legislative body. The
grand Jury performed no voluntary
functions, they were sworn, and
bound, to do duty as citizens acting
under the charge and orders of an
impartial court; they offended no
one in the investigation of crimes
the duty imposed on them by
law they had to send
for witnesses in order to OBJ
tain testimony upon which they
either had to dismiss groundless
charges against individuals or If
poven present them by indictment.
In pursuance of their sworn duties,
Judge King was asked by them to
appear before them, with seven.other
men. on November 14th, but not I'M
til the 10th was Judge King aware
that he too was wanted as p witness
before the grand jury; one day later,
he appeared, and then like thunder
bolt from a cloudless sky, came his
order for them to pay or go to jail.
There is no analogy, the newspaper
reporter followed bis own voluntary
impulses and was not sustained
by the highest law in the state,
the grand jury followed a duty
imposed by law, of which they,
udNo uO uhtIl
moned by the sheriff for it, and with
out having committed any offense
they were, as grand jurors, fined for
an imaginary contempt, out of which
Judge White without dissenting
voice, knocked all the imagination
Whether any suit will follow or not,
is not for me who does n Ut know any
thing about the thoughts of the
grand jury, to say, but it would be
simply justice for Judge King to pay
them for the time he had them wrong
fully incarcerated, as well as pay
their attorneys tor obtaining them
that liberty which ought to be dear
to every citizen and of which none
should be wontonly deprived.
But where is any similarity be.
tween the cases? If I am correct in
the Garfield case, there is none, ab.
solutely none. 1t was q general wish
that Mr.. Garfield, shielded by the
privileges of the freedom of the
press" would come out winner, but
Mr.. Gresham and his piny woods
confreres must have made the show
ing, that by abuse of such privileges
Mr.. Garfield became offender, and
their view obtained. Here are twelve
innocent men, following a sworn path
of duty, committing no offence, exer.
cising no privileges, not granted by
law, and of them the highest court
said mot guilty" Where is the
analogy, where would it be.
1t was very regretable arrest and
wrongful imprisonment, and right
and justice would seem to demand
that Judge Kings regret becomes
strong enough to offer the sufferers
under his arbitrary order, to reim-
burse them for the time of their i'm
prisonment, as we'll as their attorneys
fee, as herein before mentioned.
Judge Camp took look at his West
End Property yesterday.
SCHEID.