The record-union., 1891-12-30
A BIASED CRITIC.

Judge Wallace should pray to be de-
livered from his friends. The San Fran
cisco Morning Call, referring to the REC
oRD-UNIoN's calm and dispassionate ex-
animation of Judge Wallace's review of
the Supreme Court decision in his own
case, discovers that this journal empha-
sized the error of the Superior Court in
appointing an elisor and made it clearer
than ever that it was gross error to APP
point an elisor without making record of
the fact, if it was a fact, that the officers
supplanted by the order were disquali-
fed.
The CdLL thereupon, apparently fearful
that the people may judge wisely and
well, PUSHES to the breach, saying:
The simple statement that he had judicial
knowledge OF the fact that the Sheriff7s Office
was 10 be investigated affords the bsst posi-
Die reason why the Sheriff should not be
charged with the duty of selecting his Judges
Inc Facts that Sheriffs had served Grand
Jurors with summons and afterward been in
vestigated by such Grand Jurors and that
District Attorneys have been put under in
PeStlgatlon by Grand Juries in the formation
vi WHICH Lliey nave taken part, DO not aDDlY
10 the present case. Judge Wallace was ali-
thorlZed by law to appoint person to select
nine out OF q total OF nineteen-Grand Jurors
10 have given the Sheriff. who was one of the
officials 10 be investigated the selection of The
nine would have been a travesty of Justice
That the court chose 10 exclude an Official
from selecting men to determine his own case
IS the highest reason that could be given.
The whole quotation is dogmatic, that
is assumed to be and pronounced the
law, which the Supreme Court with prac-
teal unanimity says is not the law, to
wit: The assumed authorization of the
court by the law to appoint an elisor.
And about the entire bar of the State is of
one mind upon that question, and agrees
that the lower court erred. The one and
only honest disagreement concerns the
remedy. Yet the cal, with unabashed
front, reiterates that authority is given
by law which about all the courts and all
the lawyers know is not given. Herein
the Call exposes its inability to originally
grasp and understand simple and legal
principle.
1t is perfectly clear that the CoLL has
not true conception of what constitutes
judicial knowledge" land we have
neither the time nor inclination to tutor
it,; that it purposely ignores the unde-
MED fact that the distinguished Judge
who erred had himself earlier defined
the bounds within which only court
could act in appointing an elisor.
In the SouthweI case Judge Wallace
said, where Coroner was named to dis
place Sheriff, of whom the court put it
of record Ia thing not done in the San
Francisco case) that his Office was to be
investigated:
Undoubtedly, if a criminal charge had
been actually pending against the Sheriff,
the court might have instructed the
Grand Jury summoned by the Sheriff
not to consider the charge against the
officer, and might, also, at the proper time
thereafter, and after the discharge of the
regular Grand Jury, have directed an
other one to be summoned by the Coro-
ner, instead of the Sheriff, for the pur-
pose of investigating such CHARGE
And then the learned Judge proceeded
to give an admirable reason why the
Sheriff should not be ousted, as to the
cases of others than himself, to wit:
"a due regard to the rights of all per-
sons accused or to be accused by the
Grand Jury, requires that that body
should be summoned by the officer en-
trusted by law with the performance OF
that duty. Even though a criminal
charge be pending against the Sheriff at
the time, yet so long as he continues to
hold his office and discharge its general
duties, other persons whose rights are to
be affected by judicial proceedings have
right to insist that he shall still perform
the duties assigned by law to the in
cumbent of the Office, and the mere sug-
gestion of the Judge Of the County Court
entered of record to the effect that it was
his intention to submit certain acts OF
official malfeasance and negligence to the
consideration of the Grand Jury, wher
formed, did not operate to remove the
Sheriff. or to cast the performance of his
duties upon the Coroner.'
Now if the suggestion or charge of The
court, carried by precise words into the
record and pointing to actual criminality
would not be sufficient to give the cour
the lawful power to GUST the Sheriff from
the ordinary duty of his office, how
could the unexpressed Judicial knowledg,
of alleged disqualification do SOP Is the
Cal really able to get the proposition
close to its intelligence?
Judicial knowledge may be taken by
courts of facts arising out of the law ano
absolutely inseparable from it. But it is
simply absurd to say that because the
Grand Jury is by statute required an.
nually to expert the books and examine
into the conduct of county officers tc
ascertain if they have been faithful, hon.
est and diligent, therefore they, or any
one of them, are disqualified to serve il
any official relation to the Grand Jury.
The threat of the Cali that the mex
Legislature may remove the Justices o
the Supreme Court for interpreting th,
law in accordance with what they beliey,
to be the established. settled and undis
puted rules of law and the wisdom of thu