The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-10-07

There was an interesting meeting Of poll
ticians in the Supreme Court yesterday
morning, but they were not assembled to
discuss the tariff, the silver question or the
fight of Buckley.
Something was said, it is true, about the
unceremoniOus departures from their homes
of alleged statesmen, but the solons referred
to were four members of Senatorial COM
bine, who will owe the memory which pos
teTity will cherish of them to that reformer,
George Taylor.
Among the whispers overheard in the
room was one to the effect that the Grand
Jury would summon NJ. Il. de Young before
it to explain how it was possible that twen-
ty-four men who knew him could vote for
him for the office Of United States Senator
or any other Office.
twas also whispered that Phil Crimmins'
dreams On the preceding night were troubled
and that sleep had forsaken the dOwny pill
low of Martin Kelly; that Stephen T.. Gage
was aging fast and that the curls in Dick
ancy, so to speak, and becoming limp and
dispirited.
LEGALITY OF THE GRAND JURY.
But 1t was not for the discussion of any of
these enhancing topics that the gathering in
the high hall of justice was held. They were
there, lawyer and client, bOOdler and boast
er, patriot and politician, to hear the Su-
preme Court decide whether the drand Jury
impaneled bv Judge Wallace had q legal eX-
istence or not.
Among those who displayed an interest in
the case by their presence were attorneys
representing the Southern Pacific Railroad.
Senators and AssemDlymen, and the now
nePtllV batRd haVtOT SUmp Of them read
and wondered at a notice posted in the
clerks room, to the effect that the court
would meet in this city on November ID
Why Will the court return from Los An
gees, where it sits on next Monday, on No
VembeT I'd ? and why will 1t sit here on that
dayP Will it be because indicted citizens
will have their appeals ready on that day
They did not know, and the conundrum was
given up.
THE ATToRNEY-GENERAL APPEARS.
At 10 o'clock Attorney General Hart
made his appearance, with his slouch hat
tilted backward upon his head and a roll Of
manuscript in his hand, on which his STEM
OgraphPr had wasted the midnight gas
Greed Raymond, of Fourth and Townsend,
Hnd w. II. l.. Barnes, attorneys for Stephen
r. Gage, who has declined to appear before
the Grand Jury, came about the same time,
and George Fay!Or, who has had the
temerity to bring a suit for his share Of the
Legislative sack, appeared also.
FaylOr was excited His cheek was
flushed, aud he f0rbUre not TO give his opn-
Ion Of Doodle and booders in the presence
Of gentlemen whose feelings might have
been sorely wounded by his remarks.
At 80 o'clock all the Justices, with the
exception Of Mcfarland, we're present on
the ben h. and the Attorney-General went
forward with his manuscript He at once
began to inform the court of its contents,
and was told that instead of hearing the
entire document the court would be satisfied
with a synopsis.
FOR A WRIT OF REVIEW.
1t was a petition for a writ Of review of
the action of Judge Wallace in summoninga
Grand Jury with the aid of an elisor. The At
torney- General used Judge Murphy's state
meut Of the manner in which the Grand Jury
Lad been drawn, from a verbatim report
which ppeared in an evening paper devoted
to its own and Phil Crimmins' interests.
Follow ing this statement of facts the AttOr-
nry-General quoted the report made by
ElisOr Henry ii. Scutt on August 10th, CIV
Ing the names of the grand jurors whom
he had selected.
The Attorney-G General then, to support
the case Of the people, whom he represented,
quoted Rule of the Superior Court, which
provides as follows:
Ii shall be the duty OF the Presiding Judge to
preside in person over the drawing and lmpane-
ment OF all grand jurors required by law or by
The public Interest to b. drawn. Grand jurors
must In all cases be drawn from the list of grand
jurors selected by the Judges OF this court, unless
the Grand jury box containing the names OF
Jurors so selected shall bs exhausted without se-
curing Grand Jury
REASONS FOR REFUSAL.
Mr.. Hart then told the court that this very
important rule of the Superior Court has
never been repealed or modified, and went
on to tell how certain persons had been sub
penaed to appear before the Grand Jury
and had refused, giving the following reason
therefor:
That said Grand Jury was Illegal, ana that the
defendant and respondent, W. 7. Wallace. as Pre-
siding Judge OF the city aud county Of San Fran
cisco SupeTiOrCOurI, had exceeded bis Jurisdiction
In the muaHelment OF said Grand Jury; that said
matter having been heard by said Wallace he
adJudged one Richard Chute guilty OF contempt
oil court In refusing to obey said subpoena and ap-
pear before said Grand Jury, and sentenced hIm
10 pay a fine Of $500 and be imprisoned for q
period of i've days; that said judgment was
being carried into effect when said Richard
Chute filed before Department IL OF said Su-
peItOr Court a petition for writ Of habeas
corpus; mat said writ Issued and said
Richard Chute was produced before Judge
Murphy, presiding 10 Department H. WHO pro-
'ceeded TO hear said writ uron the facts hersin-
before stated, and IN substance adjudged that
the respondent herein, w. L. Wallace as Presid-
ing Judge or the SuDrTlOr Court OF the city and
county OF San Francisco did not have jursdic-
tion to appoint an elisOr and that said respond
ent had no jurisdiction 10 make the order I'M
pEnellDg said jury, or appointing foreman
thereof, or placing II In charge of an officer TO
perform the duties OF a Grand Jury: that said
Grand Jury was Illegal ana that respondent, w.
7. Wallace, had no authority 10 imprison said
Richard Chute or any other witness who might
refuse 10 testify before said Grand Jury.
QUESTIONS FOR THE COURT.
Having stated this much of the case, the
Attorney General gave the court the fol-
lowing questions TO answer:
First--DoeB the law and proceedings OF said
Judge 10 lmpaneng Tue body claiming 10 act as
Grand Jury authorize II to act as such, and
under the la W and such proceedings would the
acts OF such so-called Grand Jury be valid and
hsVetall me force aud effect OF Grand Jury
whose authority could not BE- questIoned2
Second-Whether. under tue laws and the
rules Of the Superior Court, any Judge OF the said
court has the authority to order the Sheriff or
AuY person TO summon for the body OF the county
persons to complete Grand Jury while there
still remains 10 the Grand Jury box OF the county
more than 100 names of persons selected as
aforesaid 10 serve for the pending year grand
Jurors?
Third lad the Judge OF said court authority
under the facts OF this case TO appoint an ELI
sOr?
Fourth-If either Of the foregoing questions
are answered In the negative then. whether the
invalid act or omission went 10 The substance
Of The sO-called Grand Jury, aud whether It's pro-
ceedings. when properly attacked, would or
would not be invalid aud necessarily be SET
aside?
NOT ANSWERING CoNUNDRUMs.
The Attorney General after making his
statement and asking his questions, said
that he did not wish TO argue tue case unless
the court decided TO 60 into its merits. If
the application he had made were denied
the jurisdiction of che court to appoint a
Grand Jury in tfi3 manner would be estab-
llshed.
There is one preliminary question" re-