The morning call., 1891-12-16
THE GORED OK.

The Chronicle deprecateS any disposition
on the part Of papers which can afford to
be Independent TO asperse the character
and impugn the motives of Supreme
Judges, and proceeds to asperse the char
acter and impugn the motives of the Supe-
Tiur Judge whose movement to dethrone
Doodle and pun ish boodlers has caused the
proprietor of that journal SO much anxiety.
the character Of men can be pretty accu-
rately estimated by those among whom
they live. The Jekyls and Hydes live
mostly in fiction. Where men have bought
offices at the hands of a corporation which
VIGOROUSLY uses officials 10 promote its
own ends, the character OF such office
seekers should be estimated in the light of
that fact. Any assumption of immaculate
purity on their part only prOyokes derision.
A man may be better than his record, but
he has no right to complain if he is judged
by his record. But the newspaper which
shows so much courage in coming to the
defense Of the Supreme justices who have
the Southern Pacific Railroad Company be-
hind them is equally brave in It's attack
upon Judge Wallace. who has no organized
force behind him. Tie Chronicle considers
it crime to impute to the Supreme JUS
tices improper motives, but sees no harm in
r T6NleW OIL ali lllt TuUlDTS THAI nave at one
time and another attached to Judge Wal
lace. The Chronicle sees no harm in gorng
an OK only when its own OK gets gored.
The action of Judge Wallace in selecting
Grand Jury as he did. and the action
of the Supreme Court in declaring
the jury so selected Illegal, may be
held up to public estimation in the light of
effects. The boodlers fed before the Grand
Jury, but returned the moment the Jury
was declared illegal. From the day of the
charge of Judge Wallace 10 the jury to the
day when the jury was declared Illegal, the
boodlers were in {: tremble. The exceptions
were thOse who thought they knew that
when the test case came before the Supreme
Court the Southern Pacific Company would
prevail Richard Chute was not frightened,
nor was Stephen Gage. These practical
politicians gave themselves o concern about
a case the final determination of which was
in the Supreme Court. The talk about the
law in the case is idle. Justice de Ravens
opinion might as well have been The major
ity opinion as Justice Netherlands. There
was nothing in the authorities quoted by
the latter nor in the method of his argument
10 influence the average understanding.
When the arguments on which the two
opinions are based are compared, a greater
respect for the law as it is will be
found in the minority opinion. The major
ity was a labored attempt to show that the
law as it read might be abused. and conse-
quenty should be declared invalid. We
ind upon examination that the power that
has controlled conventions and Legisla-
lures in this State for twenty years is behind
the Supreme Court. We fnd the same
power opposed to the Grand Jury. Which,
then. is the more reasonable-to assume
that the court which reflected the will of the
power behind tie throne was actuated by
improper motives. or TO assume that a sim
gle Superior Judge corruptly went out of
his way to attack this controlling power?