Los Angeles herald., 1892-08-16
THE TAXPAYER PAID IT ALL,
Costs Caused by the District
Attorneys Mistake.
How That Official Created a Good
Sized Bill of Expenses.
The History of Some Chinese Gambling
Gases, and How They Were Mis-
managed-The Cost of an
Omcial's BIunder.

When the hardworking taxpayer o
this city and county learns that he II
paying the princely sum of $12 minute
to conduct the present Republican gov
ernment in power in the palatial edifice
on the court house hill, he stands IN
awe. What, in the name of decency
common sense and average ideas Of
economy, becomes of this vast sum
sweated out of the taxpayers, which in
one year has amounted to over 81 lOO,'
O0O2 Where does it go to-? Well, some
OF 1t is wasted, some of it goes to iced
vast army of unnecessary clerks, some
more of it goes to the bloodsuckers, the
hangers-on, who must get share OF the
looted booty, and some of it goes to pay
for the mistakes and errors of incompe-
tents in the county's service, put there,
not for their efficiency, but because a
| political boss 30 decreed.
| As an instance of where over $1,000 OF
the peoples money was simply wasted,
owing to the objectionable ignorance OF
the district attorney and his deputies as
to the law, and likewise the perversity
of some of the judges to adhere to
their opinions when the opinions are IN
fragrant violation of the state law, it is
only necessary to cite the following
cases:
In October, 1890, Wong Wang, Ah
Ung, All Charley, All Louey and z: Bal
lade were arrested upon charge OF con-
ducting percentage game known as
| Chinese pool. This was correct and
proper, as the gambling games were
| being conducted in clear violation OF the
law.
The five parties were all charged with
high grade misdemeanor. At the ex-
animation, which was had before JUS
tice H. G. Austin, HI. III. Appel, the
attorney for these defendants, called the
attention of the court to the fact that
under the Whitney act, jurisdiction in
these cases was vested only in the police
court, and that the superior court had
| no jurisdiction.
Justice Austin claimed that the de-
fendants were on preliminary examina-
ton. and that the superior court did
have jurisdiction. So the preliminary
examinations were proceeded with in all
five cases. The defendants, each of
them, demanded shorthand reporter
to take the testimony, and he was pro-
vided, at the expense of the county,
under section 1859 OF the penal code.
The result of the examinations was
that all five parties were bound over to
the superior court. In due time, in
1891. the cases came up in department
one for trial. About sixty members of
the panel of jurors were present. paid
for by the county. A shorthand re-
porter was there, paid for by the county.
The jury was drawn, and then Attor-
A II IL -. A.
under the Whitney act the superior
| cases, said jurisdiction being solely
vested in the police court. This was
| plainly evidenced, even to the layman,
| if he read the language of the statute.
But no, Judge Smith could not see it
that way. So the cases of Wong Wang
and All Ung were tried, and they were
both convicted The trial lasted
| two days. The defendants i'm
mediately gave notice of appeal. The
cases were taken to the supreme court
| of the state and reversed. Both the
superior judge and the justice, as well as
the district attorney and his myriad of
deputies, were declared by the highest
| judicial tribunal in the state to have
been altogether wrong.
| Then all the cases against some fifteen
l.
I or twenty Cinnamon, arrested for vio-
lations of the same Statute, were dis
missed, and they went unpunished.
] The district attorney, through ignorance
of the law, brought the cases in the
superior court, and the result was that
| the overburdened, groaning taxpayer
suffers to the extent of $4,000 for his
mistake.
To figure the useless expense the
county was put to because of the blum
der and ignorance manifested in the
| district attorneys Office, it is only nec-
eesary to present the following state
ment of facts:
| Cost of shorthand reporter in five
cases, at preliminary examination, at
about 5000 per case, $1,000; cost OF i'm
paneling jury in two cases tried in
superior court, $240; cost of shorthand
reporter, two cases in superior court,
$400; cost of printing transcript of
testimony in superior court, $175; jurors
fees in trial of All Wing before Superior
Judge Shaw, $120; total, $1935.
Now all of this money could have
been saved if the district attorney had
been better posted ON the California
statutes, and the cases had been tried
in court having jurisdiction--to-wit,
the police court.
This is not the only instance where
the incompetency and neglect of the dis
trict attorneys Office, assisted by county
and city judicial ignorance, has been
expensive to the taxpayers. They are
numerous. In fact, well-known lawyer
said yesterday:
II handle a great many Chinese cases,
for Che reason that the Chinese pay well.
But 1 never pretend to make any defense
| for the Cinnamon. All do is to de-
pend upon either the district attorney
or the judge making an error, and in so
cases out Of 100 they do, and /. knock
out the case on technicality."
| So is goes. Is it to be wondered that
a change is desired in the present gov
ernmental regime controlling Los An
| gelee county?