Los Angeles herald., 1892-08-18

" Mr.. Knox had taken his seat, Mr..
Gibbon, as attorney for Mr.. Pirtle,
stated that the investigation In hand
| only touched upon the cancellation oil
| the certificate; that all parties admitted
| that the certificate ought to be cancelled,
and that that was the only point to be
considered in the case. Mr.. Gibbon
added, that If full investigation was
wanted, that could be had by the insti-
tuition of criminal proceedings.
JUDGE SMITHS DECISION.
It was here that Judge Smith gave
out the result of his judicial wisdom.
In a solemn manner, and with his
glasses held aloft, in order that his re-
marks might be all the more impressive,
he said that the court had heard what
Mr.. Ryan had to say. All parties, howev-
er, to the complaint had admitted that it
ought to be cancelled. He could not see
what business anyone else had with the
case. He knew that the matter had
been aired in the public prints, but he
did not care what the people had to say.
Busybodies and others interested in po-
litical machinery would have to learn
that they could not run his court. That
as long as he presided over the court,
politics would not pass its doors, and
that with the view of pretended inves-
tigation he did not propose to permit
political capital to be made.
THIRD CHANGE OF THE RECORDS.
Then the court issued an order direct
ing that the record of the court. as far
as Taylor's naturalization is concerned,
be changed back to show that he en-
tered the country in 1888 instead of 1887
the third change of record. The order
also directed the clerk to cancel Taylor's
naturalization certificate and his regis
tration. So ended the farce, for farce it
was as far as any investigation is con-
cerned.
THE MEN AND THE LAW.
Now the important points come up.
Is Mr.. Ward going to rest under the.im-
putstion that he permitted the records
of his office to be changed? Is Mr..
Whitney going to rest under the charge
o. having doctored a record in the coun-
ty clerks Office, when he was the county
tax collector?
The laws OF California are very clear
upon the question of altering or defac-
ing records. Sections 113 and ia of the
penal code, in covering the subject,
say: 8$
Section 113-Every officer having the
custody of any record, map, or book, or
any paper of proceeding OF any court,
filed or deposited in any public office, or
placed in his hands for any purpose, who
is guilty of stealing, wilfully destroying,
mutilating, defacing, altering, or falsify-
ing, removing or secreting the whole or
any part OF such record, map, book, pa
per, or proceeding, or who permits any
other person 80 to do, is punishable by
in the state prison not
less than one nor more than fourteen
years.
Section LA. Every person, not an Of
ficer, such as is referred to in the pre-
ceding section, who is guilty OF any OF
the acts specified in that section, is pun
ishable by imprisonment in the state
prison not exceeding five years, or in
county jail not exceeding one year, or
by fine not exceeding 500. or by both.
WAITING FOR COMPLAINT.
The district attorney, Mr.. McLachlan,
stated yesterday that he could not do
anything in the matter until some per-
son swore to complaint, charging the
parties with an offense. He could
bring the matter before grand jury, ii
one were in seseion. But there is none
in session. f
The federal courts, though, are still
open, and the matter will undoubtedly
be presented to Judge Ross in some
shape at an early day.