The record-union., 1893-02-04

FAVORED COMMITTEE IN INVESTIGATION.
Senator Goucher said he was going to
vote against the MCGOWAN resolution.
He was in favor of a full, fair and ample
hearing of any and all charges preferred
against any public official or officials.
But he did not believe the Senate was the
proper place to hear the Commissioners.
An appropriate committee with full pow
ers should take charge of the investiga
ton, he thought, and report back their
conclusions to the Senate. He felt sur
prlsed that his old schoolmate and friend
should say that the Commissioners, or
any other man or men, should be given
no hearing. The speaker did not care
how low the criminal was or how guilty
he may appear, yet he had the right given
him by God Almighty himself and the
American Constitution, to speak in his
own behalf before being executed. No
outcry of any demagogues or the howl
lngs OF any newspapers would drive him
from the path of duty, and he gave notice
that he would never vote to oust the Rail
road Commissioners or any other body
until a full and complete hearing was
had and he was satisfied beyond all
reasonable doubt that such body had
been derelict to such an extent as to war
rant removal
MGowAN's BRILLIANT SPEECH.
Senator MCGOWAN closed the argument
for his resolution. 1t was one Of the most
eloquent speeches heard in the Senate
this session. 81 trust the Senate will in
duige me,' he said, "while briefly close
the argument upon the resolution. I as
sure you that my remarks will be as brief
as the Importance Of this subject de-
mands.
''If assurance be necessary permit me
to say that in presenting the resolution I
am actuated by no motive but a conscien-
tious desire to serve the people of the
State of California. I want to hold the
scales of justice evenly between the peo-
pie of the State of California and the
persons accused in the resolution. L have
no personal or political connection with
them, and L care little or nothing whether
or not those men are guilty or innocent
of the accusation. That is not the ques-
ton involved. The only controversy
here is whether or not those men who are
charged with an offense involving moral
turpitude shall be stricken down without
hearing; in other words, shall they be
allowed the common right of q hearing
accorded to every citizen in the land, or
because we have the power to do so, we
will say to them You are accused of a
gross violation of duty. You gentle
men took a solemn oath to support
the Constitution and carry into effect
the provisions of the law. We now
charge you with an oflense which shows
you violated it all and yet without q
word Of warning, or an opportunity to be
heard i'll your own defense, we will brand
your names with infamy. We viii in
scribe after your names that you were
guilty of the grossest dereliction of duty
Senators irrelevantly talk about railroads
and railroad politics. 1 yield to no one
in opposition to railroad politics. [ have
sat in this Senate at political banquets
with my Democratic friends when the
chief articles of diet were broken railroad
ties and shattered locomotives, and we
devoured them in the intensity of our
feeling. The gentlemen only confuse
when they utter the proposition that this
is political fight, or that railroad politics
are involved. The only question for you
to decide is whether or not those
men should be accorded a
hearing. L am surprised to
find Senators who advocate the danger
GUS and un-American doctrine that man
should be convicted without a hearing.
Such teachings are at variance with the
L., 81 4
justice. They strike at the very founda-
ton of personal liberty and are de-
structive of the best interests of this COM
monwealth. The meanest creature that
crawls our streets can safely claim under
our laws and Constitution a hearing as a
right guaranteed him before he shall be
deprived of his life, liberty or good name.
NOT CONSISTENT.
''The arguments of the Senators from
Marin and Santa Cruz can be grouped
under one head. They contend that
this case has been tried because the DEM
ocratic platform declared in favor of the
expulsion of the Railroad Commission
ers, but they will not say that it is now
the Democracy of Jefferson and Cleve-
land that hearing shall be denied those
men accused of this offense. Is that the
doctrine of the Democratic platform? If
so, how readily can Democratic precedent
be turned against it, for we observed only
the other day in the Democratic branch
of this Legislature man violate a rule of
the body and make serious charge
against a fellow-member. The act was
committed in the presence of all the
members; the evidence was palpable. and
yet the Democratic House appointed a
hearing, gave the accused man time to
make his defense, and only after a full
hearing pronounced the sentence of the
Assembly. This only shows how fatally
at variance are Democratic principles and
Democratic practices. The Senator from
Yuba makes the argument Of expediency.
He, by implication, admits that the per-
sons named are as of right entitled TO a
full and fair hearing, but claims that we
have not time to accord to them the exer-
else of the right, therefore we shall deny
it to them, pronounce the Judgment of
this Senate, blast their reputation and
bring shame and disgrace to their name.
That is but the argument of mob. 1t is
urged that one of the faireSt and best
principles shall be absolutely denied, be-
cause the punishment power has not
sufficient time to listen to a defense.
There are persons who think that q
mans reputation is the priceless gem OF
human life, and that every effort and
every safeguard should be thrown around
it. The Senator's argument reduced to
practical operation is: The Senator. who
is honest and sincere and makes good
record, goes home to Yuba in a short
time. A band of lawless Republicans get