The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-02-16
THE PASS issued
BY HUNTINGTON.
JUDGE MORROW INSTRUCTS A NEW
JURY ON INTERSTATE
LAW.
A. SEVERE INVESTIGATION.
THE COURT RECITEs THE EVIDENCE
OF STONE IN THE STRIKERS
CASE.
A SEVERE INVESTIGATION.

The instructions of the court to the new
Grand Jury in Judge Morrow's department
yesterday were pointed as to violations of
the interstate commerce law. On the case
of Frank B. Stone, the attorney who ties IT,
fed in the strikers case to having reeeiY ed
a pass from c. P. Huntington to go to
Ashland, Or, the court laid particular
emphasis.
The violation of the interstate commerce
law is punishable by fine and imprison-
ment. In the case of Stone the court
| charged the jury as follows:
You will observe from the provisions of the
sta tutes. as well as the conclusions respecting
| the construction OF such provisions reached by
the Interstate Commerce Commission that it
was the intent of Congress to prevent unjust
discrimination in charges or rates for trans
portation of persons or property by any COM
mon carrier engaged in interstate commerce,
and that the issuing of passes, emitting the
holder to tree tran sportatlon from one State TO
an other. is, unless justified by the exceptions,
an 'unjust diseri mination," which Congress
intended to prevent and punish. In other
words, one of the objects of Congress in this
| character of legi Station was to do away with
the pernicious practice of unjust discrimina-
lions in rates, and to break up the odious sys-
TEN OF favoritsm and special privileges, so con-
which one of the fundamental ideas is, that all
| men are equal in the eyes OF the law and
should be so treated.
| 1t was designed, by the act referred to, to
| compel common carriers of interstate COM
| merce to discharge their public function i'm
| partially in charging for transportation; treat
| ing every body alike SO faS that is prac-
| ticable, whether in high or low station,
| whether public functonary or private citizen,
whether rich or poor.
The duty of ascertaining whether there has
or has not been, in this district any violation
OF the penal provisions of these laws TO prevent
| unj just determinations Is, for the time being,
| by the law of the land, reposed in your hands,
| and it becomes my duty TO call your attention,
| and it win be yours to calmly, thoroughly and
! impartially consider matter brought to the
| attention of the court upon the trial OF a Grim
inal case in the month of December OF last
| year. and of which the court is, therefore, judi
| cially advised. While the case OF the United
| States of America VS.. John Cassidy and John
| Mayne, popularity known as "the strikers
case" was on trial in this court, Mr.. Frank B..
Stone who was called witness for the Gov
eminent, gave the following testimony on
Thursday, December q, 1894:
| The court here recites the testimony of
the witnesses and continues as follows:
You will observe that Mr.. Stone testifes that
his destination was Ashland, in the State of
Oregon, or to some place beyond in that State.
He was, therefore, on a journey that carried
him from this State into another, bringing his
| transportation within the laws OF the United
States relating to interstate commerce. 1t VIII
be noticed further, that Mr.. Stone does not
claim to belong to any OF the excepted or
privileged classes mentioned in section twenty
two of the interstate commerce act. His claim
is that the pass was given to him as matter
of personal favor and friendship. You will,
therefore. carefully examine all the facts in
this case, and in such others as you may find
it necessary to extend your examination TO
ascel tain TO what extent the pass system has
been employed if at all, by the officers of the
;, Southern Pacific Company in fayorlng 1ndt-
viduals not entitled to such fayors under the
law in the matter OF free transportation be-
yOnd the boundary OF the State.
In your investigations you Will receive only
legal evidence, TO the exclusion OF mere re-
ports suspicious and hearsay evidence. Sub
ject TO this qualification, you viii receive al
| the evidence presented which may throw light
upon the matter or matters under considera
O ton whether it tend to establish the innocence
| or guilt of the accused. And more, if in the
course of your inquiries you have reason to be
lieVe that there is other evidence not presented
| to YOU within your reach, which would qualify
or explain away the charge under investiga
ton, it viii be your duty to order such evi
I dence to be produced. Formerly it was held
that an indictment might be found if evidence
were produced sufficient to render the truth o
:. the charge probable, but different and more
y just and merciful rule now prevails
L To Justify the finding OF an Indictment yoU
/ must be convinced, so far as the evidence
) before you goes, that the accused is guilty; il
Z other words, you ought not to find an indict
L ment unless. in your Judgment the evidence
e before you, unexplained and uncontradicted
e would warrant a conviction by petit jury.
n Following is list of the jurors: Henry
L. Blanchard, w Imam r. bowers, Sam b
l. Burr, A. L. Bancroft, Harrison Barte
? John H. Dooley, William ]. Elder, Charles
+ H. Haswell Jr., f. o. Judd, Edmund H
3 Knight, Frank H. Kellogg, Robert J. Nor.
IS rison, Arthur w. Moore, Charles Nc
y earthly, Alanson H. Phelps, Charles w
y Pike, Henry Payot, William G. Richard
It son, Irving NJ. Scott Jr., Frank D. Scott
n n William B. Van Pelt, Charles NJ. Volk.
i man, Charles f. Fonda, William P. Full
n Ter, Robert J. Woods.
Z -
Z EVERY garden party is incomplete with