The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-19

posed of men of presumed character and
probity, acting under the sanction of a solemn
oath and with power to examine witnesses as
well as to obtain under other means authentic
evidence of the matters which they choose to
investigate and as their report will remain q
permanent record in the archives OF this
County, deem 1t not improper to notice some
of their extraordinary Measurements concern
ing the court of which am a member.
The portion OF the report to which l refer is
as follows:
"Another branch of the election frauds in
which this BODY took considerable interest
were the cases of hotel stufing in which Stein
part. He was indicted with his accom- plice,
Cohen, and their cases were assigned to Judge
Wallace.s department.. There, political pull or
outside influence did not seem to work; the in
dictments were held to be good and the per-
sons charged were found guilty. Several at
tempts were made to obtain confession from
Steinberger, and two or three times through
the efforts OF his friends, he was on the point
of telling how and at whose instigation the
frauds were perpetrated., But at the last mo-
ment, on promise OF relief to come from the
Supreme Court, and that he might be admitted
to bail and the cases would be allowed to drag
until they had been forgotten, he refused to
singular to relate, about two weeks ago
certificates OF probable cause were granted
both men by the Supreme Court and applica-
ton for bail was made to Judge Wallace A
representative of the District Attorneys Office
appeared willing to allow Cohen the accom-
plice of Steinberger, to be admitted to bail in
taken under consideration by Judge Wallace.
The matter was brought to the attention of the
Grand Jury, and this body requested Mr..
Barnes to resist the application to admit bail.
the Supreme Courts action would be might be
only a coincidence, but it is one which appears
to be rather singular. 1t is fact which has
come to the notice of this jury that prisoner
who had been convicted OF crime in 1888
was released on a writ of probable cause issued
by the Supreme Court, and he is still under
"a crniSS
nor retired. With this case in mind it can be
readily understood how the cases of Steinber-
ger and Cohen, once they were admitted to
bail, might be allowed to run on for years."
Apparently the authors OF this report were
not quite bold enough to make the open and
direct charge that the members of the Supreme
Court, for the purpose of shielding from ex-
posture the instigators of the frauds alleged to
have been committed at the late election,
caused an assurance to be conveyed to q con-
victed criminal that ii he would refrain from
making confession they would use their Off
cial authority to screen him from punishment;
but such is the charge which they have not
1t is, of course, impossible for any one to
know what evidence has been submitted in
the secret sessions of a Grand Jury, but 1
venture to affirm my confident belief that no
witness ever testified to any fact which would
lend the slightest support to the charge thus
made, and have this belief not only upon the
ground that the charge, being absolutely false,
could only have found support in perjured tes-
timony, but also and chiefly upon the ground
that the only fact alleged in the report by way
of confederation of the charge referred to is di-
rectly corroborative by the public and anthem
tic records upon which it processes to be based.
1t is said that teinberger-meaning Stern
berg-though he was two or three times on the
point of telling how and at whose instigation
the frauds were perpetrated, Eat the last mo-
ment promise OF relief to come from the
Supreme Court and that he would be admitted
to bail and the cases allowed to drag on until
they had been forgotten, refused to make the
confession.
singular to relate" the report continues
"about two weeks ago certificates of probable
cause were granted to both men-meaning
sternberg and his alleged accomplish Cohen
by the Supreme Court, and application for bail
Further down it is added: '"The knowledge
OF Sternberger as to what the Supreme Courts
action would be, might be only coincidence,
but it is one which appears to be rather sim
gular."
1t would not be at all remarkable or singu-
lar circumstance If it were true that certificates
of probable cause had issued from this court
in both cases.. The right to such certificate
in a proper case is secured to the defendant in
a criminal action by the same statute which
regulates his right of appeal, and it is granted,
as q matter OF course, whenever the record of
q case shows any assignment of error which to
the mind of the Justice acting on the petition
is apparently frivolous and devoid of merit,
the only effect of the allowance OF the certifi-
cate being to keep the defendant in the County
Jail pending the decision of his appeal; or, in
other words, to prevent him from going to the
State prison until it is finally determined that
he has been lawfully convicted. 1t does not
admit him to bail or discharge him from GUS
tody, and if the sentence is affirmed merely
prolongs his imprisonment and increases his
punishment.
But it happens that in the case of Sternberg,
not only has no certificate of probable cause
been issued by the Supreme Court, but no ap-
plication tor such certificate has been made to
the court or to any member of it, and this for
the very reason that when the application was
made in the first instance to Judge Wallace of
the Superior Court, before whom Sternberg was
tried, he at once granted the application him.
self.
In the case of Cohen, the alleged accomplice,
an application for a certificate of probable
cause was made to Justice Garroutte Of the
Supreme Court. but 1t could not be decided by
reason Of the fact that no bill of exceptions
had been settled by the Superior Judge, and
the only order made was for temporary stay
of proceedings, according to the settled prac-
tice of the court, to give time for the produc-
ton of the record.
This temporary stay has been extended by
two subsequent orders, made by the same JUS
tice, upon a showing that the settlement of the
bill OF exceptions was still pending and that
the delay was not caused by the petitioner
There the matter rests for the present, awaiting
the action of the Superior Court.
It thus appears that the singular and re-
markable circumstances paraded and insisted
upon by the Grand Jury as proof of its scanda-
lous charge against the members of the Su-
preme Court has no existence in fact 1t
further appears that the order which, if made
by member of the Supreme Court would, in
conclusive proof of corrupt interference with
the course of justice, was in fact made, and
doubtless properly made, by the Superior
Judge in whose court, according to the elegant
language of the report, political pull and out
side influence do not seem to work"
1t is also to be observed that these facts, ex-
actly as 1 have stated them, are clearly estab-
lished by the public records of this court and
of the County of San Francisco, which were not
only open and accessible to members of the
Grand Jury, but were, and are, the sole and ex-
clusively competent evidence of the matters in
question. That they should have ignored this
potent and clear proof OF the facts, in order to
publish the reckless, if not malicious misstate-
ments contained in their report, is coinei-
dence which think would be characterized as
singular"
AS to the statement that person convicted
in 1883 was released on writ of probable
cause issued by the Supreme Court, and is still
under bonds, ETC., which seems to have been
thrown in as a makeweight i can only say that
l have no knowledge of any such case, but as
Stunning the statement of the Grand Jury to be
correct, as far as it goes it simply amounts 10
one OF those half truths which are equally de-
ceptive with downright misstatemenfs
It seems to have been designed to produce
the impression that the Supreme Court had
continued, and was responsible for the DELAY.
and could and would cause similar DELAY in
the case of Sternberg.
PVT 10 FIR hat rfSG - -