The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-20
JUDGE BEATTY'S LETTER.

The letter OF Chief Justice Beatty adj
dressed to Judge Hebbard, in whose de-
pertinent of the Superior Court the report
of the Grand Jury was recently filed, is a
mastery production as to its diction and a
most timely one as to its propriety and
effect. In its review of the facts of the
case and the falsities Of the Grand Jury re-
port 1t is ample and unimpeachable. In
its expression, by the only means open to
it, of the righteous indignation OF the
Supreme Court at the baseless innuendos
OF the Grand Jury, it is dignified and
severe. In its exposure, not only of the
dement's of this Grand Jury report but of
the Grand Jury system itself as at present
administered, it is full and clear and COM
plete.
We say again that the letter of the Chief
Justice is timely. 1t follows hard upon
the heels of the official report of legally
constituted body, known as Grand Jury,
and supposed to possess certain large and
underlined powers of a semi-judicial nature.
1t uncoVers the fact that this body, after
several months of secret session, has made
use of its assumed powers to evolve and
formally file among the records of the
court which created it an unfounded and
grossly ibelous intimation against the
dignity and integrity of the highest Judi
eial tribunal in the State of California
1t is indeed timely to have the ques-
ton brought sharply home to the
minds OF thinking men, whether, in
fact, the Grand Jury system provides
for the emission of such scandalous
matter and guarantees immunity to those
who give it official sanction under the
guise of report of a Grand Jury. Can it
be possible that body OF men, chosen by
chance from the general mass of citizens,
has been given the power and privilege to
commit such an assault upon the integrity
OF the Supreme Court of the State and
upon the confidence which the people
have, or ought to have, in it, without re-
Sponsibility and without rebuke?
The letter of the Chief Justice has shown
that such an assumption of privilege on the
part of the Grand Jury shall not be mani
tested without rebuke at least. The Chief
Justice and the Supreme Court might well
have gone further and put the claim of
right in Grand Jury to render such re-
ports to the test. The baseless insinua-
ton against the integrity of the court is
worse than ibelous in the ordinary sense
OF the term. In its evil effect it is a species
of treason and resembles the scandalum
magnatum of the older English law in
that it assails a high tribunal which is be-
yond its jurisdiction and which, since
it is not subject to its impeachment,
ought not to be subjected to
its unbridled criticisms, particularly
when that criticism is as baseless and wan
ton as it has been shown to be in the pres
ent instance. There surely should be some
way to make men amenable to punishment
in some form or other for such libels when
the ibelers happen to be grand jurors as
we'll as when they are not. Whether this is
possible under existing statutes may be
questioned, but this much has been made
plain, viz: that the Grand Jury system as
at present administered is a failure, if not
an evil, and that the pernicious fabric
should either be reformed or eradcated
from the body of our American laws