The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-24
FOR THE DEFENSE.

OoiliS L. huntington, president Vi Tic
Southern Pacific Railroad Company, has
been indicted by the United States Grand
jury Tor violating the Interstate Commerce
law. The indictment charges him with
having issued pass over his railroad to
Frank M. Stone, the issuing of such pass
being, under the law, misdemeanor pun
ishable by fine of not less than $1,000 and
not more than $4,000, or year in the State
Prison, or both fine and imprisonment.
The evidence upon which the indictment
is based is part of the testimony given by
Stone last January when a witness in the
case OF two strikers charged with offenses
during the great railway strike last sum-
mer. AS no rebutting evidence has thus
far been made public, we must assume the
testimony of Mr.. Stone to be correct, and
consider the question of Mr.. Huntington's
guilt or innocence as matter of law.
1t is IN the highest degree fortunate that
this issue has at last been brought to the
test OF the courts, and brought there in the
person of snch man as Mr. Huntington.
No one will claim for him any exemption
from the laws that govern his fellow -citi-
zens. He is not poor man TO be pitied
for his poverty, an ignorant man to be ex-
cused for his lack of knowledge, nor a
public fayorlte for his offenses to be over
looked by reason of his personal popu-
larlty. He is, on the contrary, a rich man,
able to defend himself; wise man, hav-
ing full knowledge of the law, and man
having so little of personal charm for the
multitude that prejudice is more likely to
be against him than for him. With such a
man at the bar there is nothing to distract
attention from the law itself The defend
ant pleads nothing in extenuation. The
sole issue before us is involved in the ques-
ton, Has this man offended against his
fellow-man to an extent deserving of fine
and Imprisonment?
What Is his offense? 1t is charged that
he gave to Mr.. Stone permission to ride
free upon the Southern Pacific Railroad,
but it is conceded that he as president rep
resents the owners of the road. He gave
away therefore nothing that was not right
fully his to give. He and those whom he
represents built the road. They maintain
1t. They defray its running expenses.
They pay all its obligations. They are
taxed for it as their property. They are
responsible for all damage it does and are
answerable in law to every man who is in
iured by it. In it's last analysis therefore
the indictment charges Mr.. Huntington
with having given away something that
belongs to him. He was driving his
wagon along the road and let his neighbor
ride. That is the sum and substance of his
offending.
American law is devised not for the per-
secution of men, but for their protection
1t is not designed to deprive them of life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but
to secure them in the possession of those
inalienable rights The possession of
property is one of the essential rights
of civilized man. Without the guarantee
of that right there could be no civilization
nor any degree of human advancement
above the plane of savagery. How shall a
man enjoy his property, however, if he
may not share it with his friend? Is it to
be lawful to sell, but unlawful to give?
Is there to be premium on parsimony,
while common kindness is made a mis-
demeanor punishable by fine and i'm
prisonment?
When statute laws restrict the liberty of
the citizen guaranteed by the common law
and the constitution, they are to be strictly
construed. An American, whether rich or
poor, is not to be deprived of the free use
and usufruct of his property by some loose
or strained construction of a congressional
enactment. Due reverence for law does
not imply blind submission to legisla-
ton. That would be servility to the letter
and disloyalty to the spirit of our institu-
tons. No people can remain free who do
not bring every question of law to the test
of the great principles of justice and free
dom. 1t must not be forgotten that, young
as our country is we have had upon our
National statute books the alien and sedi-
ton laws, the embargo act, the fugitive
slave law; and that in not few of the
States there have been many statutes even
worse than those. Such statutes the peo-
pie have refused to sustain. Lacking the
strength of the popular will they have
been idle words upon the books, unworthy
of the name of law, until in the end they
were repealed amid the applause of the
people and blotted out of the records of our
justice.
During the period of the French Revolu-
ton, when the Tory party in Great Britain,
mad in its rage against republicanism.
enacted law after law to restrict the liber-
ties OF the people, freedom found for her
self defense in the courts. The iuries
refused to convict men under laws that
were abhorrent to every instinct of Justice,
and it has been well said that during those
years the liberties and the rights of Eng
lishmen reposed in the jury-box as in an
ark OF divine covenant. To the courts and
to the intelligence and honesty of an in
corruptible jury the American can appeal
with an mistaken confidence. Mr.. Hunt
ington can confront the tribunal of his
fellow-citizens without fear. He has
wronged no man by this act with which he
is charged. He has deprived no citizen of
his property, interfered in no way with his
person, conf1icted with no principle of
justice, violated no precedent of our COM
mon law, and can safely rely upon an
upright and impartial jury for vindi-
cation.
We have said it is fortunate the case
has been brought up in this way. 1t is
indeed high time to have some questions
affecting property and vested rights set
tied in this country. The old foundations
of law, which were honesty and Justice,
are being bitterly assailed NV Soma of onr