The record-union., 1895-06-20
A SCATHIEG REPLY.
The Supreme Court of California, by
Its Chief Justice,
Exposes the FalsIty of Charges Made
Against it by the Late San Fran
cisco Grand Jury.

! The following letter by Chief Justice
Beatty of the Supreme Court of Califor-
MIA, addressed 10 the court that impan-
eled the San Francisco Grand Jury, eX-
plains itself 1t is caustic and we'll
delivered refutation of scandalous charges
of corruption made by the Grand Jury:
Hon. j. c. b. He66Grd, Judge Of the
| Superior Court of the City and County OF
| San FTdaciSc0-SIR: There have recently
| been published in several daily papers OF
San francisco portions OF report SAID TO
have been filed in your department OF
the Superior Court by the late Grand
| Jury in which the Supreme Court OF the
State is charged, not openly and directly,
| but by implication, with gross corrup-
tion.
AS the Grand Jury is an official body,
! composed OF men OF presumed character
and probity. acting under the sanction OF
a solemn oath and with power to exam
| inc witnesses, as well as TO obtaln<uuder
other means authentic evidence OF the
| matters which they choose TO investigate,
and as their report viii remain perma-
nent record in the archives OF this county,
deem 1t not improper to notice some OF
| their extraordinary misstaLements con-
corning the court OF which am mem
ber.
The portion OF the report TO which l re-
| fer is as follows:
| Another branch of the election
: frauds III which this body took consld-
| erable interest were the cases of hotel
stutfing, in which Steinberger, Deputy
| Registrar. took a prominent part. lie
| was indicted, with his accomplice, Co
| hen, and their cases were assigned to
Judge Wallace's department. There
political pull or outside influence did not
seem to work; the indictments were held
TO be good and the persons charged were
found guilty. Several attempts were
made to obtain confession from Stein
! berger, and two or three times. through
the efforts of his friends, he was on the
point of telling how and at whose lnstl-
CATION the frauds were perpetrated. But
at the last moment, on promise OF relief
| to come from the supreme Court, ana
that he might be admitted TO bail and the
cases would be allowed to drag until they
had been forgotten, he refused to make a
| confession.
singular to relate, about two weeks
ago certificates of probable cause were
granted both men by the Supreme Court,
| and application for bail was made TO
| Judge Wallace. A representative OF the
| District Attorneys office appeared will
| ing to allow Cohen, the compllce OF
| Steinberger, to be admitted 20 bail In
!
was 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 to bail.
| The knowledge OF Steinberger as to
| what the Supreme Courts action would
| be might be only coincidence, but II Is
one which appears TO be rather singular.
! 1t Is a fact which has come TO the notice OF
convicted OF a crime in 1888 was released
on a writ OF probable cause issued 10y the
Supreme Court, and he is still under
bonds. His case has neither been dis
missed nor retired. With this case IN
mind it can be readily understood how
the cases OF Steinberger and Cohen, once
they were admitted TO bail, might be al
| lowed 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 Nom bers
of the supreme Court, for the purpose Of
shielding from exposure the lnstisators
Of the frauds alleged to have been COM
mitted at the late election, caused an
surance to be conveyed 10 " convicted
| criminal that If he would refrain from
making a confession they would use their
| official auth hority to screen him from pun
ishment; but such is the charge which
they have not scrupled to intimate.
| s..
| to know what evidence has been sub
mitted TO the secret sessions of a Grand
| Jury, but l venture to affirm my conf
| dent belief that no witness ever testified
| to any TACT which would lend the slightest
! support TO the charge thus made and l
| have this belief not only upon the ground
that the charge, being absolutely false,
could have found support in perJured
testimony, but also and chiefly upon the
ground that the only fact alleged in the
report by way Of corroboration Of the
charge referred TO is directly corrobo-
rative by the public and authentic records
upon which it processes to be based.
1t is said that Stein berger-mea
Sternberg-though he was two or three
times on the point of telling how and at
whose instigation the frauds were perpe-
| trated "as the last moment on 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 con-
tinues, about two weeks ago certificates
of probable cause were granted to both
men-meaning Sternberg and his alleged
| accompliCe COhen-by the Supreme
Court, and application for bail was made
to Judge Wallace" ETC.
Further down it is added. 1.-THE knowl-
edge Of Sternberger as TO what the Su-
preme Courts action would be might be
only coincidence, but it is one which
appears to be rather singular"
1t would not be at all a remarkable or
singular circumstance if it were true that
certificates of probable cause had issued
from this court in both cases. The right
| to such certificate in proper case is
secured to the defendant in a criminal
action by the same statute which regu-
lates his right OF appeal, and it is granted,
as matter of course, whenever the rec
! ord of case shows any assignment of
error which to the mind OF The Justice
acting on the petition is apparently frivo-
| lous and devoid Of merit, the only
! effect Of the allowance of the certificate
! being to keep the defendant in the County
! Jail pending the decision OF his appeal:
or in other words. to prevent him from
gong to the State Prison until it is finally
determined that he has been lawfully
| convicted. 1t does not admit him 10 bail
| or discharge him from custody, and if the
sentence is affirmed merely prolOngs his
| imprisonment and increases his punish
ment.
! But it happens that in the case of Stern
| berg, not only has no certificate of prob
able cause been issued by the Supreme
Court, but no application for such cerliti-
cate has been made TO the court or TO any
membe Of it, and this for the very reason
! that when the application was made in
| the first instance to Judge Wallace oi the
| Superior Court, before whom Sternberg
was tried, he at once granted the appIica-
| ton himself
| In the case of Cohen, the alleged accom-
plice, an application for a certificate OF
probable cause was made to Justice Ga
route of the Supreme Court, but it could
not be decided by reason Of the fact that