The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-08
JUDGE sLAOK's DECISION.

The decision of Judge Slack in the mat
ter of the accusation brought against the
Solid Eight, charging them with malfeas-
ance IN office and praying for their re-
moVal therefrom, relegates the matter to
the Grand Jury, and if it be good law puts
an end to the case in its present form.
1t is to be noted that Judge Slack does
not pass upon the main question at issue,
nor attempt to construe that portion Of
the statute of 1893, the violation of which
would amount clearly to malfeasance in
office. In that portion of the decision in
which it is intImated that the Board of Su-
pervisors may ignore the applicant for a
street railroad franchise, it would seem
that Judge Slack arrived at conclusion
with a degree of haste which pre-
cludes the idea of matured delibera-
ton, and which is not a very
logical deduction from the reading of the
whole statute. 1t is certain beyond dis
pute that the Board of Supervisors must
award franchises to the highest bidder and
that they have no discretion in that re-
spect. 1t therefore should appear quite
plain that if the Board of Supervisors are
not permitted to indulge in any discretion
between bidders, they are equally pre-
vented the exercise OF such discretion be-
tween applicants for railroad franchises.
If it were otherwise the rejected applicant
might still become the owner of the fran
chise by being the successful bidder. II
the decision of Judge Slack had been the
result of more mature elaboration, the
logic and consistency of this view would
doubtless have induced him to arrive at a
different result with respect to that branch
of the case.
So far as Judge Stacks decision rele-
gates the subject to the Grand Jury it is
not very material at present TO consider
whether his views would stand the test OF
an appeal or not. A Grand Jury is at
present in session. 1t has been selected
while the mistakes and shortcomings OF
the Grand Jury which was its immediate
predecessor are fresh in the public mind.
1t has been especially enjoined that its
duty is to act in the finding of indictments
for such offenses as come within its scope
and are brought to its attention. The
offense of the Solid Eight has been brought
to the attention of the Grand Jury, and
the court decides that it is an offense over
WHICH Iue 0Tduu jury las eSpcCldl JurlS-
diction.
There is growing belief in the minds OF
men that the Grand Jury system is fail
ure and that Grand Jury sessions are an
expensive farce. Here is an opportunity
for the present Grand Jury to vindicate the
institution and to show to the public that
there are times when it's usefulness justi-
fies its existence. Let the Grand Jury
take up this charge against the Solid
Eight. Let them consider it seriously,
honestly ana fearlessly. Let them lay an
accusation before the proper court setting
forth the particular official wrongdoing
of the Solid Eight. Such a procedure
will bring the matter before the courts in
the exact way which Judge Slack has
intimated to be the proper one, and leave
it there to be decided whether the facts
constitute malfeasance in office as defined
by the statute of 1898. We repeat that the
Grand Jury should do this as two-fold
duty to the law under which they act, and
to the people of the City of San Francisco.
1t is imperative that the question whether
the statute of 1893 means something or
means nothing should be given a judicial