The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-05-02
JUDGE BAHRS ATTACKED,
His Motives Questioned by
the Practical Progress
Union.
Civic Federation Resolution on In
dictment of Supervisors
IndOrSed.

The Union for Practical Progress adopted
as a subject for consideration, the political
abuses in San Francisco S City government,
at the meeting of last Tuesday evening.
Mrs. Rose NJ. French reported that the
Law and Order League had failed in it's
attempt to secure the punishment of Ed
ward Coleman, who was convicted in the
Police Court of conducting side-entrance
saloon, and whose case had been appealed
to the Superior Court. Coleman's case had
been assigned to Judge George D. Bahrs'
court, and though the transfer of the case
to some other department had been earn
estly urged it had been retained by Judge
Bahrs and taken under advisement. On
Monday last Judge Bahrs, Mrs. French
said, had reversed the Judgment of con-
viction found in the lower court, and had
ordered the discharge of the defendant.
This decision practically settles about
forty other cases in which the law points
are the same. Coleman's case was a test
case. The following resolutions were pre-
scented by Mrs. French and unanimously
adopted:
WHEREAS, The Union for Practical Progress
learns with great indignation that Judge
George D. Bahrs, who formerly acted as attor-
ney for the Liquor-dealers' Association, and, as
such, appeared before the Board of
Supervisors IL to protest against the passage
ordinance, has reversed the decision of the
lower court in the case of Edward Coleman
and ordered the discharge OF the defendant,
without giving any reason for SO doing; and
whereas, we deem the course pursued by this
Judge in this matter to be still another dis
graceful judicial outrage upon this COM
peratiye mandate is not in force which would
enable us TO demand his resignation effec-
lively; therefore, be it unanimously
Resolued That we hereby publicly condemn
the aforesaid Judge George D. Bahrs, who re-
fused to permit this side-entrance case to be
tried by another Superior Judge as had been
requested by the prosecution.
The contest now being waged by the
Civic Federation against the disregard of
the law providing for tenders by the street.
car companies and the action of the Board
OF Supervisors in passing the Churcb-street
franchise was discussed. A resolution,
presented by John NJ. Reynolds and F. w.
Potter, was unanimously adopted indors-
ing the action of the Civic Federation in
demanding the indictment by the Grand
Jury of all officials high in authority in
streetcar companies who do not comply
with the fender ordinance; and also each
one of the "solid eight combination for
passing the Church-street franchise with
out complying with the legal requirements
governing such matters.
Professor George D. Herron's course of
lectures and sermons, delivered before he
left San Francisco for Los Angeles, were
commented upon in favorable terms by
nearly every one present, and motion
that if Professor Heron could be induced
to return to this City Metropolitan Temple
be secured for him TO speak in was carried.
Judge Bahrs was seen at his home last
evening and, when shown q copy of the
resolutions adopted by the Union for Prac-
tical Progress condemning him for his de-
cision in the Coleman case, he said:
have not ordered Coleman discharged, but
did order that he be tried again, and my re-
versal of the decision of the lower court was
provided that the defendant be imprisoned
forty days in the County Jail or pay fine of
$40. The legal construction OF this language
is that the defendant must do one thing or the
other, without the privilege of serving part of
the time and paying part of the fine. This
privilege is assured to every one convicted of a
crime by the laws OF the State, except where
the punishment is exclusively one or the
other, and therefore the Judgment was void.
The Coleman case was in my department
when | went on the bench, and, though the
special counsel for the prosecution, Mr.. Hill
yer, hunted that l might have some delicacy in
deciding the appeal, did not consider my
mind prejudiced by my former professional re-
lations with the liquor-dealers. and did not
transfer the case to another department.
Colemans case comes up in my court Satur-
day next to be set. Although the ordinance is,
in my opinion, clearly unconstitutional, /
the counsel for the defendant could get de-
cision on the point from the Supreme Court, if
he cares to try habeas corpus proceedings. Ii
| should decide the constitutionality of the
law that would settle the case for good, and
the prosecution would have no appeal.