The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-05
JURY IN THE WILLIAMS CASE
LOCKED UP FOR THE NIGHT
Damaging Testimony Introduced Against Judge Heb
bard by Chief Justice Beatty and Justice Van
Fleet of the Supreme Court.


said pleasantly: i have just been telling
the Chief that 1 don't want to get into
contempt IN this court in this bank liti-
CATION
Ibid you ever hear Justice Beatty say,
Judge, we know what you are doing.
1t is all right; or go ahead or language
to that substance2' was asked.
II have no recollection which would
enable me to state definitely whether /
did or did not hear such suggestion. My
impression is that / heard nothing of that
kind. If Justice Beatty had delivered
any instruction or direction to Judge Heb
bard / would in all probability have re-
membered 1t"
The court limited the argument to two
hours on each side, and on the opening of
the afternoon session Julius Kahn began
the argument on behalf of the prosecution
by informing the jury that this was not a
prosecution on behalf of Judge Hebbard
but that it was proceeding on behalf of
the people of the State of California. He
contended that it was libelous to publish
of Judge that he was unfair, and aston-
ished the courtroom by remarking that
the defense had not been able to furnish a
scintilla of evidence to substantiate that
charge.
The speaker then reviewed the evidence
for the prosecution, and laid particular
stress on the fact that Attorney-General
Hart had named man to Judge Hebbard
to act as receiver, thus tending to show
that the Attorney-General did not con-
slider that such an appointment would be
illegal. The speaker alleged that one of
the first acts of the new board of directors
of the bank was to scale $4,000 mortgage
down to $4,000, in order that they could
get the money iuto the bank so as to pay
themselves their salaries.
Much had been made of the fact. added
the counsel, that Judge Hebbard had APP
pointed General Sheehan as receiver in all
those cases. What else could he have
done2 asked Mr.. Kahn. He had to APP
point the same person as receiver in all
the cases in order to keep the funds of the
bank intact.
The speaker argued that Judge Hebbard
had done all that he could to secure the
depositors a representation on. the board
of directors and to have the defendant,
Williams, appointed on the board, and in
return, Williams had been guilty of the
basest ingratitude. General Sheehan still
held the position of secretary and mana
ger of the bank, and if he were an incom-
petent or unit man for that position
would any one believe that he would still
retain that position? asked Mr.. Kahn.
The alleged notorious reputation of
James Ava Watt was touched upon bv
the speaker, who said that the defense had
utterly failed to prove that Mr.. Watts
reputation was of that undesirable quail
ity.
MIR. Thornton followed on behalf of the
defense. lie began by saying that during
the forty -four years of the existence of the
State of California, and during all the
elections that had been held during
that time the press had existed, and cam
didates had been freely criticized on the
stump and in the press, and oftentimes
those criticisms were couched in language
neither chaste nor dignlfied. Yet this was
the first time in the history of the State of
California that candidate had brought a
suit for libel against any one who had criti-
ciZed him during the campaign. Candidates
had been content to allow the voice and
vote of the public to settle the question of
their reputation.
The prosecu ion had commended that the
defendant had committed a libel on a
Judge in Office, whereas such was not the
fact. 1t was for the jury to determine
whether the citizens of the State of Cali
fornia had the same right to criticize their
officials and candidates for office as had
the citizens of other civilized nations or
whether they were to be deprived of the
right of ylng during a campaign that
such and such a candidate was an unfit
person to hold the Office for which he was
seeking.
In the whole course of his political read
ing the speaker had never read a milder
criticism of a candidate than was con-
tanned in tie circular alleged to be libel
GUS in this case. The law stated, he con-
ceded, that a man in office should not be
DETAINED with i'm punitv, but when a man
was candidate for Office the people had
right to criticize his fitness for the office
to which he aspired. Citizens had a right
to discuss the fitness of men in Office as
well as those running for office.
How long ago is it, he asked, since the
platforms of two great political parties
attacked the Supreme Court of the United
States and when this attack was repeated
from every platform in the country? The
defamatory remarks and published state
N ents rejecting upon the character of
President Cleveland, General Grant and of
other candidates for the highest offices in
the gift of the people were alluded to by
the speaker, who ar ued that should the
candidates who were thus attacked prose-
cute the persons for libel who had made
those statements they would not obtain
any redress.
Whenever juries would bring in yer.
dict of guilty in such cases, then would
the right of free speech be limited as it
had never been limited before.
Mr.. Thornton took up the circular and
commented upon the first sentence to the
and inf. person to be elected to the office
of Superior Judge. He argued that voters
had right to say that of any candidate
whether the same were true or not other.
wise there would be an end to freedom OF
speech and of the press.
With reference to the statement in the
circular that Judge Hebbard had issued
an injunction prohibiting the directors
from meeting, Mr.. Thornton said that the
Supreme Court of California had decided
that there was no law authorizing the
Judge to issue such an injun ction. OF all
the wrongs that can be committed against
people, wrong by a, judge acting in a
judicial character is the gravest wrong of
all.
"Can you pretend to believe" he asked,
that a judge should arrogate to himself
powers that never did exist and that never
could exist2" 1t was wrong committed
against Dick Mcdonald IN Jail, but the
speaker was of the opinion that the differ
ence in some respects between the scoun-
drel in the jail and the judge on the bench
was not to mis- mind at all palpable.
In ninety-nine out OF every hundred
cases of judicial condemnation it has been
found that oppression has selected the
weak and the poo- aud the lowly.
"ln this case" proceeded the counsel.
judicial oppression selected Dick MeDon-
aid, and even Dick Mcdonald has rights
before the law that should be respected.
hot Svhf n n . -