The San Francisco call., 1896-06-06
JUDGE WALLACE AGAIN.

The testimony given by Judge Wallace
in the Siebe perjury case before Judge
Campbell on Thursday was about the
strangest that ever emanated from any
man holding anything like his official po-
sition. 1t was a source of new amaze
ment to those who have believed that
Judges should be faithful in the perform
ance of their duties and impartial in the
administration of the law. 1t showed by
his own statements that Judge Wallace
made returns of his personal property
without caring whether they were true or
false and that he claimed for himself in
the case before Judge Campbell rights
which he would not accord to others in a
similar position before his own court.
When questioned as to the money he
had in bank at the time assessment rolls
for various years were made out, the Judge
made the strange declaration that he did
not know. According to his statement his
bank account was not balanced for years
at time and he never knew whether he
had money in the bank or not. 1t seems
never to have occurred to him that the
tax law requires him to find out what he
has when he makes his returns to the AS
SCISSOR. By returning no money on hand
he virtually declared that he had none.
Ignorance of the possession of property is
no excuse when it would have been so
easy for bim to learn from the bank what
money was due him, nor can ordinary
carelessness be accounted an excuse in a
man of his position engaged IN the task of
performing a duty under the law which
requires him to make a true return OF his
property under oath.
In regard to his refusal to permit an ap-
praiser to enter his house and estimate
the value of his furniture, Judge Wallace
declared the case before Judge Campbell
to be a sham, inasmuch as it was not di-
rected against Siebe at all, as pretended,
but was designed as persecution of him.
self. On the claim that the case is of that
nature ne asserted he intends to stand on
his rights as a citizen, and it was on
these rights he based the defense of his
refusal to permit the expert to make the
appraisement.
The claim which Judge Wallace thus
makes before Judge Campbell is one he
would not permit in his own court. The
charge against Siebe before Wallace
is as much a sham as the one against
him before Campbell. How would it fare
with witness before Judge Wallace who
should declare the prosecution of Siebe to
be only the scheme of politician to per-
secute the Market-street Railway Com
pany2 How would it fare with witness
who, on such claim, should assert his
intention to stand on his rights as cit
izen? An answer can be found in the
way Secretary Willcutt has been treated.
In his own court Judge Wallace gives
every aid he can to the politician who is
conducting the prosecution which has for
its aim an unrevealed object which it is
difficult to believe to be to the public
interest There are fines and imprls-
onment for contempt of court dealt
out to witnesses who do not respond to
the questions of the prosecution before
Judge Wallace. His attitude on the
bench is very different from his attitude
on the witness-stand. He is one of the
Judges to whom it makes all the difference
in the world whose OK is gored. This is
why good citizens who desire to respect
the courts read his evidence with amaze
ment and are in doubt whether his con-
duet as Judge is not even worse than his
conduct in regard to his returns to the
Assessor.