The San Francisco call., 1897-03-02
FAKERS. MUST
NOW FACE THE
CONSEQUENCES
Continued from First lPaoe.l

Declaration of Independence and pro-
mulgated TO the. world by our system OF
Gov ernment as one of the principles. that
make us better than all other nations.
Our Government is founded upon the
equality of all citizens before the law.
rs not that the fact? Can that be gain
said by any body?. Every man is entitled
under our system of law TO fair and i'm
partial trial before fair and impartial
Judge. Is there any dispute as TO that
III the case of penal offenses you will find
that the man charged with the: most helm
Gus crime known to the law, and the petty
criminal, that principle prevails and gives
them the same rights that we are asking
for in this bill, namely, that he shall have
fair and impartial trial, as guaranteed
under the constitution, before a fair and
impartial Judge.
8 "While we have acknowledged that
principle; while we have accorded ito the
petty criminal that right we still deny 1t
10 men iu'clviI cases. If that principle is
correct In the eye of the Lawmakers. OF
this. State, then it is of more Importance
to protect the rights OF the petty criminal
than 1T is to place safeguards around the
poor man.. AS the law now stands there
is no method by which, you can remove
Judge, no matter how much prejudice
he may have against you or how much
he may have said against you, unless he
has the decency to get outof the case and
to send for another Judge to take his
place.
"Itis not sufficient to tell me that you
can appeal to the Supreme. Court for a re-
dress of your wrongs, for there is: not
lawyer in the State that does not know
that very often things. are said and done
affecting the substantial rights of the
party before the court for which he. can
not gel redress on an appeal. particularly
since we have passed q law that says. that
the Supreme Court shall not give weight
to mere technical matter not vitaily
affecting the rights of the appellant.
''Give the man the right to present the
facts and let the Judge act upon those
facts. The Examiner has itself, in my
Judgment, laid the foundation. for the in
PRODUCTION of Just such measure as this,
for it has within the past two years
spoken of Judges of the Supreme Court
who have rot. done their duty, and 1t mas
spoken of them in way that has weak
ened in some degree the respect due TO the
judiciary.
''In fact" continued Caminetti, $50
widespread has become this lack OF re-
spect for the .ju dietary that there now is
talk of court OF discipline-.a sort of
purgatory or reform. school in our Judicial
system. We have two State prisons and
three reform schools, anq we say to young
men: IF you act in such way as TO merit
your freedom we will give it to you; but.if
you do not We will send you to San Quen-
tin Now here is school that. estab-
fishes a'court of discipline for the Judges
even. The Examiner then felt that there
was necessity for guarding the interests
and the rights of the people in every dii
rection."
Caminetti then went on to explain. sec
ton of the bill. and refuted the charge
that the simple filing of the affidavit
made it compulsory upon the Judge to
transfer the case. He had copied very
closely the law of Wisconsin That law
made it obligatory upon the court to
transfer the case. He did not desire to do
that, and he had inserted the words
'whea it appears from the affidavit OF
either party" The word appears" in
that connection has well-detined mean.
ing under the law and means that all the
facts must be gone into. In the State of
Wisconsin, where the law is obligatory,
the courts have decided that il is not
obligatory to transfer the case. unless the
real facts are stated in the affidavit The
courts have refused to be bound by the
o4, n,
1t was not time, Caminetti argued, that
On attorney might take advantage of the
unfriendly relations existing between him.
self and the Judge to have his case trans
ferred from one court to another. The
bill did not apply TO attorneys and covered
only the parties to the suit.
"The great objection that was raised
added Caminetti, was that this law was
made to tit.a certain case now before the
Supreme Court. 1 tell this Assem- bly,, on
my honor as member of this body, that
l did not introduce this bill for the pur-
pose Of fitting that case or any other. ]
call upon every member on this floor tc
bear out the assertion that I have moi
spoken to single man ON the floor of this
house or of the Senate. to support or vote
for tiris bilL :.
'.Does it affect, as a matter of fact, the
Hale & Norcoss litigation? It could mo-
desc, except by forced construction, OF
by too violent assum ptions. l respect
Judge Hebbard as an honorable man, a:
an able man, as a man who merits the
good fortune which the people of San
Francisco have heaped upon him by their
votes: The case went back to him with
Instructions to take certain testimony.
He has taken that testim ony and rendered
Judgment thereon. The case has been ap-
pealed to the Supreme Court
when the Examiner throws doubt on
the judgment of the Supreme Court it hai
assumed that which it has no right to do
The Supreme Court has passed upon every
point at issue, and there can be but very
little doubt as 10 the final outcome, be.
cause part OF it has been already sus-
tanned and there can be no doubt that the
judgment will be sustained, because they
have Investigated every possible contin.
gency that might arise in the matter.
Assuming for the sake of argument
that the Judgment will be set aside and
that the case will be sent back to Judge
He bbard for retrial, what does the Exam.
iner admit by its statement and it's posi-
tion in this case? 1t necessarily admits
that Judge Hepbard is preiudiced man,
and that because OF his prejudice he can
not sit in Judgment on the case. I say
that the Examiner has no right to assume
that, and I have no right to assume it.
If the Judge is prejudiced-if the Judge il
in position that he cannot give any
party to that case a fair and impartial