The record-union., 1898-11-03


we, therefore, respectfully ask you to
briefly state the facts relating 1L TO that oe-
ciSion. Very respectfully,
MORRIS M. ESTEE.
JOHN CARRIER,
GARRETT W. McENERNEY.
To this letter many answers have
been received. The following form or
reply was signed by Judges of the Su-
perior Courts whose signatures are ap-
pended:
To the People Of California: We the the
undersigned Commissioners of the Su-
preme Court and Judges of the Superior
Courts of the State of California, re-
spectfully represent that we are talrltIar ian ga
preme Court of California in the case OF
Fox VS. the Oakland Railroad Company
and reported in 11S Cal, page %: ,++
| by Justice Van Fleet and was con6urreu q
| in in department by Chief Justice Beatly
and Justice Harrison and was connrn1eo t5 4
| by the other Justices of the supreme
| Court by refusal to grant rehearlngee
| The opinion correctly states the law OF
the State on the question lnV4iVe9 tn9Pe+ +1e+
| in and it nowhere appears therein IndI
| in an action for damages for the deatn OF OF
| a minor child, that the child OF poor
man is not as valuable as as tnaI d9inion OF statas
After a careful review of the .authorf-
! ties we are clearly of the opinion thal
| the question of the parents neglect can
NOT he made to turn upon the state of
his finances, and that the rulings OF lne
| lower court IN this respect were er-
Neither the Supreme Court Of this State
| nor any Justice thereof has ever rendered
an opinion to the effect that there was
| A difference in value in the life OF minor
child dependent upon the financial con-
| diton of it's parents. a..
| the public at the request of certain mem
! bers of the bar and in vindication OF the
| truth in this ma tier.
| The foregoing is signed by the foIloW-
ing Judges Of the Superior Courts in
the counties named: J. G. B. Heb
bard. George H. Bahrs, Edward A.
Belcher. city and county Of San Fran
cisco; E. S. Torrance, San Diego; John
| l. Campbell, Frank f. Oster, San
Bernardino; J. w. Ballard, Orange; w.
H. Clark, M. T. Allen, Los Angeles:
Wheaton, A. Gray, Tulare; ]. r. Webb,
E. W. Risley, Fresno; N. A. Dorm, Mon
terey; Edward J. Jones, San Joaquin;
E. c. Hart, Sacramento: Frank T.
Nilon, Nevada; A. J. Buckles, Solano;
w G. Lorigan, Santa Clara; Albert q.
Burnett, Sonoma; e. d. Ham, Napa;
E. E. Gadis, Yolo; Joseph T. Jones,
Contra Costa; j. M. Mannon, Mendo-
cino; Edward Sweeney, Shasta; e. A.
Davis Yuba and Sutter; f. A. Kelly,
Lassen; T. E. Jones, Trinity; Stanley
A. Smith, Sierra; Niles Searls, 1. s.
Belcher, John Hayes, N. P. Chipman,
E w. Britt, Commissioners, of the SUI
preme Court. D
Several other Judges expressed sim
liar opinions, and in addition thereto
made statements from which the fol-
! lowing extracts are given:
| Hon. Joseph H. Budd, San Joaquin
| On the contrary, that court the Su-
preme Court stated in the opinion in
this case of Fox, quoting with approval
| the language of Judge Dillon, that
there is not in this country one rule
of law for the rich and different rule
| for the poor
| Hon. William 0. Miner, Stanislaus-
| AS a matter of common fairness I will
say that I am familiar with the opin-
ion of the court in the case Of Fox VS..
| Oakland Consolidated Railway Com
pany, and that Judge Van Fleet did not
| say in the opinion in that case nor in
any other that know of that the child
of a poor man is not as valuable as the
child of a rich man.
Hon. Carroll Cook, city and county Of
San Francisco will say, after a care
full reading Of the opinion filed in the
Fox case, am unable to find any state
ment therein from which it can be in
ferred that the court held the value of
| a poor mans child to be less than that
OF the chold of rich man On the con-
trary, from some of the language used
the contrary can be inferred for Ian
guage is used from which the inference
can be clearly drawn that the child of
Iaborer is of greater value to him,
pecuniarily, than would be the child of
| a capitalist to him.
Hon. Lucian Shaw, Los Angeles
The value of the life of a child was
not in controversy in the Fox case. The
| question at issue was the value of the
services which the child would probab-
ly have rendered to or for it's parents
| during its minority if it had lived :"
Judge Shaw then takes the same view
as stated by Judge Cook as to the in
ference in favor of the poor mans child
Hon. f. NJ. Angellotti, Marin-I have
carefully examined the opinion in the
Fox case and am unable TO find any
| thing therein that intimates that the
value of the life of a poor mans son is
less than that of a rich mans son. In
| view OF some of the charges that have
been made against Judge Van Fleet in
regard to this opinion, deem it only
| fair to make this statement
Hon. John F. Allison, Tehama-After
stating clearly the real issue in the
case Judge Allison adds:
| While it is true, as suggested in the
press, that a boy may become a profes-
sional man or successful business man,
| the court could NOT overlook fhe fact
that when he did become either the one
or the other he would have obtained
his majority. and with majority his
fathers right to his services would
cease and they would be the exclusive
property of the boy. So the court was
| limited IN its investigation Of the case
| simply and solely to the question How
much money, net, would the boy have