The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-11-16
THE FaLsEHooD ABOUT van FLEET
MAR. JUSTICE VAN FLEET was defeated for
I election to the Supreme bench by rank
i falsehood started by the Examiner and propa-

gated in the fusion press.
This falsehood was to the effect that Justice Van
Fleet. in the Fox case had decided that poor man
was not entitled to as much damages for the killing Of
his child by a railroad as rich A large number
OF Superior Court Judges all over the State, Demo
Gratis and Republicans, among them Judge Budd, the
father of Governor Budd, appeared in denial OF the
Examiner falsehood and SANDER. They certified that
Justice Van Fleet had made such decision, but that
the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the Fox case,
iii which the whole bench concurred, was simply
correct statement Of the law of compensatory dam
ages in such cases. and that the law we'll settled
that the same decision would be given in any Supreme
Court in the United States.
1t is plain then that Justice Van Fleet was beaten
by most arrant SANDER and outrageous falsehood.
1t goes without saying that if the bench is to be con-
troled by such means, and are to be beaten or
elected by the circulation of lies whole judicial
system is apt be destroyed and the administration
Of justice to be put at the mercy OF any wretch who
commands the publicity necessary to the hurtul cir
culation of lie. The oense OF the Examiner, while
making Justice Van Fleet its immediate victim, is in
its essence crime against the personal and property
rights of every citizen since it subjects the courts
which protect those rights the control OF liars and
sianderers.
The Examiner has, since the election, sought to
justify itself and to maintain its position by con-
tinuing to repeat its falsehood.
In a recent issue it says Nov, matter of fact
the rule of loss of service as of damages
is obsolete 1t is never followed because it is mpos
sible and absurd If there is any reason why
the grief of father or mother the death OF
child caused by gross negligence, should not be con-
sidered in damages, we fail TO see it
Now on the contrary the rule of loss of service is
the only rule followed in every American court be-
cause it is the only feasible rule The Supreme Court
of California followed that rule in the Fox case be-
cause it is the only rule by which measure of dam
ages can be found Instead of being rule that works
against the poor man damaged by the death OF his
child it is his special protection for the that
If the homes of the poor children must earlier begin
service that brings bread the table This service
may be only in the daily duties of the household, at
first of the simplest nature, but duties which, il dis
charged by the parent, abridge his wage earning
labors and entail loss upon him. In the homes OF the
rich these services are not exacted of the child
j. it required to be wage-earner outside to con-
tribute the family support Therefore it IS plain
that the rule which the Examiner falsely says is OBJ
solete is rule followed by all courts for the ben
eft of the poorman instead of to his detriment Had
Justice Van Fleet treated it obsolete he would
really have taken from the poor protection
which he enjoys in the courts
The lying perversion OF the Examiner has led to
the injury of Justice Van Fleet at the hands OF the
very kind of people in whose favor he upheld rule
OF law which is for their benefit and protection.
An inspection of the dictum of the Examiner that
parental grief is the proper rule of damages demon
strates its folly If the household service of child
to its parent hour day. 1t saves to him an
hours wages If his earnings are, say, IS cents an
hour, there is concrete basis on which to estimate
damages The natural conclusion that the child, when
qualified by age to enter upon wage-earnng occu-
patton, before reaching its majority, will have
earning capacity equal that of its fathers vocation
carries this basis of damages through to the
end OF the childs minority On this basis damages
are estimable They may be fundamentally
measured
But passing to the rule upon which the Examiner
insists, rule unknown to the courts and foreign to
the law there is basis all for the estimate and
measure of damages. Who express in dollars
and cents mental emotion? Who can measure the
varying degrees of grief and money value to
them? What of money pay for grief and
compensate the sufferer for sorrow?
The law is an exact science. 1t deals with concrete
things with the material and not the immaterial and
inefable Therefore it cannot measure grief put
value on ineable emotions. The effect of grief and
its proongation, depend upon individual tempera-
ment. In many instances sorrow for the dead leads
to suicide. What court Or jury make money COM
pensation in damages for such a grief?
1t is plain, therefore, that the only rule Of damages
is the established by the law, followed by all the
courts and stated in the decision written by Justice
Van Fleet and declared to be the law by Judge Budd
and jurists of the Superior Courts of all parties
The Examiner beat Justice Van Fleet by lying
It's act was no honorable than if it had sent
man to his house with forged message to his wife
for his watch and purse for the purpose of stealing
his property It's defense of its lying since the cleo
ton is dishonorabe the original offense Every
Judge, Justice, lawyer and thinking in the State
knows that it used falsehood to affect election to
the Supreme bench and that by doing struck an
envenomed blow at the courts, thereby weakening
and seeking to destroy the judicial safeguards set
around person and property in this State
To his imperishable honor be it said that Senator
White denounced from the fusion stump this Exam
iner lie about Justice Van Fleet. So should all good
men denounce and resent it. and punish the papers