Amador ledger., 1903-12-25
AN UNPARALLELED CASE.

upon US to comment freely upon this
utterly indefensible attempt at pros
ecution. There are features about
its inside history which we do not
propose to discuss, the circumstan-
ces not being ripe at present. Here
after we hope to be in position to
bring these to the foreground, re-
vealing in all its nakedness the true
inwardness of this effort at criminal
prosecution. In the course of nearly
thirty years experience in journal
ism in Amador county, there have
been four different attempts to affix
the stigma of crime upon the present
editor of the Ledger. They were all
prompted iy che same motives and
aimed to accomplish the same end
namely, to break down or curb the
independent spirit which has char
acterized this paper, by calling into
requisition the machinery of the
: courts to that end The nature of
these several prosecutions need only
be recalled at this time, and the
ending of each, as so many testi-
monials to the unveering course of
the Ledger in the path of duty.
First, we were cited to show cause
why we should not be punished for
contempt of court for the publica-
tion of an article concerning a case
which had passed the jurisdiction of
the county court. We we're ad-
judged guilty, and fined 5000 with 48
hours Imprisonment. We appealed
to the supreme court on habeas
corpus, and by that tribunal not
only discharged, but also indicated
in the publication of the article.
Next we were yanked into the JUS
tice court for publishing lottery
advertisement-the same advertise
ment that had been running for
years in the Ledger before we as
sumed control, and without any prior
protest from the authorities. The
spirit of this prosecution pressed
to its ultimate issue-would have
punished any seller of rattle
ticket in the county. This law had
never before, and has never since,
been appealed to. However, it was a
law, and we were made victim.
The jury reluctantly brought in a
verdict of guilty. We were fined
the costs, without the alternative of
Imprisonment. The animus of this
was apparent-to shut out an ap-
peal by habeas corpus. We appeal
ed to the superior court, at that time
only recently instituted At that
time we had but one piece of real
estate in the county, the Office in
which the Ledger was published.
This was attached, and pending the
determination of the appeal, was ad-
vertised for sale by the constable to
satisfy the judgment and costs,
which finally ran up into formidable
figures. The sale-day, however,
never came, as the Judgment was set
aside by the appellate court
The next was libel suit. This
was tried twice in San Andreas, to
which court the case was transferred
on a motion for change of venue.
The second trial resulted in a YER
dict of acquittal.
Twenty years have rolled away
since these events disfgured the
records of Amador county. Tbey
were all born in the foul air of per-
sonal or political spite, or the equally
pernicious desire to abridge the lib
erty of the press. To the majority
of those now living, these things
have faded from view in the mist of
passing years. In the now defunct
deer meat case the same spirit has
cropped up in more Objectionable
and shameless form than it ever be-
fore assumed. In every community
will be found more or less of political
and personal intrigue. Individuals
will go to greater lengths to crafty
bnSn pCISOldl Dlqu OF QlSappOlQ ted
ambition, than to vent their good
will. Everywhere such forces will
be found at work. It is not the
pleasing side of human nature, but
the fact is indisputable. Individuals
may make an exhibition of themsel-
YES in this direction, but it is invar-
iably the case that the great heart
of the people-th public conscience
beats ture to the cause of right. 1t
is stronger than the plotters of evil,
and presents bulwark against their
mischievous doings, against which
they dash themselves in vain.
Let US look calmly for moment
at this wonderfully deer meet prose
cution. Let US suppose that the
facts constituting the so called crime
were undenied; that the editor had
actually partaken of a piece of
venison in the closed season. What
of it? Who was wronged by such
action? Did it interfere with the
rights of anyone else? Did it differ
from satisfying the appetite with
a dish of beef or mutton? 1t was
lawful to kill the deer, it Was unlaw-
ful to use the meat. Such was the
contention of this amazing prosecu-
ton. We deny the legal proposition.
Fortunately for the other side, the
case died In the inferior court.