The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1908-05-03
Beatty Explains the Decision in the
Case of Eugene [. Stlnlid
Chief Justice Tells in Detail What Ruling
Is and Exactly Why 1t Had to Be

IN reply to a letter from Charles K.
McClatchy editor of the Sacramento
Bee. Chief Justice William H Beatty of
the California supreme court has writ
ten a long explanation Of the decision
of the court in the Schmitz case. This
explanation. which already has been
printed in the Sacramento Bee, is as
follows:
Ny delay in answering your letter Of March
81 hCs not been due 70 any reluctance on my
part 10 satisfy, 50 far as / may be able to do
80. the desire OF any candid readers Of the Bee
Tor a statement compreh ensible TO the man In
the street OF the real question decided py tne
supreme court in the Schmitz case and OF the
reasons compelling that decision On the con
trarg. nave been more than Wiling 10 repeat
FOR publication The substance OF what l have
said ia conversation 10 you and other open
minded inQuirers as often ] have been asked
about The matter. but the many pressing de-
mands upon my attention, both before and since
the recent session Of the supreme court At Los
Angeles, have hitherto prevented me from re-
With this apology for delay. which 1 have
more reasons 10 regret than the readers Of the
Bee ] shall first ondeavor TO explain the reasons
compelling a decision apparently 50 contrary 10
the wishes and expectations OF many OF the best
people q the state. Ia doing so must be par
doned FOR restating some elementary propositions
which our best people seem not always 10 bear
IN mind
OUR SYSTEM $ BETTER
Ours is government Of written laws enacted
eTninent OF laws. and not Of men. Our courts
and judicial officers are bound not only by the
10 the rights and obligations OF the citizen and
20 those acts ard omissions to which are an
neNed The various penalties Of death, imprlson-
ment- me- removal from once. etc, eut they
ere just firmly bound by the statutes, which
in many important particulars prescribe rigid
Hnd unbending rules Of procedure in civil and
criminal actions. These rules OF procedure in
criminal actions were not devised for the pur
pose Of facilitating the escape of the guilty bur
81. rlnFrl
OF human origin, II Is needless TO say that they
CO not always accomplish the end desired. De
spite the protection they throw around an limo
cent person unJustly accused. such persons are
often subjected 70 ulmerited punishment, ana
Cftener still these necessary safeguards Of the
innocent serve 10 screen the guilty. But celfu-
ries OF experience IN England and the United
States have demonstrated that when admins
tered by capable and upright officers they are
rIomotiVe IN the long run Of larger measure
of justice and Infinitely larger measure Of
freedom and security than the system of judicial
ten. that is to say. under which in some orr
entail countries the cadI or the cahph wes ac-
custOmed % determine causes, both civil and
criminal, without any prescribed formahties, &C
cOrdlng 10 his notion Of equity and justice.
Effeaeious as that system might be If we could
always be secure OF having judges as wise as
Solomon and as impartial HarOun al Raschid.
we have ch0sen-snd, as ] think. wisely chosen
10 bind our courts and judges By fixed rules of
decision both as 10 substantive law and forms
OF procedure
JUDGE BOTND TO OBEY THE LAW
But whether wise or foolish, our choice has
been made and II has been embodied in our con-
Eritution that fundamental law Of the state
made by the people themselves acting IN their
primary capacity, and which every judicial Of
hcer t. sworn 10 obey
II ought not 70 be necessary 10 remind even
s-rhe man in the street that every judge in this
state. as en- essential prerequisite TO the as
sumption OF the office. must have taken and
subscribed solemn oath TO .ssupport Inc con-
fritution Of the United States and the eOnstitu-
ton OF The state OF California" Still less IL
ought tc be necessary 10 contend that, having
taken this oath, he is bound by the most i'm
peratiFe obligation 10 observe II as long as he
retains the once As 10 the extent Of its
meaning there may be difference OF opinion,
but certainly Il means as much as this; that he
VIII enforce in behalf Of every htgant whose
cause be 1dsuGicates every right secured TO him
by either The state or federal constitution. To
ine Il means much more than this but certainly
81 cannot mean less.
CONVICTED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
Now. with respect TO the Schultz case: 1t
happens that mob only the constitution Of Call
fornla but the constitution OF the United States
snd j believe the constitution Of every state In
eject that no person snail be deprived of life
liberty OF property without due process Of law >"
From which Il follows that no court in this state
can sanction or uphold CONVICTION or any EEL
ony necessarily involving IL does depTiya ton
Of liberty, If not Of ufe) unless that conviction
has been obtained by due process Of law" No
matter how clear and notorious the guilt of
defendant IN a criminal action may be- neither
the district court OF appeal nor the supreme
ton If IL has not been obtained by regular legal
process---the law Of the land" it is ex-
pressed in Magma Charta.
THE POINT IN THE SCHMITZ CASE
Now the point decided and the only point de-
cided. By the supreme court in the Schmitz case
was that he had been convicted without due
process Of law. and II they were right In that
Conclusion II follows inevitably from what has
been said, that they could not avoid affirming
the decision 70 the same effect of the district
court Of appeal
Tie whole question. therefore. resolves itself
into this; What IS essential to due process OF
law 10 a criminal action and in what respect
was there q failure 70 pursue it In the case Of
Schmizt There are many things essential TO
due process Of law, but IL this case II is neces-
sary 70 consider only one, and that is the neces-
slty OF q valid Indictment or informa ton
Prior to the constitution of 1879 a felony could
only be prosecuted by indictment returned by
Z grand jury. Since the adoption Of that con-
Etituti0n the prosecution may be either by in
dictment information, but whichever course
Is pursued the sane degree Of certainty and pre-
cision is required IN the formal written accuse
ton
In the schmitz case the accusation was pre-
scented by a grand jury in the form Of an indict-
menr. and II was essential 10 its validity that X
should contain, among other things a statement
Of tie acts constituting the o1ieDse, defined
by the statute, and that IL should be direct and
certain as 10 the ofense charged and all its
particulars 50 far as they were necessary to con-
ftitute the complete ocelse. These all ex-
press statutory provisions prescribing the requi-
sites Of valid Indictment.
SUBSTANC-- HERE, NOT FORM
The same statute. it is true, en5oins the courts
10 disregard defects OF form IN passing upon
the suffciency " an Indictment hut the particii-
lars here enumerated are matters Of substance,
not Of form No act cr omission can be pun
ished criminally in this state unless IL has been
made punishable by statute. and where the leg
islature IN defining q crime OF Offense has made
Il 10 consist Of several elements or ingredients
no defendant can be lawfully brought TO trial for
that odeDse in the absence Of Indictment or
Informal ton containing direct and certain state
rnent Of every single fact which the legislature
has included IN its definition OF the crime.
So essential has this requirement ever been
deemed 10 due process of law that our penal code
and all the acts that preceded It, borrowing in
this particular, IN many others, from the
common law Of England, have made eIabora te
provision for testing at various stages OF the
proceeding the sufhciency Of the Indictment or
information. I shall now proceed TO show.
ONE OF THE SCHSIITZ OBJECTIONS
The next step after the return Of an indict-
tnent essential 10 due process is the arraignment
Of the defendant az which time the indictment
Is read and he is called upon TO plead. He may
at that time. instead Of entering a plea OF not
guilty demur 10 the Indictment. which fneans
that lie may make any objection 10 it's validity
which appears upon its face. and the court in
passing upon that objection can consider no fact
except those alleged IN the Indictment and such
other facts only as are within the Judicial knowl-
edge Of all courts.
on LIS arreignment Schmitz demurred on va
rious grounds 10 the Indictment charging him and
the objections urged by him at that time was
r.aFc Cfrf tod IN frrr rcrrf