The San Francisco call., 1908-11-02
HFNFY REPLIES TO
JUSTICE BEATTY
Prosecutor Answers Charge of
Intentionally Violating
Section of Code
Asserts That Typographical
Error Slipped Into Letter
by Mistake

The following letter has been re-
ceived from Francis j. Heney relative
to Judge Beatty's quoted reply to his
letter on the Schmitz decision:
Editor Call-Dear Sir: This Sunday
mornings Examiner accuses me OF
having Intentionally misquoted the
language Of subdivision of section
this connection it quotes Chief Justice
Beatty OF our supreme court as saying:
L have no time to reply to Mr..
Heneys long exposition of what, he
deems is law, even il l cared to do so.
cannot help noticing in an off hand
perusal of his reply, however, that he
bases his sole contention on a statute
which he misquotes and on court de-
adoption OF the code of civil procedure =
Il saw no occasion for the falsifica-
ton of public statute in my letter ex-
planning the decision to the Bee, but
do not care to dwell on that fact at
this time.''
am loath to believe that the learned
chief justice made these statements,
cuse me of deliberately misquoting a
public statute by changing it's terms.
IL is unfortunate that a typographical
error did creep into the typewritten
copies of my manuscript which were
sent out to the Bulletin and Bee with
out my having an opportunity to see
them after they had been typewriter.
On FRAY night late 1 hastily glanced
over the manuscript and found five or
SIX errors of the stenographer in my
own composition, and was compelled
70 send letter to the Bulletin, and
likewise to the Sacramento Bee, call
ing attention to them and requesting
70 have them corrected before publica-
ton. The hour was so late, however,
that | took it for granted that the
quotations from the statutes, as well
the decisions c0rrQCf
was assured by my stenographer that
they had all been compared.
The statute actually reads as follows:
The accession to Office and the Off
cial signatures and seals of office OF
the principal officers Gnstead of
AND as it appears in my article in
the Bulletin) of government in the leg
fslative, executive, and judicial depart
ments of this state and the United
States" etc.
The foregoing words which are In
cluded within the brackets are not in
the statute, and are inserted In the
quotation by me by way of explana-
ton. as matter of course.
The entire reasoning of my article
Is based upon the statute as IL actually
appears in the code of civil procedure.
cial notice of THE ACCESSION to Of
fee OF the principal executive officers
of government in the executive depart
ment of this state" What could be
meant Dy ILLS Language except IQdL the
courts take judicial notice of who fill
such offices and of when and how they
secure the Office, and by necessary
implication when and how they cease
to fill such offices?
There could have been no possible
purpose to serve by misquoting the
statute, because the change does not
add anything to the strength of my ar
gument and because the code of civil
procedure is one of the hand books of
To-
chief justice did. in effect, accuse me
of falsifying the statute, as he is
quoted as doing by the Examiner, he
certainly forgot to preserve that dig
nifty and fairness which his high off,
cial position warrants us in expecting
him to display Yours truly,
FRANCIS j. HENEY.
November 1, 1908.