The San Francisco call., 1909-04-18
The FrameOf mind SWhat
Ais Appellate Courts

RIENDS good government need surprise, chagn
disappointment the of appeals decision reversing
the judgment of conviction against Louis Glass; telephone
boodler have been expected Indeed expected
by public prosecutors may
for from the similar similar
chief among which obvious disposition Caforna appel
tribunals to search the record of any graft case for technical
flaws however subsidiary they be- rather uphold the
and carry the of the laws that against boodng
Once the appellate gives exhibition split
ting. The grounds of its decision wholly technical and
altogether unmpoant The courts solemn discussion OF them
merely learned aud high priced cauistr 1t pretended
that injury done the defendant by the of test
show his activity in doing in Oakland without bribery
what he of doing with bribery
pretended that he suffered prejudice his rights by the
trial courts failure to instruct the jury to disregard Znmer
refusal testify. 1t significant that the appeal expressly
valves the question of whether the testimony sufficient
to warrant the udgmengnhcant III that It leads directly to the
inference that the chose decide the side Of
secondary consequence rather than go straight
Even the ayman that the Oakland testimony was
introduced show activity bay
OF precisely the kind that charged against Glass this
city and seduou denied bv those of his fellow servants whose
lips sealed The appeal somewhat akwady forces
the assumption that the purpose this evidence was establish
motive That perfect the technicaiy
Here a hair almost fine to bear splitting.
AS Zmme the ruling of the appeal likely sub
ect the tribunal criticism the ultimate public opinion
than that for because of the other branch
of its decision Znme auditor of the telephone knew
who had authorized the spending of the Doodle In the first
trial of Glass he efusedo testify and refused give
Tor not tesng lie went to tor contempt On the
second trial he refused testify the ground that his testimony
would ncrnate degrade hmthe statutory ground
The found by the ples the
failure specifically jury
attention Zmmer refusal testify This error it
although did carefully direct jury
nothing outside of beyond the evidence presented and admitted
during the trial
If the prosecution had failed call might well
have done of his conumacy the first trathen the
defense might have asked instruction the
putting the ban of dust weaker evidence offered where
stronger evidence Doubtless such
would have been error for the echcans of the
above Had the trial given either of the instructions
Zmmer by the defense the effect would
confuse and mad the That the of the nuc
tons; they drawn OF with that end in
The trouble with the appellate courts to be that they
approach these graft the frame OF mind They do
not take such appeals with to uphodng the law and
forwarding justice but rather with the design to find flaws and
whereupon the below Technical
error easy find record for him who examines it with
unfiendy and suspicious And this trouble of the
evils of the for California alone but for other
whose laws have been made and being interpreted under %
resembling those that prevail this community The remedy
for the evil in California fortunately in the hands of the people
who wteafter nominate the justices whom they