Amador ledger., 1910-10-28
DISPATCH ON
LOW LEVEL
Allows Correspondent
to ASsaiI Judge
Wood.

The last issue of the Dispatch con
tains an article, signed Justice" and
purporting to come from Sutter Creek.
attacking the reputation of Superior
Judge Fred V. Wood, the republican
candidate fJr election, and laudng the
ability and fitness of r. G. Bole, the
democratic candidate for that position.
1t is apparent on the face of the COM
munication that the article did not
originate in Sutter Creek. 1t was
written in Jackson, and by one of the
combine who imagine that they have a
divine commission to run the affairs of
Amador county.
The Dispatch is to be congratulated
upon following it's customary practice
on the eve of an election in turning
over its editorial political management
to outsiders, for the purpose of assail-
ing official character under the guise
OF fictitious signature-a practice by
the way which no reputable journal
will stoop to. 1t is safe to assert that
where the assailant is too cowardly to
back up his attack-by appending his
true signature to the communication,
his assault will carry very little
weight with the voting public. The
bare fact of attack from ambush is
sufficient in itself to condemn it with
any right thinking individual. The
attack is venomous, and is calculated
to injure rather than help the aspirant
for whose benefit it is launched. To
show the political animus of the ar
ticle, we quote the following.
Grillo brothers against Garibaldi
company is a case now in the
superior court where the judge was
called upon for once since he has been
with us to show his abilities as a law
yer. In that case both sides claimed
mining ground under locations, and
Judge Wood decided that neither party
was entitled to the claim. Now, one
party was right and the other wrong
but the decision says: "You both
lose. To an outsider it looks as
though both can't be wrong. If a
man spoken of by these papers and his
friends, as so able can't decide this
case, there is something missing
somewhere believe Robert C. Bole
would have decided it one way or the
other, without fear and without favor,
if he had tried it as judge. | have
heard some say around Volcano and
other places, that election time was
coming and that the judge, knowing
the influence of the Grillo family and
of the Garibaldi clan of this county,
did little electioneering.
Now here it is lntlmated that the
judge in rendering his decision which
declared that neither side was entitled
to judgment, was governed by political
motives-that he desired to court the
favor of one or both parties thereby.
By what process of reasoning the
writer reaches such far-fetched con-
clusion, we are not told. A verdict
which gives benefit to neither plaintiff
nor defendant, is not apt to please
either party and clearly shows that
the judge in giving such decision
was uninfuenced by political or per-
sonal motives, but solely by a con-
scientious sense of his duty and his in
depreciation of the law. 1t is plain
that had the object been to gain favor
the decision would have been with
the one having the greater political in
fuence. But being neutral, and dis
pleasing to both parties, shows clearly
| 2 hot hah tn vuif
it. Nor does it follow that in an is
sue of this nature one side must be
right and the other wrong. The suit
was to quiet title to mining claim
held by a possessory right, and the
judgment like that made in about one
third of such cases. was to the effect
that neither plaintiff nor defendant
had taken the necessary steps to get a
clear title. There is nothing so very
unreasonable in that situation. We
think the decision demonstrates con-
clusively the independence and free
dom from bias of the judge who rem
dered it. OF course it did not suit the
lawyers on either side, one of whom
was Mr. Bole himself, but the sound
reasoning contained in the decision has
not been shaken by anything that has
been shown to the contrary. 1t comes
with bad taste to criticise that de-
cision, in face of pending appeal to a
higher court to test the points raised
therein. 1t is said if Mr. Bole had
been judge, he would have found
differently. Perhaps so, but that
proves nothing; 1t does not follow that
he would have decided more righteous