The Eureka sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1902-current, 1913-05-17
FIRST JUDICIAL RECALL

The first judicial recall has been put into effect in California,
and the country still lives. To be sure, says the Salt Lake Tribune,
the vote by which that recall was made is hardly convincing, but
still it was conformable to law and must govern
The case arose in San Francisco. whose Police Justice, Charles
L. Weller, was deposed from Office by the recall vote. This was
done not because of any decision the Justice had rendered, because
nothing that a Justice can do by way of rendering decisions would
be serious enough to invoke recall, since a n appeal would directly
lie to a superior court, which would rectify any wrong that the
Justice had done. But it was a question of bail A defendant In a
"white slave" case was held under solid, heavy bail for his appear
ance. Application was made to Justice Weller to reduce the amount
of this bail He did reduce it to a figure that allowed the alleged
white SLAYER to jump his bond rather than face the trial. He could
afford to forfeit the small bond required by Justice Weller, but
could not be allowed to forfeit the heavy bail under which he was
first held.
Upon the skipping out of that white slave defendant, after
the reduction of his bail, the women of San Francisco, who have
equal voting rights with the men, at once began a systematic effort
to recall" Justice Weller. The vote on that recall amounted to
some 81, O0O, and Weller was recalled" by a majority of S15. That
vote, to be sure, was light, since San Francisco is able to cast at
least onethird more votes than were cast at this recall election.
Justice Weller very naturally complains that he has not been
fairly treated. But he is recalled, and his complaint goes for
nothing.
The act of Justice Weller in reducing the bail of this alleged
white SLAYER to a figure which he and his friends could afford to for
felt, is typical of cases that often make the greatest feeling and
arouse the most bitterness in communities. The object OF requlr-
ing bail in any case is to secure without fail the attendance OF the
accused in the court, so that he may with sureness be made to an
swer for the crime that is charged against him. The matter OF bail
has no necessary Connection between the guilt or innocence of the c
cused. 1t is simply a means provided by law whereby the accused
is to be securely held while he is allowed his liberty pending his
trial Whatever amount of bail will secure his attendance is
enough. But an amount of bail that a defendant can afford to for
felt is not enough, and there should be some way of restraining
weak-minded and sympathetic magistrates from exhibiting tender
ness such as this displayed by Justice Weller. A Justice who will
do that sort of thing is not fit for his position, and the women of
San Francisco took the short and sharp remedy provided by law.
It amounts to nothing practically that Justice Weller complains that
he has not been fairly treated. The answer to that is that he did
not treat the community fairly when he fixed the bail of an accused
in an odious case at such a low figure that that accused could afford
to forfeit his bond.
1t will be seen, therefore, from the facts of the case, that no at
tack has been made upon the judiciary by the enforcement Of the
recall in this case. Justice WeIler's case will stand alone and on
its merits, and so far a the action of the Justice which caused his
recall is concerned, that appears to have had no merit at all, while
the great vote cast for him testifes to the reluctance of the Ameri-
can people to interfere with the independence of any judicial officer.