The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, September 13, 1898, Page 12

12 THE SA FRANCISCO CALL, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1898 THE TRUTH ABOUT THE FOX CASE Van Fleet’s Opinion Correctly Construed Legal The Ingenious and by Eminent Minds. Malicious Campaign Falsehood Has Been Halted on Its Travels. ‘The poor old Examiner is at its tricks again. It continues to act upon the old precept that a lie well stuck to is as good as the truth. endeavoring to set afloat its intentional misconstruction of the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Loren Fox against the Oakland Consolidated Rail- The aminer on September 10, 1 published criticisms of Justice Van Fleet's opinion from Bishop Newman, Rev. E. R. Dille, A. Furuseth, H. C. Hinken, E. S. Barney. W. M. Page and yor Phela The expressions of these persons were based on the repre- sentations of the Examiner, and it is ay that not one of these men ad read the decision. Bishop New- man in his signed statement admits that he had not read it. However, it 5 de to appear to these men by miner that Justice Van Fleet had discriminated against the poor in that he life of a poor man's son was not worth as much to his father as the life of a rich man’'s son. The criticisms, thus obtained, were naturally of the same tenor as the KEx of the matter to these men, some of whom were thus led into putting a con- struction on Jus Van Fleet's opin- jon almost directly opposite to the idea actually conveyed therein. Had th misguided men read the opinion they would never have been led into com- mitting such a gross injustice upon a fair minded Judge. The Examiner, taking an undue ad- vantage of these parties, made a sen- sational spread of the matter under the scare head, “Are Men Created Free and Equal? How the Supreme Court in the Loren Fox Case is Being Criticized by the General Publi seen from the above names that the Exami- ner has a very limited idea of “the gen- eral public.” Hov the Examiner most immediately overed that it had got its foot in it, as usual. Its attempt to misconstrue Justice Van Fleet was entirely too weak to be ac- cepted by the general public outside of that portion of it that had unwittingly assisted the falsifier in its underhanded yet audacious assault. The very ‘ext morning it published an article that refuted the publication of the previous day. It would be supposed that the Examiner would have had decency enough after this to not again endeavor to deceive people by a repetition of the falsehood. lupse of a year, revive the lie. On August 28 it, in an editorial, says: “But Justice Van Fleet decides that the value of a child’s life varies in direct ratio to the wealth of his father. It v for the rich and another for This lie has resumed its travels, and is making its appearance in some of the State papers, whose editors are prcbably as ignorant of the merits of Judge Van Fleet’s opinion as those gen- tlemen who originally furnished the Examiner with their criticisms. The Woodland Daily Democrat, for instance, says: “Judge Van Fleet's de- cision as to the relative value of the children of poor people and those of rich people will need a good deal of ex- planation during the present cam- paign.” This is a sample of the paragraphs that are being published. A lie—and especially a political lle—travels fast, and it is a hard race for truth to over- take it. The Call to-day presents interviews on this subject from some of the best and clearest legal minds in the State. Among them is Garret McEnerney, the attorney for the Examiner; W. W. Fopte, a life-long Democrat; E. 8. Pils- bury, ex-Justice Van R. Paterson, Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Henshaw and Justice Baroutte. These men know what they are talking about and their views are presented in a clear and in- telligible manner, so that the most or- dinary person ought to be able to gain a proper understanding of Justice Van Fleet's opinion. Chief dustice W. H. Beatty— There way of discrimination between rich and poor. There is nothing in the opinion relat- ADVERTISEMENTS. I saw your advertisement of CUTICURA REMEDIES in the Philadelphia Record,” and paid only $2.00 for CUTICURA RESOLVENT, CUTICURA (ointment), and CUTICURA SoAP, which cured me of Salt Rheum on my hands of 20 years® standing. 1 had the worst hands T have ever seen. At first my hands and fingers broke out in red, watery blisters with terrible itching,so I could nearly twitch the skin off my fingers in agony, then after the watery fluid would come out, there would a scab form with matter un- der it, which would peel off and come in great cracks, the blood running out in streams. My finger nails grew out in wrinkles likea cow’s horns and the roots of the nails were so affected that I lost six nails, three off each and, but now they have grown out nice and th. Iam very thankful to you for CuTI- 8. R. MILLER, Robertsdale, Pa. ECZEMA and every kind of torturing, ham!is- sting, disfiguring, itching, burning, bleeding, and scaly skin, scalp, and blood humors, with loss of hair, 1s instantly relieved snd speedily cured by warm_baths with CUTICURA SOAP, gentle anointings with CUTICURA (ofntment), purest o emollient ekin cures, followed by mild doses of CUTICURA RESOLVENT, greatest of blood purifiers and humor cures, when all else falls. Porrer D Crngy. Corp.. Sole o S How 1 Cure Brory Kisd of Eosston T malvd v Once more it is | had virtually declared that the | aminer's representation | But no, it must, after the | is absolutely nothing in the opinfon in the | | Ing to the value of a life, whether of rich or poor. The actlon was for damages for | loss of ‘services, not for loss of life, and the whole question in the case was show that the child's services during his minority would have been worth $6000, | and the whole decision was that the evi- dence did not prove that fact. In dis- cussing this question it was sald—as has | been said in other cases in other States— that there is a presumption that the child, if he had not been killed, would have fol- lowed during his minority the occupation of his father. It is upon this expression that all adverse criticism has been ex- pended, and it is from this_ that the cons | clusion has been drawn tHat the court was discriminating in favor of the rich | against the poor. But in truth the discrim- | ination, if any had been intended, would have been the other way; for it is a fact universally known that the children of the rich ~and prosperous rarely earn | anything for their parents. | All the fault found with this decision proceeds from the assumption that in an |action of this kind the parent can re- cover the value of his child’s life. But this s a wholly mistaken view. There is no pecuniary measure of the value of human life, and neither courts nor jurles | can estimate it in _money. The Legisla- ture might fix such a valuation by law, but in this State the Legislature has | never done so, and the courts in the | meantime can give a bereaved parent no redress for the loss of his child ex- | cept the probable value of his services, | which, being purely conjectural, can only be estimated upon the presumption that he will follow some useful occupation, the occupation of his father. | arret W. McEnerncy—The Supreme urt did not decide in the case of Lorin x vs. The Oakland Consolidated Rail- way Company (118 Cal. 55) that the value of the life of a rich man’s son is greater than that of a poor man’s son, nor did the that conclusion ensues, either directly or remotely. In fact, Judge Van Fleet, who wrote the opinion, lays down the very op- | posite at the foot of page 64 of the report, He there says, following the language of | Judge Dillon: “Zhere is not in this country one rule of law for | the rich and a different rule for the poor.” It will therefore be seen that the deci- slon does not make one rule for the rich and a different rule for the poor. As I have already sald, the decision does not establish any proposition from which that conclusion ensues, either directly or remotely. A few facts will make this very plain. and tinner by trade. He resided with ais wife and their children, consisting of a daughter 13 years of age and a boy 4% years, on Tenth street, near Franklin, in Oakland. The boy strayed over to Frank- lin street, violating his mother’s instruc- tions in so doing, went upon the track of the Oakland Consolidated Railway Com- pany, was run down by one of its cars and killed. The father sued for damages. the damages were greater than the law allowed to be glven in such a case. It is_a rule of law, made before Judie Van Fleet was born, and which he is bound to apply to the cases which come before him for decision, and which rule he has no more right to set aside than I have, that a’ parent can only recover for the loss of an infant child through negli- gence “the probable value of the services of the deceased until he had attained his majority, taking into _consideration the cost of his support and maintenance dur- ing the early and helpless part of his life.” Judge Van Fleet pointed out that, ac- cording to all of the probabilities of the case, the child would not have earned for his_father, between the time of his death and his arrival at majority had he lived, after deducting all expenses of support and maintenance, the sum of $6000. That being so, the verdict had to be set aside. The parent can only recover what the earnings of the chil would have amounted to during minority. When a child arrives at his majority his earn- ings no longer belong to his parents, The decision up to this point is, there- fore, not only free from just criticism, but t has heretofore been free from any criti- | cism at all. But it is said that in a partic- ular portion of the decision a rule is an- nounced which makes the value of the life of a rich man’s son greater than that »f a poor man. The particular language which is supposed to involve this resuit s the followlnf: b “And while in no sense conclusive, we have the right, and it is most reasonable |in judging of the probable character of Jccupation the deceased would have pur- sued, to regard, with the other circum- stances surrounding him, the calling of his father—sincg experience teaches that children do very frequently pursue the | same general class of business as that of | their parents. (Walters vs. Chicago etc. | R. R. Co., 41 Towa; 7L, 73. | This Janguage simply means that it had heen decide@ by the Supreme Court of Jowa that although great numbers of children do not follow the occupations of their fathers, nevertheless, in dealin, with the unknown future of a child kille in Infancy, it is proper to consider the oc- cupation of his father, because experience teaches that children do frequently follow the same general class of business as that followed by their parents. Judge Van Fleet adopted the rule. as a reasonable one. This language and rule have been sup- Snsed to involve the result that more amages would be awarded to a rich man on the death of his son through negli- gence than would be awarded to a poor man upon the death of his child. he very contrary is the result, although the nlx]l:els universal, applylng to all classes It 18 a matter of universal knowledge that the children of poor men become bread earners earlier than the children of rich men. If a man is poor and has a large family, it is important—indeed, ab- solutely necessary—that his children should become self-suporting bread win- ners and bread earners earlier in life than | the children of his more fortunate nelgh- | bore. Bo that the humbler a man’s call- | ing may be thy value of his child’s life to {him, under this rule of law, is all the greater. Take a laborer with a large family and fl.rpl the rule to his case, and then ap- Yy t to that of a lawyéer or a physician, n the case of a laborer, his poorYy paid labor must support a large family until his children arrive at an age when they can contribute something to the support of the household. As soon as that time arrives his children become bread-win. ners, and the earlier they become bread- winners the more value in a pecuniary sense and under this rule of law are those children to him. On the other hand, if the sons of a lawyer or a physiclan follow the callings of thelr fathers, they cannot become, and they are not, bread-winners until after they attain their majority. A lawyer can- not be admitted to practice until he is 21. The training necessary to fit a man | for the calling of a physician takes him | past his majority. o that, in the two ast named cases, the rule that they would probably follow the callings of | their fathers would make their pecuniary value, under this rule of law, much less than the pecuniary value of the sons of a laborer whose lot in life makes it neec- ST o (e, i shes S plo; s children long before th attain the age of majority. . o Of course, this rule of law lays out of view the sentimental side of life. For considerations of public policy, which had whether the evidence was sufficient to | | and that during his minority that will be | court decide any proposition from which | The plaintiff, Lorin Fox, is a plumber | The jury gave $6000. The Supreme Court | set this verdict aside on the ground that | titled to his earnings. So that all that can be recovered in such a case is what the child would probably have earned, less what it would have cost to maintain him before he earned anything and while he was earning his wages. Whatever that sum amounts to by calculation, that the parent is entitled to recover and no more. I therefore say that Judge Van Ileet decided that there was not one rule for the rich and another rule for the poor. The rule which he laid down had been laid down generations ago, and it was just that which I have stated. Under the rule it is very clear that those who go earlier to bread-winning employ- ment are of the greater pecuniary value to their parents. And it is not true that the case decided, or that it involves the result, that a rich man's son is more valuable than a poor man's. dJustice F. W. Henshaw— The idea that this opinion diseriminates against the chil- dren of poor is based upon a total mis- understanding and does Justice Van Fleet a grave injustice, The measure of damages in such cases is the estimated net value of the services of the child to the parent during his mi- nority. Such has always been the rule of recovery, such it was declared in the opin- ion to be, and such it will continue to be until changed by the Legislature. If it i; deemed a harsh rule it is to be remem bered that it was framed long before Jus- tice Van Fleet was born and that he is not_responsible for it. - © There is no way of determining in any case exactly what a child would have earned. Therefore, the best that can be done is to estimate what probably he would have earned. In:estimating this the jury takes into consideration the con- | dition and situation of the parents and the probable occupation of the child dur- ing minority. For it must be supposed that the child will follow some occupation or it could earn nothing. Is a child more likely during his minority to follow his father's occupation, or some other? The opinion says he is more likely to follow that of his father, and while the whole with the common observation of mankind. As a poor man’s son may likely earn something for the support of his parents during minority and as a rich man’s son will probably “earn nothing during the same period, it follows that so far from the opinion declaring either directly or by inference that a rich man's son is worth more than is a poor man's, the ex- act converse is the truth. Under the prin- ciples announced in the opinion a poor | man would ordinarily recover more in | such an action than would a rich man. W. W, Foote—You asked my opinion as to the construction to be placed upon the opinion of Judge Van Fleet in the case of Fox against the Oakland Consolidated Street Railway Company. I have just | made a careful examination of the case, | and cheerfully comply with your request; | more readily for the reason that the gen- | tlemen occupying judicial positions are l‘unable to go into the newspapers to de- | fend themselves, and are therefore fre- | quently the subjects of abuse and calum- | ny which they are utterly unable to meet | by any efforts of their own. The case in question was an action for damages, brought by the father for the loss of the services of his minor son. The Jjury returned a verdict of $6000. A motion |for a new trial was refused, an appeal taken to the Supreme Court, and the judgment was reversed solely on _the ground that the damages awarded, $6000, were excessive. Any fair-minded man who examines Judge Van Fleet's opinion, concurred in | by Justices Harrison and Beatty, will see | at a glance that there is not in the opin- |ion any language which, even by distor- tion, could be construed into the charge | made against Judge Van Fleet having | discriminated, in his opinion, in favor of { the rich and against the poor. Judges must follow well-known precedents or else the whole judicial system is a failure. There is an unbroken current of author- | ity in this State and in every other where the common law prevails, that the on?’ element of damage, in cases of this kin is the Joss to the father of the services o lpruceeds upon these lines entirely, and is not subject to the adverse criticilsms which has been so frequently made agalinst it. The question of contributory negligence, and, in fact, every other ques- tion which arose in the case, except the one as to excesslye damages, was decided in_favor of the plaintiff. No fair-minded Judge, mindful of his oath, could have rendered any other opin- ion than the one handed down in the Fox case, as it was presented to the Supreme | Court. The language of the opinion clearly shows that there was no intention to discriminate against one class as against another. ‘“After a careful review of the authorities we are clearly of the opinion that the question of the parent's negligence in any given case cannot be made to turn upon the state of his finances.” Whenever the time shall arrive that poverty or wealth are to be weighed in | the balance by Judges of our highest courts, then the period of their usefulness is over and a relgn of anarchy will com- | mence. I was not an attorney in the Fox case and have no interest in it. For the last twenty-five years I have had a large number of cases against the railroad com- pany, never one for it, and I can conscien- tiously say, in the interests of decency and justice, that the opinion in the Fox case meets with my entire approval. I comply with your rcfiuest simply as a matter of failrness and justice, and give you my views upon this case without any reservation whatever. If we are to elect Democratic Judges, let us do so without resorting to means which are questionable and the falsification of records. Fx-Supreme dJustice Van R. Paterson —If I understand the matter cor- rectly those who criticize the opin- fon "of Mr. Justice Van Fleet in the case of Fox vs. the Oakland Con- solidated Rallway Company, reported in 118 California, 5 et seq., claim that he there attemsted to draw some line of caste—to define a class or grade of so- clety separated from others by difference of wealth, profession or employment; or at least, that his opinion lays down a rule of decisions in actions by a parent for damages resulting from the death of a minor child through the negligence of a corporation which is less favorable to the case of a poor man plaintiff than to the case of a rich man plaintiff. If this be the contention I have no hes- itancy in saying that the construction is directly onnosed to what was In fact de- cided. An opinfon must always be con- strued in the light of the facts of the case, the contentions of the parties, and the points actually decided. Let us take a look at this case and see'what the court sald and decided there. It was an action by a father to re- cover damages for the death, through the negligence of a street raflway company, of his little boy, four years and a_half old. He had a verdict for $6000, and the corporation appealed. Counsel for appel- lant tried to convince the Supreme Court that the verdict should be set aside on account of the insufficiency of the evi- dence. The court refused to do so, re- gardless of any apparent Freponderance of the evidence in favor of the corpora- tion, because there appeared to be a sub- stantial conflict in the evidence. That is the first point decided. It was also claim- ed that the Yarenm were guilty of con- tributory negligence in allowing the child to wander from the house and upon the track of defendant. The court held that this question was one solely for the jury, refused to interfere, and furthermore held in strong language that even if the par- ents were guilty of negligence they were not precluded from recovering, because the jury was justified in believing that the defendant was gullty of gross negli- gence. In declding the question as to whether evidence was admissible to show that the plaintiff did not emflloy any sers vants, the court approved the language of Judge Dillon: ““There is not in this country one rule of law for the rich and a different rule for the poor. It extends its protecting shield over all alike.” In the first three points decided, there- fore, there is nothing to show any lean- ing toward the rich as against the poor. That is clear. But the portion of the opinion which has caused criticism is that which seems to hold that evidence of the father's oc- cupation or profession is admissible as some evidence to show what the ealiing of the boy would have been if he had not been killed. The court decided simply that such was a mattey for consideration by the jury and the court, but did not de- cide (and here is where the misappre- hension and unjust criticism has arisen) that this consideration was controlling or that it was anything more than a mere circumstance in the case, which under the rules of evidence was a proper subject of_consideration. In such cases no absolute rules of ad- measurement of damages can, in the na- ture of things, be fixed. The jury must decide upon ail the inferences and prob- abilities which enter into the question. “What would the boy's life be; what would he probably earn for his father during his minority? Instead of being a discrimination -fiunn the poor parent, it is a ;ula which Wi their origin generatlons 0, it was de- 11 operate in his favor. ch man’'s cided that parents ot" over for thy | son upnot a financial help to him under mental anguish with which they are over- | the age of majority Mhfl-fll{ A goor whelmed by the cruel deaths of thelr chil- | man’s son is almost invariably a help. dren, but that they can only recover the | In cases of this cl ter, the measure pecus loss sustained by them. of es 18 practically confined to the 'Tha ex lclde do&t:lne lot gll:bal;lfllflon is fieunhrytvl&mo of tfi: d's ces to foun: rule tha the | his parent during his minority, ority of & child bis Davents’ axe eh into Gonsideration the cost of matter is problematical that view accords | the child. The reasoning in the Fox case | and maintenance during that period. Al- though the jury is entitled to take into consideration the fact that the parents ave been deprived of the comfort and | protection of the boy during his minority, their ‘consideration of these elements 1s practically confined to the pecuniary value of his services. Nothing can be allowed ds @ penalty for causing his death, nor for sorrow or grief of the parents. I myself take no stock in a rule which discards the chief elements of a parent’s loss through the wrongful act of another, but it is a rule which has been followe for ages and one which the courts cannot depart from until authorized to do 50 by legislation. The statement in the opinion which is criticized is but the enunciation of the rule of evidence followed in other juris- dictions, and when properly explained to the jury by the trial court is Of very little importance. For instance, in Was- ters vs. Chicago Railroad Company, il Iowa, 71-73, speaking of such testimony. the court sald: “Of course, such testi- mony Is not very controlling in its char- acter. There are a thousand circum- stances which lead children into pursuits widely different from those of their par- ents. This fact, known to every observ- ant person, should be allowed due weight by the jury in estimating the proper reli- | ance to be placed upon such testimony In the opinion written by Justice Gar- outte and concurred in by Chief Justice }deuu}v and Justice Harrison, it is not held, I am very glad to say, that as mat- ter of law or matter of fact there is « presumption that a child will follow the same kind of business as that of his \parents. It is simply heid that the mat- ter is a circumstance which the defend- ant in an action for damages like this is entitled to have submitted to the jury and considered in determining the amount to be allowed to the plaintiff in case he be entitled to recaver. E. S. Pillsbury—It seems to me that any wrong impression which exists about this Fox decision is due entirely to a mis- apprehension concerning the facts of the case. It was not a suit by the parent to recover the value of the life of his child but the value of his services during mi- | nority. The law did not permit the father to recover the value of his son’s life, wut only to sue for the value of his services, and it is unfair to criticize the Judge who wrote the opinion because he declared what the law was in this_respect. As early as 1881, in a suit by Roller against the Sutter-streét Rallroad Company, on account of the killing of his infant child, and in which I was ultorncg for the plain- tff, Judge Sullivan charged the jury that the father could only recover such a sum as would compensate him for the loss of the child's services during minority, and that rule has been recognized ever since. The record shows in this Fox case that instead of ignoring the poverty of the parent or ieaning against him on that ac- count, the Supreme Court expressly took notice of the parent’s poverty as a cir- cumstance in his favor. The railroad com- pany claimed that it was such negligence on the part of the parents to allow their child to be near a railroad track unat- tended as to prevent any recovery what- eyer. In explanation of this circumstance, the plaintiff was allowed to show on tne trial that the parents were too poor to keep a servant to watch the child; t.at the father worked away from home and the mother had to do her own house- work; that she was engaged at washin; when the child strayed away to the (rncfi and that they looked after the child as closely as they could under these condi- tions. The trial court permitted this tes- timony to go in, and left it to the jury to decide whether under these circumstances the parents had been guilty of negligence towurd the child, and the Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. This cluslvely that the poverty of the parents cut an important figure in favor of the father on the trial, and with the approval of the Supreme Court. The case was re- versed, however, because the jury found | that the value of the services of the child | during minority would have been $6000, an amount which the Supreme Court held to be excessive. We all know that as a rule a boy, after reaching the age of 41 vears, does not earn as much as $6000 for is parents while under age, after de- ducting all the expenses o is support and education during that period. “the courts are bound to take notice of facts which are matters of general knowledge. It must be remembered that Chief Justice Beatty concurred in this opinion. If there ever was a Judge who is believed to be falr and impartial, Judge Beatty is that man. any distinction between the rich and the poor. M. C. Chapmnn, one of the attorney: for the plaintiff in the case of Fox vs. The Oakland Consolidated Street Railway Company, speaking with a full knowledge of all the facts, says the Supreme Court has not laid down a rule that the law thinks more of a rich man’s son than it does of a poor man's son. Concerning the declaration of law In the Fox case, Mr. Chapman says: ‘“Neither is | the law declared in the Fox case new or startling, as it assuredly would have been had it contained any such declaration as that which the enemies of Justice Van Fleet assert. I say deliberately that in that opinion, taken as a whole or by plecemeal, there is no paragraph, no sen- tence, no word bearing any such construc- | tion as that which is sought to be given to it, and that, to the contrary, the direct, immediate and only construction is that for the death of his child the poor man may recover more under the law than could the rich parent recover for the death of his chfld.” s Mr. Chapman remarks that the whole State Is interested in having wise and up- right Judges on the bench of our highest court, and it becomes the duty of any one—lawyer or layman—to present the facts when such a question as this is agitated by the people and to endeavor to correct an impression so prejudicial in its effects. ““The legal effect,”” says Mr. Chapman, “of the decision of the Supreme Court in this case was to countenance on behalf of a poor man for the death of his son a greater recovery than could be awarded to a rich man for the same loss. The recov- ery, it is always to be borne in mind, is based upon the estimated value of tae services of the ehild to the parent, having in mind the conditfon in life of the child and of his parents. The poor man shows in court the probable earnings of his child during minority and is awarded themr ac- cordingly. In the same kind of action tue rich man can only show that his son has been and in the nature of things rflbablg will be a constant source of ou lax an expense to him during minority, and as a consequence his recovery in the law must be limited to a nominal sum. Frederick E. Whitney, who was asso- ciated with M. C. Chapman as the plain- tiff’s counsel in the case, denies that the court held that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor. Mr. Whit- ney, in referring to the case, said: “With the exposition of the law both plaintiff and defendant recognized the principles of the law, and none other were asserted by the Supreme Court in the Fox case. It Is to be remembered that in no case does the law fix a price upon human life, nor does it pretend to measure the rief or suffering of the parent for the 0ss of his child. In every case, be the child the son of a rich man or the son of a poor man, the parent’s recovery is llmn.eg in the law to the estimated value of the services during minority, over and above the cost of his maintenance during the same period. Such was the law uni- vergally accepted Ioni before the date of lhe%ox case, and such is the law declared in that decision. It is a well known fact that during the period of minority the rich man’s son does not earn; he spends. The sons of poor men usuajly earn some- thing for their parents before reachin a majority. The sons of rich men cos more than they earn as a rule. “Upon all these matters—these estab- lished principles of law—there was no conflict. Upon one proposition alone we differed. It was urged by the defendant upon appeal that was an excessive amount, as belng beyond the net value to the parents of the services of a child of four and a half vears of age, when deduction is made for the cost of his maintenance. We hoped to convince the Supreme Court that in our case a verdict of 36000 was not excessive. We failed to do so and accepted the result as by right- minded people it couid only be wccePted. as the fair, unprejudiced and unbiased opinion of the learned gentlemen who compose our court of last resort, and to whose just judgment such questions as this are submitted.” dustice C, H Garoutte—There is noth- ing in Justice Van Fleet’s opinfon that can be construed as holding that the life of a poor man's son is of less value than that of a rich man’s son. Under this decision the poor man, as a rule, would recover more as the “robable value of his son’s services than the.rich man. His Hand Crushed. L. Matson, residing at 1463 Jessie street, caught his hand in a chain while working at the Oakland Mole vesterday afternoon and his fingers were so badly crushed that they had to be amputated. He was brought ‘to this city and his injury was dressed at the Harbor Hospital. Fast Train Bervice. The California Limited over the Santa Fe Rolite will begin running on Novem- ber 2, between Los Angeles and Chicago, lenvlni bodth L‘;avs edA.nn"lu a:fls (ihica,go every Monday, esday and Saf urdfi two and one-half oo througwh mn :v';r nchodu?ed be- Chjcago. shows con- | No one ever accused him of making | LEFT WIFE AND BABIES 10 STRUGGLE Charles Wieger Owns Life a Failure. | HIS LITTLE ONES LOVED HIM PATHETIC LETTERS RECEIVED FROM HIS CHILDREN. Checkered Career and Miserable End of a Well Known Sacramento Man Who Thought Fate Was Against Him. —the blessing for his five innocent chil- dren, whom he was abandoning to their fate in the struggle with a world that has not been too kind to them, and the curse Park. ‘When Wellborer J. K. Meyer, attracted to the spot yesterday morning by the stench and the cloud of flies, reached the dead body in some underbrush near the pumping station, he saw clutched in the right hand a small phial, which had con- tained 100 morphine pills of one-quarter of a grain each. These the suicide had swallowed at some period of time varying from twenty-four to forty-elght hours previously. The body was brought to the Morgue, and the clothing was searched for evi- dence as to the man’s identity. On the back of an envelope written in pencil was this, the last message of the unfor- tunate man: These messages were also found on en- velopes: Florence, - Jullus, Helene, My five innocent darlings. Cannot help myself. I have to go, or else will slip further down still. There is a puwh ticket in this book for the gold watch. 7You can redeem it within three months. I[utewost 0 cents. A steady position s what I needed. Hermine, Vera. - years. In the pockets of the dead were letters from his daughters in Sacramento. One from his daughter Florence is particu- | larly interesting, as it shows not only the | poverty of the family, but the degrading influences to which young girls and boys are sometimes exposed when put out by their parents to work at a tender age. Florence writes under date of August 7 that she {s back in “the store” again at a salary of $10 per month. She adds that she Is not allowed to sit down during the day and adds: And besides all this influence is vile. I have to be downstalrs in that recelving room basc- ment a good deal, and oh! how those girls and boys do act. The boys kiss the girls and hug them and tickle them under the arms, and then thay oot | and act, it is something shocking. It disgnsts | and shocks me. The girle think I am very | prim ‘and sillv because 1 refuse to talk slanx, cad thelr wretched novels, and act as they . And just think! They laugh at me, and tell me that when I have been there 1 while 1 will be just like them. 1 am going to have a vacation in about two weeks from now, and I would like to come down to you for a few days. Wouldn't you like your big daughter to come and see you? am almost as tall as you are now. Five feet six inches. Under date of Sacramento, August 9, 1898, was a letter from his little daughter | With a blessing and curse upon his lips for the man whom he believed to be the | auhtor of his misfortunes—Charles Wieger | of Sacramento took his life a day or two | ago in a secluded part of Golden Gate | | © God bless my darling children and & farewell. The sun is almost down. Philip Scheld, I curse you with my & last breath. I cannot help you. | I think I fought brave enough these last six | | | | | | L. P. DEGEN OF N porters, Wholesale Traders, Jobbers, ART WARE AND ANTIQUE FURNITURE, ! THE P. ROSSI CO., drtistic Furniture and drt Ware importers, 117 SUTTER STREET. AUCTIONEERS. Live Stock Montgomery St.. San Francisco. Koumneers KILLIP & CO. <7 BAKERY AND CONFECTIONERY. | WM. SCHOENING, Sr'ppin, trade sunplled.i » 63¢ Broadway street. + BELTING. Manufacturer of Belting and s Lace Leather, 105.107 Mis. sion St., cor. Spear. Telephone Main 562. BOILER MAKERS. EUREKA BOILER WORKS W. J. BRADY. Proprietor. Bpecisl Attention Paid to Repairs and Ship Work. Office and Works—113-115 MISSION STREET Telephone Main 5045. BOOKS AND STATIONERY. THE SAN FRANCISCO NEWS COMPANT, 342 to 350 Geary Strect, Above Powell, Périodicals, Books and Stationery. COAL, COKE AND PIG IRON. C. WILSON & CO» 900 BATTERY STREET. Telephone Main 1564. J. INTEREST TO BUYERS. Purchasers’ Guide to Responsible Merchaats, Manufacturers, Brokers, Im- Insurance and Real Estate Agents. CATALOGUES AND PRICE LISTS MAILED ON APPLICATION. In Corresponding With -Any of the Following Firms Please Mention ‘“The Call” IRON FOUNDERS. Western Foundry, Morton & Hedley, Props.. 234 Fremont St. Castings of Every De. scription Made to Order. Tel. Black 1503, JEWELERS, W. K. VANDERSLICE CO. OLD AND SILVER SMITHS, 13 Sutter st., San Francisco, Telephone Mcin 917. MANUFACTURERS. GOLDEN GATE WOOLEN MFG. CO. Manufacture blankets, Cassimeres, Tweads and Flannels, 535 Market st. San Francisco, Cal. Goods for sale at all leading dry goods stores. MARINE INSURANCI SWISS MARINE INF COMPANIES. JFANC Combined Capital, $4,000,000. 8YZ & CO.. Agents, 301 Cailfornis st. .‘L\TTREFSES AND IRON BEDS. THE BERNHARD Mattress Co.. 6@ Misxion 10 Bl Lt Telephone Main 1674 PAPER DEALERS. WILLAMETTE Pz ann pavee co. ontgomery Street. PIANOS. The Oldest F1'm and Lareest Stock. PIANO and MUSIC STORE, KOHLER & CHASE, 28 and 30 O'Farrell St. A corps of expert tuners and repalrers. PRINTING. PRINTER, E. CHUGHES, 51 &350 Sroet. COPPERSMITH. Joseph Fox. fupt. 9. Diyth, Mer. C. W. Smith, Ship Plumbing, Steamboat and Ship Work a Specialty, 16 and 18 Washington St. Telephone, Main 5641. DENTIST. DR- C. W- RICHARDS, & %5t EE. cormer Kearny. REAL ESTATE. G. H. UMBSEN & CO., REAL ESTATE. RENT COLLECTORS. General Auctioneers. 14 Montgomery st. 'SEWING MACHINES. HDUMEsTIGU Pre-eminantly the machine for family use. 1021 Markst strest, near Sixth. = | DRUGGISTS (WHOLESALE). Secondand Steven. REDINGTON & C0. SosondféSfemerd FIRE INSURANCE. EDWARD BROWN & SON. 411-413 California street, rear. | Capltal Represented... -..over $14,000,000 | FLOUR. Flour Mills. J. Martenstein & Co. NATIONAL S cor Fiactery wnd Eacine sio FRESH AND SALT MEATS. AP. 123 California street, room 27. Tel. Main 1661 SO, G. R, LOCY & €O, STATIONER AND PRINTER. Tt “PARTRIDGE 2388 Printers, Book- THE HICKS-JUDD CO.. TARTAR WORKS. ALIFORNIA TARTAR WORKS, G. De LATOUR, Manager. binders, 23 IFirst st Furrier, all work guaranteed, AD. KOCOUR 53 iiay oremspsiiine: HARNESS AND VEHICLES. | LEIBOLD HARNESS CO., 211 Larkin st., 8 F. | Wholesale and Retail Manufacturers of all | kinds of Harness and dealers in Buggies, | Carts, etc. If you want bargalns call or write | HARDWARE. pALACE Hardware Co.,Importers & Dealars | in Hardware, 603 Market. Tel. Main 752. HUNTERS’ EQUIPMENTS. Hunters' Equipments, _ Fishing Tackle, Athletic Goods, etc. Send for catalogue. GEO. W. SHREVE, 739 Market street. JAS. BOYES & C0,, £hirring Butchers, 100 Office 218 Front Street. San Francisco. FURS. WAREHOUSEMEN. THE HASLETT WAREHOUSE CO., Forwarding Agents and Public Welghers, General Storage. Free and Grain Warehoussa. General office, 210 California st. Tel. Maln 1914 WALLPAPER. WHOLESALE & retall; send for samples, stat- ing quality & color. DUFFY CO., 928 How. WATCHES, ETC. Headquarters for fine Jewelry and full Wedding Rings, 4 34 st. T. LOWDY, WOOD AND IVORY TURNING. CARL F. HAAS ;Special planing work, Fac- , 417 Mission; tel. M.5S2T. I will send you some nise big round 0 0 0 0 o 000, and these are hugs, s s ss. * * * Her- mine’ wrote you about Sunday-school, but I | have been there a little longer than she .has, and I learnt about Paul. I would like to go to the St. Paul's church, but we have to go to a commen church because we haven't got nise enough close to ware, 85 good buy. Your lov- ing little 4+ DICKEY BIRD. The answer to Florence’s appeal is found in the following extract from a let- ter written by Wieger to his wife under Pt e oy et Zht T s e . [ “.Mim"—Ma‘Abfi Vg 1 N CHARLES WIEGER. the Sacramento Dru-Goods Man. Who Poisoned Himself in Golden Gate Park in a Fit of De- Spondencu. Hermine. It is written in a remarkably neat hard in the vertical system of pen- manship now being taught in the public schools of California. The following are extracts from the letter, which under the circumstances are more than ordinarily pathetic: £ The mail man brought letter from you to-day. as) it W::mgood news. She sald it was a nice let- ter, may be we will have nice times again like we used to have. I wich you was here for my blrthA? on Wednesday to have some of my watermelon. I will be ten years old, so be here to give me ten birthday * We have four cats now, their ary, Sally, Dewey and Sampson, 111" be glad when vacation is_over, because they get so many beatings from Vers. Another daughter, who s her letter “¥our loving little dickey bird,” writes: I can't write yery much because Hermine got ahead of me, and has more to say, such a nice big fat > ked mamma if are M; and I guess they HE CUT THE GORDIAN KNOT. date of August 13, and found on his hody: Florence's complaint about the store is only too true, but the stores are all that way— regular hotbeds for vice, but since it is or- dalned that the dear children must go through it, it Is best that they should know and see the danger and shun it. I trust that your in- fluence over the girls will always be strong enough to guide them. Get Jullus into the Store again, as it is not good for him to be loaf- The dead man was well known in Sacra- mento, where he had been for some time a partner in the dry goods firm of Wasser- man, Davis & Co. He went into business for himself in Sacramento several years ago and failed.. This brought about his prosecution on a charge of having ob- tained his stock of goods from his cred- itors by false representations, and he.was convicted and sent to the Folsom Peniten- tary, but he was pardoned before his term of sentence expired. In December, 1896, he was employed by Livingston Bros., on Post streef in this city, as a clerk, but was discharged after four months’ service, because he was head- strong and would not obey the orders of his employers. They give him an_ excel- lent reputation for ~ honesty, and only found fault with his obstinate dlsposition. He worked also at the Emporium, at Welnstock & Lubin's and at other estab- lishments. Last Friday he applied for employment at Livingston Bros., but there was no vacancy, and he was turned away disap- ointed. He was very despondent for a ew days before his death, and seemed to think the world was against him. NO SURPRISE IN SACRAMENTO. Acquaintances There Expected Some Such End to Wicger’s Hapless Career. SACRAMENTO, 1., Sept. 12.—The an- nouncement of th S:!dde gf Charles Wie- ger created little surprise among his ac- a pride it was not of a ¢ and five children and there was a gradual ch: ‘was never regarded, even viction, as a crimin make good his losses. quaintances here, since they had long an- ticipated such would be his fate. Seven or eight years ago Wieger was member of the large dry goods firm of W rman & Co., and as such held a high place both in the commercial and social community. He was very proud and somewhat auto- cratic in his manner, but this quality did not interfere with his success as one of the several members of the firm. When,. however. Wieger started in for himself as a rival of the old firm, opening his place within 100 feet of the other, he found that he did not possess those elements of per- sonal popularity which would draw trade to him. Then foliowed his imprisonment and gradually declining fortune. Public sympathy went out for Wieger here prior to and after his_liberagion from prison, but it w le he assumed aracter which t his wife ns allowed, ze of senti- er, Wieger after his con- and his thorough Zoods business was He had never threatened sui- cide even to his most intimate friends here, but when they learned that he had noticed that would prompt him as tQ supp his me: Howe ment regarding him. been out of employment a long time they looked for that end. e The Man Who Was Cursed. SACRAMENTO, Sept. 12—Wieger was married to a relative by marriage of Philip Scheld, one of the directors of the Sacramento banks, proprietor of one of the local breweries, and a man of con- siderable wealth. Scheld, when informed as to the nature of Weiger's note, plac- ing his dying curse upon him, was not visibly disturbed. Scheld says that when Wieger first got into financial difficulties the dry-goods man went to him for mon- ey, but Scheld declined to undertake to Since then Wieger harbored ill will for Scheld, and time and again referred to him as the man re- sponsible for his failure, for he main- tained that had Scheld given him the money he wanted he would never have ess_difficulti However, cheld says he did feel justified in not complying with Wie; the showing Wieger mac ‘s demand upon to him. ADVERTISEMENTS. Only pure and higheat grade ingredients and perfedt brewing can pro- duce the exquisite flavor possessed by "Blatz.« VAL.BLATZ BREWIN MILWAUKEE;EU.S-A? Louis Cahen & Son, Wholesafe Dealers, 416418 Sacramento Street, San Francisco, Wright's Tndian Vegetabls Pilié Are acknowledged by thousands of persons who have used them for over forty years to cure SICK HEADACHE, GIDDINESS, CONSTIPA- TION, Torpid Liver, Weak Stomach, Pimples and purify the blood. Crossman's Specific Mixime With this remedy persons can cure lh:m; selves without the least exposure, change O dlet or change in application tc business. The medicine contalns nothing of the least injufy to the constitution. Ask your druggist fof Price, § & bottle,