The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, July 15, 1902, Page 3

THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, TUESDAY, JULY 15 ATTORNEY J, CCAMPBELL "SCORES - e DEFENDANTS, | STAaTe ' Closes Argument on Gage's Writ of i 1 J Prohibition| 1 Judge Sloss Wi]II[ Render Decision'} in Coming Week"‘f UPERIOR JUDGE SLOSS | tened to the final arguments of | | 1 yesterday in the pro- | | s for a writ of prohibition Governor Gage prays may e made permanent restrain- | | Police Judge Fritz from | | / hear t in the t for c Attorney L. P. 1 . Spreckels and Gage was in court during the ' rorning session, but his bodyguard, Dar Kevane, who created a sensatic il - the same tribunal by d volver, was not present. ved Kid,” who is affiliated was seated near Governor de no show of firearms. Gage bDELA 37 T3 AT o=y oF “~ Campbell, represent- e respondent, Judge Fritz, made the | | sent. Attorney Campbell matters in eriticizing the | % ‘ Gov GAGE. cawmnor TNQUIRY orF *4 ‘GovsaAcE CANNOT FrREVENT APRoOPER. INVESTIGAYION 9)" SAN QUENTIN PRisory "GOVERNOR FOR BLOCKING JUSTIC ’ . QUOTES LA S AS To DUTIE S OF CoMITITIN OF Do E P THE aTATE." St \MAGISTRATE »vernor, but delivered some of eloquence that must e chief executive wince had | ) present to hear them. o ATTORNEY J. C. CAMPBELL ADDRESSING JUDGE SLOSS IN ARGUMENT- AGAINST GAGE’S WRIT OF PROHIBITION. rs Campbell and Preston ap- Judge Fritz. A A. Moore, wiio for Governor Gage to support “If you are through I will proceed with my argument.”’ after satirizing i ey bell the writ of prohibition, closed his ad- D5V SRMPOEH, il dress before the noon adjournment, aud | 3,9 for n(‘rsonalfi rcfie(ityionr. arfi;e: Atiorney Campbell made hfs argument in | D3t the people of California were pros the rnoon.. cuting the criminal libel suit filed in ey L B sl e udge Fritz's , 2 0 1 Tibei mait e Police Junze Foiac | Yor any man, even if he occupled the p: was also present at the sition of Governor, to prosecute the ¢ iens d previous to Judge or try to stop the proceedings. =i journing in the afternoon desired to ms Campbell said that he fully agreed with o nent and reture the perseoanake | the other side that if the charges again o s Gaé) s lnwyer, | Governor Gage and the San Quentin pri | on officials are false, then the severe: hment should be meted out to those he had published these charges. v P W 5 S aartle tilt between the | "He then said that if the charges be R e~ that 1€ | true, and that the officials of San — and Mopee | Quentin prison had _ been guilty 'ing tone, turned to Boardmar, | f fraud, forgery and theft, and that | & fone, turned to Boardman | Governor’ Gage had benefited by some of ave; & personal matter 1| }.cc transactions, then the men who slap his face ENCOUNTER AVERTED. vs Campbel Preston got be- gry law and a personal nter was averted. s lawyer, Moore, went over fa- round when he made his speech eseion of court. Although ha ¥ | mended by ev Attorney C fic i afi :sé facts should be com- ry citizen Iif the State. mpbell argued that an of- tion must be held on the of San Quentin prison and the rges made by The Call. 'he guestion is,” he said, “shall th inquiry be held where the books, record ch ¢ iday last Moore announced that he | and Witnesses can easily be located or woaid ek s speech In fifteen minutes | shall this Investigation take place 500 he t two hours yesterday to wind miles away from the place where the crimes were committed, as charged? ~ - s - Governor Gage then occupied the atten- 3 stod ha Gage hs i ;e e e ‘Baxe had | tion of Attorney Campbell. In tomce of 4 that he was entitled to a | Witheping scorn the advocate asked why ot B Govérnor Gage had selected a forum 500 ibition as against Police Eted 4 ; O rod it Dolice | pafles away from. San Quentin prison fo B s S g to vindicate his character, when D e T T Governor had claimed that the against him were totally falge. e oy 8 M RS ney Campbell said that if he had me fine of arkameent to.s calie | DEtn clary such offenses as had . 'g to kmow If the at. | been laid e he would select as claccc A a place « -ation one where the full- revent another citisay | €5t Publicity could be secured. information in criminal GOES OVER PROCEEDINGS. inst the person who had Moore evaded (he | Campbell then took up the grounds on Gage had the | which Gage his character and couid | prohibition. " out of that right. ings that led to the application for a writ went over the charge of | of habeas corpus before Judge Carroll | re had been collusion, and | Ccok. and how counsel for the Governor | e could not be a doubla | had argued the question of jurisdiction in in Los Angeles County | 4hat court and also in the Police Court of | city. He asserted that | Judge Fritz. 2 i be placed in jeopardy a | ** the other side could not have proceeded to draw a | their y ngle that would resuit if | their tents and fled from the Police and Leake were exam-ygourt, though they had been asked by other court than the one se- | Ufe Judge to remain and assist him to de- Governor Gage, 50 miles away | termine the subject of jurisdiction.” evidence and witnesses | Campbell said that the allegations made | by Gage in his petition for the writ of point asked At- | prohibition did not warrant its issuance ther ‘ T ould cite any au. | and it belng made permanent, and that rities to show thit two examinations | all the points on which Gage reiled shoid might be at the same time for the be determined by Judge FTitz in hearing cvidence in the libel suit. Campbell then quoted the law by which any citizen has the right to file an in- rmation in_criminal proceedings and w a_committing magistrate must then car the evidence in the case, when the case is triable in this county. offense. Attorney Campbell replied uld do so when he made his ar ting a few deci- concluded his argument and for ! MPBELL REPLIES. CA 1 Attorney argued that the law provided in a | pr Lic reply a of criminal libel that the ca: could | w should not card either where the paper was pub- > of justice meunz | lished or where the person alleged to be for. | libeled resided. It was for the people who | a | prosecute to say at which point the evi- forcsful | Gence should be heard, and not for any his respecis in | one Derson to determine, atire 1o Attorney Moore, and the | Campbell said that it made no differ- s lawyer winced under the fire 1 ence if in the present proceedings if Gage casn or any other person had filed a suit in had asked for the writ of | He went over the proceed-‘, said Campbell, “they folded | % j the owner and the manager of that pa- per, and the magistrate who had _issued | the” warrant could not be sctopped from hearing the evidence in the case. Campbell then argued that the writ of prohibition was an extraordinary remedy and could be only used where there was an exc of " jurisdiction. He then | quoted many Supreme Court decisions to | show that Gage was not entitled to the | court in the State 'had decided that only on the question of jurisdiction could the writ be made permanent. HAS RIGHT TO HEAR CASE. Attorney Campbell then asked if a writ of prohibition would be made permanent because a lower court had erroneously determined questions that it had the | power to determine. Judge Fritz had the | right to hear the evidence and he had so | decided. 1f he was wrong, Gage was not entitled to stop the proceedings by a writ of prohibition. He had his remedy | by taking an appeal from the decision of the court after it had heard the evidence. Attorney Campbell then said that the contention of the other side as to two prosecutions in different counties being against the well-known principle that a man ‘could not be placed in jeopardy a second time for the same offense, was made for the purpose of throwing saud in the eyes of the court. Attorney Campbell triumphantly ex- claimed that despite the frantic efforts of Gage and his attorneys he could not kéep away from an investigation and could not " stop a competent court of jurisdic- tion from knocking at the doors of San Quentin prison and finding out iIf fraud, forgery and theft had been committed | there by officlals and who had benented | by the crimes. Regarding the charges made by Gage that the Boardman suit was a collusive one, Attorney Campbell said that for the sake of argument he was willing to ad- mit anything that the other side had charged regarding Boardman. “I will admit,” said Campbell, “for the her a friend or an enemy of Governor Gage; I will admit that he is either a friend or an enemy of Messrs. Spreckels and Leake; It cuts no figure what mo- | ¥* %k important to know it. vore frequently interrupted Campbell | another county. The Call was published End tried to explain certain statements, | in San Francisco; a citizen had in thel aud finally Campbell retorted by saying: | exercise of his rights filed a sult agains¢ purposes of this case, that Boardman s | writ of prohibition, and that the highest | The man or that public journal who has the coura, fact of the derelictions of duty of their chosen officers in that regard does not deserve the contempt of his fellow-men, does not deserve that he should be held up to public ridicule, but he deserves the praise and assistance of cvexy good citizen in this State. That is the question which has got to be determined by “some: tribunal in this State, ge has becn made against those ligh in authority, or whether ihey have been derelict in their duly, and whether. or not they' themselves should be ished for a violation of the law.—Extracts from speech of Attorney J. C. Campbell. whether or nay a vile and malicious char tive actuated him in filing the suit. CITIZEN OF THE STATE. “But I will say this: That he is a citl- zen of this State, and he does not be- lieve that the Governor has taken the proper proceedings to clear his reputation by going down to San Pedro, five hun- dred miles away.” Ir closing, Attorney Campbell said that 1o man had the right to seek means to stop a criminal proceeding because he had not been consulted and that if such a course was to be allowed the laws of the land would be made a laughing stock of. Attorney Boardman then desired to ad- dress the court and had barely said a few words, when Gage's attornéy rudely interrupted and said that Boardman had no standing in court and should not be heard. Judge Sloss informed Moore that he first desired to hear what Boardman might have to say and told the last nam- ed attorney to proceed, Boardman proceeded to say that the most unjust and scurrilous attacks had been made on him by Moore who sought to enforce ‘gag” law. JUMPS TO HIS FEET. Moore jumped to his feet and shouted that Boardman had no right to address the court and should be made to desist. Judge Sloss stated that as the argu- ments in the case had closed, he did not desire to hear any speeches of a personal nature. B With a leer, Moore turned to Boardman and said, “Oh, If it is of a personal nature, I will slap his face.” A personal encounter was only averted by the intervention of Attorneys Camp- bell and Preston. Attorney ILehrman, who is assoclated with B, Foote, another of the Gage legal outfit, informed the court that despite the writ of prohibition, a subpena had heen served last Saturday from Judge Fritz's court on Francis Foley, the commissary at San Quentin prison, and other papers had been served on Foley during the hear- ing that afternoon. Attorney Campbell informed the court that neither he nor his associate, Preston, knew anything about > subpenas be- ing served and that Judge Fritz was out T is the people of the State of California who are prosecuting this case—it is not any one man ! nor any particular class or set of men. If it be a fact that men . confined. in the penitentiary for forgery are kept in practice by the officers, in whose custody they are, for the purpose of cover- ing up things that happened in this penitentiary; if men who are there. for burglary and lar- ceny have, by the wery officers of the iaw, been taught to assist them-in felonious acts, it is * ge to lay before the people of the State the of town and certainly knew nothing of the proceeding. It was ‘explained that probably an at- | tache of Judge Fritz's court had taken the opportunity of serving Foley with the papers_which had been signed before Judge Fritz was served with the writ of prohibition. Judge Sloss replied that he thought such was the case and that no attempt Had been willfully made to ignore the writ. Lehrman was allowed to file the papers, but. his .attempt to stir up trouble for Judge Fritz or the attaches of the police court fell flat. A decision by Judge Sloss is expected next week. DOES NOT SPARE .GOVERNOR GAGE Attorney Campbell Makes Court Ring With Eloquence. TTORNEY J. C. CAMPBELL de- livered a most brilllant argument vesterday ‘before Superior Judge Sloss in opposing the application of Governor Gage that a writ of prohibition be made permanent for the purpose of preventing Police Judge Fritz from hearing evidence in the criminal suit filed by Attorney L. P. Boardman against John D. Spreckels and W. S. Leake, wherein it is alleged that the owner and manager of The Call libeled the chief executive of California. Attorney A. A. Moore, who represents Goverror Gage, finished his argument previous to Attorney Campbell addressing Judge Sloss, The speech of Attorney Campbell on behalf of the respondent, Judge Fritz, is as follows: 1t your Honor please, it would be a remark- able thing if 1 were to say that I was not pun- S - surprised in some way at the argument which was made by my learned brother, which was eloquent in a_manner; but I must say that the surprise comes to me in, the inconsistencies who represents.the people here. 2 It may not be amiss to revert to- certain matters that were suggested by counsel, whether in the heat of argument, or whether thought out clearly. and definitely as he opened the argument. He adverted with a great deal bt feeling and a’ great deal of energy.to what he was pleased to term the commercialism of our profession, and seemed to infer that our Profession was. being in.a manner degraded by the commercialism to which we had attained. Our protession is just what we malke it. If we degrade it then it is degraded; if we are honest and upright and present the:facts as we eee “them - honestly according to our own convictions and ennoble our profession, then it is just as ennobling as any other: profession. — ! ! | | ! | | i | | Asks ‘Why Remoté Tribunal Alone Suits Executive Assault on Attor- ney Boardman it e the penitentiary of this State in obedisnce to & broken and outraged law for forgery are kept in practice' by the officers in whose custody and control they are placed for the purpose of covering up things that happened In this peni- tentiary; if it be a fact that men who have ap- propriated their neighbor's property and are there for burglary and larceny and things of that kind, have, by the very officers of the law into whose care and custody they have been | committed, been taught to assist them in felo~ nious matters of that kind, it is important to know it. It is a part of the duty of the War- den of the penitentiary not only to restrain but to reform a criminal. Where Is the refor- mation”if these things be true which are as- serted to be true by the defendants in this case? The man who should reform them, if it be a fact, turning their Instincts and their criminal practices to his own gain—if that be true, then, sir, instead of outrageous ecrime Eaving been committed, that man or that pub- lig journal who has the courage to lay before | the ‘people of the State the fact of the dere- | of the various'views taken by the gentleman | | | | | My view of ‘the commercialism of our pro- | fession ‘does” not. require of. me at this time before your Honor in arguing a cold naked j Propesition . of law, ‘as to whether or nay an inferior tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine a- certain matter, that I should vil- ify any ‘citizen of the State or that I should praise any other one inordinately. . I say that my profession does not require that I should call any man.an ass: it does not require, in an argument, that I should call any man dis- honest, that I should say anything which re- flects upon the character or the intégrity of any citizen, because, as.I view this case, it makes no- particular difference how a court gets Jurisdiction, or how the facts which create Jurisdiction are called to the attention of the court if, as ‘a matter of fact, the court has Jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the person. It 1s not pecessary that we -should then deal in any pdrticular encomfums of one or abuse of the other. I apprehend from what 1 know ‘of this tribunal that it affects not your Honor. ' I apprehend that there must be some reasons for it, and I am not going even to call into question the reason why my friend saw fit to spend.at least one hour by the clock in abusing a person whom he called a super- Viceable ass or an Intervening idiot. This case, for that reason, has taken & wide range in the argument, wider than we beiieve there is | any necessity for and. wider than the court will require in passing upon the sole question which is before it, no matter-in which way it goes—by that I'mean the main question in relation 'to the juriediction of the court, be- cause {f, under the law, this' inferfor tribunal has power to hear and determine this ques- tion it has power to hear and determine it erroneously: it it has the power given it by the constitution and the laws_of this State to determine the.facts which- are before It as they appear by this petition—and it is upon this petition alone which we speak—then it makes no difference,.as we say, as to whether or nay | the man was.an enemy of the person ‘who is alleged to-be slandered or libeled or whether he is a friend of the man who sought.to libel him, because it is the people of the State of California who are prosecuting this case: it is not any one man nor any particular class or_set of men. ¥ But as counsel has seen fit to advert to that, it may not be amiss, In view of What is stated and what appears in this petition, because they have alleged in thelr petition as a part of it | the complaint which was made by his Honor Henry ‘Gage before the tribunal in one of the adjacent counties of this State. 1 agree with counsel that if-these things are false a serious, grave and awful crime has been committed. 1 agree that if this has been a false charge against these people in authority then these defendants in the case below should e prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law | and should be.given the full penalty of the law. But there is another side of that case, and as I take it. if your Honor please, the balance is equal. While as a matter of fact there is uo presumption that either —of the rsons charged was gullty of crime. neither is there any presumption that the defendants charged by Henry T. Gage in Wilmington Township. in Los Angeles County, are guilty of any erfme. So there is no presumption one way or the other. But If your Honor please, if these mat- ters be true, If it be a fact, as appears m this complaint, that people Who are mm‘i" ia | { provide for a writ of mandamus and lictions of duty of their chosen officers in that regard does not deserve that he should receive the contempt of his fellowmen, does not de- serve that he should be held up to public ridi- cule, but he deserves the praise and the as- sistance of every good citizen in this State. That is the question which has got to be de- termined by some tribunal in this State, whether or nay a vile and malicious charge has been made agalanst those who are high in au- thority or whether they have been derelict in their §luty and whether or not they themselves should be punished for a violation of the law. PRISON AFFAIRS MUST.BE PROBED Governor Is Asked Why He Seeks a Remote Place for Vindication. Where shall this be done?’ Shail {t be done, if the court has jurisdiction, in the immediate vicinity of where it is alleged that theése un- lawful transactions tock place? Shall it be done where the books and the papers, the rec- ords and the documents are accessible? Or shall it be done five hundred miles away, where every document, every paper, every witness in going to and coming from that court shall travel at least one thousand miles? If these charges be false, why is it that a forum is se- lected in the remote edge of the State? If it were a_charge against my honor and integrity I would want the vindication upon the tops of the_mountains; I would want the vindication by the side of the rills; I would want the vin- { dication on the top of every house in every city within the boundaries of the State. not select a little village, pleasant, and a gentleman, although be honest and intelligent—because I say noth- ing_against either his intelligence or his in- tegrity; 1 shall charge neither; but the fagt remains that, taking this petition itself, read- ing the allegations where it is alleged these things took place, in San Quenttin prison, with- in an hour’s travel from the police court of the city and county of San Francisco, where it is sought by a citizen to have them invest it, not at the fathest end of the State. - There' was another thing which my friend Moore said, in a jocular way 1 have no doubt, |and I so accept it, when he consigned us © the bottomless pit and sald that we would get into a warmer climate than that of San Pedro. I was going to remark that, never having becu in San Pedro in warm weather, but having had a great Geal of experience in the San Jua- quin Valley, where I apprehend it is as warm as It can possibly get in San Pedro, if it get any warmer down there, and if our good deeds are blotted out and ouf bad ones all remain in the book of time, if my assoolate and my- self, when the last great day comes, find our- selves among the “wolves™ we will have plenty of company, and we will not be at all lone- some. Mr. Moore—I will be sorry to part with you myself. Mr. Campbell—I belfeve we will see you there dodging around to keep from shoveillig brimstone, if our old faith is to be depended om. Mr. Modre—Maybe; maybe. Mr. Campbell—But, however, that was ail Jocular. and if my friend doesn’t make any but- ter attempt at getting me out of the jurisdic- tion of his Satanic majesty by argument aud autnorities than he has made against the ju- ;Lsdlcflon of Judge Fritz in this court I will Mr. Moore—Damned. Mr. Campbell—Damned to all eternity. Mr. Moore—Yeu will. Mr. Campbell—Maybe. But “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.™ If your Honor please, there is another thing which 1 did not exactly underStand. in view of all the facts, when my brother Moore said that his esteemed friend Colonel Preston wis heard i the habeas corpus case advocating one state of facts, and was here heard advocating another. I take the entire resonsibflity for all that was sald in the habeas corous case because my friend Preston did not opem his mouth. I deny utterly that there is a dis- tinction between the statutory provisions which t which provides for a-writ of prohibition. and Continued on Page Fours