The San Francisco call., 1898-06-04
HARRY THOMAS IS FREE
TO BORROW IS BAD TASTE BUT
 NOT A CRIME.
The Grand Jury Indictment Had No ;. Weight Because the Mayor : Was Not Connected
 With It.
. Oakland Office San Francisco Call,
 sos RroadwaV JIIue &


 sos Broadway, June 8.
 Without any trial Harry Thomas, sec -retary of the Board of Works, was ac- quilted. this afternoon on the charge of subcrnation of perjury preferred against hfm: by: indictments of the Grand Jury. The ..circumstances of the case have been fullyl exploited. It was alleged that some"months ago Harry Thomas sent d 1rote~to* Officer Hammerton by Robert AlcI(enzie, asking the officer to loan or obtain. Sl0l to help him CThomas) out of hole: AlckenZie went before the Grand Jury: and'testified that he did not take the note >to. Hammerton. Subsequently he again went before that body, contradicted his tQuner testimony and said that his first story. was told at the instigation of Harry :Thomas. For this alleged suborna- tlon.of. perjury Thomas was indicted. ... A.da9:~ and half was consumed in ob- taining a Jury, and about the same num- ber@ot. hours in disposing of the case. The pTosecutlon placed Major Wood on the stand di.to"tell of the testimony given be- lore the. Grand Jury, of which he was mGn2ber. :.After a few preliminary ques- uOnS he Was asked the following:
 ''StaJe*In what substance was the testi- gnonI 6fEel by the witness, Robert Mo 3Nenze,. before the Grand Jury then in session, and investigating this charge of bribery which you have mentiOned?"
 . It aQpeared- that the case of bribery un- der investigation by the Grand Jury was that of Mayor Thomas, and not his son. The question was immediately objected to . u9 Attorney NuSbaumer on all kinds Of grounds, but mostly on the ground that Harry Thomas was not under inVeStiga- tio4i al the time, and that consequently any evidence connecting Harry Thomas, C--.cer Hammerton and Robert Mckenzie Was not material to the case under con- aderation, and that therefore no perjury was committed, and consequently there Q n no
 some lengthy argument followed, and finally the court took a recess, and on it's return Judge Ellsworth said;
 Any evidence not connecting Mayor Thomas with the case is certainly not material, and therefore perjury could not be committed under the circumstances winch the prosecution has outlined.
 '1Ihe fact that Harry Thomas borrowed money. from prospective police officers ap- pears to be admitted. The fact that his fathers name was on the notes given as security for these loans is also In evil dence. But there is not any evidence be- Nond that of suspicion or inference t6 show that these notes were given for any other than a-thoroughly legitimate trans action. The prosecution states that 1t cannot produce proof that the s200 ob- tained from Peter Garrity and the S200 obtained from J. w. KesSler were given as bribes, and that the money was not to he returned should these men be appoint ed oh the police force. It is true that it is suspicious circumstance that these loans were made while the men were can didates, and that they were returned af- ter the men had failed to receive posi- tiQns. The inference from this is that the money was not to be handed back should the Board of Works appoint them to the police force, and the further inference may be that Harry Thomas was negotiaI- ing the loans jointly with his father, the Mayor, for the purpose of sharing the proceeds with his father in return fer his fathers vote. These statements, however, are mere differences and sur ba meet Mayor Thomas with any of the transactions of his son. On the face of these notes they are ordinary transac- tiOns in good faith. Consequently the prosecution, having no further evidence than that which it has outlined, cannot connect the transactions of Harry Thomas with his father.
 The case of alleged perjury by Robert Mckenzie therefore falls to the ground. He was not testifying to anything that would have been admitted as material evidence in a charge brought against the Mayor, presuming he were on trial, and therefore, whether Mckenzie swore false ly or not, he was not, according to the statutes, committing perjury.
 Tt may have been and perhaps was ex- ceedingly bad taste on the part of the Mayor and his son to execute notes as guarantees for loans with people who were seeking patronage partly controlled by the Mayor, but this is a matter which the law does not control. Under these circumstances the objection of the de- IenSe VIII pc SuSldlNeu.
 The prosecution stated that they had no more evidence to offer, as in cases of this Kind the tracks of the alleged crimes were always carefully covered up, mak- ing it impossible for the people to pro duce the proper witnesses to prove their case. Deputy District Attorney A. A. Moore Jr. thereupon submitted the case to the court, and the defendants counsel, M C. Chapman and Judge Midsummer, asked the court to instruct the jury to acquit. Judge Ellsworth submitted the case to the jury with few oral instruc- tions that there was no evidence to con- Tict Harry Thomas, and that under the law he must be acquitted.