The San Francisco call., 1905-01-31
NO RIGHT TO INTERFERE

Ach said the police or the Grand Jury
had no more right to interfere with his
clients cigar stand than they would
have TO prevent a doctor or dentist who
sought such trade from establishing an
office there or to prevent their patients
from entering.
Concentrating his attention upon the
grand jurors. Ach declaimed: They are
not the monitors of the citizens OF San
Francisco. The Grand Jury was not
impaneled to find out if an immoral re-
sort was kept in one place or another,
and If 1t were 1t would be bound by the
law. When the jurors are not in ses-
sion at their meeting place to look after
matters in their province they are
merely common citizens. If one of them
dared enter my home or place of busi-
ness, as they have in this case, he
would suffer the consequences person
ally to the utmost. The same applies
to the District Attorney; he is a public
servant employed to represent the peo-
pie in certain places, and no person,
the District Attorney, the grand jurors,
magistrate or policeman, has the power
to enter the premises of any OWNER
against the owners protest without
process of law"
Ach argued the question of illegal ar
rests-the mere telling of man to stop
or move on" as applied to the acts
in front of the cigar store. Judge Heb
bard interrupted this discussion, and
said that the point to be decided was
whether or not the police had authority
to enter any premises without a war
rant.
Byington declared that there was
no authority in equity jurisdiction to
prevent a police officer from making an
arrest, even though the arrest were IL
legal Judge Hebbard replied that he
and other Judges had decided that an
injunction would lie in such cases
where property rights were involved
and he did not propose to permit any
argument on the point. The District
Attorney, however, insisted that he had
had the right to argue in the Supreme
Court that the courts decision upon
point in a murder case had been i'll
advised and he thought he had the
same right to make a like showing in
the Superior Court. 1T seems to me-"
he said. that the people cannot be de-
barred in any case from citing their
authorities We should be permitted
to make an argument to prove that
you have been in error
SUPPOSE HE HAD KILLED"
Ach resumed. He referred to- the ar
rogant and ofttimes brutal breaches of
the law made by those employed to
keep the peace, and in citing the case
of his other client, Edward Moran. q
male lodger at 620 Jackson street. into
whose rooms the police effected an en-
trance with sledge hammers" he said: :
Suppose he had killed Mr.. Byington,
or Mr. Andrews. or the Chief of Po-
lice, who entered his apartments in
this manner without any warrant for
his arrest and no demand for admit
! tance in the name of the law. Is there
a Magistrate in the community who
would have held him for the homicide
If we cant get relief from this way of
doing things by the police there is GO
! ing to be an insurrection in this city. "
! I'VE are ready to meet it." quoth
T, Byington.
| "Oh, you are pandering to the news
| papers," said Ach disdainfully
mo, I'm pandering to the moral ele-
ment of this city" replied the District
! Attorney without heat.
! Ach became more contemptuous
What dictionary of the law has en-
| larged your duties to those of a re-
! former? You remind me of one Hut
! ton and the adage that He who lives
| in glass houses should never throw
/ stones.'" Then the taunt and rejoinder
/ about the damage suit came out and
! Ach proceeded to another lambastine
! of the Grand Jury, in which he re-
/ ferred to John Doe" Andrews and
/ Richard Roe" Bowes. He thought
/ that he would have as much right to
stop a real estate agent from collecting
| rents on houses of ill-fame as the
/ grand jurors lad to stop the custom of
his cigar dealer. If he were Chief of
!, Police he would have no more regard
for the orders of Byington and An
drews than he would for those of
Henry Ach.