The San Francisco call., 1905-02-17
BOODLING SENATORS HOPE TO ESCAPE PUNISHMENT
BY PLEADING DEFECT In THEIR MDICTMENTS|
CLAIM DOCUMENTS ARE YALUELESS
AS AIDS TO PROSECUTION.
SURPRISE FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Special Dispatch to The Call.

SACRAMENTO, Feb. 16.-Buoyed
up. If not exhilarated. by newly discov-
cred facts and confident legal assur-
ance that they are safe from the law
and the penalty for its breach, Sena-
tors Emmons, Bunkers. French and
Wright were at their desks this MORN
ing. They have been assured that the
indictment against them will crumble
with the first assault, and District At
torney Seymour, anxious over the turn
affairs have taken, is raking the musty
volumes of the State law library in
search of precedents he hopes will
maintain the position he has taken.
One thing has developed TO a GER
tsinty and that is that the accused
VIII not plead to the charges against
them before Judge Hart next Satur-
day morning, but that counsel for the
defense, headed by ex-senator H. Y.
Morehouse of San Jose, who is now
busily engaged digging into the law OF
the case, viii demand that the indict-
ments be set aside and their clients
set free. If Judge Hart refuses to
ouash the indictments, contingency
counsel for the defense maintain is
improbable. an appeal will be taken
Immediately TO the Supreme Court
and the trial delayed for months if
not years, if,.indeed, the case the Dis
triet Attorney of this county has tried
so hard to perfect does not fall alto
gether.
District Attorney Seymour is con-
fronted with q condition that il is ad-
mitted, was not well worked out be-
fore the indictments were filed. The
indictments contain no specific men,
zion of amy matter pending before
the Legislature" that was the direct
issue upon which the bribe was paid.
and counsel for the defense, the pros
ecution asserts. is armed with author
ities maintaining their position that
mere probability of a question aris-
ing that might be the subject of con-
sideration by the Legislature is not
nor cannot be the subject of bribery
and charge of bribery will not lie,
even should the accused admit that
they did accept the money it is
charged they did.
CITE CONSTITUTION.
Now as to the law upon which this
hypothesis is based. Section 35 of aru-
Gle ~ of the State constitution says:
ANY member of the Legislature who
shall be influenced in his vote or ac-
tion upon any matter pending before
the Legislature by any reward or
promise of future reward shall be
deemed guilty Of a felony" etc.
Now as to the facts. 1t is maintained
by the defense that there was no mat
ter pending before the Legislature that
was the subject of the alleged bribery.
II is maintained by the prosecution
that the bribe was taken by the ac-
cused TO influence their action in re-
gard to a proposed investigation of GER
tain building and loan associations that,
Ct is admitted, had not begun when the
bribe was paid.
This, say counsel for the accused, in
no way constitutes a matter pending
before the Legislature, hence the in
dictment must fall. They further main
tain that all bills relating to building
ana loan associations We're before COM
mittees other than that of which the
accused were members, and that in any
event it is not charged that the bribe
was paid to influence the vote of the
accused in relation to these bills, but
only in relation to an investigation
that was not yet under way.
AS to the proof Of the guilt Of the
accused, the defense maintains that all
Of The talk Of several marked bills that
were handed to the accused and sub
sequently passed by them having been
recovered is all rot.
IF the prosecution has recovered any
Of the bills said a friend of the ac-
cused to-day, 'it is only one. Those
bills are all intact with the exception