The San Francisco call., 1905-02-19

to stand for arraignment. After the
indictment had been read Attorney
Collins. addressing the court, said:
1t ii please the court, am here
as the representative OF Senator
French. We ask for time. 1t is prob
able that we will ask that this indict-
ment be set aside, this depending upon
Investigations now under way. We
would like to have the matter go over
till next Saturday"
District Attorney Seymour objected.
saying that though he did not wish
any action taken that would prevent
the defendants taking advantage of
all their rights, he was anxious that
all the cases be brought TO issue about
the same time.
THE matter of time said Judge
Hart. lis one counsel have the right
to determine. Will you have time to
prepare your plans. Mr.. Collins, by
Thursday, the 23d inst. ?"
Collins said he was agreeable to that
date and the case against French was
continued until that time, to be called
at 10 a. m.
Emmons was then called to the bar.
After the indictment had been read,
Judge Hart said:
Does the indictment contain your
true name?"
My true name is E. ]. Emmons,
voice. Emmons apparently greatly
suffered the humiliation of his posi-
tion.
PRESENTS HIS POINTS.
A number of criminals that sat rat
Ting their chains in the prisoners dock
were next arraigned. The docket
cleared, Morehouse was called upon to
present his argument in support of the
demurrers he had interposed on behalf
Of Emmons, Wright and Bunkers In
part he said:
I'VE are not proceeding here upon
the common law definition of bribery,
but upon the statutory definition.
which makes the bribery of legis-
lator possible only in the matter of a
question actually pending before the
Legislature. Where the constitution
has defined a public offense the Legis-
lature cannot make a statute that will
exceed or detract from the effect of
the constitutional provision The
character of the offense surrounding
one Grange who is interested in this
case is clearly defined, but not SO in
the statute under which the prosecu-
tion is proceeding here against the ac-
cused Senators.
The constitution clearly sets forth
what shall constitute bribery upon the
part of a Senator. 1t strictly says that
to be subject of bribery a question
must be one pending before the Legis-
lature, not before the Senate or the
Assembly or any committee thereof,
but matter pending before the Legis-
lature as q whole upon which it is
competent tc act. This indictment sets
forth nothing 20 show that the accused
here accepted a bribe to influence their
official action or vote upon any matter
pending before the Legislature and no
other question could be the subject of
bribery"
IF a matter is before the Legisla-
ture Of which it is at least competent
to take jurisdiction" asked Judge
Hart land this matter is referred to a
properly constituted committee and an
effort is made to influence this com
nittee befbre it has returned it's report
is it your contention that such would
not be q matter pending before the
Legislature?"
mo, it is not" answered Morehouse.
Undoubtedly in case where legis-
lative accepted a reward as a member
OF q committee to influence his action
in the matter of a question that had
been regularly and properly submitted
by either house to the committee of
which the accused was member he
would be guilty of bribery
CITES DECISIONS.
Referring to the allegation in the
indictment that the Senators had been
bribed to vote in a particular man
ner," Morehouse asked, What does
this particular manner mean? How
can there be a particular side of the
question when there is no question
The entire Legislature had no power.