The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1906-12-07
Continued From Pnge 1, column

Continued From Pnge L, Column
he could not hear and that he saw only
one defendant standing. Attorney Bar
rett objected that it was not necessary
for the defendant to stand, and the
reading went on.
But Ruefs freedom from observance
of customary procedure was short lived.
II was ordered that all the indictments
be read before any arguments would
be heard, and during a discussion at
the end of the second reading Heney
again entered an objection.
Il think it would be better if this
arraignment were conducted in the us
ual manner" he declared, and in the
same way as if these were ordinary de-
PENDANTS and ordinary cases. If the
defendants stand up instead OF their
attorneys so that we can identify them
believe we would get along better
Yes. 1 want it understood" de-
clared Judge Dunno, that there is
nothing different in this case than if
the defendants names were John Smith
and John Brown. l understand that
the clerk asked them to stand and
their attorneys objected. Let both de-
PENDANTS stand up, and continue with
the arrangement"
While the remaining indictments
We're being read Schmitz and Ruef stood
facing each other, the former looking
over the shoulders of his attorneys at
the indictments and lifting his eyes
now and then to an inspection of the
ceiling. Ruef turned his head so as to
face the crowd in the room and smiled
once or twice in recognition of a nod
from some acquaintance among the
spectators or leaned over to speak to
the attorney at his side.
At the conclusion of the reading At
usual request for a transcript of the
evidence taken before the Grand Jury
and were informed by Heney that no
notes had been taken by an official
stenographer. Barrett insisted on
knowing whether any one in the room
had taken notes of the testimony.
You are not entitled to this infor-
nation, but I'll give it to YOU" began
Heney.
I'VE don't want it if we are not en-
titled to It," interrupted Barrett. Il
don't think We'll get much we are not
entitled to-"
You won't" responded Heney, and
then the assurance vas given that not
line of testimony had been taken
down by any one.
Ach Drew and Barrett made several
motions that the case be continued
until Monday to allow them time to
answer the indictments, declaring that
they had not seen any of the papers
until they were read in court. Judge
Dunno objected to a continuance stat
ing that he understood when the cases
were put over from Monday that the
defendants would be ready with an
and that such a promise had been
given.
Il would like to say that my position
is based on the statement made by the
counsel for the defendant Schmftz on
Monday" declared the court. Il will
be reasonable, but I want 1t understood
that if there is any delay in this case
it will not be because the court is not
ready to proceed. 1 am ready to go on
at any time and if any delay is occa-
stoned it will be the fault of the at
torneys."
Il wish to except in behalf OF Eugene
E. Schmitz to the remarks of the
court" answered Barrett. No promise
was given to answer at this time and
/ have a shorthand report of those pro-
ceedings in my pocket in evidence OF
it. We take the action of the court
as misconduct prejudicial to the de-.
PENDANTS and enter an exception there
to-"
Heney took a hand in the argument,
declaring that the promise of the coun-
sci for the defense to answer yester-
day had been correctly stated by the
court and that the defense would be
ignoring its promise in accepting even
the twenty-four hours allowed by stat
ute for an answer to be returned. He
asked that no continuance be granted.
beyond IL o'clock today. Barrett again
began an argument for a continuance
until Monday, but was interrupted by
the court
You have heard Mr.. Heney, your
Honor. VIII you not give me chance
to explain our side" he objected.