The San Francisco call., 1906-11-08
Ruef Boldly Declares New Amendment
Makes Him District Attorney
Injunction Case Is
Submitted to
Court.


The Ruef crew felt the lash of
Hiram Johnsons whipping words in
Judge Seawell's court Yesterday and
their outlawry was held up to full
measure of contumely To layine hare
the plot to make mockery of law and
justice was added the derision de-
served for building the house of trick
cards for the deception of the Judge.
Thanks to more than one court. said
johnson, the attempt to wreck the ma
chinery of justice in San Francisco had
been defeated. If for no other reason.
he was more than assured that Judge
Seawell would sustain Lansdon in Of
flee because principles involving the
welfare of society and the good order
of government were at stake
The attorney occupied the entire fore
noon in closing the argument in the
injunction case. He urged that the
Supreme Court decision of Kahn VS..
Sutro, together with many other cases
he cited, made 1t conclusive that the
District Attorney is a county officer.
With this premise established Acting
Mayor Gallagher was without author
fty he contended. in suspending Lang
don and appointing Ruef, and the
Supervisors as well were shorn of the
power of removal.
But even If the courts had not de-
cided the point, argued Johnson it
WOuld De the duty OF a court of equity
to intervene In the present instance for
reasons of public policy. Briefly the
attorney reviewed the circumstances of
how Ruef conspired with Acting Mayor
Gallagher to. oust Langdon at a time
when the law was to be set in opera
tion against them. The crowning piece
of impudence was when Ruef had him
self appointed to the office that he
might prevent the prosecution of him
self for crimes that had been charged
against him.
ANARCHY WOULD RESULT.
If court of equity could not stop
such subversion of the operation of
the law, continued Johnson, then the
welfare of the government would be
threatened Could court of equity
not afford protection in such situ-
alton the way was open for chaos and
anarchy. There could be no checking
of criminal careering of those in power
or Office if the bench could not call
halt.
The conflict of opposing counsel in
their arguments to the court was fully
exploited from both the disastrous and
ludicrous sides. Henry Ach's specious
plea that Ruef was asserting no title
to the Office of District Attorney and
that Langdon's title was fully recog-
nized was shattered by answers that
Ruef, Gallagher and the defendant
Supervisors had filed in the Injunction
suit for therein they set forth that
Langdon had been lawfully removed
and Ruef appointed to take his place.
Ach had seen that his case was run
ming to desperate straits and had stul-
titled the defense in an endeayor to
convince the court that there was no
need for an injunction, inasmuch as
Ruef was making no claim to the Of
fee. Attorney Shortridge, associate of
Ach, had been consistent with the
pIeadings and the facts in his argu-
ment, and had placed his colleague in
an unhappy light before the court.
Johnson closed his address with an
appeal that all the people were now
looking to Judge Seawell to uphold the
respect of the law and to insure the
proper administration of justice.
GIVE to a stricken people" he plead
ed, "a restraining hand on those who
would subvert justice. Let decent gov
ernment prevail in this community. Let
lawful officers of the law be permitted
TO do their duty without hindrance or
interference from any one man or set
of men"
INyOKES THE AMENDMENT.
Ach informed the court that it was
common report that Senate Constitu-
tional Amendment No. had been pass
ed at the election, and that it swept
away any QueSLl as TO the authority
of Acting Mayor Gallagher and the
Supervisors to remove Langdon. Ac-
cording to the measure all officers of
the municipality are subject to dis
missal under the provisions of the char
ter. Judge Seawell pointed out that he
could take no cognizance of the adop-
ton of the amendment until 1t had
formally been made the law.
Attorney Johnson suggested that the
returns from Alpine County be awaited
before counsel attempted to apprise the
court of the passage of the amendment.
Ach then inquired about the con-
tempt proceedings that had been in
stituted against Langdon for refus-
ing to answer questions when the at
tempt was made to take his deposition.
Judge Seawell said that the matter had
not been called before the injunction
hearing was begun, and had therefore
lapsed Ach insisted that the matter
was called and put over, but Johnson
strenuously disputed this. Judge Sea-
well announced that he would inves-
tigate the record and ascertain if Achs
contention was correct.
The decision of Judge Seawell in the
fniuction case cannot be expected for
few days, because of the large num-
Der of citations he has to look up and
he will probably take some time to
weigh the important issues involved.
-----S------