The San Francisco call., 1906-11-17

81 am of the opinion that the
question of removal from office, does
not apply to the District Attorney"
the court declared. Il am firmly con-
vinced that neither the Mayor nor the
Board of Supervisors has any any pow
er to suspend or remove him from Of
fee. The District Attorney should not
be left to the investigation of the mu-
nicipal authorities, for 1 can conceive
Of conditions under which he might be
compelled to proceed against the very
persons who are conducting the in
quiry. I will grant the Injunction as
prayed for against Mr.. Ruef."
Judge Seawelrs decision was sweep
ing in its construction of the rights
of the District Attorney to hold office
unmolested under the provisions of the
charter, yet the injunction issued
against Ruef was not made to apply
to the Board of Supervisors or the
acting Mayor, the court declaring that
these defendants should understand the
action of the court and stating the be-
lief that no second attempt to oust
Langdon from office would be made un-
der the circumstances in view of the
decision against Ruef as rendered in
this action.
The injunction is based on the tenn
porary restraining order issued by
Judge Seawell against Ruef, Gallagher
and the Board of Supervisors imme-
diately following the attempt to sus-
pend Langdon and place Ruef in a po-
sition to, become his own prosecutor on
the graft charges which are piling up
against him. The injunction is per-
manent, pending a decision as to title
to the Office of the District Attorney,
and is covered by a $1,000 bond fur
ntshed by District Attorney Langdon.
No action to determine title, other than
that necessarily included in the hear
ing Of the injunction proceedings has
been commenced, so that in effect the
Injunction against Ruef is absolute for
all time.
RUFF MAY APPEAL
Two courses, however. are open to
Ruef If he cares to persist In his fran
tic attempt to grab the Office further
than he has already done He may
appeal from the decision rendered yes
terday morning or he may ask the
Attorney General to institute a quo
warranto proceeding to try the title
TO the office. That he may take ad-
vantage Of the former method was sug-
gested by the attitude of his attorney,
Henry Ach, in asking for ten days in
which to prepare a bill of exceptions
TO the rulings and decision of the court
Ach was particular in having all
doubt removed as to whether the in
Junction applied to Gallagher or the
Board of Supervisors and suggested
that under the Injunction the board
still retained the power to remove the
assistants and Police Court prosecutors
in the District Attorneys office and ap-
point others in their places on the
ground that the Police Courts are
purely under control of the municipal
government. He did not state. how
ever, that such a move was seriously
contemplated.
The injunction decision was given by
Judge Seawell yesterday morning fol-
lowing the hearing of the arguments
In connection, with the order to show
cause on the writ Of alternative pro.
hibition asked by District Attorney
Langdon to prevent the Board OF Su-
pervisors from hearing and investi-
eating the charges made against him
by Gallagher at the time of the at
tempted removal from Office No dis
play attended the proceedings in Judge
SeawelPs courtroom. and the curious
crowd of interested listeners which
has been part Of almost every ses-
sion of the court since the graft pro-
ceedings were instituted, was entirely
absent.
COURT REVIEWS CASE
In fact. neither Ruef or his chief
counsel, Samuel Shortridge, was in at
tendance, the sole representative of the
curly boss being Attorney Henry Ach.
Judge Seawells decision on the in
junction matter included a complete
review Of the case and cited many au-
thorities on the legal points involved.
1t was not written, however, and oc-
cupied almost an hour in delivery.
The first question taken UP by Judge
Seawell was in regard to whether or
not Langdon held his position as
de facto officer. The court declared
that the -aayor's order suspending
Langdon was in itself an admission
that he was both an officer de facto
and de jure and that there could be
no doubt as to his status on either Of
these points He said, also, that Lang
dons allegation that Ruef had threat
ened to take the office by force was un-
necessary, for the reason that such
showing cannot be made OF de facto
officer.
In explanation of this he stated that
the trouble which might occur through
the attempt of an adverse o1af,nor& : :