The San Francisco call., 1907-01-16

and the subpoena and caused them to be
served upon Mr.. Cahen and his attor-
neys and proceeded to take the depo-
sition.
81 went on and i filed an answer.
After obtaining all the time that i
could. an answer was filed and after
some time the attorneys on the other
side moved TO strike out portions of
that answer and demurred 10 other
portions of the answer, and / advised
Mr.. Heynemann of that fact. Those
motions, i'm lire with the policy deter
mined upon, were likewise delayed
from time to time. I appeared in court
a Number of times for the purpose of
getting those delays, and finally the
matter was argued before Judge Trout
and ID consumed. 10 my recollection,
about two days in the argument.
II prepared a brief in the case, from
fifty to one hundred pages long. and
the matter was subHitted to Judge
Trout for consideration. Judge Trout
held the matter over for about three
or four weeks and he finally decided
il and he ruled in favor of the other
side upon part of my motion, but left
enough in the answer to make de-
fense.
After that date the case went to the
Jury calendar and / devoted altogether
in time from July, 1903, until some
tAAAAC ~ @SOo ~ ~--- -
USES EVERY sTRATAGEM
The testimony of other lawyers in
the case not only bore out that of Ach,
but added some Illuminating features
Ach cajoled the attorneys on the other
side by every means in his power into
granting him delays He pleaded sick
ness; promised to resume the case at a
certain date and then would be called
nm adIU of Again.
the day set for the resumption of the
hearing he would send fearful note
begging for more time. Often he
pleaded that he had been forced to sit
up all night and was unable. to work
the following day. 1t was not doubted
that -Ach had sat up all night, but it
was not always at his law table,
Among local attorneys the opinion is
general that time consuming delays
should be positively denied IN court 1t
is pointed out that delay does not nee
essarily take the form of an adjourn
ment OF the case. but while apparently
moving forward in court a case can
yet stand still.
DELAY IN GRAFT CASES
In Pardee's message allusion was
made to the San Francisco graft prose-
cutions as follows:
The San Francisco officials who have
beenn indicted for crimes against the
public good are either inocent or
guilty; and in the interests of public
morality that innocence or guilt should
be quickly established, and justice,
either in vindication or severe punish
ment should be swiftly and surely
meted out to the accused Yet we see
the courts blocked and day after day.
week after week, spent in the inter-
position of dilatory motion upon dila-
tory motion, followed by time-consum-
ing argument after argument, until it
would seem almost as If there was
some truth in the public suspicion that
the courts are sieves whose meshes
are large enough to let through those
with sufficient MONEY and influence
Again did the finger of the State ex-1
ecutive point to Henry Ach. If small
damage suit could be protracted over
three years it is argued that big trial
involving the boss and Mayor OF city
could be extended over fifty years. In
the meantime the statute of limitations
may run twenty times over again in
against Ruef and Schmitz.
Sixty-one days have already elapsed
since the first Indictment was returned
by the Grand Jury. In those sixty-on
days the defense has proved nothing
save it's own desire to fight the issue
as Ach fought the Cahen damage suit
PARDEE's SUGGESTIONS
In his desire to put an end to such
legal jugglery, Pardee addressed the
Legislature as follows:
1t is a serious matter, one that ap-
peals to us ALL that justice may be
thus laughed at, the courts mocked
and the protection of our laws against
criminals and criminal acts thus de-
life. liberty or property. II those ac-