The San Francisco call., 1907-06-28

.sCHMTz TELLS HORTON
NOT To AUDIT CLAIMS

NO ~ uOOts OEHtsso
Continued from Page L, Column
first of the month had passed. When
/ he begins his legal action the way will
be opened for the final determine tionsof
the mayoralty question by the courts.
Neverth eless, a formal demand for the
auditing Of Schmitz' salary warrant FOR
the full $500 was made on Horton yes
terday by Policeman Peter flaming.
who has been the officer especially ap-
pointed to Sohmitz' office. Fanning's
demand was refused. and he was fur
nished with a copy of Langdon's letter
of protest. A.
| Treasurer Bantel refused yesterdaIto
cash the salary demands of John j.
Boyle, clerk to the mayor; Marcus
Blum, usher and Miss IN. Botcher.
stenographer. because they were signed
by Schmitz only. Acting Mayor Gal
lagher told Tanning that he would also
sign the warrants in order that the
employees would not be deprived of
| their salaries but instead of taking ad-
vantage of this at once Tanning -fe-
tained the demands and will refer the
matter to Schmitz.
become acting presiding judge and that
he could al once correct the minutes.
Heney further argued that the clerk,
discovering that he had not fully tran
scrfbed his rough minutes, had the
power to correct ard amplify them sat
any time. Clerk Tufts. who made The
unfortunate errors lin transcribing the
minutes. was in court with his rough
minutes. and Heney asked the court ito
order the corrections so that the pros
ecution could at once put the amplified
minutes in evidence
A. A. Moore contended that such an
order would be a discourtesy to Judge
Graham.
Judge Lawlor said he had previously
announced that the records must be
made to speak the truth, but that the
corrections should be made by Judge
Graham. He agreed with Heney that
all presumptions must be in favor of
the records. The proceedings before
Judge Graham, the court said, were
conducted by Graham for the entire
court, and not for himself. and that
while any corrections in the records
themselves should be made by Graham,
still he thought that all facts should
be brought out in the cases at bar.
A. A. Moore argued that, however de-
sirable it might be for the court to
have information touching all the facts,
IL was not lawful to get at these par
ticular facts, but the court overruled
the objection
HARRISON'S TESTIMONY
Harrison told the court that Judge
Graham had discharged the Brennan
grand jury on October Is.
A. A. Moore strenuously objected to
the memory of partisan being received
as evidence.
Heney in reply to Moore concluded by
saying:
Il don't care what you think You
are no Judge"
Il judge that you are a good deal of
rascal" snarled Moore.
You're liar" shouted Heney, his
face flushed with rage.
'Ill have no more of this gentle
men," Judge Lawlor stern1y interjected
as the excited auditors in the rear of
the big room rustled to their feet in
evident anticipation of imminent phys
ical hostiIities. i
Harrison was permitted to tell in
detail how Judge Graham received two
indictments from the Brennan grand
jury, thanked it for its services and
discharged it on October Is, 1906. He
was also. permitted to testify that
Judge Graham ordered the II disputed
names returned to the grand jury box. |
Foreman Oliver of the grand jury
was again brought into court and with
him the two original true bills drawn |
against Glass and naming Supervisors
Furey and Sanderson as bribers. The
papers were offered in evidence and |
promptly received
Coogan made a vigorous attempt to |
defeat the prosecutors attempt to !
snow that the Oliver grand jury was |
never sworn in. The several rulings |
of the court were favorable to- the
prosecution and oliver was permitted
to tell in detail how he was sworn by |
Judge Graham to perform his duty as |
foreman of the new grand jury and |
Immediately thereafter administered |
the oath to the other Is grand jurors |
On cross examination Delmas expert /
enced marked difficulty in getting |
Oliver to say what the defense wanted |
him to say. He did elicit from the |
foreman of the grand jury that the in
vestigation which resulted in the in /
dictment of Glass on March 81 was
begun on March Is and finished before /
the IL indictments were voted He also
elected the admitted fact that when
the boodling supervisors unbosomed |
themselves before the grand jury their
confessions were not confined to the 1
bribes given by Glass.
OLIVER Is POSITIVE
oliver was positive in his assertion
that II of the men who voted on the
return of the substituted true bill |
naming Sanderson as the recipient of
Glass bribe, voted for the original
indictment on the same specific charge. !
In many different guises Delmas uues-
toned Oliver about testimony touch
Ing the Glass case received between
March 21 and May "a. Oliver invaria-
bly, answered that while some witness
may have referred to the telephone
bribery, the investigation and deliber-
ations in that case were absolutely
concluded on March 81.
The court allowed Deputy Clerk
Walter Trefts to introduce his rough
minutes to show all the proceedings in
Judge Grahams court on October Is, II
1906. This testimony was received as I
was divers to enable the court to get
at the facts in the case and not for the
purpose of simplifying or correcting
the engrossed minutes of Judge Gra- I
hams court. The rough minutes L
showed that Judge Graham had dis L
the Brennan grand jury. The
witness explained that his failure fully |.
to transcribe his rough minutes was
wholly due to inadvertence.