The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-03-08
Yet Alleged Political CRATER of
San Francisco Continues
in Hiding.
COURT BLOCKS MOVES
FOR SECURING DELAY
Attorneys for Accused Say
They VIII Not Produce Their
Client for Trial.

SAN FRANCISCO. March 7.--Mayor
Eugene E. Schmitz appeared before Su-
perior Judge Dunno today and pleaded
not guilty TO four indictments charging
counsel next Monday was designated as
the time when date for his trial Will
be set. Success was with the prosecution
al almost every turn in today's develop
ments In the Ruef e8torton case, The
most notable instance was in the District
court Of appeals. where Justices Cooper,
Hall and Kerrigan denied Ruef's apph-
cation for writ OF prohibition to re-
strain Judge Dunno from any further
proceedings against Ruef in the Superior
court. pending the determination Of the
States Supreme Court for a permanent
writ Of error, the effect of which, II
granted. would he to summarily postpone
the entire prosecution.
While the attorneys for Ruef-who Is
still In hiding: supposedly In or near San
Francisco--were hopefully awaiting the
decision of the appeal court. Judge Dunno
proceeded with the TWO cases OF perjury
and conspiracy against Ruef and Chief
OF Police Oman. He was ohdurate TO the
endeavors OF Attorney Shortrdge TO win
delay for Ruef, Motions to strike the
case from the files and 10 set aside the
indictments were denied, and TO escape
the imminent necessity OF pleading at
once. Ruef's counsel entered a demurrer
which had been previously prepared 10
meet this emergency should II arise. Ar
guments on this were set for tomorrow
morning.
Unable to Find Ruef.
Coroner Walsh, delegated In Sheriff
O'Nejlrs stead TO apprehend Ruef aft er
the court had declared the Sheriff in
competent reported his failure and was
given until tomorrow morning 10 make
good, Failing then, Judge Dunno Will
probably appoint an ellsor TO bring the
fugitive Into court,
shortly before o'clock this evening
counsel for Ruef made application 10 the
fn Ia ill.,.
same writ Of prohibition refused earlier
I'm the day by the District Court of APP
peals. PendiDg the determination of this
move, II is the purpose OF Judge Dunno
to go right ahead with the case; and 1t
Is the intention of counsel for tho de-
Tense not 10 produce Ruef In Judge
Dunne's court while the matter thus
stands. Samuel NJ. Shortridge said to-
night:
I'VE shall not produce our client. be-
cause we recognize no legal requirement
so TO do, We look upon all Of the pres
ent proceedings before Judge Dunno as
null and void and of no ultimate effect
diction in the case. We claim that when
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of APP
pcals. as the representative here Of the
United States Supreme court allowed the
iiling OF our appeal TO the highest court
in the land. that act became Of itself
complete bar to the trial r Ruef I'm a
appeal Hence Rucf Is not a fugitive
from Justice. and is under no legal obli,
CATION to present himself for trial before
Judge Dune
The District Court OF Appeals handed
down no written appeal In refusing Ruefs
appicat tion for writ OF prohibition, but
after The denial had hecn entered Jus
,ices Cooper. Hall and Kcrrlgan made
the following statement to the Asso-
ciatcd Press:
No Federal Questions.
I'VE have denied the application be-
cause the writ of error did not lie In
Judge Hebbard's court and because there
was no ground for debate"
Assistant District Attorney Heney, In
tcrpretng this statement said:
"This means that In the opinion OF the
appeal court no Federal question was In
VOWED, that hence the writ OF error on
which appeal has been taken TO the Su-
premo court at Washington should nor
have been granted by Judge Hehbard (of
the Superior courtb, and that. therefore,
the appeal court could not restrain Judge