The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1907-01-23

dictments submitted without argument.
His ruling denying the motion worked
the end of the first chapter in the pro-
ceedings which has run for more than
two months.
BEFORE HIGHER COURT
Before the Supreme Court the law
yers for Schmitz continued their argu-
ments yesterday to prove that as a
French restaurant was not property
there was no crime in the extortiOn set
forth in the indictment of Schmitz.
Fairall talked, Campbell talked and
Barrett talked, and only the expiration
of the allotted time brought the end.
Then Barrett pleaded for five days
more delay, to add to the siXty-one
already consumed. During this time,
he said, he would have the talk printed,
so that the Justices could read it at
their leisure. His request was granted,
and the eager to- be-tried Mayor is now
certain of at least sixty-siX days of
delay since the proceedings were
opened in Judge DUNES court
FairalI began by saying that he was
on the point of proving that there had
been no injury to any one by the eX-
tortion; second, that there was no in
jury to property; and. third, that even
if there had been injury TO property 1t
was not an unlawful one. Later he
will show another court that Schmitz
and Ruef never conspired to eXtort
anything from anybody. and that will
cover the case completely-but that is
to anticipate.
FAR-FETCHED COMPARISON
During the argument, an interesting
parallel was drawn between the Mayor
and the Women's Christian Temperance
Union. They were set side by side and
shown to have been engaged in the
same lawful occupation of making war
upon the granting OF liquor licenses;
for, If Schmitz had threatened to with
hold the licenses from the French
restaurants unless their proprietors
complied with his wishes and those
of his partner, he was doing only what
the Womens Christian Temperance In
ion did every day, and nobody ever
thought of indicting the ladies for their
eagerness to have liquor licenses re-
voked.
The Mayor, as he sat listening to his
counseFs argument, looked the very
picture Of propriety and sanctimony, in
his London clothing.
ANY one can oppose the granting Of
a liquor license without working an
unlawful injury" Fairan repeated He
gave a long list of authorities, which
the learned Justices jotted down for
further reference. Fairall grew i'm
FASHIONED and it seemed that he was
defending the Woman'S Christian Tenn
perance Union as we'll as the Mayor.
Heney followed in brief statement
of the position of the prosecution. He
dwelt on the point that it was contrary
to the rule of the court to decide point
on habeas corpus which naturally and
speedily would be adjudicated on de-
murrer in the court below.
There is no more danger to personal
liberty" he said, in leaving this ques
ton of law to the Judge of the trial
court than there is danger in leaving a
question of fact to the jury in the same
court. If that court is guilty of error
the defendant has his right of appeal
to this court at the proper time. Mr..
FairaI has said that the indictment was
drawn on certain section and GER
tain subdivision of the Penal Code. How
did he know IT? 1t could have been
only from reading the indictments, and
if on their face they evidently set forth
a crime as defined by the code how can
he argue that there is no public Of
Tense here?"
Campbell then addressed the court.
saying:
stripped of all its verbiage. adjec-