The White Pine news. [volume] (Ely, Nev.) 1906-1910, 1907-08-23
immunity CONTRACTS
REPORTED INVALID
BOODLING SUPERVISORS OF SAN
FRANCISCO ARE LIABLE TO
PUNISHMENT.

immunity contracts issued by
Langdon and Heney to the boodling
supervisors are not worth the paper
they are written on, according to the
opinion of lawyers in San francisco,
who point to a decision rendered by
the supreme court of California.
There is nothing to prevent any
citizen proceeding against any of the
boOdling supervisors, according to
this decision, Oh the evidence easily
secured and backed up by the confess
sion of Abe Ruef
The decision referred to, which has
never been reversed, was made in
April, 1874, and is reported in the
twenty-eighth volume of California
reports, growing out of the Indian
Peter murder case in Humboldt coun-
ty:
The syllabus of the case says:
"a promise of immunity from pun
ishment made by prosecuting attor-
ney or committing magistrate to a
person charged with a crime If he
will become witness against others
charged with the same crime fur
nishes no ground for discharging the
prisoner from prosecution when on
trial.
THE discharge of prisoner that
he may be witness against others
must be made at the trial before the
defendant has gone into his defense
by the court of its own motion or up
on the application of the district at
torney."
The members of the Oliver grand
jury have rebelled against the ''im-
munity contract" system which Dis
trict Attorney Langdon and Francis
J. Heney have made the foundation
of their prosecution of the boodlers
of this city. Individual grand Jurors
are now open in their criticisms of
the methods that permit the punish
ment of a chosen few of the graft
ers and the escape of others who
are equally guilty. AS result of
this expressed sentiment a movement
headed by Jurors Charles Sonntag,
James E. Gordon, Dewey Coffin and
F. G. Sanborn is now striving to ac-
complish the Indictment of all the old
boodling supervisors who have been
granted immunity by Langdon, Hen
ey and Burns.
A meeting planned by the recalci-
trant members of the jury last Mon
day for the purpose of threshing out
this matter and committing the jur-
ors individually to declare their at
titude concerning the boodling super
visors was averted by District Attor-
ney Langdom, who went around in
terviewing the jurors and succeeded
in inducing sufficient number of
them to stay away to prevent quo
rum from assembling.
Sonntag, Gordon, Coffin and San
born are determined to get these eX-
pressions of opinion from the differ
ent jurors, however, and Langdon
and his associates in the graft prose-
cution will have to do some skillful
canoeing to prevent a meeting for
this purpose within the next few
days.
Will Not Shield Guilty.
The dissenters in the inquisitorial
body take the position that their in
tegrity is at stake and that they are
expected to prove to the public OF
San Francisco that they are opposed
to shielding officials guilty of crimes.
Langdon, Heney and Spreckles, on
the contrary, believe these jurors are
actuated by undue zeal in returning
indictments against the boodllng SUI
pervisors. They point out that the
conviction of some of the leading
public service corporation officials in
dicted for bribing Ruef, Schmitz and
the supervisors would be impossible
without the testimony of the latter
and that the interests of the city call
for immunity extended to them.
Langdon, Heney and Spreckels, in
other words, take the position that
the means justify the ends they have
in view and that the supervisors are
mere pawns in a game of far-reach-
ing consequence to San Francisco.
Langdon only a few weeks ago
publicly said: "a Pat McGushin, a
Tom Lonergan, or even Ruef or a
Schmitz is not to be unduly consid-
cred in the work of prosecution. The
conviction and jailing of any or all OF
these would not accomplish any great
results. We are after the big fell
lows who made the debauching oi
public servants possible, and until we
get them our work will not have the
results we are now striving for"