The San Francisco call., 1907-06-11
Ford Said Evidence Did Not
Warrant the Indictments
United Roads Counsel Makes an
Explanation Of Course Pur-
sued fn Court

Tirey L. Ford Of the law department
Of the United Railroads said yesterday
that the attack on the indictments
found against himself and other OFF,
Gals Of the corporation was not based
on mere technicalities. but on the
ground that the evidence was not suf1i-
cieDt TO warrant indictments He al
leges that the present grand jury has
found Indictments where there was not
only an insuficiency Of evidence, but
where there was absolutely no legal
evidence at all tending in the re-
hottest degree TO connect the accused
with the crime charged" Ford made
the following statement:
Il have noticed. with regret. a tend
ency IN certain quarters toward a mis-
construction Of the purpose of the pro-
ceedings now pending in Judge Law
lor's department of the superior court
In connection with the recent indict-
ment OF some Of the officials Of the
United Railroads.
The main purpose Of these proceed
ings is 10 have the indictments in
question set aside upon the ground
that there was no evidence before the
grand jury Warranting the finding of
them II the grand jury. by whatever
motives inspired or whatever influence
persuaded, has proceeded TO find in
dictments without any evidence to war
rant such action, the disastrous result
10 the name and reputation Of the citi-
zen can be easily seen This is pre-
cisely what was done in our case, and
it is this extraordinary situation that
we are seeking TO bring 10 the atten-
tfon OF the court
Counsel have included other mat
rers in their motions made TO the court.
and this. I presume. is prudent and
proper. but our purpose is TO proceed
with all possible expedition. consist
eut with the proper safeguarding of
defendants rights, TO the refutation OF
the false charges that have been lodged
against Us We know of no more
prompt or efficient means TO this end
than to ask the court TO strike from its
records a baseless charge. unsupported
by evidence and upon which no citizen
should be asked TO undergo the humiI-
iation and expense Of a criminal trial
The prosecution has furnished our
counsel with portions Of. the evidence
SO called. upon which IL claims 10 base
the indictments in question, and has
withheld other portions. That portion
furnished our counsel is absolutely and
wholly devoid OF even the slightest
trace OF evidence tending in any form
or manner TO connect any OF our off,
cials with any crime Of any kind OF
character
III is an ancient rule Of law that evil
dence withheld or suppressed by an ad-
versary is presumed TO De against such
adversary. Under this rule. and until
the prosecution shall disclose TO the
court the evidence which il is now sc
carefully holding, We have a right tc
assume that the evidence thus with
held weakens rather than strengthens
the prosecutions case
Not only does the prosecution selec.
portions Of the testimony to be fur
nished US and other portions TO bs
withheld from US, but ii goes TO the
extent OF claiming that in no event
and under no circumstances can an in
6ictment be set aside upon the ground
Of insufficiency OF evidence, and thai
even though there be no legal evi-
deuce at all connecting the accused
with the crime charged, nevertheless
the citizen thus falsely accused, and
concerning whom there is a total alb
eeuce Of evidence. is helpless in his
deep humiliation pending a trial Of hi.
case In the meantime. II he be poor
and unable 70 give bail, he must Ian
Euish in prison
This is not a square deal am pre-
nared 10 say. and 1 DO say. that tn.
present grand jury has found indict-
,nents where there was not only an in
sufRciency Of evidence. bat where ther,
vas absolutely no legal evidence al al
+ending in the remotest degree to con
rect the accused with the Grim,
~S-o~-od