The San Francisco call., 1907-06-09

-
all and find out what they would DO
The smaller fry turned deaf ear TO
I.oupy's proposition. Loupy told the
Jury the truth so far as he went and
so far as he might go in this particu-
lar But he did not tell the Jury all.
Some Of the men who were prompt
enough in turning down Loupy had en-
Szxely different ideas about the ex-
ksiency of defying Ruef. Pons,
ZIanco and Mailhebuau had little
Conference Of their own. Like the big
ger fish in the net they decided to do
some bargaining on their own account.
Mauhebuau was entrusted with the
delicate mission. 1t was the choice
of wisdom. Loupy had demanded $500
a year from each. Mailhebuau pre-
sented the case TO Ruef so skillfully
that the boss granted them blanket
bill of protection for $500 a year, a
net saving of $500 on deal covering
two years. The first $500 was hur-
riedly raised and passed to Ruef with
many thanks for his kind considera-
ton At the end of the year the men,
bers of the lesser pool were not so
prompt Ruef was compelled to drop
around and tell Mailhebuau that it
was time TO dig sup" the second in
stallment-
The prosecution can. If permitted to
introduce the testimony of the members
OF this coup in lower finance with edi-
flying exactness. It can also. IL II
chooses to put Ruef on the stand, prove
that half the catch Of this second
swoop of the dragnet found its way
into the pockets of Schmitz.
The purpose Of the prosecution in
seeking the admission of this testi-
mony is solely TO establish criminal in
tent. Assuming that the defense ad :
mits, as it must, that the "fee" was
raised by the proprietors Of the five
larger French restaurants and that it
was paid to Ruef-but it has already
claimed that ii was received as a fee
and without any lawful intent-the
proof OF similar acts for the purpose
of showing intent becomes important
For example-and IL is often the
case-the passer of a counterfeit bank
note denies any knowledge of it's spu-
rioUs character. Evidence showing that
he has passed other bad bills is re-
ceived to show his guilty knowledge
and criminal intent
Heney put Mailhebuau on the stand
yesterday morning and the witness was
permitted to tell about his conversa-
tions with Loupy. There he was COM
PEELED to stop pending argument and
decision Of the admissibility Of the rest
Of his story. Heney's other witnesses
summoned for yesterday morning were
Mailhebuau's fellow smaller fry, and
the adjournment necessarily followed.
VIII Heney put Ruef on the witness
stand2 With Heney this has so far
been rather a question of discretion
than expediency. If the special prose
cutor follows his natural inclination
10 caution and his very evident distrust
of Ruef-no. If he decides to adopt
the more audacious tactics OF the jury
lawyer-yes.
HENEY's METHODS
Heney's attitude indicates that he is
q law" lawyer rather than a daring
trial or jury lawyer. He probably feels,
as does many another good lawyer not
connected with the prosecution, that he
has completed perfect case without
Ruef. He mas proved clearly enough u
conspiracy to hold up the French res
taurant keepers. He has proved clear
ly enough Schmitz's participation in
conspiracy that could not have been
successful without the mayors CO.
operation. He knows that IN law 1T Is
not necessary TO prove that any Of the
fruits of the dirty game found their
way into Schmitzs Golfers. He knows
that despite Ruef's confessions and his
protestations of penitence that the
curly boss is playing fast and loose
with both sides. He may fear-and evil
IDENTIFY does-that, placed on the stand.
Ruef, who through George Keane is
again dallying with the mayor, may
attempt to protect Schmitz.
There is, however, another side to
this question. It is the side from which
the Jury must be considered. The lay
mind of the unusual juryman-and he
gets on every criminal trial jury-fre-
quently is convinced only by the last
straw.
On this last straw the defense hangs
its hopes for disagreement, and that
is the best IL does hope for. The de-
fense will attack ex-Poiice Commis-
sioner Thomas Reagan and attempt to
show that the French restaurant cru
sade was a union labor conspiracy.
But as emphasized by the cross-exami-
nation conducted by the defense its
hopes are pinned to an absence of any
proof that Schmitz actually received
any OF the alleged fee" The defense
will say to the Jury, Admitting that
there was a holdup, admitting that
this scoundrel Ruef prohted by 1t as
he has confessed. there has not been
one scintilla of evidence pretending to
show that one cent of this fund was
paid TO Schmitz-Schmitz. the inno-
cent, the plaything Of an evil political
associate, the victim of political perse-
cutors."
Unless Ruef is put on the stand there
VIII De no olrect evidence OF a division
of the spoils with Schmitx. Such evil
dence is not essential to a completion
OF the case. Guilty participation in the
conspiracy, as has been so conciu-
eively proved, is sufficient in law 10
sustain a conviction. But win 1t con-
vince II JrryInen unframed in the Iaw7
One unconvinced would be quite suf-
1icient for the realization of Schmitz'
hopes-a disagreement.
RUFF MIGHT SHIELD SCHMITZ
II Heney makes Ruef a witness HIS
fears may be realized Ruef. TO protect
his former friend. may swear that
Schmitz took his share OF the French
restaurant bribes as gifts. He may
swear that the mayor did not know
where the money came frorn-that
Schmitz was justified in assuming that
Il was but another evidence of Ruef's
love, affection for and appreciation Of
his stall fed executive. But granting
that these fears are realized, Ruef
must tell the jury that he divided the
fees with the mayor. II he goes on
the stand he will be compelled TO admit
not alone that he divided the first
$1,000 contributed by Priet. Malfanti.
Blanco, Adler and Loupy, but that
months later he divided the $4,000
which three Of them contributed to the