Los Angeles herald., 1907-07-09
scHMITZ PROTESTS AGAINST
BEING LEcTURED BY JUDGE
INSTEAD OF SENTENCED
BY Associated Press.


SAN FRANCISCO, July S.-The sem
fencing of the convicted mayor was in
one respect without a parallel in the
criminal annals of San Francisco. Half
a dozen times Judge Dunno was inter
rupted by SchmitZ, who protested in
strong words against the delivery of
lecture instead of the pronounce
ment of judgment. He accused the
court of unnecessarily humiliating him
and giving opportunity for further
humiliation by the reporting of his re-
marks in the press. Once, replying to
the prisoner, Judge Dunno said such
brazen effrontery' was probably no
more than should be expected and it
was the duty of the court to bear it in
patience. At another time Attorney
Metson of the defense interposed a
vigorous objection in support of his
client, "to the courts lecture" Judge
Dunne's reply was that Mr.. Metson,
. instead of interrupting the proceedings
ought to be begging day in court to
answer the charge that he had at
tempted to tamper with the jury which
convicted Schmitz.
Metson, while restraining himself,
/ calmly answered with the same spirit,
and said that he was ready to answer
any charge that was made against
him. Judge Dunno warned Metson that
another interruption would provoke
Jail sentence for contempt.
1t was 1926 o'clock when Judge
Dunno, having disposed of some mat
ters preliminary to the trial of other
.. bribery-graft cases, called from the
calendar:
THE people VS.. Eugene e. Schmitz,
clause No. 405."
: District Attorney Langdon and At
torney Fairall answered in unison:
Ready"
No Objection to Sentence
Judge Dunno inquired of Mr.. Lang
don whether it was his present inten-
ton to proceed with the trial of the
other four extortion cases against
Schmitz. The district attorney replied
that there were so many other graft
cases on the calendars that he was un-
able to say at this time whether the
four extortion cases would be pressed
or not, but" he concluded, "the pros
ecution has no objection to the passing
Of sentence at this time.'
This significant announcement ran
like an electric shock through the
crowded court room. Until that mo-
ment the public had been kept at skies
and sevens regarding the intention of
the district attorneys force. Even the
newspapers were unadVised as to
whether sentence would be pronounced
today or whether it would be further
delayed until after other trials had
been had with the objective of piling
up consecutive sentences instead of
concurrent sentences against the fallen
mayor.
''Under ordinary circumstances" said
Judge Dunno, "where a defendant has
been indicted on a number of accusa-
tions and only one of them has been
tried, the others remaining open for
trial, I think 1t would be very bad
practice to pronounce judgment upon
the first conviction. But if the district
attorney has, as he says no objection
to the imposition of judgment at this
time I shall of course pass sentence.
Eugene E. Schmitz, stand up"
Moves New Trial
The big black bearded prisoner arose
at the counsel table. His face was the
color of ivory. His lips were pressed
tightly together. He bent his eyes in
a piercing glance on the judge and
never once during the dramatic mo-
ments that followed did he drop them.
His shoulders were thrown back and
he held his head high. Eugene e.
Schmitz," said Judge Dunno, ION the
fifth day of November, 1906, you were
and county of San Francisco, by in
dictment, of the crime of felony, to
wit, extortion. Subsequently, and on
the sixth day of December, you were
arraigned and answered to your true
name Subsequent and on the seventh
day Of March, 1907, you pleaded not
guilty, and ON the goth of May you
were placed on trial before a jury of
your own selection. Subsequently and
on the 18th of June you were by that
Jury found guilty. This is the time for
Judgment to be passed upon you. Have
you any cause to show why judgment
should not be passed."
1--WE have,' responded Attorney Fair
all, and as he arose to move for a
new trial the mayor sat down.
Mr.. Tairall read briefly six grounds
upon which a new trial should be
granted. The motion was promptly
denied after District Attorney Lang
don had replied, after word of in
ouiry from the court, that in the eyes
Of the prosecution the grounds urged
were wholly insufficient. "The court
does not deem that there is any merit