The San Francisco call., 1907-06-13

Shall it be decided that he held his
trust inviolate when he dragged 1t
through the dirt, nlire and filth of his
COIN f1lching schemes? Will you decide
that when you know he is guilty OF the
crime which we have proved against
him? Every bit of solemnity and rea-
son and logical deduction which you
can bring to bear on this case you
must use.
LAW IN THE CASE
There has been said but little re-
garding the law in this case, yet let
me explain to you the sections of the
defines extortfon as obtaining property
from another by wrongful use of fear
or under color of official right. The
following section states that the fear
may be induced by threat to do an
unlawful injury to the property of the
person threatened. First, then, we
have the threat to do the injury; Sec
ond we have the use of fear, and,
third. we have the exercise of that
threat to take property from the keep
ers of the French restaurants
I'VE need not waste our time in dis,
cussion of the question of the money
being passed-that can be conceded in
this case. Joseph Malfanti and his
partners in Delmonico's restaurant
were threatened TO MAKE lIeiu pay -llidl
money. The question is whether or not
there was a threat to do unlawful
injury TO their property. If these
French restaurant keepers were threat
ened with loss of their license that
was a threat against their property.
as has been already decided by this
court, and on that law the court will
instruct you.
you shall hear in dulcet tones from
my uncl-I mean my brother, Mr..
Campbell Qaughter)-that no threat
was made within the meaning of the
law. What threat would Ruef have
to make TO determine whether or not
the legal crime Of extortion had been
scommitted2 L need not come TO man
to say: I threaten to take your life,
to have threatened to murder him; nor
to say. i threaten to take your Hfe
to have threatened to rob him.
ANY particular chain of circum-
stances which demonstrate to man
that he must give ap his property TO
protect himself from certain loss con-
stitutes extortion. That is the safest
way TO commit the crime of extortion,
and it was decided by this defendant
and his codefendant, Ruef, that that
was the easiest way. i might go to
a man and say, L have the power to
injure your business unless you pay me
certain sum of money, but do as you
please Wouldn't that be extortion!
DIPLOMATIC THREATS
..'rhe keepers of the French restau-
rants did not need to be told by Ruef
that they had to pay that money or
lose their licenses through the plot de-
vised by Ruef and this defendant when
they met together in contemplation o.
trip abroad, a stay at the Waldorf
Astoria. or new automobile. They
didn't need TO say Pay US some money
or we'Il take away your licenses They
did not need to say that; they took
away the licenses and the restaurant
men saw what they had to do. We
do not have to prove that they threat
ened them in so many words, even
though Loupy did make the threat tc
Adler that they would have to hire
Ruef or lose their licenses.
Ruin stared these men in the face.
What other threat was it necessary
for Ruef TO make while he had the
procurement. consent and connivance
of this defendant? If we can prove
those facts the case is ended.
You know how it was with the
pirates of old At first, If they caught
man and he said. am citizen Of
the Roman republic they let him go
unnlolested. But at last they grew
tired of this practice and when a cap
tive said, am citizen of the Roman
republic they bowed low and adjusted
his toga deferentiaily and replied, You
may depart in peace and they showed
him a ladder over the ships side and,
If he did not depart, they pushed him
over the ladder and he departed in
peace No, oh, no, they did not threaten
threats were unnecessary: they just
said, Depart in peace and he departed.
Here we have the two defendants.
One added to naturally bright in
tellect a legal education which made
him a leader in his work and he de-
veloped a political cunning which made
him a master of my city and yours.
THE other was from another clase.
And San Francisco has bfen good TO
that man, jurors. San Francisco treated
him we'll He likewise acquired through
FIVE years of political life a cunning
which was too shrewd to permit him
TO make threats openly.
Both took good care to make their
threats in the safest and best way for
them-in a way which would throw
dust in the eyes OF the people. They
picked up honest Tom Reagan and
made him their tool with which to hold
up the licenses. Compare those two
men-honest Tom Reagan and this de-
fendant. One man comes on the stand
and lays bare his life from the time
he entered into association with this