The San Francisco call., 1907-06-13

mayor. The other man comes on the
stand and hides behind everything he
knows. Now, choose you between those
two-one who hides all that he knows,
and one who looks you in the eye
and tells you all.
Suppose you, gentlemen of the jury,
were charged with crime. You
waited for a chance when you could
look every one in the face and tell
your story. The opportunity came for
you to give the lie to your accusers;
would you have done as this man did?
There is not a word he told of his
relations with his fellow conspirator,
Ruef; had he been innocent he would
have told all.
SAN FRANCISCO'S RIGHTS
San Francisco has been good to this
man. San Francisco had the right to
ask. of him honesty, integrity, decency.
San Francisco had the right to ask of
him an honest disclosure of all his.
acts, of all his relations with his CO.
defendant / speak to you now as.
business men. Suppose you had
clerk who had served you, but who
had been accused of wrong doing and
you had always been good to him, for
San Francisco has been good, to this
man, would you not expect and want
him to come to you and make an ex-
PLANTATION?
IF the very coin that ratified in his
pockets had come from fallen women;
If the very bus he rode in had been got
by dishonest means; If he had failed to.
look you in the face when you accused
him and had taken refuge by saying,
My attorneys tell me to act thus and
so, and il the attorneys were smart
men, wouldn't you say that he was
guilty and that his attorneys knew it?
I'VE all stood here a year ago and
elected this man TO Office And he sold
us out, and it was with the meanest,
dirtiest, most contemplate crime.
Thrice accursed is this particular
case. Not alone for this extortion, for
this recreancy to the trust of his Of
fee, but, oh, the pity of it. oh. the
shame of it. Are the poor ever to be
led by this sort of men? Are they
ever to be at the mercy of the power
of the charlatan? When the poor arise
is ii always to be that then they are
led by a. bribe giver and a brothels
proprietor. or man who takes money
from French restaurants?
He sold out every one of us who.
boasted that the citizens were worthy
to govern themselves. They point the
finger of scorn at us the world over
and they say to us that union labor is
not fit to govern and that a labor union
mayor is not fit to rule the city. Thrice
accursed by all these things is this
case which we have now before us.
Who held up these restaurants? DO
you believe for a minute that there was
any other reason for their being held
up than that the mayor commanded
Reagan to do it? Do you realize that
of all the conversations that Reag gan
had with Schmitz, Schmitz has only
denied Reagan's testimony concerning
three of them2 The defense brings
here in an effort to contradict Reagan's
testimony two or three witnesses who
say that Reagan held up the French
restaurants because of trouble with
the labor. unions. Now, follow me.
There were wo-three--four-fiv
six or more French restaurants held up.
Four of these were union restaurants
and the others were on good terms with
the unions; every one was in the same
boat Malfanti's restaurant, Blanco's,
Loupy's and Marchand's were union
restaurants, and it is but suberfuge
for the defense to say that Reagan held
up restaurants as soundly union as
these because of union troubles Why
should he hold up four union restau-
rants that the union had no contro-
versy with whatsoever? 1t is ridicu-
lous.
PASSES SCOTT BY
AS to NJ. p Scott the former busi-
ness agent of the walters union. we
pass by the testimony of this dfstin-
guished gentleman. who now holds
position with the board of public
works; we draw the veil of oblivion
over the position he now adorns. The
essential facts that were testified to
by Reagan have not been denied by
Schmitz or any other witness.
Who held up the French restau-
rants? Eugene E. Schmitz-Eugene E.
Schmitz-Eugene E. Schmitz held them
up, Every fact and every particle of
testimony in this case proves it be-
yond doubt, and when you find the
answer to that question it is shown
you in the testimony here you will
have reached the end of the case. 1t
doesn't make any difference whether
Schniitz got the money that was ex-
torted from these French restaurant
owners or not, so long as it is shown
that they were held up and that he was
party to the conspiracy with Ruef
which resulted in this extortion If
Ruef got the money under such condi-
tions then Schmitz is guilty. regardless
of whether the money, ever reached his
hands.
But of course he did get it-of
course he's rich-sleek, fat and rich
and he doesn't care for you, or you, OF,
you, or me-or our kind. He lives now
on the hill yonder-lives in luxury, and
he doesn't care for us, for he is knock
ing at the doors of the rich. But I
don't care and you don't care, for now,
rich as he may be, he has been brought
to the end at last by men of your class
and mine-men like you and me. If
he's rich from brothel keeping and cor
poration bribing, let him be rich, What
do we care? Let him be rich, but let
him paw the penalty'
Judge Dunno interrupted Johnson at
this point to admonish him that he
was carrying his argument beyond the
confines of the evidence and that he
must confine himself to the facts
brought out by the testimony of wit
nesses. Barrett entered formal ex-
ception to Johnson's remarks, designat-
ing them. as misconduct. johnson made
the best of the interruption by swal-
lowing a glass of water, and when he
resumed it was to draw a picture of
Schmitz dining on canvasback duck
and wine at the French restaurants at
the same time he was threatening them.
Then he turned to a discussion of the
evidence, saying:
"On January 2. 1905, the. restaurant
keepers went to Schmitz and protested
against the holding I'D of their licenses