The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1908-01-20

ALAMEDA, Jan. 1s.-In discourse
at the first Christian church tonight.
Rev. P C. Macfarlane. the pastor, In
words of burning vigor denounced the
appellate court of San Francisco for
its decision in the Schmitz Ruef
extortion cases. The clergyman said:
Seldom in the history of criminal
jurisprudeace has a desssfon t5sen rem
dered that so shocked the sensibilities
of those who hope for better things.
The decision interests every man who
is concerned for righteous government.
because into this case enters many OF
the elements round which the graft
system pivots.
Certain French restaurant proprie-
tors wanted the right to sell liquor. 1t
had been the custom of the police COM
mission to grant such licenses, but the
boss, Ruef, and the mayor, Schmitz.
conspired together to extort money
influence the police commission against
them. This threat was sufficient to
extort money in the sums demanded
| by Ruef and Schmitz 1t was the opin-
| ion of the prosecuting attorney that
| this act constituted felony under the
law. This opinion was shared by Abra-
ham Ruef one of the extortioners, as,
with bitter tears, he pleaded guilty to
the charge. 1t was shared by the jury
of twelve men who declared Schmitz
| guilty and shared by the Judge who
sentenced the convict to five years in
ion was also shared by the liberty low
ing people the world round and a
mighty shout of approval went up from
lovers of good gvernment wherever the
| telegraph and cable bore the news
Hence the startling announcement that
| the appellate court had reversed the
/ sentence of the lower court and ordered
/ both the convicted and the confessed
felon freed came like an earthquake
shock.
i "The case was submitted to the court
at 4 o'clock on Wednesday afternoon
and at II o'clock Thursday morning a
| decision of some 10000 words. which
1t had taken a stenographer IL hours
| to write, was given to the record. The
appellate court was not long in ira
| vail over her ill-featured child Why
this haste? What object did it serve!
II the blind goddess is to be strangled
in chambers why gallop her to the
| grave with such indecent haste?
TWO SETS OF CONCLUSIONS
AN examination of the OUTPUT o,
Iverbfage reveals two sets of conclu-
sions. The first set is unimportant. II
deals with certain petty alleged errors
on the part of the trial court, none Of
them vital, none OF them deprivins the
mayor of fair trial They show that
the mayor was unable to get any of his
relatives on the jury and some little
incidents like that. but these conciu.
sions, though ponderously worked out
are. after all, unimportant. They arr
only the preliminary rafting of the
bars The real jail delivery is to come
later
The second set of conclusions es,
ltablish the opinion of the learned jus,
tices that Schmitz is a snow white in.
nocent and Ruef is an ambitious youns
attorney. whose fair soul is blossomliks
in its purity. 1t is a very painstakins
piece of work that Judge Cooper turned
out so rapidly. Swiftly, vet with
motherly solicitude, does he weave tbs
fair white fabric of innocence with
which he presently will enrobe these
heavenly twins. Abraham and Eugene
I If you are good at playing mental hide
and seek you may follow Judge Cooper
in his decision until you see justice