The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1908-02-14
ASKS SUPREME
COURT TOANNUL
SCHM|Tz RULING
Graft Prosecution Appeals From
the Obnoxious Opinion of
Appellate Body
Highest. Tribunal of State Is
Requested to Grant a
Rehearing
Argument Tears to Shreds De-
cisi0n Rendered in Favor of
Convicted BoodIers

convicted B00dlerS
To the supreme court of the state
has been extended the formal invita-
ton to set the seal of it's final author
ity on a determination whether black
mail and extortion do or do not con-
stitute crime under the laws of Cali
fornia. The application) of the people
for rehearing of the Schrnitz extor-
ton case by the supreme court was
filed yesterday, and that court must
now decide whether the law as con-
strued by the district court of appeal
is to stand without review, or whether
the questions involved shall be given
a final and absolute determination.
The application, consisting of nearly
was prepared and submitted to the SUI
preme court by Attorney General L. S.
Webb, District Attorney William III.
Langdon, Assistant District Attorney
Francis J. Heney, Hiram W. Johnson,
Charles W. Cobb and J. J. Dwyer, rep
resenting the state. The original ap-
plication, indorsed with an acknowledg-
ment of service by Campbell. Metson
& Drew, attorneys for Eugene L.
Schmitz. was filed. together with Il
supreme court, and three copies were
filed in the appellate court. Eighteen
copies of the decision of the appellate
court accompanied the documents filed
with the supreme court. and the appli-
cation itself contains in an appendix
a tsll copy of the original extortion in
dictment against Schmitz.
THREE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
Under the law the supreme cour,
must either grant or deny the applica-
tion within 80 days of the time the
appellate court decision became final
which was on February s. If the ap-
plication is granted the hearing will be
set for a later date, and on the result
ing decision VIII hang the fate not
only of former Mayor Schmitz. but also
of former boss Abe Ruef. Three ques-
tions must eventually be decided if this
supreme court consents to take up the
matter at all. These are whether the
extortion indictments against Schmitz
and Ruef alleged a crime; whether
Schmtz's s appeal from conviction in the
superior court was taken in accordance
with law or prematurely, and whether
reversible error was committed by
Judge Dunno during the trial of the
Schmitz case.
Should the supreme court hold that
the indictments were sound and thai
Schmitz's appeal from judgment wa.
not taken at the proper time, the ex-
mayor must at once enter the peniten.
tiary to begin the serving of his sen.
tence. and sentence may also be pro.
nounced against Ruef on his plea OF
guilt without further delay. Should
the court decide that the Indictment.
were valid and that the Schmitz appea
was well taken. Ruef would still bt
subject to immediate sentence bu
Schmitz's fate would depend on the rul
ing as TO whether error was committed
at his trial. as a decision in his favor
on this point would mean another trial
DEALS WITH TWO POINTS
The application for rehearing deals
only with two points. as all othel
argument upon them useless until thes,
questions are settled. The first grounc
of petition deals with the contention o
the people that Schmitzs appeal from
| conviction was taken prematurefy ans
should therefore be dismissed, Will
the second deals with the ruling of tn,
court of appeal that the Indictment OIL
which Schmitz was convicted was in
sufficient. in that it alleged no crime
Under these two general subdivision
the now famous opinion of the court o
appeal is subjected to a legal an,
logical analysis that leaves it torn an.
rent into worthless shreds.
Harsh criticism of the decision o
the court of appeal has no place in tn,
Il application, yet throughout the docu
i ment is an undertone of polite sarcasm
which strikes hardest where the fault,
logic Of the appellate justices is hel,
up time and again, stripped of ii
arrnor of immaterial verbiage, to invit
i ridicule. In prefacing the argument OF
| the second subdivision. relating to tn,
u sufhciency of the indictment to state
| case of eStortion, attention is given
however. directly to the appellat
court, and doubly interesting as bein,
a part of legal record is the commen
on the public reception of the appellate
courts recent decision. The beginning
of the second subdivision reads as fol
lows.
The learned district court of appea
/ has decided that levying blackmai