Coeur d'Alene evening press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1907-1929, 1908-03-10

SAN FRANCISCO, March 10
The supreme court, by unanimous
vote, handed down a decision deny
ing the application OF the prosecu
ton in the San Francisco bribery
graft cases for rehearing OF de-
cIsion by the district court of appeals
In the case OF former Mayor Eugene
SchmItz. convicted OF extortion in
the French restaurant cases. With
out a dissenting vote among the
seven justices the court sustained the
appellate court In It's decision that
the indictment upon which Schmitz
was convicted was defective. in that
II did not aver that Schmitz was
mayor. that Ruef, his codefendant,
was a political boss practically in
control OF the city, that as such they
were in a position to exercise power
and undue influence over the police
commissioners and that Il did not
show that schmitz resorted to un-
lawful measures threatening to have
the liquor licenses withheld.
THE decision demonstrates, said
former Mayor schmitz, that the
highest court in the state believes
what have always claimed, that
was removed from ONCE and rail-
roaded TO prison"
The contention OF the respondent
that the appeal was prematurely
taken" said the supreme court. has
no merit. The court Is unanimous
in the opinion that the district court
of appeals was correct in its eonclu-
sion that the Indictment was insult
cient. In that It did not show that
the injury TO the property threatened
by the defendant was an unlawful
injury"
Admit schmitz TO HAIL.
This decision practically nulliAes
Ruef's plea OF guilty to the same
charges. invalIdates the remaining
four extortion indictments against
the former mayor and Ruef. and viii
enable sehmitz to gain his liberty on
bail after eight months confinemenl
in the county jail.
Campbell. Metson and Drew, eoun-
sci for schmit2. announced tonight
that immediate steps would be taken
tomorrow for the former mayors re-
lease and expressed qualification over
the decision, declaring that II showed
that the highest court In the state
sustained the law In spite OF public
elamor and the denunciatlon and at
taeks Of the press that followed the
decision Of the appellate court.
Text OF che Decision.
After dealing exhaustively with
the law and numerous citations OF
authority. the supreme court says;
I'm this case the indictment
charged that the defendant threat
ened restaurant keepers that II
money was not paid him he would
prevent them from obtaining or re-
ceiying retail liquor license and
thereby destroy or render unprofit-
able their restaurant business, of
which the sale Of liquor at retail
formed the remunerative part. II Is
not stated how the defendant pro-
posed to do this, or how It was un-
derstood by the parties that he
would accomplish Il. whether BY fair
persuasion and lawful influence over
the police commissioners, or by
duress. menace. fraud or undue in-
auence exercised upon them.
This IL not a case whore Il Il
sufiicient TO charge an otfense In the
language OF the statute defining Il.
The court can not assume In the abb
sence Of an averment to that effect
that sohmttE was mayor OF the city
and an such In position to exercise
power and undue influence over the
members Of the police commission.
or that Rnef. his eodefendant. was a
person In practical control OF the city
government because Of his political
activity and influence over the board.
nor can II be inferred or presumed.
when Il Il not 50 charged. that the
defendant threatened to prevent the
issuance % the license by unlawful
means and not solely by lawful and
innocent persuasion.
Must show Crime.
'.It Il an elementary principle of
criminal low that the Indictment
must show that a crime has been
committed. In no case can the in
dletment be aided by imagination
and presumption. The presumptions
are all IN favor OF Innocence and II
the facts stated may or may not con-
stitute . crime the presumption In
that no crime a charged