The Hawaiian gazette., 1908-03-31
PUBLIC OPINION
AND CRAFT CASES

There can be no doubt that public
sentiment in San Francisco Is strongly
with the graft prosecution. Heney. who
Is certainly a remarkable man. is given
an ovation every time he speaks in
public. Only day or two before 1 left
he addressed body of about 5000
students Of the state University ut
Berkeley. and he was given most
rousing reception. The entire faculty
of the University lately Joined In red
robin approving entirely the work OF
the prosecutiors These are only indk
cations of the sentiment"
So spoke Eustace Culiinan. Of the law
firm of Cullinan & Hickey, the attor-
neys for the saR Francisco Bulletin
who by reason ofsthis relation and the
fact that he has written many OF the
Bulletins editorials on the graft cases,
is thoroughly conversant with the
whole progress and present status OF
the graft cases. Mr.. Cullinan arrived
here on the Manchuria yesterday for
short rest.
"As to the progress of the prosecu-
ton and the present status" he said
lit must be remembered that Schmitz
and Ruef were first indicted on
charge of extortion in what is known
as the French restaurant case. In this
case they compelled the proprietors OF
the restaurant to pay them blackmal
on pain of taking their liquor licenses
away At the time of this indictment
the supervisors had not been led into
the trap that resulted in securing the
confessions of all the supervisors.
The indictment in the French restau-
rant case was drawn by Hiram John
son. who is regarded as the greatest
authority on indictments in the State
of California. 1t charged the crime in
the language of the statute. On this
indictment Ruef pleaded guilty. and
Schmitz, who pleaded not guilty was
convicted. Schmitz appealed. The Court
of Appeals reversed the conviction on
the ground that the license was not
property, the statute using the term
property. An appeal was taken from
this to the Supreme Court, which also
reversed the conviction, but on entire
" different grounds, on grounds not
even suggested in the opinion OF the
appellate court. They held that the in
dictment was defective in that II dld
not state that Schmitz was mayor and
allege such facts as TO Ruef as to show
that he was a boss.
There is no question as to the fact
that they were guilty of the extortlon
charged and certainly it is an offense
of the most malignant kind both in law
and morals.
"Rut after the indictment on this ex-
tortion charge there occurred the con-
fessions of the supervisors, and forty
mr. fifty indictments for bribery were
found against Schmitz and Ruef.
ION the indictment for extortion,
the supreme Court has declared that
as TO Schmitz the indictment Is de-
fective, and that frees Schmitz so far
as this indictment is concerned but
Ruef pleaded guilty to the charge In
the indictment and did not appeal. he
is now, however. by two actions one
of them a habeas corpus proceeding
seeking to get out of the results Oh
his plea of guilty on the ground that
what he did was not a crime under
the statute The Supreme Court
however. has not said that the acts
alleged do not constitute a crime. But,
in any event, if Ruef should Be freed
from the effects of his plea of guilty
in this case, it will not affect him, as
there are two or three score of indict-
ments against him for bribery. Eight
cen supervisors have confessed that
he bribed them. The whole purpose
of the present effort is to kill time and
wear out the public.
The so-calIed immunity agreement
has. come in for a great deal of con-
troversy. The immunity agreement
was that if Ruef would plead guilty
in the extortiOn case and serve a SEN
tence. and be ready at all times to
testify to the truth in the bribery
cases, that he would be given immu-
nifty in the other cases. Ruef now,
while seeking to escape punishment
on the extortion case, claims immu-
nity in the other cases. The prose-
cution on the other hand insists that
the spirit of the immunity agreement
was that Ruef should undergo some
punishment. But, more than that,
Ruef did not keep his agreement. In
the TREY L. Ford case, although Ruef
had testified before the grand jury
that Ford knew the purpose for which
the money was to be used, when the
lawyers were talking with
him preparatory to putting him on the
stand in the Ford case, he changed
his testimony. weakened it so that
they could not put him on the stand,
and thus Ford was acquitted
But the whole effort of the defense
now is devoted to protecting the
Ostensibly the effort is
in behalf of Ruef and Schmitz, but
really it is in behalf of the higher
ups Calhoun and those in like posi-
ton. They realize, as the prosecution
realizes, that Ruef is in a degree the
key TO the situation. The eighteen
can testify that they were.
1ribed and that Ruef bribed them,
and that the bribery was in behalf
# certain franchises and corpora
lions, and that it was all distinctly
Circumstances can be
hown pointing directly to these men
IS the ones from whom the money
anne and who directed its expendi-
ure. But it is Ruefs testimony that