Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1908-01-11
PROSECU T|ON
LOSES HOLD
ON RUFF
COURT DECISION BLOW
TO FOES OF GRAFTERS
Former Dictator Of San Fran
cisco, Despite Plea of Guilty.
Discovers He is Innocent Of
Wrongdoing

WIOIlSuOlllS'
[By Morning Journni Special Leased wirel
san Francisco, Jan. Following
the decision Of the district court of
appeals yesterday setting aside the
conviction OF former Mayor Eugene
E. Schmitz. which may have se-
rious effect on the prosecution of san
Francisco graft aud bribery cases in
which AL indictments were returned
perhaps necessitating many changes
in the plans of the district attorney
and complete realignment of eyi-
dence, much activity prevailed today
among those associated in the pros
ecution
one Of the significant features was
a conference between Abraham Ruef
the former dictator in the politics of
San Francisco, Special Agent William
]. Burns and District Attorney Will
lam II. Langdon in the latter's office,
and at the request Of the district at
torney. None of the parties to the
conference would give the slightest
indication as to the object and pur-
pose of the meeting but it may be
said that the release of Ruef on bail
Is one of the Developments that is
expected as possible compromise
between him and the prosecution as a
result of the reversal of the Schmitz
Judgment which also nullihes the plea
Of guilty made by Ruef. Far more
serious to the prosecution 1t is gem
orally believed was the appellate
court decision because of its appll-
ability to Ruef than the setting aside
OF the conviction of Sehmit2, having
the effect II is said of practically des-
troying the pro|eeudon hold upon
the former political boss, who is re-
garded as the one, and the only con-
Meeting link between the accused hri-
bcrs and the board of supervisors,
Il am entirely innocent as innocent
as any man that you might pick on
the street who knows nothing about
the matter" said Rueff to a repre-
sentative Of the Associated Press as he
was on his way to the district at
torney's office,
II repeat that / am innocent Of eN-
torting money from any one he con-
tinued my fee was legitimate, ~
crime was committed. did not soli-
cit, in fact. several. times refused to
take their cases because of the So
rious illness Of a member of my fam
lily. ! was innocent Of the charge
although, paradoxical as it may seem,
| pleaded guilty, When | shall make
a statement in court, which ! shall
do at the proper time, the reasons for
my action win be understood
Instead Of the judgment of the APP
pelate court not going into effect for
sixty days as was enormously stated
last night, a remttiture will come
down today or tommorrow.
Ruef stated today that he could give
bail within any amount within reason
and this led to the inference that his
conference with the district attorney
had to do with agreeing upon a re-
ducton from the total Of $1170,0O0 |
fixed on the 100 odd indictments /
against him,
It developed today that the appeal |
Of Schmitz in fun was not submitted |
to the appellate court until Wednes- !
day. the day that what was left Of the |
Schmit2 administration went out Of Of |
flee and Ruef was sent to the county |
Jail, and that the following day be !
fore noon the vouminous decision, I
covering thirty-two typewriter pages |
and containing about 10000 words !
was handed down.
While the reversal by the appellate |
court was on the appeal Of former |
Mayor Schmitz it has had the effect |
OF again making Ruef the central fig !
are, one acquttal and one mistrial Of I
Tirey J.. Ford having caused the |
prosecution to practically concede that |
Ruef's testimony is essential to con |
yiction in the bribery graft cases. II !
was said tonight by one Of the attol /
leys for Schmlt2 that application for |
his release on bail win be made to-
morrow morning,
1t developed during the bill that (
counsel for Schmitz and Rucf aud The /
district attorneys office had dis
agreed on whether or not the judg-
nent Of the appellate court can be cf-
'ective at once or not until thirty days I
after the decision was handed down. /
The defense maintains that under a
statute passed in 1905 remttitut /
must be sent down by the higher !
court forthwith" which as pointed |
by the prosecution is in direct con-
lict with the constitutional provision /
that judgment cannot 90 into effect %. /
i remittitur be sent down until after
hrfy days, except with the consent ot
The people.
Another question over which there |
Is a difference Of opinion between the 1
aWyers for the two sides is. I
Whether or not Schmitz's bond of
s350,OO0 was accounted when con- I
yicted. If held by the court that it /
was not the former mayor viii only |
have to put up an additional bond |
'or the bali upon which the nine prize