The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-03-31
PUBLIC OPINION
AND CRAFT CASES


an ovation every time he speaks il
public. Only a day or two before 1 lef
he addressed a body of about 800,
students of the State University Al
Berkeley. and he was given a most
rousing reception The entire faculty
of the University lately joined in a rec
robin approving entirely the work OF
the prosecution. These are only indi.
cations of the sentiment
So spoke Eustace CulIinan, of the law
firm Of Cullinan & Hickey, the attor-
neys for the San Francisco Bulletin
who by reason of this 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 a
short rest.
AS to the progress of the prosecu-
ton and the present status" he said,
1T must be remembered that Schmitz
and Ruef were first indicted on a
charge Of extortion in what is known
as the French restaurant case. In this
case they compelled the proprietors of
EAiC u ant " pay N44CAiA OIelShAl1cllA
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
-, r x,E,oS x17 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
dfctment was defective in that it did
not state that schmitz was mayor and
allege such facts as TO Ruef as to show
that he was d boss.
There is no question as TO the fact
that they Were guilty of the extortion
charged and certainly it is an offense
IF the most malignant kind both in law
ind morals.
But after the indictment on this ex-
.ortion charge there occurred the con-
LESSONS of the supervisors, and forty
~ 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
IS this indictment is concerned. But
Ruef pleaded guilty to the charge in
he Indictment and did not appeal. He
5 now, however, by two actions, one
If them a habeas corpus proceeding,
seeking to get out of the results or
lis plea OF guilty on the ground that
What he did was not crime under
he statute. The Supreme Court,
however. has not said that the acts
alleged do not constitute a crime. But, |
n any event, if Ruef should be freed
rom the effects of his plea of guilty
n this case, it will not affect him, as
here are two or three score of indict- |
nents against him for bribery. Eight
en- supervisors have confessed that
le bribed them. The whole purpose
II the present effort is to kill time and
wear out the public.
the so-ealled immunity agreement
las come in for a great deal of con-
roversy. The immunity agreement
vas that If Ruef would plead guilty
n the extortion case and serve a sem
ence, and be ready at all times to
testify TO the truth in the bribery
.ases. that he would be given imfnu-
litv in the other cases. Ruef now,
While seeking to escape punishment
IN the extortion case, claims immu-
atty in the other cases. The prose-
.ution on the other hand insists that
the spirit OF the immunity agreement
vas that Ruef should undergo some
punishment. But, more than that,
Ruef did not keep his agreement. In
he TREY L. Ford case, although Ruef
1ad testified before the grand jury
hat Ford knew the purpose for which
he money was to be used, when the !
prosecution lawyers We're talking with |
lin preparatory to putting him on the
stand in the Ford case, he changed /
lis testimony, weakened it so that
hey could not put him on the stand, |
md thus Ford was acquitted.
But the whole effort of the defense
low is devoted to protecting the /
aisher-ups' OstensibIy the effort is
n behalf of Ruef and Schmitz, but
eally it is in behalf of the higher
Lps,' Calhoun and those in like posi-
ion. They realize, as the prosecution
ealizes. that Ruef is in degree the
av to the situation. The eighteen
supervisors can testify that they were
ribed and that Ruef bribed them,
nd that the bribery was in behalf
{ certain franchises and corpora
ions, and thar it was all distinctly
nderstood. Circumstances can be
hown pointing directly to these men
5 the ones from whom the money
anne and who directed its expendi-
1re. But it is Ruef's testimony that
lakes the direct connection. Hence
ne effort OF the thigher-ups" to help
.uef out. It doesn't follow that
.uef.s testimony is essential. Glass
-as convicted without the direct tes-
mony of anyone as to his connec-
on with the money. But it was
Town that he was the executive Of
Ger of the Pacific States Telephone
ompany and that no such sum of
honey could have been gotten out of