The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-01-10

the defendants demurrer to the in
dictmeat.
While the decision was not wholly
surprise, even to the prosecution, and
had been freely predicted by Schmitz'
friends for some time, it did not fail 10
cause something of a sensation, and
was the sole topic Of conversation to-
day.
The decision will have the effect of
invalidating the other four indictments
charging Schmitz, as well as Ruef.
with extorticn, and renders void the
plea of guilty made by Ruef. as the ap-
pellate court held that no crime was
committed.
BY this reversal. it is feared that the
prosecution has lost its hold upon Ruef,
and it was freely predicted tonight that
the former political boss would now
refuse all overtures for immunity.
wholly or in part, to testify In the
bribery-graft cases, and fight every In
dictment against him.
Not Yet Out of Jail.
Although the court ordered Schmitz
discharged from custody On the eXtor
ton indictment. neither Schmitz nor
Ruef can take advantage of the re-
versal for sixty days, and even then
there is little likelihood that either of
them will be able to get the enormous
bail required for their release. There
are still pending against Ruef 126 in
dictments charging bribery. on which
the total bail is $1.170,000. and Schmitz
would have to get bonds for $45o,00O on
the forty indictments that remain
against him.
The prosecution has twenty days in
which to ask the appellate court for
rehearing of the appeal, and the court
has ten days in which to decide the
notion The appeal would then go to
the supreme court, where the same
length of time would be required before
the decision of today can go into effect.
Criticized by Dunno.
Superior Judge Dunno, before whom
Schmitz was convicted and Ruef plead
ed guilty, did not hesitate to criticize
the action of the higher court. He
said:
1T is to be regretted that the hear
ing of this appeal case came up before
a court whose members have relatives
and intimate friends against whom
rany indictments were returned by the
srand jury that returned these true
bills. In view of these facts, do not
believe that the court was in the prop
CT frame of mind to give this matter
Il strictly upon its merits. I am salts
fed that the evidence and the law sus-
tanned the judgment and the verdict.
will further say that the jury which
returned this verdict in accordance
with the evidence and the law, will be
remembered with respect and honor in
the community long after the court
which set aside the verdict has been
forgotten"
Both Schmtz and Ruef, when seen at
the county jail tonight, refused to make
any statement or comment upon the
decision.
Policy of Silence.
Francis j. Heney. assistant district
attorney. who prosecuted Schmitz, ar
rived this morning from Washington
and left tonight for Portland, Ore, to
take charge of the Oregon land fraud
cases there. Soon after his arrival he
vas apprised of the action of the ap-
pellate court, and a conference that
lasted from: until o'clock followed in
the district attorneys office between
Heney, Rudolph Spreckels, who fin
anced the bribery-gTaft investigation,
and prosecution; Special Agent Will
liam J. Burns and District Attorney
William H. Langdon, and several of
his assistants At this conference the
erect of the decision of the appellate
court upon the prosecution and a
course. of action were discussed at great
length. When the conference broke up,
in order to enable Heney to catch his
train for Oregon, the announcement
was made that no statement would be
given out and that the district attor-
ney's office would adopt a policy of ST
lence in regard TO its future plans.
Neither Langdon nor Heney would
even state whether or not an appeal
would be taken to the supreme court
from the decision rendered by the court
of appeal.
The prosecution has not been en-