The San Francisco call., 1908-04-03

Continued from Page 4, Column 4
them from the files. and that when he
pleaded not guilty January 81 he did
! SO while two attorneys were in court
| to represent him and because he had
exhausted every preliminary right.
SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED
Proceedings of this sort should not
| be tolerated in a court of Justice de-
clared Heney. When Ruef entered his
plea in this case he was man himself
learned in the law and represented by
two attorneys. A proceeding like this
leads only to confusion and disrespect
| for the courts"
| Heney deplored that the courts have
so construed the laws of the country to
make technicalities a paramount issue
In all criminal proceedings, and insisted
that the extent to which this has been
carried has gone beyond all the bounds
OF logic or common sense. AS an ex-
ample, he pointed to the fact that II
on arraignment a copy of the indict-
nent should be handed to the defend
ants attorney instead of to the de-
fendant himself a fatal error would be
committed. The defendant he said,
might go on to the conclusion of his
trial and be convicted. He could then
raise the point that the indictment was
not handed to him. and the conviction
would be set aside. But If he were
acquitted, declared Heney, such an ac-
quittai would stand as a bar to any
other prosecution.
Such laws are not made for the pur-
pose of protecting society against
criminals, he said, but made for the
purpose of aiding criminals to escape
Justice. No wonder we occasionally
nave quick Justice through mob vio-
lence 1t Is the result of such trifiing
with the laws as this. People become
convinced that the laws cannot be en-
forced by the courts and they enforce
them themselves"
LET RUFF PLEAD GUILTY
Heney declared that Ruef. having
demanded a separate trial. has thrown
away his only possibility of reliance
on an immunity contract. The statutes
provide for a dismissal of a case
against defendant who has turned
states evidence only in the event that
the defendant is jointly indicted and
placed on trial and gives his testimony
against his codefendant before a mo-
tion is made to dismiss the charges
against him. This procedure could not
now be carried out in the Ruef case
and Heney suggested that Ruef's
quickest way of securing leniency now
would be to plead guilty and apply to
the governor of the state for a par
don.
1T would be violent presumption"
he stated. that this defendant could not |
receive full justice from the present |
governor OF California II he showed |
that under an immunity contract he |
has earned rights which are not now
being carried out. I suggest in all |
good faith that this defendant could |
expedite matters by pleading guilty i
and submitting this contention to the /
wise discretion of the governor of the /
state with an application for pardon |
after judgment. Let him do this and |
let the governor decide whether he has |
acted in good faith"
Ach began his argument by sketch |
ing again the injustice which he con-
tends has been done Ruef and appeal /
ing to the sympathy of the court to
have the defendant put back to a posi-
tfon where he could avail himself of |
motions. An adjournment
was taken at o'clock until 10 o'clock
this morning.