The San Francisco call., 1908-03-23
COMPARES RUFF
WITH BOSS TWEED
Heney Shows New York BOOd=
ler'S Bail Was Fixed at
Five Million
Denies Right of Court of Appea.
to Reduce Bonds of Arch
CRATER

~" lhc pTleIS uleu Win the uiStTlct
court of appeal opposing Abe Ruef's
application for a reduction of bail
Francis j. Heney compares the Ruef
case with that of the famous Boss
tweed case of New York. According
to Heney. the bail of Tweed was fixed
at S5,000,000 by the New York courts.
Heney AYERS that no more heinous Of
tense was ever committed than that of
Ruef's. The assistant district attorney
says It is one that is calculated to un-
dermine the foundations of govern
ment.
In comparing the Ruef and Tweed
cases. Heney says in his brief:
Justice Hall of this court asked me
what was the highest bail that was
ever required of a defendant in this
country. | was unable to answer the
question off hand, and l am not now
able to answer it, but l can and do say
tnat the only case in this country with
In my knowledge which is parallel to
the case at bar is that of Boss Tweed
in New York. / telegraphed to New
York for information, and am informed
tnat the aggregate amount of bail re-
CURED for Tweed was approximately
So.000,00O. Moreover. in one civil suit
wherein an order of arrest has been is
sued against him, his bail was fixed at
sS,O0o-oO0 by the trial court, and an ap-
pllcation was made to reduce the same
and upon appeal the highest court of
that state held that the~trial court did
not err In refusing to reduce the amount
thereof and that s3.000,o00 was not ex-
cessive.
OFFENSE Is. HEINOUS
The offenses4 committed by Ruef and
upon which he is applying for a reduc-
ton of bail are calculated to undermine
the very foundation of government
eVaclrffVa oil
der our form of government no offense
known to the law is more heinous or
can be better calculated to injure the
public at large. If the punishment of
such criminals cannot be made both
swift and certain, this form of govern
ment is doomed to destruction.
In the case in re Williams herein,
our supreme court held that deter
niination of what bail is disproportion-
ate to the offense involved does not de-
pend alone upon the amount of money
which may have been lost to one party
or secured by another by means of the
offense, but it depends rather upon the
moral turpitude of the crime, the dan,
ger resulting to the. public from the
commission of such offenses and the
punishment imposed or authorized by
law therefor"
Regarding the difference in bail for
various offenses, or even the same off,
fenses in which one or more persons
are implicated. Heney says bail which
might be considered unreasonable in a
particular instance might be particu-
larly low in another on account of the
difference in circumsta tances surrounding
the two cases. IS
Heney claims that the perpetuity of
the republic depends upon the integrity
of the public officials and the admins
tration of the law. He adds that the
danger resulting from crimes commit
ted by Ruef are very dangerous to the
public welfare and the governmental
institutions.
SHOULD NOT ASSUME FUNCTION
According to Heney. the higher court
has no right to substitute it's Judgment
for that of the trial court in determine
ing the amount of bail which should be
required. Heney says that the higher
court should not assume the function.
of the court committing the prisoner,
or to substitutesits own Judgment for
that of the tfiai court IN fixing the
amount of bail. Before the higher court
is authorized to interfere, says Heney,
the bail demanded by the superior court
must be shown to be unquestionably
excessive and clearly disproportionate
to the offense involved.
Heney points out that Ruef absconded
while he was under only five indict-
ments for felonies. He says that Ruef
is very much more liable to decamp
now that 116 indictments on felony
bribery charges have been returned
against him by the late grand jury II
That Ruef was held a prisoner for a
year without trial is denied by Heney,
who says that he was placed on trial on
the original charge, No. sos, and that
Justice proceeded speedily, despite the
tactics employed by Ruefs lawyers
Ruef, Heney says, was held in custody
from the date of his plea of guilty in
May last until March IA last, when a
motion in arrest of Judgment was sus-
tanned by the superior court and he was
then discharged from custody on that
charge.
In combating the theory that Ruef
should enjoy the presumption of inno-
cence, Heney submits copy of the
voluminous testimony taken before the
grand jury showing Ruefs guilt.