The San Francisco call., 1908-04-06


law, and under which indictment trial is had
and evidence adduced proving the person charged
% nave peen guiiy uDoer me law esn De US
Il. simply because in the charging clause OF
the indictment the whole particular set OF
circumstances surrounding the crime are not set
forth and described with the same minutiae that
would be considered necessary and that vas
done upon the witness stand ia the trial or the
casef
And 10 the establishment OF all laymen and
many lawyers the supreme court answered yes.
aghsst at the decision of the supreme court.
The decision OF the district court received
with much clamor- The decision Of the su-
PTeme court affirming the only point In the
decision OF the lower court that brought
before IL received for the most part In
silence Our highest court had spoken. It said
that Schmifz and Ruef were free. II did not
say they were not guilty; that there was nc
law, onense against the law, but that
that could easily have been inserted but wers
not, and therefore the whole web which justice
has sought to weave is destroyed.
not 90 10 the merits of the case. Had those
phrases been inserted. the that SchmitZ war
mayor and the other that he proposed by IN,
act IN granting the license. the indictment
would have been satisfactory 10 the supreme
The people would not have introduced any more
evidence or any less. The defense would not
have changed its tactics iota. It's sttor
neys would not have asked one more question
or made one pettifogging objection less.
SOLELY TECHNICALITIES
The same facts were before the jury The
same verdict would have been rendered, Ther
Why was II necessary TO insert these words II
! the complaint? To serve the ends of JUSTICE
No. To protect the liberty OF the defendant.
No For what then? Solely TO contnse thai
elabora ton of techncalities. that super-reine
menf Of hair line rulings that are making tht
PEOPLE lose faith in the usefulness of our courts
This Is one Of the most solemnly importsp'
notable il establishes TO the minds of al
the fact that here at least a technical looT
hole Is sufficient to allow the escape OF tn,
: grossest Of criminals. There many
charges against these that know the,
viii be conFieted am. way. But suppose ths
cdse were different. Suppose with all we know
Of Ruef and Schmitz these were the only tive
cases where had actual legal evidence
against them. Suppose that II were not pos
sible TO bring them TO trial again upon otbei
charges. and that the whole issue of govern
ment or misgoyernment in San Francisco rested
iluon the shoulders Of these two cases; and sup
/ pose that the decision comes then as ii hal
now, setting the criminals free. How impor
tant the decision becomes theni And how
f important the principles upon which the de
cisiou rests.
! Surely the common sense lay mind is feelin;
about for some solution of this problem Il
there not some legal principle which can be ap
pealed 10 which viii prevent justice from be
coming injustice. aud which win shear techni
cality of its power to overthrow truth Car
we not get into workable form and action 1,
our courts a principle which win make foreye
I impossible any appeal when based upon tech
the defendants Obviously that Is the need il
the courts of California and perhaps in othe
piaces.
There are eminent and scholarly LAWYERS il
California who differ with the supreme cour
and who question the accuracy of its decision
in this instance. court ought TO be yer,
careful about applying principle which lead
70 3 decision fraught with such momenteus con
sequences as this No honest man woult
fear the application Of a rule that would guar
antee 10 him justice aud fair play, but wouls
prevent the mere embarrassing Of Justice.
n N Toll
victed years ago and still unimprisored Iool
az Ruef pleading guilty to a charge which th
supreme court says is not a charge. Look
Eugene E. Schnitz convicted BY 10 of bi
townsmen, but set at liberty by the highes
tribunal in the statei
What DO these things mean2 Which way d
they point7 What Is the tendency of our courts
they not 1.-THE the mint and anise an,
cumin. and neglect the weightier matters o
the law7 As blind leaders OF the blind vii
.'lev not both fall into the ditch Of public con
demnafion2