The San Francisco call., 1908-10-12

Argument and advice consonant With
4 decent appreciation of a judges sworn
duty to the people falling to dissuade
Cook from trying the cause OF his
friend Ruef, the other judges washed
their hands Of the whole matter, sig
nihcantly informing Cook that under
the constitution he was privileged TO
oersist in his well understood program.
Cook took them at their. word
rromptlv. Four jobs which Ruef wished
TO peddle were at stake. Cook purposeo
10 take no chances. He reassigned the
case 10 himself. He attempted TO make
a showing Of fairness by appointing
Judges Trout and Murasky to sit with
him in the case. Those judges gave
concrete expression TO the attitude Of
the whole court by refusing to be as
sOciated with Cook in the trial. That
was on June 6. The trial was set for
June 30
McEnerney and McNab withdrew
from the case the next day. They
knew, as the public knew, that they
had no chance in Cooks court with
job bureau. They made public the
following statement, which was pub
1ished the following day, June 8.
RETIRED FROM CASE
We have withdrawn from the
board Of health case. because we
have refused from the beginning to
try or argue the matter before
Judge Cook. Our objections have
been presented TO the judge, and
as he insists on sitting in the case
there is no alternative but to
withdraw
believe them to exist. We do not
believe that our services can be Of
any assistance 10 our clients In the
superior court We therefore have
retired from The case.
10 stronger commentary upon the in
tegrity Of court Of justice had ever
been made in san francisco, but the
end was not yet Cook, in an interview
which was printed in the Chronicle on
June s. 1902. referring 10 the with
drawal OF McEnerney and McNab, said;
I do not purpose to be dictated
10 by McEnerney or any other
lawyer. As presiding judge 1 as
signed the case TO my own depart
ment and IL viii be tried June 80,
AS announced.
Ruef, naturally enough, denounced
the withdrawal Of McEnerney and Nc
Nab as an outrage and a shame"
Before the date set for the hearing
John S Drum, on behalf of the board
Of health. interposed a demurrer TO
the complaint. The hearing on the de-
murrer was .hnally set for July 26, 1902.
II was on that day that Attorney Gen
eral TREY l. Ford Was forced TO pro-
1ect the people Of San Francisco from
Carroll Cook by announcing that it was
his duty to the people 10 withdraw his
consent TO the suit and move its formal
dismissal. Carroll Cook had forced the
hand Of decency TO strike him with all
the power of the state. which. it was
generally believed. he purposed to be-
tray.
The extraordinary action Of Attorney
General Ford was not taken until after
he had given Cook every opportunity
10 save his face and make at least g
belaIed appearance of common decency
COOK DEAD TO SHAME
Cook was dead 10 shame Ruef, fear
ing a fair trial, wanted Cook to sit
That was sufficient for Cook. When
the case was called Attorney General
Ford made a last futile effort to save
Cook from himself by offering the fol-
lowing stipulation:
It is hereby stipulated and
agreed by and among the parties TO
the above entitled cause that said
cause may be tried before A l.
Rhodes, judge Of the superior court
in and for Santa Clara county, and
F. NJ. Angellotti. judge of the supe-
rior court in and for the county Of
Marin. or before either Of said
judges. or before said judges and
any thlrd judge Of the superior
court OF this state that may - Sc
lected BY them; or if either@Said
Judge Rhodes or said Judge<aAn-~
gelOtIi is unable to sit in lsSaid
cause then said cause may beAtried
before the other Of said last named
judges. either sitting alone or with
such other judge or judges as he
may select TO sit with him in said
cause.
No stipulation could have been fairer
AS was explained by Attorney General
Ford. Judge Angenotti had been select.
ed because he had been a lifelong
friend Of Ruef. Ruef wanted no judg,
but Cook. AngellOtti was his persona
friend. but Angellotti was Handicapped
with a reputation for honesty Hon.
esty had no part in Ruef's schemes H,
wanted a ruling upon the charter tha'
would enable him to peddle some jobs
He knew where TO get it. He had M
use for an honest judge. He wanted
Cook. And Cook went the limit to give
Ruef what he wanted
When Attorney General Ford pre-
Sented his stipulation Cook refused it
saying:
The case is now in my depart
ment and 1 purpose to try ii. have
q duty TO perform, and no matter
how disagreeable il may be ! pur-
pose 10 perform II.
Cook asked if Ruef had signed tn,
stipulation, and upon receiving th'
negative which he knew must be forth
coming, he illuminatingly explained hi
idea OF devotion to duty by saying:
il Mr.. Ruef had signed the stip-
ulation ] might have considered IL,
but he has not signed il and I have
z sacred duty 10 perform. / pur-
pose 10 proceed
The last hope Of getting a fair tria
Of the matter was shattered. There re
mained for Attorney General Ford onl,
the exercise of his right TO repudiat,
the court and dismiss the case by with
drawing his consent to the quo war
ranto proceedings. Addressing Cook
Attorney General Tirey L. Ford. in
few cutting sentences, which left n,
room for doubt, said that his swori
duty 10 the people compelled him t,
take the case away from Cook TIL,
attorney general said:
4. too. have a sacred duty to per
form to the people / have endeav-
ored 10 settle this matter in a man.
ntr satisfactory TO all concerned,
but the stipulation, which 1 deem
perfectly fair one, having been
rejected by the court. ] now. in the
interest OF the people and in pursu-
ance Of what I deem my official
duty hle a formal withdrawal of
the suit on behalf OF the people
A complete foreword of San Francis
cos shame had been gpoken The a.