The San Francisco call., 1908-03-27
NEW INDICTMENTS
ACT AS SAFEGUARD
Old Cases Against Calhoun,
Ford and Ruef VIII Not
Be Dropped
Technical Objections in Former
Charges Eliminated in
Latest Complaints

Three new joint indictments, charging
Abraham Ruef. Patrick Calhoun and
Tirey l. Ford with the bribery of three
supervisors TO secure the passage of
the United Railroads overhead trolley
franchise, were returned by the grand
! jury in Presiding Judge Sturtevant's
department of the superior court yes
( terday morning. The indictments are
. duplicates OF others returned by the
former grand jury against the same
defendants and William n. Abbott and
Thornwell Mutually. but are SO drawn
as TO eliminate every technical objec-
tion that has been made in the other
trolley bribery cases
The former supervisors whom the de-
PENDANTS named in the indictments filed.
yesterday are charged with having
bribed are John J. Furey. i. P. Nicholas
and Daniel G. Coleman. the indictments
accusing the defendants of having, May
10. 1906, paid each of the boodling su
pervisors $4,000 TO corruptly influence
their votes in favor of the overhead
trolley ordinance. Prosecutor Heney
explained after the indictments were
filed that it is not the intention of the
prosecution to drop the cases based on
the old indictments. but that action
was taken Wednesday in order to safe
guard the interests of the prosecution
in case the courts should eventually
hold that there was any merit TO the
attacks made by the defendants on the
form of the old indictments. Heney
said:
We do consider for minute that there is
particle Of merit 10 any of the claims made by
defeetively drawn in any detail Ii is wise how
ever, 20 be prepared for anything that might
ent true bills have been found M These l indiet
Hents drawn 10 eliminate every techi-
esl objection that has been made By any Of the
defendants to the former indictments. and the ac-
/ tion has been taken AZ this time that the
statute of Limitations would not run against the
ceEce 10 the fact that the names of Abbott and
Mutually were omitted. except shat we feel that
the cases against the three defendants named are
Of far greater Importance. Our sole purpose has
been 10 throw anchor 70 windward to avoid
possible trouble in the future.
WANTS JUDGE LAWLOR
Heney presented the indictments 10
/ the presiding Judge when court met at
$3.50 o'clock. He asked that the cases
| be assigned TO Judge Lawlor, in whose
department the trolley bribery cases re-
turned by the oliver grand jury are
pending. explaining that the new in
dictments charged practically the same
offenses as those formerly returned. No
request was made for the issuance of
bench warrants in the new cases and
no bail will Re demanded on the new
duplicates are in force
Judge Sturtevant made the assign
ment of cases to Judge Lawlor in the
afternoon. but in the meantime Will
liam NJ Abbott called upon Judge Stur-
tevant in the interests Of the trolley
defendants. That Abbott's visit was
for the purpose of making some re-
quest relative to the assignment of the
cases was not denied by Judge Sturte-
want but the latter refused TO disclose
the nature of the suggestion.
After the indictments were filed yes
terday morning Judge Sturtevant
spoke to the grand jurors. of whom
there were II in court, regarding the
apparent disclosure of what took place
in the jury room the day before. The
| judge said
what took place. snd. while l hsre no doubt that
/ it was done thoughtlessy and uniHtentfons,ly. 1t
] joins absolute secrecy. We cannot blame the
newspapers for wanting 10 get news. bur | ask
wolves on them and 70 dtvulgc nothing that hap
1 pens IN the jury ROOM A juror who Intentionally
divulses ANYTHING may be punished for contempt.
ENoNERATES GRAND JURORS
Heney said that, in fairness to the
grand jury, he wished TO say he was
perfectly confident that no juror had
! divulged what transpired in the room.
Der of the prosecution had told what
happened. Heney continued:
think IL proper that should suggest TO your
honor the difficulties that in the way. 1t is
proper that newspapers should eRdearor 70 get
information, but il is not proper that any news
per should have its reporters commit robbery 20
get evidence. the public prints tell was
done by an Examiner reporter in San Diego the
other day. Nor is 1t proper that they should 60
among the witnesses before the grand jury and
endeavor to influence those jurors by taking to
them and abusing the prosecution, as they were
doing yesterday in the room adjoining that in
which the grand jurors were Conducting business.
We have had a great deal of difficulty in the
past in that respect The reports published this
morning In the Examiner and the Chronicle are
erroneous but the reporters remained among the
witnesses. and went out in the hall to get
close the door Of the grand jury S they
could for the purpose of oyerhearing what was
said and | had TO ask them yesterday afternoon
TO move away. ! instructed the policeman not to
rfrmit any reporters in TIE witness room and not
10 permit any of them 10 go to the door of the
grand jnry ROOM and ] think By some care