The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1908-02-25
.SCHM|Tz MAKES
FRANTIC P[EATO
SUPREME COURT
Attorneys File Hysterical Brief
in Effort to Prevent a Re-
view of Decision
Throw Out Attack on Court
of Appeal Is Its
Wild Request
No Point of Law or Fact Is
Raised in Remarkable
Document

Counsel for Eugene E. Schmitz, in
brief decidedly hysterical in tone,
made frantic endeavor yesterday to
prevent review of the notorious ap-
pellate court decision by the supreme
court. Attacking Attorney General
Webb openly and through him covert
ly striking at District Attorney Lang
don and the other members of the
graft prosecution for the bald state
ment of facts made in the petition
for review, Schmitz' attorneys ask to
have the petition thrown out OF court
on the ground that it is insulting and
disrespectful.
The document filed with the clerk
of the supreme court is styled a sup
elemental answer TO tie petition for
rehearing but is uni ke y inslru-
ment to be found among the archives
of the court and much more startling in
the nature of the demand it makes upon
the court The brief is made an ap
pendix to the answer filed by Schmitz's
attorneys last week, but unlike the
usual legal document ii does not deal in
single sentence with any point of law
OF. fact open to legal argument. 1t is
simply a protest against having the
noted appellate court decision accor-ed
the merciless handling given it by the
attorneys for the people.
TAKE VIOLENT EXCEPTION
Violent exception is taken by the at
torneys for the ex-mayor TO the Lam
guage used in the peoples petition in
reference to the defendant and in ref
erence to the storm of adverse criti-
cism which the opinion of the lower
court aroused throughout the country.
In this connectio nthe authors of the
brief express their surprise" that a
document addressed to the highest
court of the state should contain any
thing more than a calm and dispas-
sionate argument of the law applicable
TO the case in question.
The incongruity of such a statement
is apparent when it is noted that this
ais EA itSCAL AOntdtilo ttOL d lluS OL
legal argument and in no particular
fulfills the requirement of legal exclu-
siveness which its authors so loudly de-
mand of their opponents. In part the
brief reads:
No person who has just and decent
respect and regard for the laws of this
country or the tribunals through which
they are administered can read the Pc
tition in this case without deep feelings
OF surprise, regret and indignation.
SURPRISE
Surprise that there should emanate
from the office of the learned attorney
thority, a document conceived in lam
guage that would not be allowed in any
police court in any city or town in this
union; surprise that from the highest
law officer OF this state, from whom
we should expect a dignified and clear
statement of facts, a calm and dis
argument of the law ap-
plicable thereto, we should be met with
a document that mistakes yilification
for argument and vituperation for rea-
son.
1T sometimes happens that attorneys
in argument in the heat of a trial de-
scend to the use of such language as
tconscienceless rogue thief dressed
in a little brief authority, which he
used to fatten his purse with filthy
gains etc.
But what force or effect or what
place such language can have in a.
presentation of points of law before the
highest tribunal Of this state we are
unable to comprehend We regret that
the same learned officer should be so
carried away with his subject, or that
the exigencies of his case are so criti-
cal as to render it, in his opinion.
necessary to reflect upon the ability. in
tegrity and good faith of coordinate
branch of our government-one before
which he appears almost daily-and to
gratuitously and publicly insult said !
court and the members thereof in such
manner as he has done in this case.
QUOTES SOME. E.PARAGRAPHs
After quoting from the peoples petit
tion those parag graphs relating to the
OF the appellate courts de-
cision and to the general public re pro-
baton with which it was every lere
met the answer continues:
I'VE submit that the language in this
petition is unjust, unfair to the ap-
pellate court. and that the use of such
language, in speaking of its decision in
full and contemptuous OF the appellate
court, but direct and hagrant con-
Continued ON Page 3, Column