The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-06-21

packing the jury to secure my con-
viction.
1 am consoled in the failure of the
jury to acquit me by the knowledge
that the evidence of corruption in
the district attorneys office, now
made matter of court record, must
lead to~the overthrow of the most
corrupting private control of public
Office that has ever disgraced the
America.
Another important constitutional
question has developed during the
trial of my case, but could not be
made pertinent matter before the
jury BY the constitution of this
state it is expressly provided: No
person holding any lucrative office
under the United States, or any
other power, shall be eligible to
any cigil Office of profit under this
state" 1t owrconclusiyely appears
from the records of the office of the
attorney general of the United
States sent here to the United States
district attorney that during the
whole period that Mr. Francis j.
Heney acted as assistant district
attorney he held the office of assist
ant TO the attorney general of the
United States, and received large
sums of money from the federal
government. What would be said if
the attorney general of the United
States accanfod tho annn{n+p,ant 90
assistant district attorney of any
state in this union and entered upon
the prosecution of citizens of that
state? IF the attorney general OF
the United States could not openly
hold the Office OF assistant district
attorney and prosecute citizens of
the state of California. an assistant
to the attorney general of the
United States should not be per-
mitted to do so.
CORRUPT BARGAIN MADE
The record in my case clearly
shows that Mr.. Francis j. Heney
was appointed assistant district at
torney, in spite of the federal ONCE
which he held, through the influence
of Mr. ]. j. Dwyer, the political
manager of Mr.. William H. Lang
don, then a candidate for governor
of the state of California, and that
Mr.. Dryer received $1,000 from
Mr.. Rudolph Spreckels as his share
in the corrupt bargain made between
Messrs Francis ]. Heney and Ru-
dolph Spreckles; that the very in
dictment on which l was tried was
drawn by Mr.. c. w Cobb, another
partner of Mr.. Frances J. Heney.
who received and is to receive sums
amounting to s26,250 as his share of
the bargain; that we have traced to
Mr.. Francis j. Heney the sum of
s2s,Soo as his PROVEN share of the
bargain.
There is no wonder that Messrs.
Rudolph Spreckles. James d. Phelan
and Francis ]. Heney seek to con-
troll the Office of the district at
torney in the coming election. With
this record of crime spread upon
the minutes of the court ii is abso-
lutely essential to these men to con-
troll the district attorneys office in,
order to stop their own prosecution.
If 1t was an evidence of guilt on
Abraham Ruefs part when he
sought to wrest the district at
torney's office from William II.
Langdon, 1t is equally an evidence
of guilt on the part of Messrs. Ru-
dolph Spreckles, Francis j. Heney
and James D.. Phelan for them to
seek again to control it.
1t is for the people of San Fran
cisco to decide whether criminals
shall control the office of district
attorney and the administration of
their law be dragged through the
mire of corruption