The San Francisco call., 1910-10-18
JUSTICES SHATTER
TALK FOR RUEF
Two Members of Court of Ap,
peal Indicate Belief in the
Briber's Guilt

The manner in which two of the
three justices of the state district
court of appeal yesterday showed their
belief in the guilt OF Abe Ruef was the
most impressive fact that developed
during the argument on the eight VOL
ume appeal of the convicted briber.
Henry Ach argued for Ruef in the
morning and former Assistant District
Attorney John O'Gara supported the
conviction of the former boss in the
afternoon, and then the case was taken
under advisement. 1t will be decided
at least before the first of the year,
when Presiding Justice Cooper's term
expires.
1t was Cooper and Justice Hall who
accepted as automatic the fact of
Ruef's guilt. Justice Frank Fl. Kerri-
gan was reticent on the subject. Dur
| ing O'Gara's argument the testimony
Of the supervisors was reviewed at
| length The attorney recited the well
known fact that Gallagher was the
distributor of the bribe money and that
he secured a larger share of the Doodle
than did his colleagues in the graft.
JUSTICES INDICATE STAND
He was the boss" suggested Pre-
siding Justice Cooper. and then glanc-
ing at Ruef. who sat near the bench,
the justice corrected himself and add
ed "the second boss
During the discussion on the same
point Hall expressed his certainty of
the guilt also. Cooper had asked
O'Gara what points he had to offer to
refute Henry Ach's declaration that
the conviction was upon insufficient
evidence.
The evidence shows that the. bribe
money was subsequently paid" COM
mented Justice Hall.
Yes" said OGara-
There is no question of best recol
lection about that" continued the as
sociate justice.
None whatever" O'Gara replied.
The attorney and the justices dis
cussed informally the domination ex
ercised by Ruef
I'VE had a case where one man did
butt in, TO use the language of the
street" interpolated Hall.
Yes, in the Halsey case" said
O'Gara, but in that Ruef in his ca
pacity as overload exacted punish
ment for the supervisors who dis
obeyed orders"
Yet thieves always speak of the
honor among themselves Cooper
commented with a smile.
ABE RUFF PRESENT
Ruef was present through the whole
ant to appear in court when his ap
peal is being decided; frequently they
are tied up in the county jail. But if
Ruef was violating any technical point
of etiquette of the court no comment
was made on the fact. Ruef, having
violated other canons of conduct was
Indifferent to any criticism on such
minor point of behavior.
Insurgency achieved a fresh victory
during the hearing, for Henry Ach de-
nounced 1t.
This doctrine of insurgency" he
said. which is flying through the
press, the magazines and the muck
rakers, is attempting to attach itself
to the process of the law, but it should
not come into play here. Some main
tain that a case on appeal should not
be reversed for error if it is believed
that the guilt of the defendant is so
apparent that a conviction will result
on the second trial That should not
be the case here. You can't work the
is guilty and error does not count.
Ach made a strong technical attack
on the proceedings of the Ruef trial
before Judge Lawlor. He attacked
Francis ]. Heney and Hiram ". john
son, the prosecuting attorneys, and
Judge William P. Lawlor. During
OGara's reply in the afternoon Justice
cooper
to answer charges made by Ach. If
the justices did accept Ruef's guilt as
undeniable, they showed a judicial tenn
permanent in measuring all the technical
objections advanced by Ach.
ANCESTORS FOUGHT FOR THEM
Judge Lawlor's instructions to the
jury relative to the rights of the de-
fendant not to testify were condemned
by Ach, and Cooper dwelt at some ex-
tent on how we-or rather our ances-
tors-fought for eight years to secure
Just those rights over the tyranny of
kingly oppressors.
Hiram w. Johnsons address to the
jury, in which he referred to Ruef sit
ting there with the plea of guilty on
his lips was also criticised. OGara
declared that reference to Ruef's con-
fession on the extortion charge had
been a matter of testimony in the case.
Ach declared that Judge Lawlor erred
in not discharging the trial jury after
Heney had been shot. and he alleged
that Juror Murphy had asked the court
to discharge them, as they could not be
fair to the defendant.
Francis J. Heney was not neglected
by Ach He declared that Heney had
had in his pocket in the courtroom a
report of the views OF James L. Arthur,
a venirenaan, strongly adverse to Ruef.
Did Mr. Heney try 10 set that man
on the jury?" asked Justice Cooper.
Yes" replied Ach.
There is no evidence of the nature
of the report Heney mad on Arthur"
O'Gara declared
O'Gara in his argument showed that
Heney was not bound by any report he
might have on a juror. and that he
could not make such reports public.
Cooper declared that IL he were presid-
ing over trial he would allow neither
side to have its agents interview jurors.
Reply briefs are to be filed within 10
DAYS. and then the Ruef appeal will be
taken under advisement
Ruef was convicted before Judge
Iawlor in December, 1908, of offering
bribe of $4,000 to Supervisor John j.
Furey to secure Furey's vote in the