"I have said that from the statements I have heard in the Grand Jury room that the corruption of the municipal administration was so great that the present Grand Jury could hardly expect to make any impression upon it. As to when and where I made that statement I cannot tell," replied Oliver, who proceeded: "As to myself, the mere testimony I have heard in the Grand Jury room has filled me with horror and disgust." "Does it fill you with such horror that you believe everyone connected with the administration is corrupt?" asked Lawyer Fairall of counsel for the defense. "I do not believe anyone to be corrupt until he is proved to be so." "Could you act fairly and impartially, as a Grand Juror, while having your present feeling of horror and disgust?" "Yes, absolutely so, for I have a conscience." "You feel that your conscience would enable you to act fairly?" "I do. If I erred at all it would be on the other side, so as to be sure that I did the accused no injustice." This examination went on for several days. The same examination of the Grand Jurors followed in the case of Ruef and Schmitz, and was repeated for the third time on behalf of public-service corporation agents who were indicted later. [136] The question of the eligibility of Grand Juror Wise was finally decided by the State Supreme Court in the matter of the application of A. Ruef for a writ of habeas corpus (150 California, p. 665.) The Court held that the presence on the Grand Jury of a member who had served and been discharged as a juror by a court of record within a year of the time that he had been summoned and impaneled to act as a grand juror does not affect the validity of an indictment found by the Grand Jury. [137] The Chronicle, in its issue of December 18, 1906, said of the attack upon the Grand Jury: