"The System," As Uncovered by the San Francisco Graft ProsecutionHichborn, Franklin
History
"The System," As Uncovered by the San Francisco Graft Prosecution
Hichborn, Franklin
Political corruption -- California -- San Francisco; San Francisco (Calif.) -- Politics and government
[146] On March 25, 1907, Ruef's appeal in the habeas corpus matter
was dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Of
this move, Frank J. Murphy, one of Ruef's attorneys, is quoted
in a published interview: "We have instructed our
representative in Washington to withdraw the writ of error
filed by us. This decision was reached on account of the
decision of the State Supreme Court to the effect that the
participation of an incompetent juror does not affect the
validity of an indictment."
This action left the Prosecution free to proceed with Ruef's
trial without any possibility of the proceedings being
questioned later.
[147] Judge Dunne ruled that Ruef, being a fugitive from justice,
and his trial one for felony, at which the defendant must be
present at every stage of the proceedings, there was no trial
before the court. Shortridge was in the position of counsel
without a client. During the examination of Coroner Walsh,
after his failure to find Ruef, Shortridge insisted upon
interrupting the examination. Judge Dunne after repeated
warnings, found Shortridge guilty of contempt of court, and
sentenced him to serve twenty-four hours in jail. The
Chronicle of March 9, 1907, contains the following account of
the incident:
"Have you not said," Walsh was asked by Heney, "that you hoped
he (Ruef) would be acquitted and that you would do all you
could for him? Are you not in sympathy with him?"
Again the Coroner quibbled and Judge Dunne ordered: "Answer
the question. Do you sympathize with him or not?"
Still the witness hesitated, and again the Judge asked with
vigor: "Are you in sympathy with him?"
"If he is innocent I am in sympathy with him, if he is guilty
I am not."
"I suppose you wish it to appear that you are not in sympathy
with him so that you may take charge of the jury," suggested
Heney.
Samuel M. Shortridge, one of Ruef's lawyers, here said that he
objected on behalf of his client to the line of examination.
Heney proceeded without paying any attention to Shortridge's
interruption. Shortridge again entered an objection, and Judge
Dunne ordered him to take his seat.
"But I wish to be heard on behalf of my client," persisted
Shortridge.
"Take your seat, Mr. Shortridge, or I will order the Sheriff
to cause you to do so or remove you from the court room,"
declared Judge Dunne.
"Am I to understand that I am not to be heard in this court?"
demanded Shortridge with play of great indignation.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account