The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, July 2, 1902, Page 1

VOLUME XCII-NO. 32 PRICE FIVE CENTS. GAGE'S ATTORNEYS TRY TO BLOCK HEARING OF LIBEL SUIT BEFORE POLICE JUDGE FRITZ AND WHEN FORCED TO PRESENT ARGUMENTS AS TO JURISDICTION THEY LEAVE THE COURTROOM HE efforts of Governor Henry T. Gage to cleanse his ’ reputation in the fires of a libel suit reached a stage yesterday which makes them matters of the deepest concern to the people of the State. Governor Gage into the Police Court of this city two attorneys, armed with impudence and deceit, to force an impositio upon the Court, to attempt to prostitute to personal malice the most elementary refuges of justice and to seek, by in- timidation, cunning and blackguardism, to corrupt a Court of Justice into an agency of private advantage. Through these attorneys, one of whom is a paid lawyer of the South- ern Pacific Company, and the other, who achieved disti-- guished ilifame as an indecent exposure misrepresenting California at the Paris Exposition, Governor Gage declared that he is not only the Chief Executive of California, but in- sists that he is also the dictator and source of the judicial system of the State. fmickly following the sent Governor who, at San Pedro. spewed the slime of his abuse upon all courts in California which he cannot control, declaring them purchased and purchasable, these wttorneys made astounding assertion, in their acts, that Governor Gage's reputation and character shall be tried in the balance of justice only in a court of hix own choosing and no other. These attorneys, A. A. Moore, attached to the railroad, and B. Foote, latest and least of the beneficiaries of Governor Gage, presented themselves as un- solicited, unasked friends of the Court. & Under such masi they opened their proceeding by insult- ing Judge Fritz in assuming that he.is ignorant of the very elements of legal procedure. They sought to dominafe the Court into n process that a. novice would not attémpt. They blackguarded the defendants by a charge which ix palpably a falsehood. In this extraordinary scemé they strove by methods reprehensible to the last degree to open by blackguardism an avenue of escape for. their employer from the inevitable exposure of his conduct. In this moéra- ing campaign of buncombe and billingsgate Mr. Moore had one distinet advantage over his associate, B. Foote. Mr. Moore speaks English. 5 B. Foote did not, however, leave the courtroom without one triumph. He declared with characteristic bluster and smiling fellowship to the newspaper reporters that the Whole proceeding was a roaring farce. It was—when he opened his mouth. And when he retired the equilibrium and Doise of a Court of Justice were restored. ’ These self-constituted “friends of the Court” met the r ception and the reward they merited. They were received in good faith by Judge Fritz. Then, presuming upon their appearance, they announced fiatly and violently intelerant of contradiction, that Judge Fritz has no jurisdiction and that no one, a citizen of. the State, may file a complaint np- on information. Resisting argument upon these points the “friends,” ignoring the Court or its sense of right proce- durc, shouted that the whole afinir was a collusive fraud. ‘of “friends” resisted. Judge Frits entertained bgth propositions; absurdity has its place as well as reason in Oourt until it is kicked out. But Judge Fritz.demanded that both points be orderly argued with some respect for legal conventionality. This the brace Mr. Moore and B. Foote were there to blackguard and browbeat and insult, not to argue. B. Foote blurted that he and his associate would no longer be the “friemds of the Court.” He would retire, he said, but h meant that having attempted to use the bludgeon of h tongue and his legal heels to kiek a case out of Court h ended by kicking himself out, a feat of contortion in which he has had experience. And it may be that as he left he saw a fleeting vision of Attorney Church or felt the tweezer fingers of Den Truman upon his nose.. To one unused to such a humiliating predie- ament the situation must have been painful. Attorney Moore possibly wonld not have cared to argue that point. The ar- rogance of Governor Gage that he shall rule the Courts of California, that he shall decide when and where he shall submit to a trial, for he is the actual defendant, had failed. t overnor Gag Foote and M « . withdrew olice Judge d to ta y further proceedings Boardman Is and of 1 representatives that nediate hearing of the d from the p sight of a speedy ritz called the vs reckels and case of the people Leake the courtroom was crowded to its capacity. y ¢ defendants were present with their counsel. Attorneys Preston. The people Assistant District nd Attorney L. P. comp! aining witness, so prese Neither Gage nor his Warden Aguirre of San Quen- prison 1 t, though the subpenaed Gage Foote was cou arden had bee represenied by Attorneys Moore 1RY TO BLOCK PROCEEDINGS. Moore tried very hard to block the proceedings, then Foote jumped into the fray and both the attorneys talked wildly of “collusion,” “fraud,” “judicial farces,” until court and spec- tators were wearied . made the absurd tion Boardman had nc to put the machinery of the law in motion without first consulting Gov- grnor Gage Representatives of Governor Meet With Signal Defeat in Contending That Proceedings Here Are Not Légal. o+ The two points on which Gage's at- torneys tried to block the progress of the case were that the proceedings were without the consent of Gage, and #at Boardman’s plaint was a collusive one, Attorneys Campbell and Preston en- lightencd the representatives of the Governor that it was well known to law. that any citizen has the right and power to institute criminal proceedings without consulting the party alleged to be injured. Foote was not satisfied and tried to “run a bluff,” but was “called” by Po- lice Judge Fritz. Foote desired to proceed in a most irregular way and place Attorney Boardman on the wit- ness-stand in order to find out if he (Boardman) represented Gage and if there had been any collusion between Boardman, as the complainant, and the defendants. GAGE'S LAWYERS RETIRE. Police Judge Fritz finally became tired of the wrangling efforts of Foote and Moore to waste time and ' block the case. The Judge flatly told Gage’s lawyers that Boardman had a periect right to file the complaints and that the only question before the court was if the proceedings instituted by Gage in the town of Sah Pedro acted as a bar to the hearing of the proceedings commenced by Boardman in this city. Foote and Moore wanted to thrash over the old ground -that there had been collusion and that Gage had not been consulted by Boardman, but Judge Fritz insisted that arguments be presented to him as to the question of his jurisdiction to try the libel suits brought by Boardman. i Brought face to face with the pros- pect of a speedy trial of the libel suits, Foote and Moore threw up the sponge. They withdrew from the courtroom af- ter saying they would have nothing to do with the proceedings. The insult to the dignity of the court was so prongunced that all = present wondered if Judge Fritz would use his prerogative and have the offending at- torneys haled before him for contempt. Judge Fritz ignored the conduct of Foote and Moore and asked coun- sel for Messrs. Leake and Spreckels to present their authorities on the point of jurisdiction. The attorneys did so, and the Judge announced that he would render a decision at 2 o'clock this af- ternoon. oo gt gt JUDGE FRITZ CALLS CASE. Attorneys Moore and Foote Appear for Governor Gage. The_following is a report of th& pro- ceedings held before Police Judge Fritz yesterday morning: The Court—The case of the People vs. Spreckels and Leake. Mr. Moore—Your Honor, please, Mr. Foote and myself are here to-day to rep- 1esent the prosecuting witness in the case in Los Angeles County, Mr. Henry T. Gage, which case has already been brought to your.Honor's attention. We are here, as I was here before, for the purpose of protesting and . objecting against this court entertaining jurisdic- tion in the case now apparently pending before it. And we desire, so representing the prosecuting witness in the case in Tos Angeles, to present our arguments to your Honor now-on the propositions go- ing to the power of this court to entertain Jurisdiction in this case instituted by Mr. Boardman. The two -propositions that we desire to present to'your Honor are that this pros- ecution instituted here by Mr. Boardman is entirely without the consent and against the will of the prosecuting wit- ness in the Los ‘Angeles case, in whose behalf it is ‘affparently prosecuted, and that it is, as we claim, an entire fraudu- lent and collusive attempt to impose upon the jurisdictionof the court; that it is not a real cage; that it is a.case that has been concocted between Mr. Louis P. Boardman and the defendants in the czuse for a purpose that was collusive in its origin;-that-it was -the result of a censpiracy between those three, and that its purpose was simply and solely to avoid the jurisdiction which had just attached in the case, as'we contend. The point we desirc to argue is that on the face of the proceeding ‘as it:now stands hefore you this court has no jurisdiction to go on and try this case and oust another court in which jurisdiction has already at- tached. On that branch of the case con- cerning the collusion, with your Honor's permissjon, I will ask my associate, Mr. Feote, to take charge of that and reply to Mr. Boardman. Mr. Boardman—If your Honor please, T am free to say in my own behalf 'and as the prosecuting witness in this matter that 1 am fully ready at any time and at all times to answer the statements and assertions of counsel, both as 10 law angd as to fact. This matter, contrary to the statement of counsel just made, on the face of the proceedings as they are en- clal criminal . prosecution, . instituted by me in this court as a citizen making ‘a complaint- that a crime has been commit- ted in this city and county, charging the defendants with the commission of the offense, and proof has been called for. I know, if your Honor please, of no provi- sion of law or exigency of justice which calls for or requires any. motion of this kind upon the part of counsel, who ap- pears here not under any requirement of law for somebody who is not nominally a party to this proceeding and asks your Henor to take cognizance of a motion which is unheard of in proceedinge of this kind. I am not seeking antagonism, if your Honor. please, with the gentleman, nor with the person whom he represents. This court is open to-him fully and fairly to introduce his proof, and I am ready to offer him my assistance. The position which T have taken and wkich I now in- tend to support in this case is that this court has jurisdiction of this offense. And I am ready, as I said before, to make that manifest to your Honor. 1 resent and 1 deny the statements made by coun- sel that there is any collusion or fraud or malpractice whatever in this proceed- ing; if that is the issue I am ready to meet it, here, now or anywhere. Mr. Moore—That is what we will do. Mr. Boardman—But, your Honor please, this is not the time and this is not the place. This is not the time to interject some foreign proposition of law reflecting upon . the jurisdiction of some foreign court by your Honor. I say the question here is simply ‘and solely, has your Honor \Jurisdiction, of the proceedings which T ‘hdve Instituted here under a complaint duly @led? ‘I say it is not the time nor the .pl&ge to make this motion, and I am tered and recorded here is a valid, ’lu.-»‘"i-g_ad‘ your Honor please, to proceed with 3 2 g my proof and to introduce my further . testimony. e TO ‘' DETERMINE JURISDICTION. Judge Fritz Desires to Hear Argu- ments on That Point. The Court—You stated, Mr. Boardman, on the last calling of the case, that the court received judicial notice of the rec- ord of the proceeding ‘in_the matter in the Justice’s Court in Wilmington Town- ship, Los Angeles County, and before pro- ceeding with the taking of testimony on the last calling of the case I thought it my duty. to determine-first whether the action brought in_ Los Angeles County is a bar to the sroceeding in this court, and I want to hear arguments later on on that point. Mr. Boardman—I agree with your Hon- or, it there is anvthing.which appears in these proceedings, or upon the face of the complaint which has been filed, which might lead to some question or doubt.on your Honor's part as to your jurisdiction, it is eminently pfoper that that question be argued and considered, and I am willing to do that: but to the offer of ptoof here of something that is not cognate to this matter, I object as the prosecuting witness in’ this proceed- ing. But I am willing to" meet and argue any question of law. Mr. Campbell—Your Honor please, I will answer the statement of my brother Moore that this is a conspiracy and that the matter is instigated without the con- sent of the prosecuting witness in an- other jurisdiction. I would like to know by what authority of law Henry T. Gage has any. right_to control the courts of this State. If he clalms that authority, then he invades the comstitutional power -defendants are ready SRR — I | | I ! s S O SRR O SO : £ a0 3 o * TORNEYS FOOTE AND MOORE, REPRESENTING GOVERNOR GAGE, LEAVE COURTROOM AND DECLINE TO TAKE PART IN ARGUMENTS. i _ - -_— = 3 {7 L o and endeavors not only to be the execu- tive but the judicial arm of the State. Lalso object to.interjecting at this time any side issues into this case. If Mr. Gage and Mr. Boardman have any ques- tion : between them hereafter, let them settle it; but we are here charged with the crime, the defendants here, and the to ‘answer - that charge of crime. They are ready to ju tify.the allegations that are made in this information. As to the question as to whether or nay the proceedings in the ‘Wilmington court, or the court: of Wilmington Township in Los Angeles County, are a bar to these proceedings, we also are ready to answer to that proposition when it is made. There is no such a thing known to tha criminal law as a plea in abatement, and that question has been before our owa Supreme Court time and time again, and they. have. held in so many werds that the pendency of one examination is mot a bar to another. As far as that is the question, we are prepared to argue it. But to interject a side issue as to wheth- er or nay Mr. Boardman ought to file 3 complaint or ought not to file a complaint without consulting his Majesty the Gov- errior of the State of California, who Is the complaining witness in another Jurisdic- tion, I say, if your Honor Dlease, tha: that has no business and has nothing ta do here. There are various public rea- sons aside from that of convenience to the defendants why this case should be presecuted in this jurisdiction. It 1s, to say the least, a debatable question as to where the residence of the Pprosecuting witness or the person alleged to have been libeled is. It is assrted by one side that his residence is In the county of Sac- ramento—that is vehemently denied, and it is asserted on the other side that his residence s in the county of Los Angeles. But there is no question—while it may Be a question as to whether or not you could prosecute _this _proceeding for libel in Continued on Page Tv .