“They knew they didn’t have to go, but they went, and they refused to testify; and now they want the indictments set aside because their great constitutional rights have been tampered with.
“They say he could have waived the point and testified, but because he refused and walked out he has been deprived of his constitutional right.”
In commenting upon the point raised by the indicted carmen, the Chronicle, in its issue of July 30, 1907, said:
“In attacking the legality of the Grand Jury the attorneys of the carmen indicted for making assaults with deadly weapons and throwing bricks at street cars may have played into the hands of their arch enemy, the president of the United Railroads. If the Supreme Court should hold that the Oliver Grand Jury passed out of legal existence when the 144 new names were selected by the twelve Superior Judges, the indictments against those connected with the telephone, gas, trolley and Parkside briberies would be set aside and all the work of the prosecution would have to be done over. It would be a curious outcome to the efforts of an attorney to free men charged with crimes which the unions condemn, but it would not be the first instance of a miscarriage of the purposes of organized labor.”
Some went so far when examined for jury service at the later graft trials as to say they would not vote to convict.
The graft investigation uncovered something of the curious ethics governing this sort of publicity. For example, Mark L. Gerstle of the law firm of Thomas, Gerstle and Frick, who acted as attorneys for the Home Telephone Company, testified before the Grand Jury that the company paid the San Francisco Chronicle $10,000 to educate the people to the idea of a competing telephone system. The testimony was as follows:
“Q. During that time in 1905, were any newspapers paid to help the good cause? A. Yes.