The San Francisco call., 1907-06-08

Mr. Ruef and Mr.. Ruef would take care
of us for two years for $1,000 a year
Priet said he thought that was ex-
orbitant. He said, I know Mr.. Ruef
I'll go and see him myself"
Did he see Ruef?"
Yes, and they told me to see the
other restaurant men and see If they
Franks. the Occidental and Old Poodle
Dog, the st. German and Jacks"
What did you tell them?'
L told Babcock that our licenses
would all be held UP, that we were
all in the same boat. l also told him
that / had seen Mr.. Ruef, who would
take care of us for two years for $1,000
a year. Babcock said he would dc
nothing, and the rest said the same. ]
reported and Priet said that he had in
the meantime seen Mr.. Ruef and set
tied for $4,000 a year for two years
and that he was to pay the money"
who was to put up the money!"
"Malfanti, Blanco, Adler, Priet and
myself"
RESTAURANT MEN CONTRIBUTE
Did you put it up?"
Yes, sir"
How was it to be divided?.
Each paid s1,175 except me. I said
and had heavy expenses and could
only pay $500"
ITO whom did you pay 1t and when?'
Il paid it to Joe Malfanti the day
before it was paid to Mr.. RUef.
don't remember the date"
On the cross examination Campbell
gave Loupy an opportunity to swear
that he had never heard of the alleged
French restaurant keepers association
He told the counsel for the defense
that Ruef had told him to see all the
French restaurant men and that Ruef
would do business with Loupy alone.
In answer to Campbell Loupy said
Ruef had never threatened him with
the loss of his license if Ruef was not
employed The cross examination
paved the way for Heney to show more
clearly the relations between Loupy
and Ruef on the redirect.
He brought out the fact that Loupy
owed Ruef $1,000 and that he became
unduly active in the license matter at
a time when his own license had nearly
its whole life TO run. He also, az re-
suit of Campbell's question, was en-
abled to ask Loupy why he wanted to
employ Ruef, and drive another nail
into the fee" theory. In answer TO
Heney's question Loupy replied:
Il was afraid that I would lose my
license. I went to Ruef because he
was the head of the administration"
DID NOT WANT RUFF AS A LAWYER
Did you go to him because you
wanted a lawyer"
Yes" answered the witness with a
show of uncertainty.
IF Ruef had been a doctor, would
you have gone to him just the same?'
persisted Heney.
Sure" replied Loupy; 'I went to
him because he was the political boss"
n. Max Adler. proprietor of the Bay
State restaurant, was the most valu-
able morning witness. He declared
fatty that he had never heard of the
mythical French restaurant keepers
association from which the defense
claims Ruef accepted a Fee"
Adler was equally positive in his de-
nial of ever entertaining a belief that
he was paying for legal services. He
understood, he said, that he was pay
ing Ruef for protection. His lawyer
had advised him that he had no reme-
dy at law and that what he needed
was not a lawyer but Ruef and his
influence over the police commission.
HOEDUP OF RESTAURANTS
Adlers testimony strengthened the
chain of circumstantial evidence of a
deliberate plan to hold up the French
restaurants. He swore that before and
after the walters strike at Tortonfs
Loupy came to him and told him that
all the French restaurants were in
danger; that they must employ Ruef or
they would all lose their licenses. Ad-
Ter told the jury how after putting up
$1,115 for protection his license was
not granted and his place was closed.
He was in debt and losing money. He
went to Ruef. Ruef assured him that
he would hear good news in a day or
two, and within the specified time Hut
ton was removed from the police COM
mission. The renewal of Adler's Ii
cense was immediately Forthcoming.
Adler's refusal to pay the second
years installment was brought out in
a manner strongly corroborative of his
assertion that he knew he was paying
for protection and not for legal
services
The defense confined its cross ex-
animation to a brief showing of the
fact that no direct threats had been
made by either Ruef, Schmitz or
Loupy.
PAID TO SAVE LICENSES
On the direct examination Heney
asked:
DO you remember having had any
conversation about the licenses for
French restaurants, about the time
of the walters strike at Tortoni'sg
Yes" replied the witness. Il talked
about the matter with Jean Loupy,
both before and after the strike"
What did he say to your
The first time he came to my place
and he said: This thing is serious. We
have got to put up some money here
or We will all lose our licenses. Ruef
is the only man who can help us"
What did you tell him?"
The first time ] told Loupy 1 did
not care anything about it. 1 was not
In trouble and / had been doing busi-
ness for 20 years"
Did you know the relations between
Loupy and Ruef?"
II knew that Ruef made his head
quarters at Loupys place across the
street from mine."
Did you know the relations between
Ruef and the Administrations
Il only knew that Ruef was the
boss"
when did the question of the re-
newal Of your license arise?p
After Loupy came to see me" re-
piled the witness. They refused INV
license at the meeting on January
The license expired on January s. I
took my lawyer Marcus Rosenthal. to
the meeting on January and the com