The San Francisco call., 1907-06-08

French Restaurant Men
Tell Bribery Story
Continued from Page j, Coils. 3. and 5.

He heard Marcus Rosenthal. attorney
At law. tell the jury that. appreciating
that his clients only hope lay in pur-
chasing protection. he had advised the
restaurant man to go TO Ruef. He
heard Joseph Malfanti tell the jury that
he contributed 10 the fund feeling like
2 man who had been held up by a
footpad." And he heard the same men
tell the jury about the conversations
they had had with the mayor about the
delay in granting their licenses after
they had contributed to the fee" Ii
was not a nice day for the man who
stalked into the courtroom with head
erect in the morning and who left with
gloom written on his face in the even
ing.
Coupled with the testimony of the
previous day, the. prosecution nearly
completed its proof of conspiracy yes
terday. Special Prosecutor Heney an
nounced when court adjourned last night
that he would complete his direct case
today. He suggested some side lights.
which may include the introduction of
Abe Ruef as a witness on Monday. The
court adjourned last night that he
would complete his direct case today.
He suggested some side lights, which
may include the Introduction of Abe
Ruef as a witness on Monday. The
was started on the French restaurants
by the police commission at the in
stigation of the mayor. 1t has proved
that the efforts of the restaurant men
TO secure even a hearing prior to the
deal with Ruef were fruitless. 1t has
proved that through Ruefs debtor
Loupy the restaurant men were advised
to employ Ruef as "the only man who
could help them" 1t has proved that
q > y,
mayor reorganized the police commits
sion TO enable Ruef to earn the first in
stallment Of his two years retainer
It has proved that after paying Ruef
the restaurant men complained TO the
mayor about the delays, and that the
mayor promised TO see that they got
immediate relief. And the prosecution
has proved that the restaurants did get
immediate relief and subsequent i'm
munity.
EVIDENCE Is CIRCUMSTANTIAL
without regard to Ruefs plea OF
guilty, the evidence touching his par
ticipation in the holdup is direct-posi-
tive. Touching the mayor, IL is circum-
stantial. But it is the kind of circum-
stantial evidence that removes the
reasonable doubts of a jury. The
nature Of a conspiracy makes circum-
stantial evidence generally the only
available proof And many men. have
been hanged on circumstantial evidence
not half so strong, logically convincing,
as that mercilessly piled up against
Schmitz by the prosecution.
The defense, in cross examination,
has apparently adopted three methods
OF attack: it has sought 10 show that
the police commissions move against
the French restaurants did not origi-
nate with the mayor, but was a union
labor spite movement; it has sought to
show that the mayor changed front,
not for pay, but because he had been
approached by many influential persons
and had concluded that the movement
would prove disastrous to the union
labor party; again, II has unwittingly
proved that the mayor approved of the
French restaurants and was a regular
patron Of them. And. finally, the de-
Tense has attempted TO prove by cross
examination that the restaurant men
fairly forced the $4,000 fee" into the
unwilling hands OF Ruef. 1t has sue
ceeded in strengthening the damaging
character Of the evidence adduced by
the prosecution.
The witnesses yesterday were Jean
Loupy Of the Pup, the original gobe-
tween for Ruef and the restaurant men;
Max Adler, proprietor of the Bay State;
Marcus Rosenthal, Adler's attorney;
Michel Debret OF Marchand's, Joseph
Malfanti of Delmonico's and Edward
Marchand. stepson of Pierre Priet and
a cashier at Marchand's.
GoBETwEEN TELLS OF DEALS
The first real legal battle OF the
trial was developed by the examination
Of Debret, by whom Heney sought to
prove statements made by his partner,
Priet who completed the deal with
s1I - T-~,r
Heney contended that il was his right
10 prove Priet's agency for Ruef by
statements he had made for Ruef, and
that in treating with Ruef he did in
fact become Ruefs agent as well as the
representative of his fellow restaurant
mea- Campbell hotly contested Heney'S S
claim and the noon adjournment was
taken TO enable Heney to produce the
100 authorities he promised. He did not
bring the entire 1O0 but the few that
he did bring, coupled with his argu-
ment, resulted in the court overruling
the objection interposed by the defense.
The testimony Of Jean Loupy, the
original gobetween, left little room for
conjecture as to the methods employed
to bring the French restaurant men
and their purses into the Ruef-Schmitz
camp.
Loupy was the proprietor of the Pup
cal levees and was Ruefs debtor in
the amount Of $1,000. Ruef was also
Loupy's attorney for a number of
years. Loupy's testimony so fsN as the
prosecution was enabled TO secure it's
admission was largely circumstaEtiaI.
but strongly circumstantial.
He told the jury that Ruef visited
the Pup almost nightly spending the
hours between o'clock and midnight
there with his political henchmen, and
that Schmitz and Poheim were frequent
attendants upon the Ruef levees.
LoUPY PAID FOR PROTECTION
Loupy testified that he was present
at the meeting of the police commission
at which the renewal of the license
for Delmonicos was considered and
that previous to that meeting he had
discussed the situation with Adler of
the Bay State
Attorney Campbell for the defense,
sought TO secure the rejection of this
line Of testimony on the ground that
il was hearsay and inadmissable, but
the court sustained the prosecution
After the meeting of the police com
mission LOupy said he had talked with
Malfanti Of Marchand's and later the
same night had telephoned to Ruef
In response to Heney's demand for a
recital OF the telephone conversation.