The White Pine news. [volume] (Ely, Nev.) 1906-1910, 1907-06-13
RUFF SAID he
DIVIDED MONEY
WITH SCHMITZ
FINAL DAY OF TESTIMONY \
HARD ONE FOR SAN FRAN
CISCO'S MAYOR.
HOW HE WAS PAID THE FEE"
Argument Commenced and Case Will
Probably Go to Jury Be-
fore Night.

SAN FRANCISCO, June 12.-This
was an ear-burning day for Mayor
Schmitz. Seated at the counsel table
before the altar in the Jewish syna
gogue on Bush street, he heard Abra
ham Ruef, his former political friend,
call him a perjurer to the jury, and
with that same jury he listend to
scathing denunciation of himself at
the lips of Prosecutor Hiram John
son.
And If there was balm for scourged
feelings in the speech that closed the
day, the speech of his own attorney,
Barrett, he took no open heed. In
deed, during most of the two hours
and twenty-five minutes Mr.. Barrett
was speaking the mayor was either
glancing over newspapers or buried
deep in typewriter pages of testi
mony. But no word of the prosecu-
tors words escaped his sensitive ears.
Ruef was, of course, the sensation
of the day. They came to hear him
do one of two things, denounee the
mayor as sharer of his French res
taurant fees" and therefore per-
jurer, or fall down on" the prosecu-
tion by refusing to testify to anything
of the sort. More than a thousand
people flocked to the Bush-street
temple this morning and noon and
found seats or standing room in the
auditorium that is Judge Dunnes
temporary courtroom. Not few of
them were women. Among these was
Mrs. Francis J. Heney, wife of the
prosecutor. She occupied a front
row seat in the gallery. Policemen
were on guard upstairs and down.
stairs to preserve order and keep the
aisles clear. 1t was their first ap-
pearance, too. Once in the forenoon
session, and once again in the after
noon, Judge Dunno threatened to ad
journ court to give the bailiff a
chance to drive all the spectators out
of the synagogue if the disturbance
by laughter were repeated That
was when Ruef, under cross-examin-
alton, said he had met" Elisor Big
gy, his months-long jailer and again
when some other bit of decellery APP
pealed to the crowd. Little enough
there waste laugh at all day.
Ruef, whose appearance on the
stand as witness in rebuttal for the
prosecution, is now accredited to the
tactical error of the defense in let
ting the mayor testify, for 1t was to
refute he mayors denials, under
OATH, that he had participated in
Ruefs fee" that that the prisoner
ex-boss was called. Ruef told the
jury that he went to Schmitz' former
residence, 2849 Fillmore street, now
used by Biggy as jail for Ruef, and
there handed to the mayor at stated
intervals one-half of the fees of
$4,000 and $4,000 paid him b ythe
proprietors of the five foremost of
the French restaurants before the
fire.
II SAID SUBSTANTIALLY THIS:
MAYOR, l HAVE RECEIVED THE
$4,000 FROM THE FRENCH RES
TAURANT MEN, AND l WOULD BE
GLAD TO HAND YOU HALF
THEN l HANDED HIM $4,000 IN
CURRENCY" is the way Ruef put
it to the jury.
This was after the defense had eX-
hausted it's best efforts to shut both
question and answer out on the
ground that the former was not pro-
per rebuttal because in his direct eX
animation, no such matters had been
broached to the mayor. Judge Dunno
decided that the pertinency of the
HuCotlOH SOulu IOL DC tlOuDltu.
The opening address for the prose-
cution by Hiram w. johnson, son of
former Congressman Grove L. John
son, and one of the foremost crimi-
nal lawyers of the state, occupied one
hour and fifteen minutes. 1t was
mastery in argument and in elo-
quence. Mr.. Johnson avaided any
thing like an attempted resume of the
evidence in all its voluminous detail
He selected rather the main points,
and steering by them endeavored to
pilot the jury over a short course to
conviction.
Mr.. Johnson was followed by J. J.
Barrett, who spoke for two hours and
half in behalf of the defense, MAX
ing much of the argument that had
the courtperimtted Ruef to tell the
whole story he would have testified
that the restaurant men came to
Ruef and besought his services as an
attorney, and that no threat was
made to or held over them that they
would lose their licenses if they did
not pay him money, and that Ruef's
contention would have been that he
did not xercise any control over the
license board.
Barrett told the jury that under
the testimony adduced, the most that
might be proved was that money was
extorted by Ruef from the French
restaurant men by threat to close the
bedrooms on their upper floors.
1.-The indictment" commented the
mayors attorney, "charges this de-
fendant with extorting money by
threat to take away their licenses to
sell liquor. You cannot, gentlemen,
accuse defendant of one crime and
convict him of another. Remember
that"
When Barrett concluded the court
adjourned for the day. ~
The closing arguments will be
made tomorrow and the case will
probably reach the jury before night.