The San Francisco call., 1908-03-10

lawyer as his attorney and tell the evldence 70
him. and will then negotiate with that lawyer
as to the terms upon which will grant him
partial immunity. provided that lawyer is per,
accompiices who can and will be involved by
his testimony, and the general nature Oh tne
him. and N 'Sss lbe that .ad
able to and does assure me that Ruef can give
evidence against his accomplices which ., can be pc
corroborafed and which Will De su1ncient 10
sustain conviction
On the same or the following day Burns re,
turned TO me and stated that he had delrered
to. select the names Of several lawyers and 70
submit them 20 for appusval- and tnat ne
all tSe, a oo9R san Francseo for that
purpose.
LOOKING FOR A LAWYER
Several days passed during which time Burns
told me that Ruef had the book and was md.
ing some difficulty In selecting the names OF
LAWYERS whom Ruef thought would be salts
factory to me as well as to himself. On each
OF these occasions Burns told me that Ruef had
Henry Aeh. and on each occasion / refused to
do SO and stated to Burns that Ruef's insistence
In the matter Indicated to my mind that Ruef
was ". not in good faith and that he was trying
replied X substance, sS nano How e can be hand US
god brick ms long. as you and the district
san ssrorney n, have control Of the and
he may make?' And to this replied In sub
stance, Well, he give us lot of trou-
On or about the I'd day OF April. 1907.
Burns told me that DIR. Jacob Nieto hsd ap
proached him in the courtroom of depart
ment No 8 just court had adjourned and
had asked Burns If he had any objection
to Nieto calling upon Rnef and stated that
ne ne = Nieto) believed he might be able TO get
the higher ups and that he tNieto) be-
liered that effort being made by the
higher ups to make auef the scapegoat for
all the boodling that had been committed.
Burns also told thai said to Nieto:
We not only have no objection but We would
os @ glad ,.. to have you go there and ende.,or to
oeen trying to get him 10 do it,. Burns also
stated to me that Nieto said that he would
go to see Ruef that day or that night
said to Burns in reply in substance: You
nad better be careful what you say to Nieto.
he Is not friendly to the prosecution He
Jumped me several times during the examina
ton OF grand jurors and claimed that was
preJudiced against Jews. There was no foun
dation whatever for his jumping me. Some
Jews. and some of my best clients are Jews
and of the best men the
don't think there is man in the
world who has more loleration for religious
beliefs than myself, or is less prejudiced against
any one OF his religious belief.
You ought not to trust Nieto. am sure he
will do everything in his power to have Ruef
get the best of 1T in any negotiations which
may be had in the matter"
SUSPICIOUS OF RABBI
Burns replied in substance: He cannot do
any harm aud may be able to induce Ruef
TO tell the truth l have no doubt he is
taking an interest in Rncf on account OF his
religious faith, but whatever his motive may
be makes difference K he succeeds in get
ting Ruef TO acceda to our terms made
no further opposition in the matter except
10 warn Burns to be very careful what he
said TO Nieto.
On the same day. to wit, the I'd day of April.
1907. Burns told me that he had arranged with
Ruef for meeting with Henry Ach for that
night at which meeting Burns, Ruef and Ach
were TO discuss the question OF Ruefs turn
ing states evidence against his accomphces
in the crimes In which he had participated.
Burns stated to that Ruef had told him
that he had gone over the entire list of at
torneys In San Francisco and had definitely
concluded that Henry Ach was the only at
torney in San Francisco whom he tisuef)
would trust in the matter and that II Burns
would meet Ruef and Ach they would talk
On the same day. to wit. April 2, 1907, aud
before Ruef made this arrangement with Burns
to meet Ach and himself; the actual examina-
tion of jurors for the trial OF Ruef had ocm-
menced in department No. OF this court
and had continued throughout the day, and
the case had then been continued to the next
day.
On April g. 1907, Burns told me that he had
been at Fillmore street house from 10 o'clock
on the preceding night and had there
met Ach, and that Ruef. Burns and Ach had
discussed the question of Ruef's turning states
evidence until midnight end that Ach had
asked Burns to submit citations TO him show
ing that the district attorney had power 20
grant immunity. and that he (Burns) had asked
Ach to submit 10 Burns the names OF the
persons xnom Ruef claimed to be able TO
implcate as accomplices in the crimes COM
mUted by him, and that this conversation oc-
Cured in the presence of Ruef
On April 3, 1907, the examination of trial
jurors in No. 800 again proceeded in de-
partment No. of this court and at the close
of the day the was continued until the fol-
lowing day. After the adjournment of court
Burns came 10 my office and told me that Ach
wanted him to submit citations showing the dis
frirt affn hqd fore n Y.
asked Burns if he asked them to give him names
Of the people whom Ruef's testimony would in
yolve and what reply they made TO that question,
and Burns said that he asked them the question
and that Ruef said: well. l will let you know
that later on but what we want now is those
citations that in substance
On April 4, 1907. the examination or trial
ure e No % Ss S9s sssn s the ~
of the day the case was continued to Monday,
the Sth day of April, 1907.
POWER is LIMITED
On the same day, to-wit, April 1. 1907, Burns
told me that he had spoken to Ach when court
adjourned at noon and had agreed to meet Ach
with Ruef at D. M and have another talk on
the subject of Ruef's turning states evidence.
told Burns to tell Ach and Ruef that was
satisfied that the district attorney had no power
TO grant immunity. but that l equally well
satisfied that II the terms OF the immunity
agreement were reasonable and IN the interests
Of Justice the court would undoubtedly follow
the recommendations of the district attorney IL
1t had confidence in him and II he made show
consideration by the court and that 1t was the
practice In all courts in which had prosecuted
for the court to give great weight to any recon-
fnendation of that kind made by the district at
torney On the same day Burns told that
Dr. Nieto had said to him in the hall of the
courtroom in the Temple Israel. in substance:
what will you fellows do for Ruef if he
comes throughi - And that he Burns had
told him that Ruef would be given lenency.
and that he Burns, would recommend that Ruef
be let go free, but that Heney might not consent
/ a also told Burns to tsll them to look at the
case Of Camrop VS.. State, and that 1t was a
Texas case reported In volume 10, American
State Reports. at page 1885, and had some inter
estine and instructive notes following It on this
subject.
On the following day Burns told me that he
mad told Ach aud Ruef the substance of what
had told him to tell them, and that both Aeh
aud Ruef said that they understood that the
district attorpeysdid not have any power to grant
immunity. but that they Thought perhaps
might have found some cases which held tc that
eject that they had seen the ca Of Canaron "
State and the notes following it In the Fortieth
American State Reports, and asked IL l had
seen the Indian Peter case decided by our su-
preme court.
MUST PLEAD GUILTY
Burns also told me that both Ach and Ruef
were Insisting upon absolute and complete i'm
munity and / told him that they were wasting
time as would never consent to It,: that he
could tell them as my ultima tum that Ruef
must plead guilty In No. 305 then on
trial aud take his chances upon the sentence