The San Francisco call., 1908-03-12


such as appear in said written agreement, which
affidavit hereiE
deny that in submitting his motion to set
aside this indictment. No. s23 and his oe-
murrer thereto said Ruef relied upon any prom
ises. representations. agreements or assurances
Of mine, other than such set forth IN
said written agreement 'ExhIbit A, which Is
part of Ruef's second affidavit and deny
that said Ruef then believed or now believes that
he then had has independent evidence
which was not submitted upon said motion which
would tend to prove woud prove that state
OF mind existed on the part of individual grsnd
Jurors. or OF any individual grand juror IN rel-
erenee TO the case then being investigated by
the grand jury which found and returned sslI
Indictment No s23, which would prevent OF ana alo
prevent several or any of the said grand Jurors
from acting impartially without prejudice
TO the substantial rights of said Ruef.
Deny that said Ruef relied upon any prom
ise. assurance representation by me, other
than such as are Contained in said written
agreement in any action which he took IN con
nection with the various steps preceding the
trial under said indictment, No. S23
BEFORE GRAND JURY
deny that said Ruef relied upon any promise
Or assurance OF mine, other than such as are cor con
tained in said written agreement, defendant
said Ruef appeared before the grand jury as
witness in the investigation which resulteo IL
tie return of said Indictment, No. S23 -
deny that on the I'd day of OcIonerS lsoi,
10 the courtroom Of department No. IL o. TINS
court, or at any other time or place. IN ths
presence OF another person or otherwise or at
all. in answer to the question. How about the
dismissal of the indictments against Ruet-wil
tnat contract be carried outT' that l rephed
Yes There other cases. and that 1 nad
some doubts about that particular jury; or that
mad some doubts about that particular 1ur!
or Yes. There are other cases.; or that IN
substance and effect: and deny that said kuer
then and there or at any time asked me wAether
the arrangement or any arrangement as 70 the
plea downstairs in department wnuiu ne
carried out; and deny that l then and there OK
at any time in answer TO said, or any similar
question, replied Yes And deny that I then
and there started to go and was asked. will
the arrangement made with Ruef be carried
OUT" that in. substance and effect; and deny
said in answer TO that or any similar question
Yes" Deny that said Ruef then asked me
If Ruefs statements Of his proposed testimony
were satisfactory; or that in substance and eff
feet; and deny that then and there or at any
time or place in answer TO said or similar ques-
ton replied that They were; or that in sub
stance effect
I deny that in reply to Ruef's statement 'Yeu
are probably holding me for rebuttal as in the
Schmitz case" that I replied. 4 VIII leave it
this way, and II Ford goes on the stand l will
put you on the stand in rebuttal; have no fear:
the agreements stand and viii be carried out
absolutely" or anything like that in substance
or effect.
time said. in answer TO said any other state
ment made by Ruef. Il VIII leave il this way.
And deny that l then and there or at any other
time said to Ruef. in answer 70 said question.
or any similar question, If Ford goes on the
stand l VIII put you on the stand In reDuttaI !:
or that Ia substance or erect Deny that
then and there at any other time or place
said to Ruef, Have no fear; or that in sub
stance or effect. Deny that / then and there
or at any other time said to Ruef 'nThe agree
ments stand"; or that In substance effect.
Deny that l then and there or at any other
ried out absolutely" or that in substance or
effect; or anything like that IN substance or
effect.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th
day Of March, 1908. ,,
(Signed) l. A. CONDON.
Seal Notary Public in and for the City and
County of San Francisco, State of California.
PROFESSOR ENTERS CASE
Professor George Woodbury. Bunnell.
one of Ruef's former instructors at
the University of California, declares
in his affidavit that he introduced him
self to Heney IN June or July, 1907.
and telling the latter that he had
known Ruef well in college, asked if
Heney would object if he were to call
upon his former pupil. Heney told
him he would be glad to have him do
so, and the result was that Professor
Bunnell became deeply interested in
the pending negotiations and held
sev eral conversations with Ruef and
Rabbis Nieto and Kaplan. His aft
davit follows:
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
AND COUNTY or SAN FRANCISCO.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Plaintiffs.
PATRICK CALHOUN, THoRNwELL MuLLAIe
J.Y TIREY j. FORD. WILLIAM NJ ABBOTT
ABRAHAM RUFF and EUGENE T. ScdMlTZ,
D''74u'"'S eNo. s2s1
State Of California, City and County of San
GEORGE WOODBURY. BUNNELL, being first
duly sworn. deposes and saws:
That about the latter part Of June or the first
part Of July, 1907, he returned to Oakland from
Santa Cruz short time thereafter he attend
ed one Of the sessions of court. saw Francis j.
Heney one day in the courtroom OF the superior
court OF the city ana county of. San Francisco,
department No. H. and introduced himself by
stating that ne was Professor Bunnell formerly
of the University of California. Mr.. Heney re-
piled that be remembered him very well; that
afhant then stated he knew Ruef very we'll and
graduated from his department. Affsnt then
asked Mr. Heney if Ruef telling the truth
that Ruef was not telling the truth Afnant
then stated to Mr. Heney that he believed he
might have some influence with Ruef and might
induce him TO tell the TRUTH and asked II Mr.
Heney had any objections to his talking TO him.
In reply Mr. Heney smiled and said: II have
no objection in the world professor. | should
be very glad TO have you talk with him, but l
do not think you viii be able to do much with
him. or that in substance and effect.
Thereafter afiant did call on Ruef at his place
of confinement in Fillmore street near Green and
had talk with Ruef privately, the door of the
room in which they were sitting being closed.
Affant Ia substance stated to Ruef that he
had gathered the opinions of a great many peo-
pie Win Wl0m RueL ana prODaDfy MS IfieDdS
did not come in contact, and that if Ruef de-
sired 10 hear what these opinions were he would
tell him Ruef said he would Ike to hear them.
Affant then stated that the people with whom
he talked thought Ruef ought to make q clean
breast of every thing and make bona fde effort
TO aid the prosecution in bringing to justice
those who had corrupted the public officials OF
San Francisco Affsnt also told Ruef that if the
people whose opinions he was expressing could be
persuaded that Ruef telling the truth in
his judgment ii would result ins their taking a
friendly interest I'm Ruef and In their desiring
70 see him dealt with leniently by the prosecu-
ton. Afiant also told Ruef in this converse ton
that he had not been sent there by the prosecu-
ton: and this statement was true in fact as
affsnt went there of his motion and at his
request
Afhant repeated the substance of this inter
view TO William J. Burns within day or two
thereafter and told Mr.. Burns that he was salts
fed that Ruef not telling the truth. Mr.
Burns said that the prosecution knew that Ruef
was not telling the truth and that they could not
get MIN to tell il.
A CANDID OPINION
A short time thereafter affant had another
conversation with Rnef at the same place and
in this conversation affaft said TO Ruef in sub
stance and effect: Now. am about TO saw
something TO you which yop will not like and
while / am saving it You may ask me to leave
the order me ont. Do you want to hear
Z Rl,of Safd Yes ~o