The San Francisco call., 1908-03-12
Graffers' Lies Shown in Affidavits

UTdTTcrS L.
ney to dismiss said indictment, or for any other
reason; and deny thst any legal causes
sons for setting aside said Indictment did OF
deny that said Ruef did not take any steps
otner than those taken by his eodefendants as
against said Indictment No. s23 on account Of
any agreement witt said district attorney and
his assistant. Francis J. Heney. or either Of
Them or because he never expected 10 be tried
deny taet said Ruef believed that good
Srouncs OF demurrer existed Is 10 him against
said Indictment No. S23. or that any ground
grounds ~ demurrer existed as SAID illdet
meat No S2S which not advanced by bis
codefendants some Of them.
! deny that said Rpef took sll or any Of said
steps hy agreement with the prosecution
any one representing the prosecution
I deny that al ior any of these steps taken
by Ruet IA the matter q said indictment No
S2S were taken result Of express or
any agreement between said Ruef and the dis
ulct attorney OF assistant district stt0r-
ney of the city and county of San Francisco.
and deny that any of said steps were taken by
kuef because he relied upon any promises
OF by Francis }. Heney, the assistant district
/ deny that any contract between the district
attorney and Francis j. Heney, the assistant
district attorney. either OF tEeGn. wiJa sald
Abraham Ruef was still in full force or effect
or any force or effect on the 9Th day Of Sep5enl
Der, 1907. when said Ruef pleaded mot guilty
TO Indictment No. S23.
I deny that said plea Of not guilty to said
indictment Ne s23 was entered by Ruef pursa-
ant TO any agreement made with the district
sttornev and said assistant district attorney
either OF them. and deny thst any all of
said steps In relation TO said Indictment No.
s2S were taken by said Ruef under the direc-
tion OF ssic district attorney and assistant dis
u1ct attorney, Francis J. Heney. or either Of
them; and deny that any Of said steps were
sent Of said district attorney and said assistant
district attorney or either Of them, except such
steps we're purely OF q public nature and
character. to wit: such steps were publicly
taken in open court il said natter. but deny
thaL any Of said steps were taken to the end
that the fact that immunity had been agreed
70 be granted TO said Ruef should not be made
public.
TRIAL WAS ATTEMPTED
l deny that no attempt was made by the
sistants or any Of them. 10 Try tie said cause
against said Ruef until subsequent TO the 18th
Gay Of January, 1908.
making of said or any contract with said Ruef,
or a. any other tine did assure or tell said
agree had agreed that he would dismiss said
Indictment No s23. OF any Indictment, against
said Ruef upon motion OF the district aruor-
ney. OF said assistant district attorney.
deny that said Ruef did implicitly or 9th
agreement that said Indictment No S23 would
oe dismissed up TO and until January is. 1soS'
oeny that William J. Burns was at any time
q special and accredited special accredited
agent Of the prosecution and the district attor-
nef anc the assistant district attorney, Francis
]. HeneE. OF any Of them. from period Of time
long prior 10 the return Of said Indictment into
this court aud until al least the 18th DAY OF
January. 1905. or during any other period Of
time whatsoever II the matter OF negotiating
with said Ruef: and deny that said Burns at
. any time had any power or authority 10 ncg0-
tiate with said Ruef on behalf OF the district
attorney ana the assistant district attorney,
submit propositions and counter propositions from
one side 70 the other during the period Of time
prior 10 the execution OF said contract, Exhibit
A, attached % said Ruefs second affidavit and
dated Nay S. 1907.
~ any of the various steps w5ich ne did IN
rhe matter of said Indictment, No. SOB. in this
eourt took such steps or any OF them pursuant
ro any agreement with the district attorney
and the assistant district attorney. Heney, or
ci-her Of them; and deny Jhat he took any such
Stops upon their suggestion OF the suggestion
~ cttEei Of them and deny that he took such
s-Hns any steps upon their approval or the
approval OF either Of them, and deny that he
.r lie sanction of either CT them: and deny that
said Ruef Gid az all times or al any time in TAX
frE aliE of said steps rclr upoH any prom ses
sssIfaneas given &C. him iy said distfict attorney
'r hF satd assistant district attorney. Heney.
unti afior the TStl day Of January, 1905 or
a ans linle or at all
deny i-s. u.iam 3 Burns appointed. As my
= E-as- elisor. I- -eeping RHcf ia custody.
aels tha caused tho Rev Jacob Nieto
l upon knrf- af'0 deny ft'at said keF Nleto
atfboriz.i os fo tell fluef tEat If
wlulG disclose wan. a. lnelv. or would agree
o-~ inee Hhs7 fe E3aH IT, would De granted
nt roiil .iefe Immunity Joy bis connection
ai5i- aus esenses cr asserted oaenses alleged 70
avC been c'laa4ited or committed within fne
ssfv. asdge ~ lacf
KAFEAN'S INITIATIVE
deus .aat lia procure or cause Rev. Ber-
H4rt d. ieaai1r- ! lnsfSi minister 0f lie sifF
.nd rriiaty a. san Francisco 20 arproacl Rurf.
HI .i.nr ,,sf j ,-er at,f,.rfzes said Ir Kan
l.- -o fel Rurr that II BE- wauld tell what 30
.r.r ~ iil.. .,d af tbis esalulunity or for any
r7-. T. aslft Ii fee41 r-- IA
--leed ziven full or complete i'm immunity
I deay thai Burns was eTcr authorized by me
Go rel Rucf tl'at If ne disclosed what he knew
and Tue Ssme did noi s3ttsfy lie prosecution no
question would be raised To the character OF
5ae eyidenee given By Rnef.
deny that said Eucf ever assured or
ioid h3 that I could would cause the pre-
siding Judge 10 assign indictments which should
be found and returned against kuei and code
PENDANTS to departments Nos and Il Of this
court or To either OF tlela, aid deny that ever
assured ol told said Ruef that Judge Dunno or
Judge Lawior would give assurluees. or any
slrance. that either Of them would dismiss any
indictments that might be found and returned
deny that said Ruef informed or told me
that IL was necessary 10 obtain said or any as
. surances from said Judges Dunno and Lawlor,
either II them. that either Of them would dis
miss anv indictments which might be found and
returned against said Kief, and deny That it
agreed between William 7. Burns. Rev Bernard
Ksplan. Rev. Jacob Nieto and myself. either
over department No. and the judge presiding
over department No. II Of this court either
any assurances except as is herewith set forth
in this af6dTsit.
I deny that it was ever suggested 10 said
Ruef By me that be should plead guilty to in
dicfment No. sos with the distinct understanding
and agreement or any understanding or agree
ment. then or at any time made. that the said
plea Of guilty should be withdrawn and that
fhe said Indictment that the said Indictment
No 3O5 should be dismissed.
/ deny that told said Euef that Eugene E
Schmitz. any other person. had offered In order
10 himself or for any other reason, to tes-
tifr against Ruef 70 throw the blame on him.
and that said offer. that said offer would be
accepted by the district attorney, and that
fhereupon. that thereUpon. the district at
forney or his assistant would proceed against
Ruef alone and would procure, would procure.
said other person or persons 10 testify against
Ruef except as herein stated.
I deny that / assured told Ruef that Judge
Dunno or Judge Ilawlor had given his assurances
on had stated that he would dismiss all indict-
ments or any indictments that might be found
snd returned against said Ruef or that were
then pending against said Ruef in said depart
ment or that might thereafter be assigned to
would discharge said defendant; and deny that
Judge Lavlor ever did assure or tell me, any
one else In my presence, thst he would dismiss
SAID or any indictment against Abraham Ruef
then pending iD lis court or that might there
after be assigned 10 his court: and deny that
ever assured tod said Ituef that Judge Dunre
had agreed thsf Ruef's plea OF guilty in said
case No 305 could be withdrawn would be