The San Francisco call., 1908-03-11

Ruef, had broken the contract and that there
fore 1t was no longer in force or in effect This
affant further states that in making a motion
70 dismiss the indictments pending against the
defendant, Ruef this afhant would be required
TO assure the court that by reason OF faithful
and honest service to the state this defendant
was equitably entitled to have said indictments
dismissed With the full knowledge and belief
OF affant that said defendant, Ruef. had viola ted
his agreement and had not fully and fairly dis
closed the evidence within his knowledge and
possession concerning the so called graft cases,
and had not acted in good faith toward the
state. but, on the contrary, was giving aid and
assistance to bis codefendants, this afiant could
not. upon his honor as man and upon his oath
as an officer of the court, give assurances to
the court that the defendant, Ruef. had earned
Immunity or consideration, and to do 30 would
be gross imposition upon the court
WOULD HAVE RESIGNED
Afiant further AYERS and declares that IL af-
fant believed that the defendant, Ruef, had fully
and had honestly rendered such service to the
state as would have entitled him to the cons1d-
GRAFTON set forth in the immunity contract, this
afhant would have moved In open court to dis
miss the indictments against defendant, Ruef,
and If said motion We're denied and affant was
directed by the court or any other official to pro-
coed with the trial of said defendant this af-
hant would have declined TO do so, and after ex-
hausting every resource at his command to carry
out the terms and conditions of said immunity
agreement would have resigned his official posi-
tion Of district attorney of the city and county
or San Francisco rather than prosecute the de-
fendant, Ruef.
This affant AYERS that II was only when he
still traitorous to the state he had debauched
and whose laws ne had defed, and that instead
Of trying to make reparation for the wrong he
had done was endeavoring not only to save him
self from the punishment he so richly deserved,
but also was eDdeavoring to make certain the
escape from punishment of his codefendants
that affiant determined the immunity contract to
have been broken by Ruef and no longer in force
and effect.
fendant Abraham Ruef, received or relied upon
an absolute promise, either written or oral, OF
San Francisco. or Of. his assistant. Francis J.
Heney, that all indictments returned by the
grand jury of the CITY and county of San Fran
cisco against said defendant, Abraham Ruef, In
cluding Indictment No. S23. would be dismissed
or not prosecuted against said defendant Abra-
ham Ruef This affant AYERS that no promise
of immunity was made to said Abraham Ruef
BY affant Francis ]. Heney, excepting upon
the condition that said Abraham ;, Ruef should d
ofenses involved in the called graft prosecu-
tions and investigations so far as he had knowl.
district attorney and the said assistant the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
and should make full and fair disclosure of all
the facts and circumstances in, about and sur.
rounding the said crimes and ofenses, and should
at all times whenever called upon before any
court testify in regard thereto and to the whole
thereof fully and fairly, the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth; and that said
in his power. the spirit and letter OF his said
agreement.
PROCEDURE NOT ADVISED
That at no time did affant, any one else to
atlantis knowledge, make any statement 70
Abraham Ruef. with respect to the manner in
which said Abraham Ruef should be represented
by counsel, or as to what motions he should
make or what demurrers he should file or what
pleas he should enter to any Of the cases
numbered $40 to s23, inclusively, excepting that
on one occasion, somewhere about the month of
June, 1907, Richard O'Connor, one of the attor-
neys for defendant, Abraham Ruef, called upon
afaant at the district attorneys office In FIJI,
rnn ctr rcar Sa0 me N
county OF San Francisco, and asked afhant
whether affsnt had any objections to his, the
neys for defendants Calhoun. Mutually, Ford and
Abbott of the various papers filed by them in
mas9g their defense IN said eases d fan
stated 10 said o'Connor; Il have 20 objection.
You may do as you please" Nothing further
That affant was shown any of the
papers fled by the attorneys for Abraham Ruef
clusiveIy before the fling of such papers.
That afhant at no time made any suggesuon
Of any contain ss G
That affant never made any statement TO
Abraham Ruef or to any one for him as to the
plea to be made by said Abraham Ruef In said
cause No. S23 or in any other OF the causes
numbered $40 to s23 inclusively.
fendant in his affidavit filed in said cause on or
about the 9Th day OF February 1908. has not
fully stated what this afiant said to him on
the evening of the 18th day Of January, 1908,
and in that regard this sffant says that on
the evening of the 18th day of January, 1908.
and ms eonntS ~ ~ san Frsncseo this aant tod
said defendant Abraham Ruef that affant was
satisfied beyond any doubt that he, the said
Abraham Ruef, had not fully and fairly dis
closed all the facts within his knowledge in re-
lation to the bribery of the board of supervis-
Witch Is the subject Of the Indictments in
numbered $40 to s23 inclusively; and
that this affant was further satisfied beyond
doubt that said Abraham Ruef had been for a
long time aiding and assisting the defendants
Calhoun, Mutually. Ford and Abbott in the said
causes. and working with them 10 defeat the
ends OF justice in said causes, and that for
that reason the written agreement which Is
above set forth, having been broken By said de-
fendant, was at an end.
NO PROMISE TO DISMISS
That, according to atlantis best recollection,
affant stated TO said Abraham Ruef On said oc-
cssion the evening of January is, 1908. that
ment IL of said superior court, would not say
that he would dismiss any of the
bered from $40 to s2s inclusively That on oc-
casions previous to the 18th day OF January,
1908, the said Judge had stated to affant that
he would not make any statement as to what
he would do with respect to the dismissal of
any case, excepting by way Of a decision In
open court after motion for its dismissal had
been made.
And this affiant further deposes and SAYS that
neither before nor at the time of the making
Of said immunity agreement did affant have
the dismissal of said indictment or of any in
dictment. That afhant did not, either before,
or at the time OF, or since the making OF said
immunity agreement, assure or say to said
Abraham Ruef that the judge of department IL
of the superior court did agree or had agreed
that be would dismiss said or any indictment
upon motion of the district attorney or other
wise.
And affant further deposes and says that II
is not true that defendant Abraham Ruef took
the various steps or any Of the steps which he
did take in the matter of said Indictment No
S23 in the superior court of the said city and
county, upon the suggestion, approval or sane
tion OF this affant.
Affant further states that he did not, direct
Jewish clergyman, to call upon defendant Abra-
ham Ruef That affant did not learn that said
Jacob Nieto had called upon the defendant Ruef
until long after that event occurred. That aft
ant is informed and believes that Rev. Jacob
Nieto first approached William ]. Burns and
suggested that he. said Jacob Nieto, might be
OF assistance to the prosecution in relation to
Abraham Ruef. That affant never authorized
said Jacob Nieto to say to said defendant Abra-
ham Ruef that he would be granted full and
complete immunity for his connection with any
ofense.
That affant never procured or caused the
Rev. Bernard Kaplan to approach defendant
Abraham Ruef, nor did afAant ever authorize
the said Rev. Bernard Kaplnn 70 state to said
defendant Abraham Ruef that he would be
promised or guaranteed or given full and COM
plete immunity. That affant is informed and
believes that said Bernard Kaplan became
party 70 the Negotiations between the prosecu-
tion and defendant Abraham Ruef at the spe-
cial instance and request OF Rev. Jacob Nieto
Affiant further states that affant at no time
Of affiant state that the prosecution or the
nrrz ing off or NJ