The San Francisco call., 1908-03-11

fered complete immunity.
Denies that IT was decided, or stated by af
nant or Mr.. Heney or anybody else. in the pres
ence ;, Of afhsnt that Il. in case Ruef RieadeI eI
be subsequently withdrawn or the action dis
missed.
Denies that various or any methods Of secur
ing the guarantees assurances oe the fulfill
ment Of the agreement alleged in the affidavit
OF DR.. kaplan were discussed, but. on the con
trary, aver that no sncb agreements. guarantees
or assurances were made, although II was gen
orally suggested by Dr. Nieto. Dr. kapian anc
Mr.. Ach how any agreements which might bs
made should be carried out.
Denies that at said or any Of said meetings
or at any time. IT was stated by afhant or any
body IN atlantis presence that Judge Dunno oil
Judge Lawlor. or either of them. would carry out
the, or any. agreement that the prosecution
Denies that it was agreed or stated by af.
liant OF anybody In his presence, at said or any
Of said meetings that all cases which might ia
any time be pending should be dismissed by Dis
trict Attorney Langdon before his term of office
expired. or at any other time; on the contrary,
II was at al times insisted by Mr.. Heney that
all the cases should not be dismissed, but that
Ruef should have punishment at least one
case.
NO LIBERTY PROMISED
Denies that it was agreed and stated by Mr..
Heney. Mr.. Langdon and Mr.. Burns, or either
OF them, or by anybody, at any Of said meetings
or at any other time, in the presence of affant
or by afnant that Ruef would be given greater
liberties IL he would come through"
Denies that Langdon and Heney, or either of
them, in the presence or hearing Of affant
stated that II the sheriff, or anybody else rep
resenting other defendants or any other person,
should succeed in the effort to take Mr.. Ruef
from the custody Of the elsor and place him in
the the Ss cSng s that "a tg would at once cause
Ruef to bail
Denies that at said meetings or any of them
IL was stated by Langdon and Heney or either
Of them in the presence or hearing Of sfnant, or
py afnant. that Judges Dunno and Lawlor or
either Of them should be interviewed, or that
lgCnranCpS q 1ndUoS an QxVl nr
either of them should be obtained or thereafter
given TO Ruef that they. the said judges. would
torney. or that the said judges or either OF them
should be advised of any promise OF any kind
made By the district attorney: Mr.. .Ach on one
occasion suggested such thing. but Messrs.
Lsngdon and Heney absolutely refused TO do so.
Referring now TO the affidavit of DR.. Nieto.
wherein he AYERS that affant present on
three different occasions at meetings wherein be
was present sfhant denies that he was so pres
present at the whole Of one meeting and part OF
another, as hereinbefore stated.
Afnant denies that at any Of said meetings
else assure Mr.. Ach or anybody else. OF say that
II huef would come through" and tell what
him. and in this behalf asnt sTeTs P fSss at no
time at any of such meetings in the presence Of
afnant nor at any other time, did affant or
anybody else. at the direction of or in the pres
enee OF afhsnt, assure tell anybody that Ruef
could have immunity in general or complete i'm
munlty, under any circumstances Whatsoever
AInant denies that at any OF said meet
ings did Mr.. Heney say that he desired osme
slight punishment administered TO Ruef but,
on the contrary, Mr. Heney stated that he
wanted Ruef to have substantial punishment
and imprisonment in the penitentiary, and that
ne would agree to nothing else, and such was
always the desire and expression OF afhant.
DENIES STATEMENTS
Affant denies that at either, or any of said
meetings. or ar any other time. did he, or any
body in his presence, or at his direction urge
DR.. Ksplan or DR.. Nieto. or either Of them,
10 90 and Ruef and induce him to agree
TO any proposition whatsoever; af6ant, or any
Dooy at bis direction, never, at any time, urged
Dr. kaplan and DR.. Nieto, either of them
to do anything of any kind whatsoever.
Afnant denies that at said, or either of said
meetings, was DR.. Nieto or DR.. Kaplan re-
quested by the prosecution to ask Ruef to place
himself unreservedy in the prosecutions hands.
Afhant denies that at said or either of said
meetings, in the presence of affant. Mr. Lang
Don assured or stated to DR.. Kaplan, DR..
Nieto and Mr.. Ach, OF either OF them, that If
ney, every indictment against Ruef would be
dismissed by Langdon before the latters term
OF Office expired, or at all; on the contrary, it
has at all times been understood by affant
that some substantial punishment would be
given to Ruef
Affant denies that at said. or any of said
or anybody connected Herewith that the assur-
ances of the judges should be brought about,
and denies that afdant Mr.. Heney, or any
body else connected with the prosecution, sug-
gested that MIR. Ach should. go with him, or
them, and obtain such assurances, any as
surances- Denies that afiant, or ANYBODY con-
nected with the prosecution, asked Dr. Nieto
or DR.. Kaplan to proceed further, at all, in
the matter, or TO urge Ruef TO accept said,
or any terms or TO obtain any assurances
from the judges; denies that afhant, or any
body connected with the prosecution. asked DR..
Nieto and Dr. Kaplan. or either Of them. 10
pledge their, or either OF their word of honor,
or ministers Of religion, to Ruef for any
purpose whatsoever, or to Ruef TO COM
ply with any requests or demands; and denies
rhaf md oro oft of
them, authorized or told DIR. Kaplsn and DR..
Nieto. or either Of them, to pledge the word OF
to Ruef; and denies at said, any of said
meetings, DIR. kaplan and Dr. Nieto, or either
Of them, stated any such things 10 afisnt, or
to Mr. Heney, Mr. Langdon or Mr.. Burns, or
at all.
AfAant AYERS that at neither of said meet
ings did he participate in the discussion, mere
u listening to what WAS said
INSISTED ON PUNISHMENT
Affant at all times since the commencement
of the socalied graft prosecution has believed
and insisted that Abraham Ruef should receive
punishment for the crimes committed By him,
and that any confessions or disclosures made by
him In the assistance Of the state, its officers.
however complete they might be, should not oper-
ate TO prevent him from receiving punishment.
and that be should not be granted complete i'm
nlunity on account thereof
And In this behalf affant AYERS that he has at
ali times been Informed and advised by Francis
]. Heney, assistant district attorney of the
city and county of San Francisco; that he
(Heney) believed In and would insist upon the
same; and furthermore, at all times, afhant has
been informed and advised by said Heney that
complete immunity never was granted to said
Ruef and never would be with his consent.
At the time of the execution Of the written
contract copy of which is attached to and
made a part of of. the afhdavits OF Abraham
Ruef herein, affant did not know the contents
thereof, and affant never saw and never has
seen said contract, and never until its publca-
tion in the newspapers on or about the 18th day
of January, 1908, did affant know its contents.
Affant has at all times understood and at all
times has been advised by said Heney that
there was no agreement by which said Ruef
should be allowed TO withdraw his plea OF
guilty in case No. 305, by which be to
secure immunity IN that case, and has always
believed and stated that justice would not be
done unless Ruef received substantial punish
rnent IN said
Referring to the afhdavits filed herein by and
on behalf of the defendant Ruef, affant AYERS
that be does not know what statements NAV
Lave been made by DIR. Kaplan, or DIR. Nieto. or
spybody else, to said Ruef, but affant AYERS
that whatever statements or assurances may
have been made by them, or anybody else 10
said Ruef, contrary 10 the facts as herein
averred, were and are untrue
RUDOLPH SPRECKELS.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th
day of March, 1908.
(SesD i. Fl. CONDoS,
Notary Public in and for the City and County OF
San Francisco State Of California.
LANGDON's DEPOSITION
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE CITY
rt1r propTr oF THE STATE or CAIIEOR-