The San Francisco call., 1908-03-10

/ later than June l. 1907
A. In the event OF the prosecution OF sara :. :.
/ by any other official person on account Q. any
OF the offenses crimes or ailekeu ons -
10 fhis date. the undersigned VIII
employ every legitimate iDnuence anu p"e r.nt
secure dismissal thereof. ana IN ss.Se sus ~
that conviction shall be had on any tnereoa' ~ ~
/ hereby agree TO apply to the governor ol TINS
state Of California FOR pardon Of said a..
therefor or thereon and 10 use an .'1s'r
/ duence and power TO secure sucn psruon -,
5. Pending the final determination OF any , an-
all criminal proceedings which may oe Pe'i''s
/ or may hereafter be brought against said
the undersigned agree that said may ,ss se
admitted 70 bail thereon in such reasonable
amount as he may be able to ~ give anu IN court
guarantee his attendance and presence IN eo'l'
when required
Dated -......-., 1907.
Agreed to -..-.-..-..-...-'--
District Attorney Of the City and County Of san
Assistant District Attorney OF the City and
County Of San Francisco.
PROVISIONS ABSURD
ON the same day returned tho original s,i,-sr vr
ns & ,e Sresaa s y, ts Ruaf sg AeS that
OF It's provisions were absurd and That Y'nsr s
provisions s nr y Il woGs sn, not nd Ie ,Sss had az
ready told them through Burns that u vas
my ultimatum that Ruet must psos. pieau on IN,
sentence which would be imposed upon Una nl"s.
and that Burns could now tel Ach ,os ana Nils. bs
! that tf Ruef did not agree 70 my terms u
| fore the first witness was sworn In ease NJ
/ 305 would mover again resume Negotiations
with him looking to any sort Of leniensy vr
/ immunity. During the same day Burns told ms
I that he had returned the agreement 70 huoA
/ and had told Ruef aud Ach what said. -
In the meantime and The same day, Apell
i II. we rad continued the eXamination OF lufoss
in No 305. in department. No . or @ snis
was continued until The following day.
On April Y. 1907, the trial jurors IN sa.s
/ this court until April 10, 1907, and i. az
assistant district attorney. hled motion -
4 appoint an elisor summon jurors and ! nlcd
/ afidavits IN support OF said motion ! also
/ fled u motion asking the court 20 direct that
special venire be summoned by the elsor when
/ appointed - - -,
me that Engene E Sehmitz had called on
| Ruef that morning for the nrst time slnSe sss
Rgsfs arrest and had tasa Rrns ws s s stated 10
me- in substance, that George Keane was IN
the habit Of calling on R1ef practicaly ,sa essrg
day and night since Ruef's arrest on Mare. Maren
I 8. 1907. and that Ruef. IN his tBurns1 oPinlon
was telling Keane all that occurred and shat .s
! and that he believed Keane had told 5chmits
that Ruef was negotisting for immnr e. ann ann
that Schmitz had called On Ruef for the PVT
pose OF endea vOring 10 persuade Ruef not %
turn states evidence. aud for the purpose OF
assuring Ruef that Patrick Calhoun and otnsr
influential sec0mpices of Ruef and Schmirs
| In the bribery cases would do all In their pO"tr
/ 10 keep Ruef from going the penitentiary Y
this is the only time eehmitz called on hnsl
from the time OF Ruefs arrest on Marcn ::
t. ~ COW I'll With sehnnits on January ..
1905
being inpaneled in department No OF this
count was excused until April II. l8oi. anu
the defendant Ruef hed afhdavitS IN answer
/ to the afndavits which had been nled by tae
prosecution on my motion 20 disqualify the sher-
grsnted the motion to disqnaiify the sheriff and
coroner and 10 appoint an elsof 70 sunuioo ,i
jurors. but denied the motion 20 direct sne xs
thereuDon drawn from the jury box by order
Of the court; and W. J. Bissy was instructed
on April IL 1907. the examination of trial
1 jurors In case No. 300 vas resumed IN depart
/ ment No. Of this court
/ ON April IS. 1907. the examination Of Jurors
was not proceeded with IN department M 80. "a y
of this court because Henry Aeh Was ~ L. anu
/ the case was continued until April 10 ieot;
on Friday April 10 ,9S, The sSsmlnS Sd .los
/ OF this court IN said No 500 because
said Henry Aeh was stin IN and, the he case was
continued until Monday. April y. 1901
/ KAPLAN BROUGHT IN
I ON or about the 10th day Of April. 1907. DR..
Nieto called at nv Office at I109 Franklin street
in this city. with DR.. KaRlau- -,
ana had never been told By any one
that he wrs 10 be brought to my oInee
or that he was connected n u any any way way
/ interesting himself. t0 wit, that Of endeayorlng
to induce Ruet 70 turn states evidences. bhsns
room occupied By me as my private Office On
I the second door OF said building and Dr. Nieto'
/ DR. Kapian was we'll acquainted with Ruef's
I family ana that he (NIetoi had induced Dr.
7 RrIef TO tell ali be knew about the graft mat
ters and thus save himself rum a long term
/ in the pcntentiary and from being inside the
I seapesoat Ior others VINO Wste Jus, l a. spl.S sp,
as himself. ard that he tNietoi had told ltueI
thought 1t would be good tang TO bring Or.
kaDian into the matter with him so that some
one wod a hn pc nsrs dgs ~nS sS5 sid H also stated
/ that RHef had consented to tins plan and that
4 DIR. Kaplan had already seen Ruef and had
Dr. Kaplan then asked me to explain what
the situation was from my ssSadRSnt ,a R,.at DH
Mr. Burns. that II he would plead guilty IN
I the extorton case which was then on trial be-
fore the hrst witness was sw0rilq IN the case,
without any agreement or understanding to
what sentence he would receive in that case.
and IL he would give me the names OF the par
/ ties other than the members of the board Of
4 SUPERVISORS. who LIS accumpi1ceS IN the
crimes in which he had participated. aud could
be corroborated aud would be sufficient 10 sustain
ga conviction OF his accompliees, l was willing
I to enter into agreement To for him
absolute and complete Immunity from punish
! ment for any and all OF the other graft crimes
tiaed fully fairly and honestly Ia relation
thereto whenever called upon to do. and pro-
ures to me Of ain the crimes which he had
committed and in which he had participated
DR.. Nieto again stated in substance that he
/ thought Il was Ruefs duty to do this and
l that be owed IL TO himself and his family and,
]
not care much about RHef he did about
4 the welfare OF the city, and
Dr. Kaplan then asked what sentence Ruef
would get in the ext0rti0n -cnSe II he pleaded
guilty and I stated in substance what 1 had
/ before stated to Dr. NietO and In effect that
some Of the officials ef the public service cor
/ poratiOns. which had profted by the briberfes
which had been committed by Ruef were
doubtedly his accompLces IN those crimes. and
| that Ruef could perform great public service
and benefit BY exposing the facts and testifylne
to them I also stated that the conviction of
few such public service corporation officials
would have more effect in stopping that sort
Of graft and crime in San Francisco than the
conviction Of hundred inSieniseant and tx
ncrant supervisors like Lonergan and CoHev.
who did not iuiriate the crimes. but merely
surrendered 10 the temptations through weak
ness Of character
/ kAPLAN ACTS QUEERLf
/ + further told said Or. Ksplan that I con-
sidered Ruef equally guilty with the public
service corporation officials who were his sc-
completes. and that i would not consent under
any circumstances TO his being permitted 10 70
without punishment. but that IL his testimony
OF much benefit to the people az tire
city and state believed IL would be IL he
/ told the whole truth. and II he acted in xnod
/ faith with the prosecution and did all in mis-
power TO undo the wrong which he had com
mltted. would certainly be in favor OF recoTM
rs.o> 1o..for L IN -