The San Francisco call., 1908-03-10

that if peFseverc and hght vigorously as We
not we viii at least have the gratiaeation of
knowing that have done our best. have
% sSs tms ERst .st~ese You in the s
( campaign you had every reason TO be my Friend;
! I divided fee equally with you. of which
vas entitled to keep tho whole. And did y
merely because ! thought Il was in accordance
with the ethics OF our profession. I know thai
you had expressed Yourself very kindly sbons
mo On more than one occasion. had no un.
S'adiy feeling for you at the time but ! con-
sidcred roH tae most dangerous element m this
community. with the single exception q Herrin.
said what did aboEt You solely from sense
time then knew the facts In this French
restaurant case i did not tell them TO the
grand jury when called before them because I
: hhew You had a number Of friends ON there.
IKE Doe Leafy. who already knew the facts.
and because | did NOT think Byinston had any
opna nde intention OF prosecuting you- He 10
the brofher IN law OF Ford. and now that
Snew yeur relations with Ford 1 am certsn
Wa rght 1ou have demoralized the public
ofneiais OF this city to such an extent that to
f iet you 60 without any punishment would be a
travestJ on Justice IL would cause all honest
thinking people TO mistrust motives. Per
sonaliy ! VIM never consent to it, aud I
sure that Mr. Langdon never win. You ought
/ TO consider Yourself very fortunate in being
permitted TO plead guilty in this French
tanrant ease. where the punishment be any
where from one day 10 ave years instead of
yoMr. being given fourteen years in one OF the
/ feelings TO influence me in any way in the per-
formanee OF my duty prosecuting officer.
+ II did would not be discussing any ques-
tion OF partial immunity with you. satis-
4 fed that We will mplicate Frank Drum in the
gas rate matter. We already have evidence
7 which impiicates him I have considered him
persoDal friend for the last % years aud be
+ only recently paid me fee Of $1,000 in
+ has also been friend Of mine and who did
me favor at one time There is doubt
the Bay Cities water company. and that Tevis
will be implicated in that
ONLY CONSIDERS DUTY
| then told him of the fact that bad
met met rstFiek Calhoun socially. and .of
wbo anew lFlemcs E'1, na ana selatveS OF mne
brother for years. and bad visited them ia
New York and that these people we're greatly
calhoun and went on to say: And Il i con-
sldered anything in these matters except my
Calhoun aud Tevs and get them to become wiz
neSses against sou. 50 that I need not indict
satisfied IL you and Schmtz only are convicted
and punished want to see San Francisco
for many years to come. however and believe
u is my du1y TO at least endeavor 10 demon
Violate the law with impunIty however wealthy
and influential he may be- We cannot expert
they see the rich aud powerful are allowed to
/ commit crimes aud unpublished and un-
accused sc tS think the best way to put stop
20 inc bribery OF our public officers in san
Francisco for the next ten years At least is
TO send some Of the most powerful and IN
put the fear OF God and Of the law in sIl the
other rich bribers. and will have very whole
some deterrent efect. You help US 70 do
IL. But you must accept some punishment YOUR
self OF much Of the deterrent effect which we
+ are after Will be lost. OF course we will post
pone sentence in the French restaurant case
after you have pleaded guilty until we get
through using you as witness and Of course
/ We will protect you in every vay against The
90 3taer IT.. men whom we are prosecuting We must
you we would lose the benefit Of your testi-
mcny and we would be bound 10 take good
{ care OF You from this selfish motive alone ir
I / no fear Of tha
/ court holding that the superior court has no
tody, and have fear Of the attorney gen
{ eral taking these cases our OF our hands OF
Will not succeed. Public opinion will not stand
Tor tor u as long as We are prosecuting the cases
same lines by Ruef and myself. / cannot
/ pretend TO state the order IN which nv ideas
presented to me. but the foregoing Is the sub
stsnc OF What was said between us. The last
bnrls snlns | said TO hin when be was leaving the
/ nouse was tnat eonld not and would not alter
I the proposition which I had made 10 him ana
% Ihat ne must accept it before the arst witness
( was sworn In case No. 3O5 or the proposition
woulo be Withdrawn and would never be re-
On May ? 1907. the examination Of Jurors
in case No 800 in department No Of this
court was resumed and continued during the
greater part Of the day. The defendant Ruef
on the same day moved this court in said de-
partmenL for enange Of venue. and fled afd-
was given time to file reply afndavits The
death OF former Judge Hosmer OF this court
W. was an1ounced and case No so5 was continued
AT the time OF the adjournment Of court on
this day 10 jurors had been examined passed
and accepted BY both sides. aud il was only
necessary 10 secure two Jurors to COM
No. 305 - 49,
i RUFF ASKS CONFERENCE
to me l1e asa ng1s statd Of nm MAY lso Burns came
one more talk with me and would like to have
Langdon present, and that he would then decide
house at my request. and at III D. m on that
night Burns brought Ruef and Or. KapIsn
mere William j. Biggy accompanied them but
he remained in the hall or retired 10 the
dining ROOM Langdon and Dr. Kaplan and Ruef
and Burns and myself held conference in the
the same ground gone in argument fbsr
was gone over between Ruef and myself on the
Ruef again stated that 1t would be a mistsk.
TOT u,rr ,ae prosecution to require him to plead
would greatly weaken bis testimony In the
o.aer cases II ne pleaded guilty 10 extortion
/ 10 Inat case. he again repeated his statement
that 90 per cent OF the spublIc would be glad
20 90 see hm 90 free and would sign petition
1t would be the most popular move the prose
eution could make. and that his testimony
state, and that soon as they knew be was
going to testify against them they would all
/ Webb would be Influenced to take the case out
OF our hands and to declare any immunity con
tract VOid wnlch We might enter into with
huel. upon the ground that the district attor-
ney had no power to make such a contract and
that after he (Ruef) made a statement
and went on the side Of the prosecution his only
chance would BE- TO stick to the prosecution
as an attack Calhoun. we would soon And
/ ont was in effect the same as an attack on
/ Herrin. and that Herrin controlled the gov
ernor and the attorney general. as well a. a
lot OF the judges. and that Ruef could be OF in
valuable assistance 10 the prosecution and
would do everything in his power to HELM uS
and that IL he pleaded guilty In the exfcrtfon
case the supreme cOurt might hold that the
superior court had right 20 retain him In
the custody of eiisor. and thar he would
then he put in the county Jail and that sheriff
/ O'Neil, who was friendly to Ruef then but was
I even more friendly to SchTnitz. would turn
against Ruef as he learned that Ruef
was going to testify against Schuitz and thar
/ Ruef's life would be in danger In the county
I jail In fact. Ruef again made practically the
4 same argument that be bad made to ne the
preceding night, and I made practically the
same reply 10 him that I had made on the
preceding night.
THE7FINAL CLTIMATUM
Among other things said to him in substance:
You must plesd guilty in case No. COS and take
your chances on the sentence which will be i'm
posed in that This is our ultimatum aud
you must agree to this before the 6rst witness
Is swern in case No. 800 or viii withdraw