The San Francisco call., 1908-03-10
UNDERSTANDING Ruef Prison

ss. e @ sss.a the n sss s.s s the
in the matter of fixing its rates in February
On March 2s, 1907. Louis Glass was arraigned
upon the uine indictments which we're returned
against him on March %, 1907.
which 1 the bsd g for bT s
department Of this COZ court on March 22. 1907,
with the so called eight trust matter; and II
were for bribing supervisors in the matter
Of ang ss s9s S s ns @ seps o
ehiss; and II Il we're we for Srbing supervisors in
permitting the United Railroads TO erect and
operate overhead trolley lines upon parts OF
rated by cables or other motor power
From March II. 1907, TO April l, 1907, the
daily newspapers Of this city and county had
almost every day published statements pnrport-
ing TO come from the members of the board of
supervisors, and from other sources. informing
By the supervisors against Ruef in each Of the
aforesaid matters; and am Informed and be-
s svs rlsst. 5st on boss MsTch JAMES IL the
Andrew NJ Wilson had told Abraham Ruef
that each of them had told the .l district at. at.
torney and myself of the facts within the
knowledge Of each Of them relating to or con-
nected with the aforesaid briberies of mem.
2. 1907. / believed and do now believe that
both Ruef and Ach knew that the district
o sncent evidence to legally convict Ruei
under each of said 65 indictments for brib-
err felony. and that the district attorney and
session to prove that the money in the fight
trust matter was given to Ruef by Eddie
Graney on behalf Of himself. James Conroth.
Willis Britt and Morris Levy and that the
aforesaid parties had contributed or agreed
to contribute $1,000 apiece for that purpose,
% snd that aef e had o the
bers of the board of supervisors. and that
both Ruef and Ach then knew that the prose
the money which was used In bribng the su-
pervisors in the matter Of fixing gas rates
saba or one Of them. and most probaol
BY. Drum. and that Ruef had given about
sis,5 500 of said money to Gallagher to be dis,
supervisors; and that both Ruef and Ach then
knew that the district attorney and myself
prove that the money in the Home Telephone
bribery was given to Ruef by co a, aoo n. Ds, .sa
meney to nu GsIIssher to Be distributed among
the members of the board Of supervisors
KNEW OF TESTIMONY
And that both Ruef and Ach then knew that
the district attorney and myself were In posses
sion of sufficient evidence TO prove that the
money In the matter of the overhead trolley
franchise or permit was given to Ruef by TREY
L. Ford, and that Ruef gave SSo,O0O OF
said money to Gallagher TO distribute among
and that the district attorney and his assist
ants were in possession at that time OF all the
evidence which was produced before this court
in this department upon the first trial OF TREY
L. Ford except only the testimony OF those EN-
sloyes of the United Railroads company who tes-
LIED upon. said trial and who, 1t appears from
the evidence taken in said trial. had refused 70
testify before the grand jury
And that Ruef and Ach then knew that the
ta amd ns o All ae Evidence which
was thereafter produced against Eugene n.
Schmitz. the codefendants 81 Abraham heei.
upon the trial of Schmitz under said indictment
No sos for extortion. except only the testi-
mony of Ruef which was given In rebuttal In
said trial. and which was limited to the state
ment that he (Ruef) has divided with Schmitz
the greater part or all of the money which he
claimed TO have received as an attorneys fee
in that matter from the French restaurant Keep
ers.
lieve, that from the time OF kuef's arrest on
March s. 1907 until March II, 1907. the day
after fifteen members of the board OF super
yisors had made confessions in relation TO the
aforesaid briberies to the district attorney and
myself an effort had been made BY William j..
Burns TO induce Abraham Ruef TO tell the prose-
cutting officers what he knew about the aiieseo
briberies OF supervisors In connection with the
aforesaid and other matters, but Ruef had con-
tinuously insisted TO Burns that no briberies had
been committed
liam j. Burns told that he was still con-
finuing his efforts to induce Abraham kuef TO
make full confession OF his connection with
all the aforesaid briberies and OF all other
crimes committed by Ruef or in which he par
ticipated in this city and county; and then
and there told Burns in substance thar ne mus.
immunity or partial Immunity for such con-
fession l would not under any circumstances
consent to give Ruef absolute Immunity from
punishment for the crimes committed or partici-
pated in by him, and that the terms and cond.-
fions OF partial immunity must be hxed py me
personally with the approval and consent OF
William h Langdon, the district attorney,
and that | would not and could not state what
terms or conditions / would be willing to grant
until ! first knew what the testimony of Rucf
would be. / did not and would not trust
Ruef. -, e.,
ony indictments had been returned against Ruef
by the grand jury, on March 20, 1907 Burns
willing to confess provided / would give him
absolute immunity for all crimes committed or
participated in by him. and Burns then and
msnt-
IMMUNITY REFUSED
then and there again told Burns in sub
stance that world not under any circumstances
be party 10 any agreement for absolute i'm
munity 70 Ruef ! further. stated to Burns in
tool in the commission Of these briberies. He
is man of extraordinary brain power, keen In.
telligence, fine education, with the choice OF OF
good environment, great power of persuasion over
men, dominating personality, great shrewdness
and cunning. coupled with a greedy and aysri-
cious disposition. He has not been led into the
commission OF these crimes through weakness,
but on the contrary has aided in the Initiation
of them and has Joined hands with the most
vicious and depraved elements in the city TO Sc
cure unlawful protection for them IN conducting
their resorts of vice. and has Joined hands with the
special privilege seeking classes TO place mprop-
er burdens upon the people of this city by grant
ing franchises to public service corporations
which ought never to have been granted. and by
fixing rates witch may be charged by them in
excess OF the amounts which such rates ought TO
be- and thus indirectly robbing the poor people
OF this city of a large part of their measer
earnings. and that to let Rnef go free OF all
punishment under such circumstances would be
a crime against society.
MIR. Burns urged in reply that the public serv-
ice corporation officials who had paid the money
! 10 Ruef and made him their sgent TO commit
the brberies were worse than Ruef, ana that
political bosses would come and 80, while tbf
public serrice corporations would remain With
fJs forever. at least indefinitely. and that pe-
liticaI bosses Hike Ruef created by the of
fcialk OF these public service corporations. and
that if Ruef was sent TO the penteptiary new
boss. would immediately he created By then, TO
take Ruef's place and that our work would bare
10 he done all over again. whereas II Ruef would
turn states evidence against the officials Of the
public service corporations. who had been bis &C.
complices ip the commission If these briberies,
we could get some lasting deterrent results by
prosecuting and copvicting them.
I said in reply: Yes. you adopting
ny own arguments heretofore made with which
10 convince me- I agree with you perfectly on
the general proposition. but do not consider
I Ia Tome That