The San Francisco call., 1908-03-10

religion
asked what in particular ] had done to
cause him 10 criticise ny conduct in that way:
and be referred 10 some question which had
asked grand Juror. but which I cannot now
recollect. I then said 70 him in substance;
Why, doctor you arc supersenslt1ye. some
N the best friends have in-fhe world are
Jews and some Of the best clients I ever had
IN nv life were Jews. and have no prejudice
Iigious belief ! am sorry that you have 50
misspprebeDded the purpose and motives OF my
questions 70 Jurors
On subsequent dsy. during the time the
Srsnd jury wss being impsneled. DR. Niefo
again approached after adjournment Of
the court and again rTprosched me for having
sgafn shown prejudice 0iscrimin ination against
some grand juror Of the Jewish faith by The
questions which ] asked him. As there was no
son put the construction my actions which
Or. Nieto had attempted. concluded that 5e
bad IN ulterier motive in making the statements
70 me. ana I said TO him in substance. 10 a
very emphatic tone Of voice
NO RELIGIOUS PREJUDICE
DIR. Nieto have heretofore told you inst
have prejudice against say man whatever
on account Of his religion. IA am trying 10
% 10 this matter Is To get fair grand jurors,
snd am Just Sc willing 10 trust honest Jews
IS honest Christians. but ] want 10 make sure
rhst man Is honest. whether jew OF Chris
tan. and il looks "a me as II gou are trying
70 tnd some excuse 70 line up 10 opposition 10
this prosecution. do not see why you need
TO seek for excuses II that Is what you want
10 do. ] an conscious of my own singleness Of
purpose and purity n purpose IN examining
grand jurors. ana il is wholly immaterisl 70
me. therefore, ~hsr rou or nnrhody else may
think OF my method ~ questioning them
OF course cannot pretend 70 recollect the
eSsct language which l used IN making TINS
ststenent, hut ] know these sre the ideas In
tended n, and did. express.
on November Is. 1906 the grand Jury found
and returned five indictments against Abraham
Ruef and Eugene r. Schmitz charging them with
the crime Of extortion; These indictments were
sll signed by the presiding judge Of department
No s. presided over by Hon. r. Il Dunno. being
csses numbered 303 10 3O7. both inclusive
and returned an indictment against Abraham
Ruef and JeYemish pinsD. charging them with
conspiracy misdemeanor.
Jsnnsry- 1907. the members of said grand jury
were examined ia department No. Of this court
On motion to set aside the indictments num-
bered So5 20 3o7. both inclusive by Henry Ach
and Samuel Al. Shortridee. to determine whether
snv Of them entertained any bias or pre- udice
against kuet at the time they voted said indict-
ments. During this time I occasionall- met DR.
Nieto ia the courtroom ef department Ne. OF
in The hall Of the Temple Israel. the building in
which that court was being held. but had not
al any time more than the merest speaking ae-
ousintsnce With him, and at all times looked
upon him ardent admirer of Ruef. who
would Ike ~ see him escape punishment. al
though. matter Of fact. DR.. Nieto generally
talked along broad lines and insisted that he
wanted 70 see Justice prevail
ON February IS, 1907. Ruef entered a plea Of
not guilty" 70 indictments numbered 303 to 307,
both inclusive. and on February 25, 1907. case
number So5 was continued to March for trial
On March 4. 1907 Ruef was- surrendered into
the custody Of the sheriff by his bondsmen and
applied for s writ Of habeas corpus before Judge
J. q. b. Behbard of this court. who denied the
wit. but allowed an appeal from his order TO
the supreme court Of the United States and ad-
mitted Ruef 10 bail pending such appeal. heb
bsrd was drunk al the tine. and Henry Ach,
with Ruef, had taken advantage Of his condition
and II was most evident that private under
standing was had as TO what the result would
and myself Withdrew from the proceedings on
this account.
FBEES To TROCADERo
on the sane evening as ] am informed and
-helieye, Ruef went in an automobile, accompa-
& wsyside inn near the ocean beach. and there
remained in hiding until he arrested on q
bench warrant issued from department No. of
March ), 1907. the trial Of Ruef was contn-
ned until the following day, when a bench war
rant Was issued by an order duly made and en-
tered in this court. and Rnef was declared 10 be
fugitive from justice.
On March 8. 1907, the sheriff having failed to
hno Ruef- motion was made by District After
ney lanEdnn and myself. as his assistant, 10
dsqnsify the sheriff. and order was there
upon made disquslifying him, aud thereupca an
other bench warrant was issued and placed in
the hands Of the coroner.
On March Z, 1907. Thomas F. Lonergan who
Of supervisors of this city and county, was
trapped and caught by William J. Burns IN
N. Roy 81 the latter's home At No 1904 La
EHna street in this city and county, and on the
same evening said Lonergsn made 3 confess
sion 70 William h Langdon and myself In our
official capacities district attorney and as
siStaut district attorney. respectively, in which
ne stated under oath that he had received a
bribe 81 S475 In the month Of January. 1906.
from James l. Gallagher TO influence his vote
and action In the matter Of the passage Of
ordinance by the board Of supervisors grant
ing permits 10 the 50 called fight trust 70 hold
one fght per month during the eAsuing wear:
snd that the other members Of the board of
supervisors had each received a similar amount
and that IL was generally understood among
James I. Gallagher was given 70 him by Abrs-
ham Ruef for that purpose.
Lonergsn further stated in bis confession that
in the month Of February. or early in March.
1906. be had received another bribe of S150
from James L. Gallagher 10 influence bis vote
II rbe matter Of the passage Of the ordinance
firing the rates which could he charged for
gas during the ensuing year. and that it wss
fbe board Of supervisors had each received a
similar bribe. and that this money slso
paid 70 James l. Gallagher by Abraham Ruef
ceived another bribe Of $500 from James l..
Gallagher IN the month OF March 1906 TO in
Of ordinance for the sale Of franchise to
msintain telephone system in this city and
county. and that 81 generally understood
received similar bribe in the same manner,
and that those four members received bribe
of $4,000 apiece in the same matter and that
al these brfbes came from Abraham Ruef
through James l. Gallagher
TELLS OF TROLLEY BRIBE
Lonergsn further stated that in the month
OF May. 1906 he had been promised a bribe
of 81 900 by Andrew \. Wilson another mem
Der of the board OF supervisors. 10 influence his
vote IN the matter OF the passage of ordi-
nance granting TO the United Railroads of this
city and county the right TO erect overhead
trolley lines on all parts Of its system where
The grades wcnld permit such lines 10 be
operated, and that the first promise made 10
him IN this matter BY Wilson was that he
would receive bride Of IS 00u. and that
subsequent 10 the passage Of the ordinance. he
received two payments of 81 600 each from
James J.. Gallagher in that matter. and that
il generally understood that The other mem
similar hribe If the same amount IN the same
manner and that all the money was paid ~
them by James J.. Gallagher. and that all Of
this money psid TO James /. Gallagher
by Abrsbsm Ruef for that purpose
LenerTau further stated that he received the
promise Of hribe Of $50 during said year
1906. from James L. Gallagher 10 Influence HIS
vote IL the matter Of the passage Of sn ordi-
nance for the sale of a franchise 10 erect a
side resity company. aud subsequently during
the same year the amount promised was in
creased 10 $1,000 by James /. Gallagher. and
inst n generally understood that each mem
her of the board Of supervisors received the
some offers and promises in the same matter
and that Abrshs Ruef 10 make the psy-
ments 70 James l.. Gallagher with which TO
fulfill these promises.
on March s. 1907. Thomas J. Walsh who uss
then and there supervisor. Of shis city and
county. made = confession nnder oath 70 VII
cspscities district attorney and assistant dis
rio efr al In ho A.