The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1908-02-15
Clash Between Dunno and Muir,
ply Occurs During Recess
of Grafter's Case
Father and Sister of Fallen Boss
Try to Aid Him With
Affidavits
Say Burns Threatened to Kill
Any One Who Would Break
Immunity Contract

Almost everything that possibly
could happen IN connection with a
legal argument before d court hap
pened yesterday in the Ruef case be-
fore Judge Lawlor. and the day ended
with the status OF the whole case in
Gordian tangle. with practically no
progress achieved. The developments
Of the day included charge by RuePs
attorneys that tampering with the
jury panel was in progress. the filing
Of several sensational afldavits going
to the heart of the famous immunity
deal. 2 clash that verged on an open
hattie between Frank Murphy OF Ruefs
counsel and Judge Dunno IN the lat
ter's chambers and z long technical
legal argument. that merely served TO
Clarity certain aspects OF the case.
As the case now stands Judge Lawior
Is trying To Obtain enlightenment on
the question whether he shall consider
evidence relating TO the making and
breaking OF the immunity pact in de-
Gliding Ruers motion TO have his ar
rsignment set aside. The allegation
mat Rue1 was deprived OF his consti-
tutional rights as a defendant by fol-
loving q set program outlined in the
immunity agreement is made one feat
IRE OF his motion to have his arraign-
ment nullihed, while he alsoMupports
the motion with a set OF conventional
arguments relating to alleged technical
errors at the time OF arraignment.
Judge Lswlor has signihed that he Is
ready to rule on the questions raised
BY the latter allegations. but that be-
fore disposing OF the question as a
whole he wishes to have complete cita-
tions OF legal authorities relative to the
consideration 10 be given Dy the court
% the bearing OF an immunity contract
on the defendants present position.
RUEF LOSES EITHER WAY
Before adjournment last night Judge
Lswlor instructed the attorneys for
each side that he wishes the immunity
question to be presented IN all its
phases as q legal proposition. Should
he decide that the law forbids the court
goinE into the details OF that immunity
contract in deciding the merits of a
motion 10 set aside an arrangement his
ruling on the motion may follow imme-
'diateIy on the heels OF the argument
should he. on the other hand. determine
that the court should investigate this
subject IN full II Will become necessary
for each side to present evidence TO
show whether Ruefs present position.
as brought about by the publication OF
the immunity contract. is due TO his
own acts OF bad faith or to bad faith
on the part Of the prosecution.
The sdidavits presented yesterday by
the defense are intended TO serve as
proof that Ruef acted in entire good
faith and that the prosecution delib-
erately broke its covenant with him.
These afidavits have been offered in
evidence, but have not been accepted.
whether they viii be accepted at all or
whether it win be necessary for the
prosecution TO answer them with coun-
ter afhdavits depends entirely on Judge
Lawlor's fnal decision as to the pro-
prletv OF considering the effect Of the
Immunity pact in ruling on Ruefs mo-
tion. This is the phase OF the subject
that is to be argued Monday morning
when the case is TO be resumed.
Attorney Henry Ach sprung the first
short lived sensation OF the day short
5v after court opened yesterday morn
ing. He said he had received fnforma-
tion that certain persons representing
themselves 10 be members of the Good
Government league were systematically
attempting to sound the opinions OF
the 200 veniremen drawn on the panel
from which the Ruef jury is te be Sc
1ected. He said that members OF the
families Of these men had been ap-
proached and asked how the men
viewed the graft situation.
SISTER AIDS RUEF
Aoh explained that no one was en-
,loxed in Ruers behalf TO conduct
such Investigations and suggested that
.be Jury panel be called into court and
.~--<a-...z On Fnma 4 MgddIa CoIurnw A