The San Francisco call., 1908-03-10

Q-Didn You state that II you testlnea !g'
aequit him: Al didn't put il as strongly a
Ruef further testified on cross examination
Q.-Did you tell Mr.. Burns at the time. yol
had the conversation with him the facts OF th'
's epd 81 e yda tss%n ia ar al ensy aia ae facts Of
case. all Of thens Al told Mr. Heney whs
! eiaimsd 10 he the facts OF the case
o.-Ycn told them the truth. did youl A.
Did you tell Mr. Burns the truth3 A.
o.--Did you tell Mr. Lsngdon the same facts
o.-Sow. Mr. Ruef A. dnterruptingl :
msde 10 Mr. Heney was made at the same
time 10 Mr. Langdon and also TO Mr.. Burns
tnat Is 70 say they were together when made
Q.-wss that at the time-at that time and
10 10 that conversation did they. say what that
my would dc all they could TO secure you
e.-when was it they said that: A.-Prior
Q.-How long prior to that? About a
RUFF GIVES TESTIMONY
o--Iiow many conversations have you had
vita MI I-sngdna, MT. Heney snd Ar. Burns IN
relation 10 this particular case2 Al think
rave bsd--you mean with regard TO The testi-
nsony n the case. do you.
Yes. Al i'ave had, think. three CON
Tersations with Mr.. Burns. and ! believe ono
conversation with Mr.. Hency. Langdon and
Burns: that is that one is OF fEe tnree which
had with AIR. Burns
Cit is fact. is it not. Mr. Ruef. that at
the present time you expect these gentlemen
connected with the prosecution in this case 70
secure fsf you leniency upon certain eriminsl
charges nov pending against your A--lpoD nv
testifying fully aud fairly TO the truth IN tnese
Q.-Plesse answer the question. A.-That is
answer
fQaesfion read. Al repeat the answer
matters
Q.-Who is 10 be the Judge Mr.. Ruef, as to
whether not your testimony is true you or
the prosecution: A.-Wen, shall insist thst
o.-whst is tfeir situation about it: A.
They can tel you better than l can
sumo they. knowing me as they do that they
Q.-rhea yol are tesflfying in this case, as
Stunning that these gentlemen. knowing you as
inony which you give in this case :s true. and
munity under certain charges? A.-Ihe testi-
mcpy which am giving here now is true.
Well ! have not finished my answer. The testi-
mony which 1 am giving here now IS true l
true and expect that they will carry out what
they have ssid. namely, thst they will do waht
they 10 assist IN securing enieney.
Odd you at a1y conversation with these
gentlemen tell them that you would not stand
for anything ssre and except complete I'M
n5nity?
~.
Incompetent and immaterial, and no proper fcun-
dation for IL.
The couft-Sustained. a.
Mr. Campbell: Q.-By that mean you wohld
not testify unless they would agree you should
have complete immunity from prosecution?
Mr.. Heney-Ihe objection 10 that was sus-
The court-Yes. the objection was sustained
Mr.. Csmpbell-To that question as, it stands
The court-Tes. he has told you. He has an
swered, you three different ways, II seems to
me- II seems to me that is enough. We are
taxing up good deal Of time think
Mr.. Campbell-It is the witness. your honor-
The court-I think you ought 10 connne this
TO proper cross am ina tion
Mr.. Csmpbell-1 endeavoripg to-
The court-He has answered the same aues-
tion. or an equivalent question three times;
Mr.. campbell-He stated what they said TO
him. Now then. have a right TO ask If he
didn't say in addition TO that to them certain
Mr.. Heuey-Ibst is not material. He stated
Mr.. Campbell am bound By bis answer that
that sll that was said.
The court know. but you keep asking MN
the same question. You are using equivalent
language: il is the same tone. the same purpose.
I have no objection 10 you asking IL he is going
to receive immunity and let 1t go at that. but
you are asking the same thing in different forms
every question 1t is taking up time. l want
you to get through with the examination.
Mr.. Campbell-Supposing be doesn't make the
same answers.
The court-No supposition about it, will
SuSIBi the last objection.
Mr. Campbell ll-Ycur honor viii give Us an ex-
ception. and also 10 the reasons by the court
given for his so sustaining IT,
Mr.. Campbell: Q.-Nr. Ruef. you had your
tslk with Mr.. Burns before YOU changed your
plea in this case. did you not< Al had sew
eral talks with Mr. Burns before ! changed my
o.-Did you have the talk to which you have
referred in relation to them doing what they
could for Scu before you changed your plea In
this esseg A.-Yes. / had some talk with them.
Q.-And after that talk you did change. YOU
plea from mot guilty to guilty, did you
Q.-You did that in open court did you not:
q Your counsel didu' put in the plea for It
themselves: Al did II against the protest OF
o.%Now. then. at that time did you state as
follows: Il am not guilty of the orense charged
in this indctmeDt:" A.-Substantiaily
Ir. HsneT@That + sn T is objected to as asking for
lis conclusion
The court-Susfaiued
Mr. CampbcIl-ExceptioD.
Ruef further testified on cross examination in
part as follows:
Of the defendant in the mouth Of December.
1906 in the presence of Mr.. Drew. Mr.. Metson.
the mayor and myself one afternoon when 1t
"s oHJust sInt at that time. If you can tx it that
way, at the time our hrm were employed III
the case Of the defendant one Sunday after
OH the parlor of the mayors house on
that afternoon? A.-Yes, sir.
On the month OF december, loUO- ID I1e
city and county of San Francisco, in the pres
ence Of the parties named. the mayor, Mr..
Drew. Mr. Metson and myself, did you not say
that you had never given the mayor dollar
OF the money received from the French restau-
rants: Al do not recall having said that.
OWN you say you did DotE Al can
only say that ] do not recall having said tina
al that conversation. have said that at
Ruef further testified in part on redirect ex-
animation in part as follows:
Mr. Heney: Q.-Nr. Ruef AT the time you
stated and the times you stated you had not
given the msyor any part Of the money from
the French restaurants were you telling the
truth. A.-wli you kindly repeat that: /
o AT the time you stated that you had not
given the mayor any part nf the money from
the French restaurants, you were not under
oath: A.->o.
o.-werc you telling the truth? Al am
telling the truth now.
o-1so you were not telling it then: A.
Well that is the natural deduction. that l
was eouiTocsting about the proposition
KNOWN TO CAMPBELL
II viii be noticed from this and other things
10 this testimony that Ruef draws line of
distinction between not telling the truth and
eourocstipg 1t would be interesting to know
what definition he would give as constituting
plain ordinary lying
II will also he noticed that Ruef testified
that as 10 case No 3Q5 Heney and Langdon had
promised 20 DO all they could TO secure len
iency'' for him.
He either committed deliberate wiliful per-
Jury In the Scbuitz case in giving that testi-
mony or else the affidavit which he has fiIed
.ud tho affidavit which DR. KanIan hos 6fed