The San Francisco call., 1908-03-10

/ use in talking II over
replied to. Aeh: Yes. we now both under
| the prosecution and he has only succeeded in
5obbins himself into the penitentiary"
On the 24th day Of September 1907. made
cuticn in the case Of Tn. I People Us. Ii Tirsy T..
Ford, No ST.; 10 which Patrick Calhoun TREY
ialy. Eugene z. schmitz and Abraham Rucf are
jointly indicted for paying and Offering to pay a
brihe' TO Thomas +. Lonergan. who was then
i aad there supervisor OF this city and county.
/ to influence his vote in a matter then pending
before. said board OF supervisors, to-wit. the
matter OF the ordinance permitting the United
1 Railroads Of San Francisco TO operate an over
/ head trolley over part OF its system OF street
rnilvays which had theretofoie been operated by
| that case was careful not to state that the
prosecution expected to prove any fact facEs
upon the testimony OF Abraham Ruef. because I
had definitely determined that I would not use
Euef as 4 witness in that ease unless Tirey l.
Tense aud testified that he bad not paid to Ruef
! the $20o, 600, Of which Ruef had given $50, 900
TO James L. Gallagher 10 be divided among him
self and the other members of the board of su-
perv lsors- with the exception OF Rea. and OF
whfcn ssf s aue. r naa dlviasd esawesn nin M
formed and l then believed to be the
truth. and now believe 10 be the truth More
Ford would not deny that he had paid $500, 600
! to Ruef by. giving him $4,000 on about the
-otn -'tfy oI May. lSuO. 1ilu SoottD ON OF ABOUT
the slst day OF July. 1906. and 100000 on or
/, about August %. 1906.
At that time believed and I now believe
that Ruef, through Henry Aeh and George
keane. was in close touch Indirectly with Tirey
L. Ford and Patrick Calhoun and the attorneys
who we're defending Ford and that the sttor-
neys fer Ford knew the exact situation as be-
tween Ruef ard the prosecution therefore be-
lfeved that | was not only justified. but that II
from telling ne @ one %hs to 70 do IN
gard to putting Ruef the stand witness
in the Ford case during that trial. believing as
did that Ruef and Ach were capable Of putting
up any kind Of job with Calhoun and Ford.
And. believing as l did that Calhoun was cspa-
Die OF putting up any kind OF JOB win kuel
ployes of Patrick Calhoun had endeavored to
kiduap Thomas r. Lonsgsn, who was the most
important witness for the prosecution in that case
decided that was iusti6ed asa public officer
In keeping Ruef and Ach and Calhoun and Ford
from showing to q certainty what intended .o 70
or not putting him on the stand as witness IN
that case on that trial. therefore caused Ruef
to be brought into court every day by the eHsor
during the trial. | noticed that Henry Ach was
constantly at Rues's side in the courtroom dur
ing the trial although Ach had announced in
department No. OF this court when Ruef got up
aud pleaded guilty in case No. 305. that he
would not thereafter represent Ruef in that or
what the presence Of Ach meant He there
for the purpose of asserting and OF endeavoring
to procure for Ruef any and all privileges or
rights which Ruef claimed under the Immunity
| contract which bad been signed by Lsngdon, my
self and Ruef on May s. 1907.
RUFF NOT CALLED
During the early part of the trial DIR. Nisto
came 10 one day and asked me II II would
rot be good idea to have the immunity con-
tract up in court when l put Rusf on the wit
ness stand. that it would not be necessary for
anything to be said about its being in the pos
session Of DR.. ksplsn- ! concluded that Dr.
Sfefo trying TO ind ont for Ruef and Aeh
whether intended to put Ruef on the stand or
not, and told Dr. Nieto that he need not worry
about the matter. because whenever / concluded
TO put Ruef on the witness stand would have
Burns get the immunity contract and would hand
it TO Ruef myself before put him on the stand.
so that he could produce IL from his own pocket
in. court On one or two occasions thereafter at
the Temple Israel DR.. Nieto asked me If / was
going tosput Ruef on the stand that day. and on
each occasion / smilingy replied: NO, we
went reach a., him today sss Doctor r, ~, o..,.o,
in the first Ford trial in this department OF
this court on the I'd day Of October. 1897.
time TO consider what they would do about put
ting in evidence. and court adjourned for the
ticed Henry Ach aud Ruef sitting together
next TO the aisle, which was directly In front
OF where ! sat, and could sec that up to the
time I closed the case they anxiously
waiting Tor me 10 call Rusf witness When
court adjourned they remained sitting and
passed them ,Ach stopped me aud said In sub
stance Why didn't you put Ruef on the stand
as witness: Are sou not going to dismiss
stance: There are lot more cases 10 be
tried. There viii be plenty OF opportunities to
dismiss these esses if want TO do it, Ruef
said with one OF his most winning smiles. IN
substance: Il guess ne is going put on
in rebuttsl just as he did ip the schmitz case
I.replfed in substance: 'Oh. don't know about
that Ruef. don't like TO try all my cases
the same way l started To leave and Ach
stopped ! had taken only couple of
steps and said In substance: There isn't any
change ia the situation. is there. in regard to
Rusi IS s@Slliugiy and meaIIngy replied In
last talk meaning thereby the talk which Ach
and myself had about the 10Th or goth
in the presence Of DR.. Nieto. Dr. KapIan. VIE
liam j. Burns and Charles ". Cobb. herein
before set forth. As | made this statement
walked on out of the courtroom and some one
stopped me somewhere between there and the
came up TO me, all smiles. and said in sub
stance: feu didn't put Rpef on the stand:
any change in the situation. is there.'' And
l replied with smile in substance: None
the talk at my office just bereinbefore referred
to, at which DR.. Niefo. Dr. Kaplsn and Ach
manner Of Or. Nieto when I made this reply to
each Of them indicated plainly that each IN
derstood exactly what l meant.
made the closing argument for the prose
cution in the first Ford trial the afternoon
OF October 4. 1907. aud in that argument I
ssa to the Fo;d @ sUs e. O1sT ST. fh9s s
about it, They did not complain about my
asking why they did not put Mr. Ruef on the
the stand and vouch for his veracity and enable
them to put words In his mouth and I will
answer now, because we DID NOT TRUST
HIM. Are we Justified"
Mr. Lewis f. Byington, the brother in law
of Tirey L. Ford. who was then and there
acting one of his attorneys interrupted me
and said: You did not trust him and he has
not been sentenced for six months? What are
you keeping him for:'' To that I Immediately
replied addressing myself To the Jury: Are
we iustihed? They want dismiss the
cases against him. grant him immunity put
him on the witness stand. that they can
stand up here and howl to you that ought 10
be damned and By them are damned be-
cause have given him immunity and then
when We don't put him the stand. what
are we keeping him for. Well. that Is our
business We don't propose to have any more
Interference any interference with our wit
nesses II help IL. We do not propose
TO have Mr.. Ruef taken out by two painted
or unpainted ladies' and magazine writer. who
delivery the inform ation strange to say, TO the
attorneys for the other side
Mr.. Byinzton then said will you let me
ask you a question. Mr.. Heney? Is il not a
| fact that you have kept him six months. and
then you do not put him the stand because
he would not tell what you wanted him TO,
and you kept him or thinking IL might free an
innocent man."
CLASH WITH BYINGTON
| replied: .'No. I will answer that question -
Mr.. Byington then said: That you would not
| put man or there after keeping him for six
months because you thought he will tell the
| truth there can be no other explanation I
-rt,iI fart fs.h 81