The San Francisco call., 1908-03-10


that he had never committed any crimes. but
situation could believe snct statement ana
that Ruef was rneuesi onaliy guilty in inc ex-
possession proved ii ccnclusiveiy-
TOOK MONEY on DARE
Or. Kaplan replied IN substance Well hnt
AIr Heney. ] talked with htm about II AZ
minister and he assures me that he i innocent
Zee and that he refused 10 take the case until
the Bulletin abused him and CHALLENGED him 10
DO a. and that he then t1ek IL merely I" SNOW
The Bulletin thai be was nof afraid 20 do SO.
] told Dr. Ksplsn that there was no use IN
rfinonv of al the witnesses before tho grand
jury and that knew Hucf WAS guilty. and that
commenced taking the testimony therein or
would refuse deal with Ruef in regard 10
immunity in tho other csses miess, o. course.
Ruef willing 20 ~ once plead guilty 20 one
~ the other indictments against him for bribery
felony
Nc again went over much o. the same
ground which covered in our first conver-
sation.
on April - lso7. the examination of trial
iurors resumed in case No. 3o5. IN depart,
mont No. ~ this court. and al the close OF
the day the case was continued TIL the next
On April as 1907 the order was made by de-
parfmenf 40. of this court. in case No .Sp'-
for additional names TO be drawn from the jury
The court adjourned 10 April 26 1907.
ON or about the 2sd day Of April 1897. Buras
told that Dr. Nieto aud Dr. hapian ana
Henry 90 wanted 20 meet Langdon and myself
with him Burns. ST my Office 20 discuss the
fr,rrrni-~ question and endeavOr 10 reach
agreement. agreed that the parties men
toned could come 10 my office on that same
afternoon. or the following afternoon ] cannot
A. he appointed time william H. Langdon
vas there with me. and Dr. Nietc and DR.. k3p-
thereto from the side street shortly thereniier
Mr. Ach was brought IN the same way ~
william J. Burns. Rudolph Spreckels was not
present during any part ot this interview
MEETING IN KITCHEN
Ny Offices are located in what formerly
a private residence. and this meeting was held
.n the kitchen The ground floor By holding
rlo meeting there We avoided having any one Of
49, ,.-t-.s f,Lc +I,e -h.Deee ~ bcinr seen hv
aur newspaper reporter The reporters were in
tie habit ~ frcquenting my front hall AT that
TIE meeting according 10 my best recollection.
lasted for hour and half or possibly two
hours henry Ach- - is usual with him. did
noSf of fhe talking Tor his side he sSkeo
great many questions about how We could guar
antee to secure for Ruef whatever immunity or
partial immunity We promised dc showed great
ram Iarity with every point which was set forth
n rho proposed immunity agreement which had
been hruuEnf Ia me- 10y Burns from hoel on
Anr7i IT, 1907. and it quite evident that he
Isd assisted Ruef IN its preparation. he stated.
among other things. that DC was satisfied that
tito district attorney had no power 20 grant I'M
nlunity or 10 contract foT immunity. and that
rhis question was settled by supreme court
Peter
thought however. that = we would dismiss the
- Indictments which were then pending against
EDef Tor bribery. and would indict him again
Jointly with his accompllccS IN those cases. We
could Secure the dismissal of the cases against
Hfaf iu tbe Joint indictments under section 1929
~ tie ncnal code when the cases came to trial
and that Rucf would 10 agree 10 do that.
Ach also proposed that We should agree 70 have
fHe grand jury ind and return all the fniict-
,scnfs before specified time. and I think 'thc
dsfe that be then fixed was June ]. 1907. being
ilic same that was mentioned in Ruef's pro
is,-cd immunity agreement Of April il. 1907.
Mr. I-sngdon and myself both told Ach and
fhe others present that would not consent or
aSree To- dismiss the indictments which were
then pending against Ruef for bribery until the
in-nr Indictments which willing 10
irinE against him on the same subjects should
7.e sererallr dismissed fhe times OF trial. and
tsaf We would then dismiss the corresponding
single ind icfmenrS against Ruef. AT that time
we also stated that We would not consent or
acafnst Ruef OF his accomplices early
Jruc J. 1907. but that would he willing 10
nake the date October !. 1907.
No NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
Ach slso asked what we would do about adj
mitting RUef to bail: whether We intended 10
keep him locked mp. in the custody OK the
oisor Until al the cases were tried. apd told
him that We would not consent 70 admit him 10
hail: that inasmuch would insist upon
3 IS pleading guilty IN case No 800 as condi-
fon precedent 30 agreement of immunity for
auy other offenSes committed by him. il WAS
aouhtful whether the court would admit him 70
bail 81 wanted II done. IS the nlea of
q
Iuef would not be entitled 10 bail as a matter
.f right. but that in any event we would not
f.ke any chances an his leaving the country. or
that IN substance and effect
Ach said. among other things. in substance
end effect. I satisfied the district attorney
ias no power 10 make any agreement 10 give I'M
nunitv. and Buef wants you 10 get ak these
cases signed the department and 20
cot the Judge 10 agree 10 dismiss them under
fii.. agreement which he makes Nith you aud
think vOn go and get the presiding judge 10
se1 all The cases iH Judge DUNES department.
s0e 81. ths' you can get Judge Dunno to agree to
] replied in substance: In the first place, I
VIII no. ask Tire presiding judge to assign all
sire cases 10 one department, ana have no res
10 believe that ne would do 80 II did ask
him. Hou forger that fse purpose Of bringing
fhesn Joint indictments is 10 prosecute Ruef's
aerompiices and there viii be great many
raScs. We can nof expect To try them ali in ene
department n tic face III the eonstitui ensi pro
vision and the 80 day Son: and. in The
second place. ] VIII not ask any Judge 10 enter
into any surh agreement. II Ruef. any other
criminal. enters into immunity agreement
with MS hc must trust rs 70 act N good faifh-
snd We must iave tho right and VIII exercise
fhe power ~ determining whether he Is acting IN
good faith and telling us the whole irIth or not
Ruef is not willing 10 trust me with the evil
dence which hc can give In these cases. and
wants give him agreement Of immunity
Wirhauf kunvin. who all ef his scc9mplices are.
what his evidence against them Is. or whether
Ite can he c.,rroborated or not 7 don't trust
Ruef aud ] don't intend 10 put il in his power
no hand ~ . gold brick. We are not going 10
give him immunity for merely telling US whas
We already Know We 40 not iuieuN 10 let uin
20 on these 65 bribery indictments only TO ind
that he has 50 coiOred his testimony 10 let all
his accompiices escape also.
ACH FoRESEES CONVICTION
Ach stated in reply in substance; Il consider
Iinpf one 81 ihe best lawyers IN the state. and
think Won viii scree With when ] state
20 yod that he is, and he tells me that he can
furnish the corrOb0rating evidence. He has not
roid me who his accompiices because would
not let him do 50. don't want 10 know, but l
ln know in r general way that they people
~ crest Importance and influence and that he
wiz impcste some big people in some big
matters which vou people do not know ANYTHING
about snd have never heard Of. He knows that
ir viii have 10 iD good faith. and that he
-snnof expect 10 gel something Tor rOthing- and
fau can be sure that nc win bc able 20 eorrobor-
ate his fcsfimonv-F