The San Francisco call., 1908-03-18

4cHS4IS SpOCllCdlly ana CdJdROrlCdl-
ly every detail of Ruefs weird version
OF the midnight immunity conference
William j. Biggy yesterday filed the
affidavit Attorney Ach has been COM
planning to the court could not be OBJ
tanned. and its effect was to crumble
completely the tissue OF lies woven by
the willy CRATER in his desperate strug
gle to nullify the course of the law.
Biggy was Ruef's elisor, appointed
by the court, and had Ruef in custody
in the Fillmore street prison during the
long period Ruef was confined there. In
his af1davit Biggy AYERS that he was
not present as sworn by Ruef at any
conference OF Ruef. Heney and Burns at
which immunity was promised Ruef
Biggy denies that there was any agree
ment with Ruef permitting, him to
ever withdraw his plea of guilty and
brands as equally false Ruef's allega-
tions OF conspiracy participated in by
Judge Dunno, Heney, Langdon and
Burns.
Biggy declares that he often advised
Ruef to confess for the sake OF public
veal but calls untrue in minute detail
the statement that he ever even sug-
gested immunity to Ruef. He further
goes into complete denial in toto of
as to the negotiations Of the alleged
immunity agreement
Biggy's affidavit was supplemented
by the affidavits of two of his deputies,
John F. Mccarthy and James Foley,
which were to the same effect.
Biggy's affidavit in full is as follows:
BIGGY's AFFIDAVIT
In the Superior Court OF the State Of Cali
fornia in and for the City and County OF san
Francisco.
The people OF the State Of California. plain
til. VS.. Patrick Calhoun, Thornweu Mutually,
Tirey L. Ford William NJ. Abbott, Abraham
Ruef and Eugene E. schmitz, defendants.-No-
AFFIDAVIT
State of California. City and County OF San
william J. Biggy, being first duly sworn, de-
That he is the> same Bisgy referred to in the
on the motions and objections now pending, as
the Biggy who the elisor OF this court
having in his custody the defendant, Abraham
uef.
Referring to the affidavit of Abraham Ruef
herein dated March II, 1905. this afnant denies
tons therein referred TO had by said Ruef with
Francis J. Heney and William j. Burns, or
at any of said conversations had by said Huef
with Francis ]. Heney or with william j.
Burns aud denies that he was present at any
Of the conversations therein mentioned had by
the defendant Ruef with Rabbi Nieto ana kaoDi
Kapian and william ]. Burns, or either or
any Of them: and denies that he can give any
material testimony Of or concerning any OF
them; afhant denies that he can give any
material testimony concerning the, or any ar
rsngement of immunity referred to In SAID
affidavit and denies that to his knowledge IL
was agreed between the prosecution and defend
ant Ruef, or that 1t was represented to the
defendant Ruef that the latters plea OF guilty
IN Indictment No. 305 should or could be with
drawn OF that the defendant Ruef should not
be punished; denies that it could be proved by
atlantis testimony that any conspiracy was in
Hugurated or any existed between tne bon:
Frank H. Dune and William II. Langdon. and
Francis j. Heney and William j. Burns
or either or any of them, TO use the pro
cess of this court or to use this court, for
their own ulterior purposes. or any purposes or
to defeat the ends of justice, or that said or
any conspiracy was formed by the said parties
causing said Ruef TO plead guilty TO indictment
No. 305;, to said Ruef to testify be-
fore the grand jury or to cause the return OF
or TO cause the same or any Indictment to be
assigned TO department No. II Of this court,
or any other department OF this eenrt. or any
other court or TO enter into an or any con-
tract of immunity or any other contract with
said Ruef. TO thereafter break same,
or any contract, upon tne pretense tnat sslo
Ruef did not keep the same, or any other pre-
tense, or to break the same at all; or any
conspiracy was formed By said or any of said
parties at all
Affsnt further denies that IL conld be proved
by his testimony that the said or any con-
spiracy acted upon By the said parties, or
so far as his knowledge Information, or be-
lief is concerned such a conspiracy or any con-
spiTacy was never inaugurated or In existence
for any of the purposes stated in said affidavit
of Abraham Ruef, or for any other purpose,
or at all
DENIES BROWNS PART
Referring 70 the other affdayits of Abraham
Ruef on file herein this afiant denies that said
william ]. Burns did at any time direct affsnt
to do anything; affaut not acting under
the order and direction Of said William j.
Burns and did not act under his order aud direc-
ton, but the contrary was at all times
acting, and did act. solely under the direction
and of Hon. Frank 81. Dunno, as the Judge
thereof; but that no directions of the character
designated in said affdsvits of Ruef were
given him by the said court, judge.
And affant denies that his deputies or any
Of them. appointed by said Burns, but
were all appointed and sworn by affant, and
This affant denies that he did personally, or
at all, guarantee to said Ruef any promises
which the said Burns might have made said
Ruef, and denies that be did assert to the said
Ruef, or TO anybody else, that he, afhant would
kill any one who was party to any proposed
agreement who would violate the same.
Affant admits that be did on various oc
casions urge said Ruef to become a witness for
the state in the so called graft cases"
IN this city and county, and to tell the
prosecuting officers all that he knew about said
cases, and to make a full and complete coa-
fession to the district attorney Of all the facts
and circumstances therein; and told said Ruef
that he affant, believed that said Ruef should
do so in the interest of public justice and
the public welfare and in HIS own interests
and for the good of his family All such sug-
gestions, requests, made by affant to
said Ruef, were made upon atlantis own mo-
tion and not at the direction or request of
any other person whatsoever: and in max
ing said suggestions and requests affant at
no time used any threats or intimidations OF
any kind or character whatsoever and at no
tine offered to said Ruef any promises or
agreements of any kind character what
soeyer; nor did af6ant at any time state TO
said Ruef that he, affant was or had been.
authorized 10 make any promises OF agree
ments of any kind whatsoever. And in this
behalf, and referring To the aridavits Of NJ
Ruef and Henrietta Sittenfeld herein filed.
affant denies that any promise Of complete
or other, immunity which might have been
made by DIR. Nieto 10 said NJ. Ruef was sup-
plemented by any assurances to him or anybody
else by affant; and denies that so far as
he knows any such promise ever made
by DR.. Nieto; affant denies that said NJ
Ruef or anybody else, was told by afhant
or anybody In atlantis presence, that If said
Ruef was persuaded to disclose what he knew
of the subject matter which was then being
investigated or any other matter said Abra-
ham Ruef would be, positively, or otherwise
granted full and complete immunity or any
Immunity or that he would not be compelled
to further defend himself against any prose-
cufions or proceedings.
MADE NO PROPOSITION
Affant AYERS that at no time did be saw
or do anything whatsoever sufficient to cause
said NJ Ruef TO believe at any time that ara
ant represented the office of the district at
torney and denies that he did represent the
district attorney. Afhant denies that any pron
nv i'm ~ n