The San Francisco call., 1908-03-10
Attorney Wiling Calhoun

ZkSEE ID
labor union nomination at the preceding election,
ihas would not he willing Try any OF tnese
cases be, ore aim either and we would. therefore.
probably be safe assuming thar noae OF the
cases would be sent 10 either Of them.
Ach replied. ia substance: We'll that SIM
piines lie matter considerably. | do not shhS
si'e presiding judge Viii send any of these caSes
10 took or Meesn If you inform him tnal YOU
VIII not try any ease before either Of ihem, anu anu
as there are only -four judges trying .crlmiha,
cases we can safely assume thar the cases VIII
20 70 Judges Dunno and i.awior. Now, yeu can
90 % those TWO Judges and get them to consent
In reply. said. in substance: NO. / cannot.
ana viii nyk ask either OF them to agree
ie any sHeh thing. and do not believe eltner liner
one OF them would agree 10 IL if asked MN
10 90 so. You know just as well as ] do that
II Is almost the universal practice for me
conrts 10 follow the recommenda tions OF the DIS
tricf attorney in these matters whenever the
judge has confidence ia the motives and integ.
rity Of the district attorney and is satished
that the defendant who turns states evidence
against his accompices has acted in good raita
Win the prosecution and has testified 1nnyi. 1.i
ins knowledge relating 10 the onenses TOT
which nc aad his aecomplices had been N
dlcted. The power of the district attorney 70
40 these things has been taken away IN thls
and some other states because II has some
times been corruptly used. but il Is neces-
sarT and proper power 10 be used in the inter
ests OF justice and whenever # appears to the
court in particular instance that It was 50
used aud was wisely exercised the court does
not hesitate TO ratify It, Mr. Burns and myself
entered into several immunity contracts Win
deiendants in oregon and the federal cou!t
tnefe always followed my recommenoaIlohs III
all such matters. The utmost ! am Wiling 10
30 Is 10 go with you 10 Judges Dunno ana LsE
lor. respectively. and ask each OF them whetheI
ne has confidence n me and what ms genersi
practice is in relation to matters OF TINS KIND
generally. which come before his court
To the best Of my recollection Ach did not
tory, but he did say he did not personally need
any assurance that Judges Dunno and Lawlor,
or either Of them. had confidence IN me- as ne
was satisfied that both of them did. :.
In this same conversation Aeh asked me TO
confess and give evidence against his accom-
plices and to also specify what persons we
expected him TO involve.
INITIATIVE WITH RUFF
/ told Ach. in substance. in most emphatic
manner. that we would not indicate in any way
what crimes or offenses he Ruef. must confess
commission Of or what person or persons we
expected him TO involve in any onense. and
that Ruef must sgree TO tell us All Ine pnenses s
had participated i'm which might In broad
sense fall under the definition of graft cases
thst he must give the names OF all ms
accomplices in those cases without any sugges-
ton or infimaton from US. and that ne knew
what crimes he had committed or participated in
better than we did and who his aecomplices
In each of them. that II be thought ne
could purchase immunity by telling us what
already prove. he was very badly mistaSen'
and that for these very REASONS l was not VIII
ing 10 enter into any immunity contract win nm
for partial immunity without nrst knowing
what his evidence would be and in what man
ner II could be corroboratcd and who ms ac-
completes were l insisted that Ruef must
agree 10 tell US all he knew about graft In San
Francisco without any reservations whatever
IN this same conversation Ach said In sub
stance: 4 want everybody here TO agree that
the fact that / participated in this conference,
had anything 10 do with advising Raef TO
turn states evidence. shall never pe maae le
known: it would absolutely ruin my business II
It became. known. A hot OF the people whom
Ruef viii involve as accomplices are close
friends OF clients OF mine. OF course, do not
know just whom he viii involve. but do have
a general idea For instance, while ne has
never told nc so in so many words. under
stand fbst no will involve William F. Herrin.
Now Just 10 illustrate to you how II would
affect ne in business IL it was known that i
participated in urging Ruef to do this. VIII tell
YOU tina / am attorney for one company. an oil
company that pays me $4,000 8 year as salary
Of the directors Of the company and undoubt-
edly has sufficient influence with the other
directors 10 take this client away from me.
This is only one instance, and there are many
Others
on Friday. April 2s, 1907 the examination of
jurors IN department No. OF this court IN
case No. SOS was resumed and al the close Of
the proceedings the case was continued TO Mon
day. April %. 1907.
Burns told me that Henry Ach. DR.. Nieto and
DR.. Kapan would like 10 meet Lsngdon and
myself that night al my office again for
further discussion OF the immunity proposition
and told Burns to inform them that tiiey
could come aud that would have Mr.. Langdon
there.
SNEAhED IN BACK WAY
That same night Mr.. Ach. Dr. Nieto and DR..
Kaplan did come into my office and again
sneakcd in the back way through the gate on
the side street. that no one of them would
become known in the matter aud they were
conducted by some one in sny o-nce 10 the rear
room On the second floor and there William II.
Langdon. William J. Burns. Rudolph Spreckels-
Charles W Cobb and myself joined them.
.....lI.., .ffetfnctlx- tIrna
night. but il probably about half past S
O'Clock The conference lasted for two or
three hours. according 10 my best recollection.
and very much Of the same ground was again
gone over that went in the conference
q few days before in the kitchen on the ground
floor of my office building as hereintofore set
forth.
Ach agaiu- urged that Ruer be given complete
immunity and that the promise Of Judges Dunno
and Tawlor be secured that fney would dismiss
the case against Ruef whenever the district at
t0rncy ar myself asked them do
again stated most cmphs ticaliy that
would no; consent give Iuef complete i'm
munify. that | would not consider or eDtcrtain in
The proposition AT al and that we were wasting
time in getting together II they had come 10
any sucA proposition: that we had al
resdy given them Htimatum and that
Ruef m=lst plead guilty in 'sse Nc 305. which
was thcn trial. and take such punishment
therein might deem to be in the interest
of iustice after We had disposed of all the
witness: that would make promise what
ever. either to them 20 Rucf. ss what
recommends tions We would make TO the court
in relation TO the punishment Of Ruef in case
No. 3Oj.
again most emphatically stated that I
would not ask either Judge Dunno or Judge
Lawlor any other judge to maze any promise
in advance to what he would do ia respect
TO any motion which might be made by the dis
trict attorney myself ia any which was
then pending before him, which might there
after come before him
Aci again wanted rs to specify the cases in
which we wanted Kuef 10 confess.
/ again most emphatically stated that we
would not do SO aud that Ruef must tell MS all
he knew about all graft In which he
had participated Of which he had knowledge.
ACH FEARS BOYCOTT
In the eourSe OF the conference Ach again
soJemnly urged upon us that each present
must consider himself bound to disclose the
fact that Ach had anything To do with advising
Rucf 10 tun states evidence. He again stated
that ii would utterly ruin his business. as Ruef
would Involve influential and important people
who were interested IN business with. or were
close friends Of clients or his and that he
would be boycotted by them and their friends
and all Of his business taken away from him
During this conference Acn wanted 10 know
what We would do il the supreme court OF this
state would hold IN the habeas corpus proceed
ing which was then before 1t that the superior
court had no power to appoint an elisor 10 re-
tain the custody OF Ruef. Ach went on to say
that II was a very serious matter because he
snd Ruef were both satisfied that IL Ruef