The San Francisco call., 1908-03-10

fr
49,. os seh,,itz although Ruef then well knew.
/ as am informed and believe. that IN nxnk
the price Of gas az - censs ,,,a ont ef $500 oo
in one year and although kuef knew then tna,
a large part OF that money would come yus 80, :.
| the norkets Of the labor union and 0ther iaovf-
! ing classes who could i'll AFFORD to PAY H.
/ Ruef discrininates between robbing the public
n,oeey from the pockets Of his victim and rob
I hing the public Indirectly with public service
corporation officials as aecompliees through or OF
visors at his iictatiOn; aud In declaring u
i innocence OF crime under oath and In testny III ~
{, as a witness under oath he draws these SAME
fine distinctions
TELLS OF TROLLEY BRIBERY
Z am informed and believe that Ruef also
tia the following statements Which were published
In the same issue Of said newspaper 70 VIZ;
Il am not afraid. and am am, not r,ntinS eriminai
1 but l have never set about to do man harm.
Il didn't change my plea because ! Was WAS
afraid Of a prison sentence IL isn't tnaI, lou
know my nature. You know how sensitive 1
am You know the humiliation l must feel.
and then you will understand tnaI ny motives
were not the hope OF saving myself
'My record in every particular was clear
J up to the time the present SUPERVISORS went
into office"
And -.
MAYOR should be tried FIRST We thought that
the mayors position and prestige after the nre
would bring about speedy aequittai anu th9 !
then be easily disposed OF. We figured that
this would end the whole prosecution
torneys forced me to trial first. Their plan
was TO have stand the b-unr OF the ngnt
50 that they could then take advantage Of the
evidence brought out at my trial..
I informed and believe that after court
0phnee shs time Ruef RI entered his plea Of guilty in
case No. 3o5. he made the following stare
ments among Others 70 reporssT 81 tns n its
II do not know what my sentence nee, viii vii Se, ,s,,
Whatever II is. when IL is over l VIII take up
my life here. where | left on before. ana
+ live it differently. ! think that nave souas %
friends left who win stay by me. am am easy ~,
afraid I have the courage 10 stay III this eits
and live 1t down"
81 do not know what the penalty for the
ofense for which I was to have pen ,,tSlssi Isosa
may be- Whatever 4 Is. vii serve ~ ~lsho1.
so@PalnI 9 n,d could c6n face mob 'na a naf afraid
/ TO face whatever may be indicted upon NE me.
One thing could not stand was tss sgspenss s1sS
/ those 1 loved. That is why l took the step
l did today-to end the suspense under which
'I am OF temperament that can endure
much Whatever my sentence may Be, ! VIII
/ have paid the penalty | will live according to
the new point Of view ! have TT, taken ZEN, sni an
/ to live my life here and end my days here.
II think that since l took this stand TO-DAY
I have found new friends and that hat, l il.rs have
All day long they have been coming 10 see
me and sending me messages OF hope and con
/ graduation.
Against sehmitz I will make accuse
/ tions. l deny that / have ever accused him
/ stand with schmItz and have no quarrel
/ with him. l have none now
And yet. on the morning OF May 3 1901
Ruef had confessed TO Burns his connection Win
| the overhead trolley franchise bribery and had
told Burns that he lRuef) gave Sehmisz sS9.-
S200O which was given To aim by frey l.
! Ford from Patrick Calhoun 10 pay Tor the
passage Of the Franchise And 1s,n nsS srS
days thereafter that he had given schmitz half
the money which he received from the French
which he netted from the Home telephone com
pany bribery and half the money he had
| netted from the gas bribery. as was informed
at the time by Burns. and believe
INDITED WITHOUT RUFF
On May 1s. 1907. told Burns TO have Ruef
brought S to ,st the gsnd y T,s ] a ros1
ting testinoay before the gssnd jury od9 y ins; nat
completed the putting OF such testimony before
the grand jury on May 1s. 1901. By producing
i court upon the first trial OF TREY l. Ford. for
the bribery OF Supervisor Lonergan in the troll
/ nf those witnesses who were employees Of the
United Railroads of Z rHn.4>cv.
declined 10 testify. or the Importance pl NW1OSe
Evidence was only developed upon said trial by
the testimony OF other employees OF said United
/ Railroads of San Francisco given therein When
/ call Abraham Ruef before them as a witness
stated that had completed the taking Of
4 testimony In that matter with the exception OF
that to be given by Ruef. The foreman OF the
grand jury thereupon requested me 10 retire
from the grand jury room and stated that he
/ would advise when / could return. re-
tired into the hall adjoining the grand jury
room and remained there for some time. Finally
of - uu1 fn~-s~ u
came out in the hall. and taking me to one
side. said in substance: Me. Heney. the grand
Calhoun. TREY l. Ford. Thornweli Mutually and
| William NJ Abbott for brIbing supervisors in
pare the indictments at your As earliest
/ ence. | replied in substance. IAN right
to hearing the t testimony He 81 Rnef @ Mr o'rel
I replied in substance: You can bring him In
hear him. but we considered the ev;denee g .
/ plain in this trolley matter that we wanted 20
| pass on the indictments before hearing Ruefs
| thereupon re-entered the grand jury room,
with Mr.. Oliver, after first instructin< the door
keeper to send Mr. Ruef in az once Ruef came
testified in regard to the trolley matter, and IN
regard 10 that only. About the time he started
TO testify he asked me In the g.and Jury room
il we did not have stenographer present. an
| told him that we did not. and that for rea-
sons which considered sufficient we had not had
one during any part OF the Investigation relating
70 the trolley franchise except when the super
sisers testified.
This Is all that I said TO Ruef on that subject
| at that time and place. and / did not say any
thing to him on that subject at any other time o.
ether place.
The fact is that IA or Is supervisors made con-
fessions to the prosecution on Saturday March
/ 10, 1907 and were all subpenled before the
grand jury ON Monday. March Is. 1907 and at
that time. for reasons which I considered suf-
hcient and In the interest of public policy / had
l a stenographer present and examined all Of said
supervisors to all called graft crimes par-
ticipated in by them Of which | then mad euy
knowledge including the trolley franchise briS-
cry. and for the reasons I desired to CON-
plete the examination Of all OF said supervisors
that same day and IL would not have been easy
to do 50 II | had made q separate examination
| Of the trolley franchise matter with each one OF
| them. and had requested the stenographer 70
retire from the room during such examination.
One Of the reasons which actusted me to examine
all Of said supervisors the same day was
that the newspapers hal discovered that they had
made confessions on the preceding SATURDAY.. and
wanted to make sure that one OF them
was tampered with By any who might he
interested IN changing his testimony before sue
ceeded in getting his testimony recorded by a
stenographer iu the grand jury room
TACTICS OF CALHOUN
One Of the controlling reasons which actuafed
me TO have the testimony Of the witnesses In
the trolley franchise brfbery taken before the