The San Francisco call., 1908-03-10


Ruef, was sufficient to endanger Ruef's
life. 1t was agreed by the prosecution
that some arrangement would be made
whereby Ruef would never have to go
to the county Jail as long as O'Neil
remained in office.
While advising Ruef to turn states
levidence and make the best terms he
possibly could with the prosecution,
Henry Ach insisted that his own atti-
tude in the matter must be kept pro-
found secret. He explained that the
reason of this was that Ruefs testi-
mony would involve some powerful men
whose close friends were numbered
among his own clients. and that if it
became known that he had advised
Ruef to turn against them he would
be boycotted and lose his most lucra-
tive practice. In this connection Ach
specifically mentioned William F. Her
rim.
FEARED HERRIN AS WELL
In Ruefs recent affidavits it has
been claimed that Ruef dismissed the
petition for writ of habeas corpus
which was pending in the supreme
court at the time his immunity con-
tract was signed and which was in
tended to free him from the custody
of an elisor. because is was part of
the agreement that he was to do so.
Heney asserts that this was done be-
cause of Ruef's fear that il the writ
Biggy's custody and put in. that of
Sheriff O'Neil, where he feared death.
Moreover, Ruef feared that when
Herrin learned that Ruef had turned
states evidence he would get Attorney
General Webb to take Ruefs case out
of the hands of the district attorney
and would not only send Ruef to the
penitentiary for practically life SEN
tence, but would, by controlling the
governor, prevent any possibility of a
pardon ever being secured. Ach openly
asserted that Herrin controlled both
the governor and the attorney general
and would probably continue to do so
for years.
The famous midnight meeting with
the two superior court judges resulted
in no promises on their part to dismiss
any cases against Ruef. Heney asserts.
They were merely asked their usual
policy in regard to accepting sugges-
tions for dismissal or leniency from
the district attorney and whether they
had confidence in Langdon and Heney.
Both answered the latter question in
the affirmative and stated that when
they did have confidence in the prose-
cutting official and good cause to believe
that the defendant deserved leniency it
was their rule to extend it.
IRUEF BREAKS EVERY PLEDGE
On the night after entering his plea
of guilt in court Ruef gave out inter
views declaring that he expected to go
to prison. On the very first test to
which he was put at making good his
word to tell all he knew, he failed to
tell the whole truth. or even to cover
facts already within the knowledge of
the prosecution. From then on the
game of double dealing became more
live up to a single pledge. His testi-
mony was of little or no value Evi-
dence was secured to show that he was
playing a fast and loose game with
both sides. So apparent did his breach
of faith become that Rabbis Nieto and
Kaplan called on Heney and asked that
he be given zone more chance" And
then the end came. Feeling that he
was secure in his position Ruef
breathed defiance. He was given every
scorned the offers that We're made to
him.
And so came the final meetings and
the annulment of the famous immunity
contract.
Following is the full. text of Heney's
affidavit
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
4 OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE CITY
AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALI
FoRNIA, Plaintiff.
LY. TREY l. FORD WILLIAM NJ. ABBOTT
ABRAHAM RUFF and EUGENE E. sCHMITz,
Defendants.
i (No. 323.)
4 AFFIDAVIT.
State of California, City and County of San
FRANCIS j. HENEY. being first duly sworn,
deposes and says:
I am now, and ever since the 24th day of Oct0-
Der, 1906. have been duly appointed. qualified
and acting assistant district attorney of the city
and county of San Francisco. state of California
/ On the 18th day of October. 1906. the impanel-
/ ing of grand jury commenced in this court
i in Department No. 10, Hon. Thomas h. Graham
presiding.
| On the 25th day of. October 1906. James L.
Gallagher, who then and there the acting
mayor of the city and county Of San Francisco
on account of the absence from the state Of
Eugene f. Schmtz. who was then reported TO be
in Europe. attempted TO William H.
Langdon from the Office of district attorney OF
this city and county. of which he was then the
duly elected qualified and acting incumbent and
/ to appoint Abraham Ruef in the place and stead
of said Langdon such district attorney and
1 said Gallagher did, the day last mentioned
issue order such acting mayor removing
! Langdon from said office and appointing said
| Ruef to the same This action was taken by
| prior agreement and arrangement between Gala
jury. which then being inpaneled fron in
vestigating charges Of felony against Gallagher
| and Ruef under the direction OF Langlou.aS dis
| trct attorney, and myself. his assistant.
l. at that time. was informed anl believed