The San Francisco call., 1908-03-10

I fsal lI,our nd reaching
and in thereby deciding that wvolu - - --af1 -
the testimony Of the witnssses h2serv taken BY
/ a stenographer I influenced IN souie ,s -
gree BY the statements which were .,bos,n AZ nv
i Sse,,ss A. Green street on the night OF MAJ
4 1907. as hereinbefore set FORTH
RUFF DIsTORTs FACTS
On Nav II. 1901. Ruef appeared before the
grand Jury and testified in relation 10 M 49, n;
+ cry Of supervisors In liking sne ssr So sod In
relation to the agreement 70 pay sss n,,1sS ~ an
supervisors in the matter of tns sa,I,is Pssi n com
pliance with an application ~ tne fafAsue
realty company for such sale
On the morning OF May T.. 1907 ! Loia Dn11s 0~tT,'
ont fall "a put the agreement with huet -
( MAY s 1907 IN a safe deposit box from whies
beth OF them
+ Later on that same day. ON the following
day, Burns told that he had seen Df- -Y,
i Ian. and that the doctor tod him that ne esa s
\ put the agreement IN a safe deposit box IN me
Joint names OF himself and Burns al the West-
& srn National bank de eDosit vaults: and that he
Burns. asked DIR. Kapian Why he ~ no. put
J Il In the First National bank dep0st vaults -
had been agreed upon and that Vt. =, nAp.Ss ..Is
I IL TO the Western National bans vaults
l insisted that Burns should get Dr. ,asa. nara-n
TO remove the agreement from the weston
National bank vaults 70 the First Nat9nal oa1A .,
vaults. and May y. 1907 Burns adsised ..,s NJ
vaults with Dr. Kaplan and Dr. kaPian ha9
taken the agreement from these sa1its ..',1ss sse
/ in a box 10 which he. Kaplan- and Burns eael
had key and which could not be opened eN
| Burns informed me last Saturday that he had
( that day discovered from the records q tns
{ Western National bank that Dr.. kapldn ndd
+ not put the agreement there in the joint names
I OF himself and Burns bnt on the contrary had
On On or r. about Nav Is. 1907. Burns brought
Rnef TO my office and requested Ruef 70 tell
/ me the facts in the French restaurant exr0r-
7 fion eases and particularly in No. 3o5-
: Nr. LsngdOn also was present
Ruef thereupon told me what be claimed 20
be the facts Of the Among other things
| ne stated in substance. that he had nothing %
a. with causing the licenses % the French RS
sioners: that he had not talked with Schmitz
+ on the subject IN advance of the hOldup, that
+ when the French restaurant keepers nrst sent
representative TO him and asked him 70 take
I the cases he aatly refused 70 do 80; that he
I had no intention whatever Of taxing them IN
I Gil the Bulletin. evening newspaper. which
! Is published n this city and county. came out
4 with scathing article in which IL denounced
Ruef for having caused the licenses % be held
/ up and dared and challenged him to take the
/ cases and % attempt 70 defend himself upon
/ the theory that the money obtained By hin
vas received as an attorney 3 fee
+ Ruef also stated that Pierre Priet had come
I 10 him as a representative OF the French res
taurant keepers association. which was COM
( posed OF All the French restaurants and that
+ Pierre had made an agreement with him for a
regular retainer OF 5000 year FOR two years
to ,represent that association in all business
asked Ruef II be was sure Of the date upon
which Pierre Priet had nrsr gone 10 his efnes
to talk with him about that matter and be
stated that he was absolutely sure OF the date.
and that II January ). 1905.
then asked him II he sure OF the date
I on which he had closed the bargain with Pierre
I Prtet- and be stated that be and that il
was on the next day. 20 wiz. January s. 1895:
Z that be had written agreement which he bad
/ signed.
I questioned Ruef as TO what restaurants con-
& AZ ID
and he again stated that all the French restan-
/ knew from the testimony Of the French
restaurant keepers that this statement abs,-
lntely false. and that the French restaurant
Ruers own brain. and thar there never vas
such an association that bad ever told
that the contrary. Ruer himself had told
Pierre Prtet that he tRuef1 designated the dve
IN that agreement as the French resranrsnt
keepers association aud that thereafter. when
Ts.,le ,1 Maitaeefsa IN & came to I'm and paid him
10 protect them in tfeir regular licenses. that
he tRuefl hSsi told Camille that that constituted
{ membership for thcse tf~ee restaurants IN the
French restaurant keepers association. and fer
him lCamillel 70 30 and tell Pierre PrIet thar
/ he (Rnefl said that they now belonged 70 the
| French restaurant keepers association
RUFF TRAPPED IN LIE
7 told Ruef that I id not believe his state
ment that be accepted the called employ
ment from Pierre Prfet for the French restaurant
I Keepers association merely because rte Bulletin
bad dared or challenged him 70 do 50; that
did not believe his statement that be and
Schmirz did lot have any prior understanding
, and agreement in the natter because all the
I eircunstanriaI. showed clearly and conelusiveIT
that Ruef and schmftz did have a perfect IN
( corruptly ccnspire to thls extract money fron
I the French restaurant keepers; and thar rs
. was utter rot: and thar he was fooiine hsns-
Z n he thought he eeuld make any honest Juror
believe any such stuff or that in substance ard
Ruef stuck TO bis story. however. and m
sisted thar he had intention or idea Of tax
ing the case until after the Bulletin had darsd
and challenged him 70 do %
After Ruef left the Office I sent ont ard
| secured nies OF the Bulletin and eNsmined then
earefally and discovered that the first time tie
I Bulletin had ever mentioned the French rs<fa-l-
4 rant holdup attempt en- the part Of RIIsf
/ TO extort money from these restaurants was N
the the, last edition OF the Bulletin for January :.
On Nav - 1907. the selection Of the tu-v
In case Ne. 3o5, IN department No. 8 OF rhis
court to my the defendant. Eugene e Schmiiz
ON May 2s. 1901. the grand jury returned
indictments Nos So TO S54. both inclusive
70 the briberies OF supervisors in the natter Of
liking the rate for gas. IN February I9o6 ana
20 70 tns bribery of supervisors IN the matter OF
the passage q the ordinance for the saIs Of
/ trolley franchise upon the application OF the
Parsslde realty company IN 1906
this court for the trial II Eugene T. Schmifs
4 for the aforesaid extOrtion. 7 again sent ror
I Ruef during that same week. and to the b~.sf
OF my recollection. Saturday Of that week
TO wit. May p. 1897. and held another inter-
view with him on the same subject
Mr. Burns was present at this interview as
well as at the prior one. aud before R1,rnS
brought Ruef to my Office on this second cr,-s-
sion 1 told Burns the result ef my lnvessI1,s-
tfon OF the dies Of the Bulletin. aud that I
intended to demonstrate 70 Rucf himself II.
he was lying 70 about ease No 3o5 ana
every French restaurant exfortion ease
On this occasion had Rnef repeat his sttrv
| and ne told Il Substantially the same as he rad
the nrst time
again asked him II he was sure Of the
day on whifh Pierre Priet had first zone 10
MS cfnce and talked with him about the mat
ter and he again repeated that he was abs0-
I Iuteiy sire that II the 9Th dav Of
! January. 1905. and I again asked him h he
was sure o. the day upon which Pierre PrIet
had paid him the Arst S5.0o0. and II II was
the same day that Pierre Pret had signed the
contract. and Ruef again replied thar hss vas
absolutely sure that Pierre Prtet had paid hln
the 5000 on the 9Th day OF January iqc5 and
had signed the contract that day And REF
thereupon proiuced the contract and showed II
TO me and asserted that the signature thereon
was that Of Pierre PrIet. and that he had sen
him sign It. The contract was 1ared Iar,,,,