The San Francisco call., 1908-03-10

ee10uKQ.
To this Mr. Campbell replies:
He has stated what thev said to him Now
- nen, n;si. nave right to AK II be didnf ss
To mis- Mr. Heney replied: '-'1
ssid.' :
I9 this Mr.. Campbell replied:
was all that was said.
10 this the court made answer ss follows:
- know; but you keep asking bim the sam
It is the same tone the same purpose. hay
no objection to you asking IL he IS going Z
receive immunity and LET 1t go at that, bu
yon are asking the same thing in dineren
forms every question. 1t is taking up time
want you 10 get through with the examination.
suggested by the the court. TO Wit: Are yo,
going TO receive immunity u or question whicl
would be the same IN substance. and the oni
circumstances II he was not merely attemptln,
TO get error into the record or did not hsvi
some other design or purpose which preeluded it
Has the district attorney or any one Of
behalf OF the prosecution made any agreement
either oral or written. with you In relation I,
Immunity or in relation to leniency in this o.
any other cases;"
CAMPBELL's PURPOSE
Mr. Campbell designedly avoided asking Rue,
any question which amounted 10 that in sub
obvious that Mr. Ruef would have been com
PEELED 10 answer in substance:
es. have a written agreement with Mr.
Langdon and Mr.. Heney the subject of i'm
munity. =.
And thereupon Mr. Campbell would have beer
entitled TO demand the production of said writ
ten agreement In court and the prosecution would
have been bound 10 produce IT.
1t Is needless 10 say that in putting Ruefs on
called upen to produce said written agreement
heeause we necessarily anticipated that such
obvious and simple questions would be asked
Moreover. it is perfectly apparent that any
lawyer OF Mr. Campbells ability who wanted
TO get at all the facts would have asked Rnel
FOR the written agreement aud after it was
produced the following question, or that In sub
:: 1907: expressly excludes this particular case
40 auS. in which you have pleaded guilty
oeiore this court Have you any other separate
oral or written agreement with the district az.
torney or anybody representing the prosecution
relating to Immunity or leniency in this case.
ii. and if it was oral. please state ali thu that
was said to you that subject and by whom
1t was said. and who was present and when
and where the conversation occurred. and ali
that you said in reply
Had Ruef been asked these simple and oh.
vious questions by Campbell it is apparent that
he must either have told all the facts in CON
nection With the matter have committed
deilberate, willful perjury.
Courts deal only with facts and the homes
or expectations of Ruef were not material in
my opinion, unless they were based upon prom
fses or representations, and the only way to
prove them was by proving the promises OF
representations II any such had been made.
LIT. lr hnef had any understanding or agreement
based upon representations made to bin By
Burns, Ach. DR.. Nieto. DIR. KapIau, Langdon.
Heney. or any of them, that he would be allowed
3O5, and substitute a plea OF NOR guilty. aud
that the case would then be dismissed upon 4
motion OF the district attorney or his assistant,
bell plainly called for a statement Of these
facts, and Ruef deliberately and vilfuliy com.
mitted per1nry by not so answering-
He testified that he expected Isngdon and
myself 10 use our best efforts to secure lien.
iency Tor him in case No. sos. in which
Scnmitz was then on trial and in which Ruef
mad already pleaded guilty.
This testimony was true, provided he fRueD
had then determined that he would from that
time forward, act in good faith with the prose
cution, and testify fully. fairly and honestly as
to all crimes then within his knowl ledge or in
which he had participated whenever called upon
by the prosecuting officers to do so. Such action
on his part would hare entitled him under the
statements which Mr.. Langdon and myself had
made to him, TO expect US, when We were
through using him as witness in all the other
cases. to endeavor 10 secure ..leniency'' for him
in cast No 3oJ- But be bad no right 10 expect
ANYTHING else or TO expect this under any other
conditions.
GEORGE kEANE ACCUSED
The most natural explanation of the character
Of the questions which were asked Ruef by Mr.
Campbell during that examination is that George
keene, who was with Ruef nearly every day and
night, and who was with Schmitz nearly every
SclmffZ
written immunity agreement. and that Schultz,
on account of the same secret understanding be-
tween himself and Ruef as to the nature of the
testimony which Ruef would give in case No.
305. had instructed Mr.. Campbell not TO ask
Ruef anything about any written immunity
agreement and to so frame his questions that
ing falsely.
Any other theory is inconsistent with Mr.
Campbelfs well known reputation as trial
In making his argument, j. J. Barrett one Of
the attorneys for defendant Schmtz. referred TO
Ruef as Napoleon Of crime ? and In my
closing argument for the prosecution in the
Schmitz case, | said. among other things:
We agree with Mr.. Barrett of the defense
bedfeliow and Siamese twin of schmits. Why
didn't you belieTe 1t in November, 1905. Mr..
Barrett. when | told you about it: Was it be-
cause you wanted to hold your job as fire COM
missioner: 1 not only saw it, but said il.
said I'D send Abe Ruef to the penitentiary, and
God helping me. I'll do it,
In my closing argument in the Schmitz case
on that same day, In referring to- the contract
which Pierre Priet had sgned for Ruef, 1 also
said:
Was this contract made in duplicate: Ruet
says. To the best OF my knowledge to dodge
perjury. There's fraud on the face Of this con-
tract. They can't abuse Ruef too much TO snit
about HIM
In the same argument also said:
Then Ruef says he gave Camille one OF these
threw in that think an anchor for fear be
might be questioned about IL later
agree with Campbell. do not believe all that
Ruef says, but the restaurant men remember
about this and they know that they did not get
1ny such contract"
In that same argument also said:
But they say we fixed Ruef, Yes. we fixed
him with a hundred indictments. Do you think
that we are such poor workmen that if we fixed
Ruef we couldn't have fixed biU to tell better
story than the one he did tell?'
SELECTION OF A MAYOR
After the conviction of Scbmitz In case num
Der sos 1 investigated the law on the subject
and 4Dcluded that vacancy in the office of
mayor existed. and thereupon reported my opin
ions and conclusions TO Mr.. Langdon
Thereafter Mr.. Langdon and myself discussed
between ourselves and with other persons The
question of requesting person to accept the
position of mayor who would he ABSOLUTELY free
from the influence or control of The public sery.
ice corpora ations, or sny of them. which had
been brfbing members Of the board Of sinner.
visors with the aid of Ruef to secure privilege.
to which they not entitled and in t5e
month of July. 1907, Immediately after my .re
turn from weeks vacation trip to Cata
lima island. Mr.. Langdon and myself agreed
upon DR.. John Gallwey of this city as beins
such man, and as being a man who vas
aud who would not be subject to i'm ,ropcr
political control.
Thereupon Mr.. Langdon went to Dr. Galivcy
as am informed and believe. and urged him ia
accept the position. but DIR. Gallwey declined
upon the ground that he could not AFFORD Ia
devote his time to the duties OF the Office Ia
the extent that would be required in order IL
conduct it properly and upon the ground that he
was devoted TO his profession and felt that lie