The San Francisco call., 1908-03-11

IN the month Of January 1905. when said Dr.
| Nieto stated that he would oppose the sen
tencing of Abraham Ruef in case. No. 300
Arnant did on that occasion say that he, afhant
fendant Abraham Ruef at that time. Afnant
say that he was there to take care Of said
DEFENDANTS interest. or to do his utmost to see
that said defendant Ruef was permitted to
ther states that it is not true that Rev. Jacob
Nisto' or any one else has repeatedly from and
assurances or statements from affant, or from
any one else, to atlantis knowledge or by his
be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty to
Indictment No 305. That at no time did afhant
defendant would be permitted to withdraw his
plea OF guilty to indictment No. 3o5-.
to Rev Bernard sna hapap s or to Rev.
Nieto. or in the presence Of both or either OF
them. that defendant Abraham Ruef should be
offered or should receive complete immunity.
Rev: Bernard Kaplan and Rev; Jacob Nisto that
proceedings and all actions in case. No; so5 to
his assistant, Francis J. Hensy, subject to the
ana naI decision in said matter 9y q
sfant 'dnss did speak sasyd 70 ssd Rev. Tspsa
No so5 That That afhant a is not able at this time
to state with exactness just the language en-
sion, but afaant does distinctly remember that
said Francis J. Heney coupled his then state
msde NO pe or nromise in relation
permitting defendant Abraham Ruef to withdraw
his plea OF guilty in case No. 300; that nothing
which he said in relation to said plea of guilty
should be communicated to said defendant Abra-
ham Ruef, and that whatever should be done ~
+ not to be considered and was not to be in fact
any part of the immunity agreement or any
oe Tor any act M 1afeadar Of AMMAN
Ruef
Afaant further AYERS that at time was It
stated by him that all cases which might
thereafter be brought would be assigned to-
Judge Dunno or Judge Lawlor, and affant fur
Kaplan or to Rev Jacob Nieto or either Of
them, or both of them, that Judge Dunno or
which the prosecution might make in reference
to all cases any case.
Afhant further AYERS that he never stated, nor
did Mr. Heney ever state, TO afhant's knowl-
edge. that If the sheriff any one else repre-
senting other defendants; or any other person; n,
from the custody of the elisor or place him In
the county jail. that the said Heney and affant.
plea Of guilty to be withdrawn, or admit de-
fendant Abraham Ruef to ball
ACH MAKES SUGGESTION
Affant ayers that, according to his best
torneys for defendant Abraham Ruef, who. hrst
suggested that Judges Dunno and 5 Lawlor should
a reason for so declining that he did not wish
agreement, and that he he I did " not V want to be
known having been in conference with the
prosecution. That affiant intrusted the maxer
and affant 1t not able to state at this time
just what statement was made by the various
persons present In relation to what should or
should not be said to the judges.
Afhant further AYERS that he did not. nor did
any else to his knowledge. assure or say to
Rev. Bernard Kaplan at any time during the
year 1907 that defendant Abraham Ruef would
be allowed to withdraw his plea OF guilty In a
very short time, or at all.
Affant further AYERS that at no time during
the conversations had between affant. Abraham
Ian, did affant, or Francis J. Heney. to affant's
knowledge, say to said Abraham Ruef that said
defendant Ruef would be allowed TO withdraw
his plea Of guilty. the contrary, this af1ant
states that both he and said Francis J. Heney
on said occasions absolutely refused to talk to
said Abraham Ruef in relation to the withdrawal
OF said plea.
Afhant further AYERS that It is absolutely
false and untrue that on any occasion he stated
t. Abraham Ruef in substance or otherwise: ut
Is understood that we did not discuss with you
the matter of the withdrawal of the plea of
guilty. you can rely on the reverend gentlemen"
Afhant AYERS that at all times he refused TO els
cuss or permit Ruef to discuss with him any
matter concerning the withdrawal OF the plea
during the year of 1907.
Affant AYERS that at time during the yenr
1907 did. he say to Abraham Ruef In the pres
cuee Of Rev. Bernard Kaplan or otherwise or
did Francis ]. Heney, to affant's knowledge,
would thereafter be withdraWn " or piea Of mot
guilty substituted therefor. the case thereupon
dismissed.
3 Affant further AYERS that he never stated to
key Bernard Kaplan that he satisfied with
the actions Of defendant Abraham Ruef or with
the statements made by defendant Abraham Ruef
or with the testimony given by defendant Abra
ham Ruef before the grand jury, with the
testimony given by defendant Abraham Ruef In
the Schnltx case
WOULD JOIN COUNSEL
That on the contrary. affaut AYERS that on
one occasion. at atlantis house. some date
GLOWING the conclusion OF the trial OF the
liant said to the Rev. Bernard Kaplan that he
tafhant, was dissatisfied with the attitude of de-
RvfAf fIraf f.e.r -I<fo~
was evasiye in his answers that when dues-
toned he always took the defensive. and he was
always giving excuses for not remembering mat
tiers which were clearly within his memory, and
that he was not frank and fair In his disclosures
| and possession That thereupon said Rev Ber-
nsrd kaplan stated that the trouble was that
Rref was not visited frequently enough and was
complaining that the prosecution neglected him.
Said Bernard Kaplan further stated on said oc-
casion to affaut that said Abraham Ruef was a
very able lawyer and that affant ought to take
him into the counsel and confidence of the prose-
cution, and that lie would be Of the greatest as
ears 10 = b. the psy and the pro
that on several occasions defendant Abraham
Rnef stated to af6ant that he abraham Ruefl
California, and that while 1t would. not do for
him to appear as an attorney of record in ths
be made of the counsel for the prosecution
and that he ought to be sdmitted to the most in
innate confidence of the prosecution. and that he
should be of the greatest assistance in shapiu1
the policy and determining the mode of procedure
In the graft cases. But, of course, afhant de-
clined to entertain his proposition.
That afhant has no recollection OF seeing Rev
Bernard kaplan or Rev. Jacob Nieto to talk to
either of them between the 10th day of January.
zoos. and the 18th day of January. 1908. That
pin the month of January 1908, and prior to the
10th day thereof afhant did have several conver-
sations with Rev Bernard Kaplan and Rev ia
cob Nieto. according to atlantis best recoIlec-
ton, said conversations related almost entirely
to the question of the place of Imprisonment or
defendant Abraham Ruef; that the said Kaplan
and the said Nieto were importuning this affant
to prevent the removal of the defendant Ruef
from the house of the elsor to the county JAIL
and that afinnt did not in such conversations or
any of them say that the plea OF guilty would be
withdrawn o. that affsnt would consent that
said plea should be withdrawn.
Affant further that affant at no time
stated to Rev. Bernard kapian that the plea of