The San Francisco call., 1908-03-11
Affdy Abe Rue

that the judges of departments Nos. 8 and II o.
give assurances that they, or he, would dismiss
said indictments, or any Of them.
PLEA WAS TO STAND
Affant further AYERS that affant never dur
! Ing the year 1907 made any promise or state
@ niens to Abraham Rnef nor did any otasl as
person with atlantis knowledge, that the ue-
Iendant Abraham Ruef should be permitted y
Withdraw his plea of guilty in case NO. 5oo;
immunity agreement was made Affant AYERS
that 1t is true that defendant Abraham Ruef
ola OBJECT to pleading guilty in said extoruon
case. but said defendant was informed that
II he did not plead guilty in that case, no
agreement Of any kind would be entered into
win him. and all negotiations would De a.
nant and said Francis j. Heney, his assistant,
that they required said defendant to plead
precedent to any negotiations for immunity.
Afhant AYERS that he never gave any assur-
ances to the defendant Abraham Ruef, nor did
any one else to atlantis knowledge, that the
judges Of departments and IL OF the, supe-
rior court, or either of them, would dismiss
the indictments or any indictments filed against
said defendant Abraham Ruef. further than this.
tnat afnant did say to said Abraham Ruef that
II he. the said Abraham Ruef. would live up
70 MS part of the immunity agreement faith
fully, that afnant would urge the judges of
sad departments to dismiss the indictments
mentioned in the immunity contract and that
slider 1t in the interests Of justice to
dismiss said indictments upon such ap-
stated to said defendant asani a Abraham Raef that
the Judge OF department No. Of said supe-
rior court had agreed that the plea of guilty
entered by said defendant Abraham Ruef would
For some months prior to January 10, 1908,
aInant had been In grave doubt as TO the
good faith OF said Abraham Ruef in perform
ing his part Of said immunity agreement, ac-
cording to the letter and the spirit thereof
AND at the same time affant did not wish to
in TO dnfa a.
ham Ruef, nor to terminate the agreement
Without hearing what he, the said Abraham
Tha ON aae 20 SAY in De his
said defendant Abraham Ruef to be brought
to atlantis Office and there and then affiant
stated to said Abraham Ruef that said immu-
nifty agreement was at an end for the reason
that said Abraham Ruef had not fully and
fairly and honestly disclosed the matters and
cerning the socalled graft cases, and that he
had been aiding and assisting the codefendsnts
as as against the people Of the state OF Ca Cali.
Iornla represented by the prosecution. That
thereupon said Abraham Ruef made state
ment In which the said defendant claimed
that he had told everything he could recall.
but that, of course. there were good many
matters which 1t was possible for him 10
have forgotten. That thereupon the affant told
SAID Abraham Ruef that af6ant believed said
Abraham Kuef to be then lying, and that az
nant would not have anything more to say
TO him. and II defendant Abraham Ruef wanted
to speak further with affant. he could come
to bis office on the following Monday, Janu-
ary IL. Affant further AYERS that at no time
during said conversation did affant give as
q reason for ending said immunity agreement
that the judges of departments and ii or
either of them, had refused or would refuse
agreement.
CONFERENCE IN OFFICE
That on Monday, January ID, zoos, affant
met said defendant Abraham Ruef, without any
previous appointment, at the Temple Israeli
and there and then affant invited the said
defendant to meet affant at the district attor-
ney's office that afternoon. That defendant
Abraham Ruef subsequently upon said last
named day, called at the district attorney s
That at said last named conversation affant
stated to Abraham Ruef that he was still of
the opinion that said Abraham Ruef had not
been faithful to said immunity agreement and
had forfeited his rights thereunder but that
affant desired to have no doubt in his mind
the present give said defendant Abraham Ruef
the benefit Of every doubt. But affant added
that II he. affant, became thoroughly con-
yinced that said Abraham Ruef had been deal
Ing with his codefendants for the defeat of
the people of the state of California, afhant
To which said Abraham Ruef replied: III
you find that have been dealing with the CO.
defendants In the past. If at any time in
the future you find that l am dealing with
them, you may prosecute me-" That there
sand then afhant stated TO said defendant Abra-
ham Ruef that affant would allow matters to
remain they had been for the time being.
That 1t is true that In the month of January,
1908, sffant did consent to apply to Judge
Dunno to permit defendant Abraham Ruef to
withdraw his plea of guilty in said extortion
case. That said consent was not given until
after the court of appeal of the first appellate
the indictment in said extortion case In which
said Abraham Ruef pleaded guilty did not state
public offense. That said consent was not
given and was not stated to be given in per-
formance of said immunity agreement or any
part thereof. When affant gave such consent.
he had not determined to apply to the supreme
of fha atate nfC California for a rplpar-
ing in said extortion case after said decision
by said district, court OF appeal. And afhant
withdrawal of said plea by the opportunities
OF Rev. Jacob Nieto and Rev. Bernard Kaplan,
who besought affant night and day not to force
said defendant Abraham Ruef to go to or re-
main at the county jail at lngleside, to which
place said defendant Abraham Ruef re-
moved on January 8, 1908.
IMMUNITY NOT MENTIONED
Affsnt AYERS that on January IA, 1908, affant
met the defendant Abraham Ruef in depart
ment OF the superior court OF the city and
county Of San Francisco and at the request
chambers Of Judge Dunno and said TO the judges
"Ruef is outside and wants to make motion
withdraw bis plea Of guilty yi IN otssr case No
above said to Judge Dunno on that occasion,
and, report to the contrary Notwithstanding.
this afhant at no time asked Judge Dunno to
grant immunity to Ruef, and at no time did
Judge Dunno refused affant to grant immunity
to haef OF at nc no Son 1a 81 Rns
That upon that occasion Judge Dunno replied
that he would not entertain the motion. There
was no other discussion with Judge Dunno on
that occasion concerning Ruef or any matters
In which he was involved. Affant thereupon
told defendant Ruef that the judge would not
then or at any other time agreed to secure
influence to work upon Judge Dunno to carry
And affant denies that William j. Burns or
any other person to his knowledge agreed TO in
duence in any way, directly or indirectly Judge
Dunpe in the matter. Nothing was said In
that conversation about using or securing iniu-
ence to work upon Judge Dunno.
That there was no agreement entered into by
affant or to atlantis knowledge st the time
stated In the affidavit of Abraham sRuef, or at
any other time that Abraham Ruef should ap-
pear in court on the morning OF January 10 at
10 o'clock a. m. before department No. and
make motion to Withdraw his plea of guilty.
or that affant would In open court consent
thereto. That said defendant Abraham Ruef on
various occasions after January IA. 1908, asked
affant IL there was anything new IN the mat
Ter of withdrar wing his plea OF guilty. and to