The San Francisco call., 1908-03-10

% 1907. this court. in department NO o., Or
dered trial jurors 10 be drawn for the trial or
said and the names of II jurors were
drawn from the box and the persons whose
names so drawn took their places IN the
jury bQr to be examined upon their voir dire.
Ruef. through bis attorneys. Henry Aeh ana
Samuel NJ. Shortridge. objected to the drawing
OF the names of the Jurors and TO the action OF
the court in proceeding with the trial upon
the ground that the appeal which ne naa
taken TO the supreme court of the United states
from Judge Hebbsrd's order denying the Is
llssnce Of a writ of habeas corpus stayed All
proceedings by this court until said appear
should be. finally disposed 'of by the supreme
court of the United States.
Prior 10 this time. and about March 8. 1907,
Ruef through his attorneys. had applied to the
states circuit court OF appeals, or the members
thereof. each in turn. for a writ OF habeas
corpus based upon his appeal to the supreme
court of the United States for the purpose OF
preventing department No. of this court from
proceeding with the trial of the extortion case
No. 305. and thus exbausteda every legal device
known TO himseIf and his attorneys TO pre-
being put 70 trial in said extoTtion case
No. 3o5. to the crime charged In which We
viii presently see Ruef claims he Is not guilty
in spite Of the fact that be has pleaded guilty
therein; and will also see how false and
that case. he impudently. insolently and
dsgrsntly violated the agreement which We shall
presently see he made with the prosecuting
officers 10 tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth to them IN regard 20 that
ofense. and ell other orenses committed or par
on March Il. 1907. Ruef applied to the
supreme court Of this state for writ of habeas
corpus and it wac made returnable on the foi-
lowing dav, but was not heard on that day.
ON March IA 1907 Or. Charles Boxton made
. written confession under oath 10 the district
attorney and myself In which he stated that be
had received brihes from James l.. Gallagher
in the same amounts and in the same matters
in which Thomas f. Lonergan had received
bribes. so aforesaid. with the exception OF
the matter of the passage of the ordinance for
the sale Of telephone franchise.
xtr-nnuv nrNS rn nTE-E
On March 16 1907 thirteen more members
Of the board of supervisors. including James 1.
Gallagher and Andrew n. Wilson each made
confessions under oath to the district attorney
attorney and assistant district attorney, re-
spectiFely. in which each Of them admitted
in the same amounts set forth in the confes-
sion of Thomas F Lonergan. as herein stated:
larger amounts in some of said matters. and
Gallagher, who received larger amounts in all
of said matters, and who stated that he re-
Ruef
/ am informed and believe that on the night
Of March is. 1907. Attorney Frank ]. Murphy
who was assisting Henry Ach apd Samuel NJ
shortrdge as an attorney for Abraham Ruef In
Supervisor Nicholas that he and the other
supervisors had that day confessed TO the dis
trfct attorney and myself. and said Murphy
went 10 the Little st. Francis hotel about mid
night and told Abraham Ruef Of that fact
On March IL, 1907. Supervisor Sanderson made
written confession under oath, IN which he
admitted that he received similar bribes from
James L. Gallagher in the same matters and
amounts ss said Boxton.
l am also informed and believe that on
March IL. 1907. Gallagher and Wilson called
on Ruef at the Little St Francis hotel by the
request of Ruef.. and had talk with him
about the confessions which they and the other
supervisors had made 10 the district attorney
and myself, and urged him to make a similar
confession telling him that they had received
promises of immunity and that he. Ruef. by
accepting the proposition at once could receive
spSr baS [reatmenp N out @ as mat matter o, lact
procure the confession OF Supervisor Sanderson
and did not know that William ]. Burns had
them, 10 make any such definite promise Of
immunity to Ruef If he would turn states
And 1 am informed and believe that viii
lam a. Langdon did not know that any such
lagher or Wilson 20 Ruef.
was told about the talk between Gal
lagher. Wilson and Ruef on my return 10 San
Francisco on the evening Of March II, 1907,
but was not then told that he had been offered
complete immunity, and did not know that
heard Gallagher testify to that effect in this
court upon the trial of Lonis Glass according
TO my best recollection. II l had known in
made 10 Ruef by Gallagher and Wilson. or any
body else. ] would have refused to permit it
10 be done, and did subsequently refuse st
though ] was frequently urged 10 do so by
William J. Burns, as viii hereinafter more
On March is. 1907. the trial Of Abraham
Ruef came on for hearing in Department No. 6
OF t1e appeal OF Ruef to the supreme court Of
the United States in the habeas corpus matter
and 70 enable the district attorney and myself,
as his assistant. TO produce the evidence con
tained In the aforesaid confessions of the SIX
teen supervisors before the grand jury. the trial
March 20. 1907 upon our motion.
On the same day. March IS, 1907 the afore-
said fifteen supervisors including James L.
Gallagher and Andrew NJ. WILSON, as well as
supervisor Rea, testified before the grand fury
IN relation to the matters and things TO which
they had confessed In their Aforesaid uritten
sworn statements
CONFESSION MADE PUBLIC
On March H. 1907, the daily newspapers of
this city and county published the facf that
the aforesaid supervisors had testified before the
them. setting forth the substance Of their con.
fessions. which had been made TO the district
attorney end myself, and It became general
knowledge throughout this city and counfr. and
particularly 10 Or. Nieto and others who fire.
quented the Temple Israel. wherein number
ing business. that the entire board Of super.
Fisors, which took Office in January, 1906. had
confessed that they had been boodling and ac-
cepting bribes and large amounts OF money from
the fight trust, the gas company, the Home
telephone company. the Pacific States telephone
roads Of San Francisco, through Abraham Rnef.
with whom said board of supervisors had been
day night TO determine what action would be
taken by them on all matters coming before
them on the following day, except the bribes
from the Pacific States telephone and telegram
company. which were paid TO each of them
direct by I. V. Halsey.
Moreover. il had been publicly and generally
known during the entire year of 1906 that Abra-
ham Ruef was the political boss OF the city
and county of San Francisco, and that he and
Eugene E. Schniitz in cousion with the
board Of supervisors, and that franchises and
privileges were for sale TO any one who was
willing to pay for them. and that large amounts
Of money were being paid by some of the
public service corporations of this citr and
that from October 1905. until March Is 1907.
the district attorney and myself had been dill
gently endPsvoring 20 secure sufficient evidence
10 establish these facts and 70 iudict the guilty
parties ald convict them.
On March 20. 1907, 65 indictments we're re-
turned against Abraham Ruef by the grand
iurr. each charging him with a separate felonr
bribery. and his bail fixed By the presiding
judge Of this court in each cete ST s1o 600.
turned are cases numbered 500 to 654 both in
elusive
Indictment No. 654 is for the same onepse set
forth in this indictment. No. s23 and in mr.
opinion the eFidence before the grand jurv upon
which indictment No. 55s was found and re-
turned establishes the guilt Of defendant Abra-
ham RUef beyond reasonable doubt, and will
insure his conviction before impartial trial
Jury in said
On the day. March 20. 1907 10 indict-
meDts were returned by the grand jury against
Theodore Y. Halsey of the Pacifc States teIs-
phone and telegraph company, for bribery Of
supervisors in said matter Of the passage of
the ordinance for the sale of telephone fran
chise.