The San Francisco call., 1908-03-15


story that attorney could say to the
district attorney whom the story in
volyed and whom could be convicted
through the information furnished by
Ruef
/ communicated this TO Ruef and he
said that Heney did not like him and
that after he told the whole story to
Heney the latter would tell him that
ii was not sufficiently important and
throw him down" or something to that
effect. I repeated this TO Mr.. Heney,
and he then told me to tell Ruef to se-
lect an attorney in whom Heney had
confidence. and TO tell his story to that
attorney. and that Heney would take
the word OF that attorney as to whom
Ruef could involve and whether his teS-
timony was suficient to convict and
whether 1t could be corroborated or
not.
Affiant thereafter stated TO Ruef that
IL would be necessary for him to Sc
cure an attorney other than those who
were then retained by Ruef, as the dis
trict attorney and his assistant did not
have confidence in any of said attorneys,
as certain information had come to the
knowledge OF the prosecuting officers
which had convinced them that two
of said attorneys, TO wit. Ach and
Murphy, were corrupt. Ruef then urged
that Henry Ach was his closest conf
Dental friend, and he lRuef) would
vouch for him, and hoped he would be
acceptable. Affiant informed his that
he was sure Ach would not be accept
able. Ruef then stated he would go
through q list OF attorneys in San
Francisco in order TO select person
who would be acceptabls- TO the dis
trict attorney and his assistant and
also to defendant Ruef. and stated that
he had directed his Office boy. Charles
Heggerty, to secure for him q list of
the attorneys practicing at the San
Francisco bar. After spending some
days in looking over this list Ruef
informed this aff1ant that he was un-
able 10 select an attorney who he
thought would be acceptable TO all
parties concerned and again urged that
Henry Ach be accepted by the district
attorneys office as Ruef's attorney in
the negotiations that were then to be
carried on looking to a fun confes-
sion on the part of Ruef.
JUST LIKE BROTHERS.
1 found great difficulty in my effort
to induce Ruef TO discuss the matters
to which the supervisors had confessed.
On one occasion when Ruef was seri-
ously entertaining the matter he spoke
as follows: What do you expect to
do with Tirey Ford?" To which I re-
piled. I'VE expect to convict him and
send him to the penitentiary unless he
agrees to make a full disclosure OF
what he knows" Ruef Immediately
arose from the chair in which he had
been sitting and said, My God. ] could
not testify against TREY Ford. We
are just like brothers, and he Is the
best friend I ever had. AS far as
Calhoun is concerned I don't care any
thing about him or any of the others
except Tirey Ford. He is my friend"
During the time I was discussing
this matter with Ruef I understood that
a certain Official appointee of Schmitz
had called on Assistant District At
torney Heney and stated that Schnitz
was willing to resign his once as
mayor and leave the state if the dis
trict attorney would agree not to
prosecute him further. 1 also under
stood thats AIR. Heney declined to en-
tertain or discuss the proposition I
thereupon informed Ruef that there
was a chance that Schmitz might pos
sihly conclude to make a confession of
what he knew and would beat Ruef
to IL.
About this time the Legislature
which had been in session, adjourned.
and George Keane, who was a member
Of the state senate and who had been
secretary of the board of supervisors,
returned from Sacramento and was in
almost constant attendance upon Ruef
and also upon Eugene E. Sehmitz. I
knew from subsequent Information
that Keane was acting as a go be-
tween. I demonstrated with Ruef. who
insisted for a time that Ke.-ne was not
visiting ScEmitz. but subsequently Ruef
did admit it and gave as reason that
Keane, having been the mayors pri-
vate secretary. was very close to him
and that it was perfectly natural
that Keane should visit the mayor.
NIETo SUGGESTS VISIT
In the meantime Rucf was removed
TO 2Sz9 Fillmore street. About April
>, 1907, I was in attendance at the pro-
ceedings in department No. of the
superior court where the preliminary
proceedings of the Ruef trial were in
progress, and after court adjourned on
that day J was approached by Rabbi
Jacob Nieto. who asked il it had ec-
CURED tonne. that there was a. chance
Of inducing Ruef to make a. confession
of all he knew, and further asked II
had any objection to his calling on
Ruef, as he thought Ruef was being
made a scapegoat for those higher up.
and that while he was not interested
IN RueT personally ne tnOught Cnat IN
the interest of San Francisco Ruef
ought to tell his story. / replied that
certainly would not have any OBJ
lection to his calling on Ruef. as I had
been endeavoring to induce him to
make a confession. Dr. Nieto then
asked me to appeal to Elisor Biggy SO
that he would be allowed to speak to
Ruef privately. | did as requested
Rabbi Nieto called on Ruef that night
At the same time ] made an appoint
ment to meet Ruef and Ach that night
at 10 O'Clock. On this occasion Ruef,
Ach and myself discussed the matter
of Ruefs confession. Ach wanted TO
know If ] could cite any authorities
giving the district attorney the right
10 promise immunity and requested me
to consult with the district attorney or
his assistant upon this matter. Ach
further wanted to know what would
be done for Ruef In case he made a
confession. and 7 said that if Ruef
would make a full. free and fair dis
closure of everything he knew and
would aid the prosecution, and that
his information would bring about the
conviction of those higher up. that /
would recommend to the district at
torney that Ruef be treated the same
as the supervisors. L also told him
that nothing could be done in that di-
rection until the district attorney and
his assistant. Mr.. Heney, could be in