The San Francisco call., 1908-03-07
RUFF PREPARES
new SENSATION
Will Submit Affidavit Today
Accusing Prosecution OF
Suborning Perjury
Version of Graft History Con-
flicts in Important Points
With Facts

cases and attempt to show the actions
OF District Attorney Langdon and his
associates in an evil light, Abe Rue1
has prepared new affidavit which
Will be filed this morning in Judge
Dunne's court in support of a motion
to be allowed to withdraw his plea OF
guilt in the extortion case.
The document prepared by Ruef is
not only OF monstrous proportions, but
It's contents make it one of the most
sensational records ever filed in any
court in this state. 1t is sensational
because of the construction which Ruef
places on the incidents connected with
the making and subsequent breaking
OF his immunity contract, and because
OF the outright charges which he
makes against the members OF the
prosecution and the broad hints that
Judge Dunno entered into a bargain to
exclude certain testimony from the rec
ord during the trial of former Mayor
Schmitz.
RIefs attorneys declare that this
arldaVlt is to be supported by others
OF corroborative nature, but so far
Ruef's statement of facts stands alone,
and is in many places irreconcilable
with the real facts as they have already
become pubic. Ruefs demand is that
he be allowed to withdraw his plea of
guilty and substitute one of not guilty
on the ground that coercion, fraud. du-.
ress and false pretenses We're employed
in securing the former plea from him.
Notice is given that Ruef's attorneys
will call a hearing on the motion be-
fore Judge Dunno at 10 o'clock Wednes-
day morning.
MAKES PERJURY CHARGE
The most startling charges made by
Ruef are that Langdon Heney and
Burns guilty n S1111o ati ion, IF nor
jury IN that they endeavored to force
him to give false testimony against
the defendants Schmitz and Ford while
they We're on trial. and that an a5tempt
was made TO have him color his testi-
mony against Patrick Calhoun. He
also declares that shortly after his plea
of guilty was entered in Judge Dunne's
court Burns called upon him and de-
manded that he give false testimony
before the grand jury TO the effect that
t. IL. Hartman and William i. Herrin
Of the Southern Pacific company had
paid him money for the purchase of
the San Francisco delegation to the
republican state convention at Santa
Cruz in 1906 in order to secure the
nomination of James y. Gillett for gov
ernor.
Ruef asserts that because he would
not give testimony to incrminate the
men whom the prosecution wished TO
convict his immunity contract was
nullified, but even in charging that ef-
forts were made to have him periure
himself he admits that the members
of the prosecution at all times denied
that they wanted him to state any un-
truths, but only to state facts which
they said they knew to be true. Boiled
down to its actual meaning Ruef's affi-
davit simply declares that the trouble
between himself and the prosecution
came about because he demanded that
he should Judge how much lie was TO
make public and because the prosecu-
tion was not satisfied that what he
wished TO tell was the truth.
BECOMES GRAFT HISTORIAN
Ruefs afTidavit consists of 80 closely
written typewritten pages and would
take several hours to read before the
court II contains an extended repeti-
ton of the various charges that have
already been made by Ruef. a retelling
of his version of the immunity contract
story and several new things besides.
He declares that when he was first ap-
preached on the immunity question by
former Supervisors Gallagher and Will
son they advised him, agents of the
prosecution, to come through. even il
he had to stretch it little The affi-
davit recites the full story of the inn
munity dealings. the midnight meet
ings at Heney's home and Ruefs final
acquescence to the demands of the
prosecution, according to his own view
of these dealings. 1t also dwells upon
the hardships OF life in private prison.
and the espionage of guards who re-
fused to leave him alone at any time.
After he had given his testimony n
the Schmitz trial Ruef declares that
Heney thanked him for it and apollo
gized for not having shaken hands
with him at the time he pleaded guilty.
He says, however. that at different
times Burns, Heney and Langdon COM
manded him TO testify to things which
were absolutely untrue, and that upon
two occasions Burns became angry at
his refusals and threatened to repudi-
ate the immunity agreement and drop
the whole matter. When the question
of withdrawing his plea of guilty was
under discussion after the decision of
the appellate court fn the Schfnitz case,
Ruef declares that both Langdon and
Burns were willing to allow 1t to be
withdrawn, but that when Langdon
suggested making the motion in open
court Burns insisted on seeing Judge
Dunno first, stating that the latter was
"a damned crank
ACCUSES LANGDON
On January II, Ruef declares, Lang
don notified him that the immunity
contract was Cancelled on the ground |
that the judges would not allow Ruers
plea of guilt and the indictments
against him to be withdrawn and dis
missed, and that therefore the prosecu-
ton was unable to fulfill its part. He
insists that he was not told that it was
because he had failed to keep faith. |
and AYERS that Langdon gave him but
three hours in which to agree to pro-
ceed without a contract or else go TO
trial himself within 4S hours, and that
when he asked for more time Langdon
made the Cancelled contract public |
After reciting more alleged attempts to
procure false testimony from him, Ruef
says:
And charge the district attorney,
William II. Langdon; the assistant dis
trict attorney, Francis j. Heney, and
their said agent, William J. Burns, with
deliberately conspiring and attempting
to secure and extort from me the COM
mission of perjury by me in the trials
of Eugene E. Schmitz. of TREY L. |
Ford and of Patrick Calhoun and in |
other matters, and / assign their fall
ure to secure from me the commission |
of such perjury as the true reason for
the attempted Reputation and at
tempted cancellation of said immunity [
contract and agreements