The San Francisco call., 1908-03-10

| trolley franchise matter before putting him on
I the witness stand
! said to Burns in substance:
| fou tell Ruef that say he can so to hell
Il he thinks he can ccerce Into letting HIM
because his Testimony is necessary in the Ford
case he is badly mistaken. We had sufficient
US nything. and il I doscall Ruef to the witness
etsnd IN the Ford case 1t will be without having
sny further talk with him, and ! win not first
dismiss Any Of the cases against him. and he can
testify or not, as he 'peares.,
| On the following day Burns told me that he
s.d S, seen; huef the preceding night and had told
Thereafter. and on the same day, Dr. Nieto
cane to me and stated that he and Henry Ach
night At my office. and I agreed to meet them
On tnat night to wit on or about the 18th or
Goth day Of September. 1907, Henry Aeh, pr.
| TO my Office at f10e Franklin street i recei.ed
them in the front room the second floor aud
William j.. Burns and my partner Charles ".
CoDo were both present at my express request
Henry Ach Immediately opened the ccnysrsa-
fion By saying in substance:
to the point. Yoi and Mr.. Langdou promised
TO permit Ruef TO withdraw his plea Of guilty
su1 na So and to a plea et
case This was the condition upon which ne
signed the immunity coatract Of May 8. 1901
which the change Of plea and the dismissal OF
case number 3o5 should take place. The time
has now arrived when this ought to be done
and must be done in justice to Ruef. The at
torneys for Ford know all about the Immunity
, agreement with Ru.f l don't know how they
learned 1t, but | do know that they know it,
When you put Ruef on the witness stand lac
VIII have to- tell all about it, They will not
let him OF with such slpshod examination as
Joe Campbell gave him in the Schmitz ease.
The testimony OF Ruef win have much greater
weight. and will be OF much greater value to the
prosecution II you permit Ruef to now withdraw
MS plea OF guilty in number sos and
thereupon dismiss that case before ron place
him on the witness stand in the trial Of Ford.
II II this is j. done the defense win have no right
the prosecution in case number sos. They Win
ask him IL he has any immunity agreement
with the prosecution and he will say Yes
and that 1t Is in writing and be will be asked
to produce 1t and he will then be able TO state
that he has no other further agreement because
carried OUT
HENEY AND ACH CLASH
l permitted Mr.. Ach 10 complete his state
ment without interruption. L was not very
before Commenced to SUSPECT e that Rnef acb'. ss
DR.. Kaplan and DR.. Nieto would claim event
ually that such an agreement existed in regard
TO case number sos il 1t became necessary 70
do so In order TO keep Ruef out OF the peniten-
tiaTy- In fact / would not have been greatly
surprised by anything Ach might hsve claimed;
as have learned to know him pretty well aud
am sometimes at loss to decide whether he or
Ruef is entitled to first place as, an artistic
and imaginative "eQuivocater,' to use Ruef's
In reply 1 said, in substance. looking Acb
directly In the eye until bad finished:
I'VE might as we'll thoroughly understand
each other: You know perfectly well, and
every man here knows perfectly we'll, that did
not at any time make any such promise TO
any one else on earth. What l did say was
and take his chances the sentence which will
be imposed upon him. He is not willing 10
| would not permit him to tell you 50 that you
could tell ne, what evidence he could give us
am not willing to swap knives in the dark. II
Ruef will plead guilty IN case No sos and
take his chances on the sentence which may be
agreement with BIN to give him absolute and
complete immunity in all other cases as to all
and honestly states to us all that he knows
about graft crimes In San Francisco. and at
regard to all these matters. That is the only
agreement we will make with Rpef, and the
you or Ruef; but in order that you three ger-
tlemen may determine whether or not you will
.dvise Ruef to accept G the proposition ,a,a which
in regard to case No. scS. provided It is under,
R1ef anything about it. because this intention
In my part must constitute no part Of the
lndncsTsnt Which Which ls.ds Rusf 70 accept our %
does accept
HENEY STATES POSITION
..You all three then promised that yeu would
not tell Ruef what / was about TO say, and
then said:
until we are through using Ruef as witness in
all the other cases, and Then we are through
1se m b. beeEe H the tesne,s of
has been of sufficient benefit TO the people of
San Francisco and Of the state of California to
equifably entitle Ruef to go entirely free, with
out any punishment whatever. 1t is my present
intention to permit him to withdraw his plea
In that and to substitute plea OF mot
guilty and to then ask the court to dismiss
that case; hut, the other hand. when We
Euef is not entitled to 90 entireiy fEee n case
No. 305. but is entitled to leniency in that case.
it lis my present intention to ask the court to
and on the other hand, when we are sil through
using Ruef witness, II am OF the opinion
any confederation whatever in case No. 305. aud
that he has received all that he is equtably
immunity in all other cases, it is my present
intention to ask the court TO give him the
want you gentlemen to all distinctly understand
that am making no promise whatever, either
to any Of gor to Ruef, in this matter. And
to this case solely for the purpose of enabling
you to determine whether you Will advise him
Il % you believe lev that am fair and i lust t. man. s
and that am not actuated by any personal ami
mostly toward Ruef in these prosecutions, and
and will give testimony to the prosecution
which is OF sufficient Importance to the people
OF IQl8 SlaIe du0 city 10 eutltie RueI, - u
matter OF equity, to go entirely without punish
ment you are perfectly safe In advising Ruef, to
accept proposition; but, on the other hand
IL you believe that am not fair or just man.
or II you believe that am actuated' by personal
animosity toward Ruef, il you believe that
the testimony which Ruef can or viii give will
not be OF sufficient Importance to the people
Of this city and state to entitle him to go en-
tirely free. without any punishment whatever
you will not be safe In advising him TO accept
our proposition II you want him to go without
any punishment whateyer
sV.x al 4h.< rtnf EA ofI
statement than this in substance or effect at
you all know that I particularly refused at all
times to make any promise or agreement what
ever In regard to case No. 305'
Dr. Nieto then said Yes, you are right
Mr.. Heney- 1 understood it that way. and
consequently I never told Ruef anything about
that. He never got that from me-
Dr.. Kaplan then said In substance: Yes,
that Is what you said, Mr. Heney, but al
ways understood that Mr.. Ruef would be allowed
to withdraw his plea Of guilty in the French
restaurant case and would not receive any pun
ishment."
I replied in substance: ''You may have so
understood, doctor. but you had right to 50
understand from anything which said. You
know that you did not understand that had
said anything more than have just stated
The trouble with you doctor. is that you have
always believed that Ruef would give testimony
OF such great benefit to the people OF this city
and state that he would earn the consideration
which I stated 1t was my intention to give
him II was of that opinion when we got all