The San Francisco call., 1908-03-10

4N1Hs hleI- YOU VIII ntfe - al1llt your
self that have demonstrated that you have
been lying 10 me about your motives in &C
Trench restaurant keepers which was in fact
as clear hcldup as any highwayman ever COM
Ruef simply laughed in my face and, shrug-
Eing his shoulders. said:
We'll. What OF II
replied. Ia substance
HENEH REPUDIATIss RUFF
This Of il: You arc an unn.tiEsted liar.
aud I would not believe you under cath 10
any material matter wierc yoG were not cor
roborated by reliable evidence. or wherein
throughout With all the other facts and circun-
stances in tie case. You have not told rs
al the truth in the United Railroads case. You
have not told us AT the truth in the case os
tho Eas ratc matter You have told us
81 the Truth IN The Bay cities water deal.
1ou haFe not told Us III the truth about the
deal with Herrin in relation II the delegates
from this city 10 the Santa Cruz convention.
You have Dot told Us al the truth il the teie-
phone franchise matter You lied 10 US in the
iarSsiQe matter and caught you al II in
rhe grand Jury Nuu tried 10 protect viii
Croker 10 that matter and told Burns before
sou went into the grand jury room that you
had never spoken 10 him the subject. lou
room Until YOU cunningiy guessed from nv
questions that VIII CFockcr himself had told
the truth 10 he grand jury. and that l was
getting you IN n bsa toie you then suddenly
pretended 10 Just remember rh5t yoa had held
one conversation with VIII Croker on The
trcleT franchise matter al the Croker nstions
bank that iasted hsf hour. an6 that you
had held another conversation the street
With VIII Croker tnP same subject at
the corner Of California and Kearny streets
which lasted an hour You hsd no; forgotten
either Of those talks. but you did Jot think
wanted 70 curry favor with MIN by
thus making him think seu wanted 10
lie Is rich and powerful You wanted his in
nuence hereafter 10 help keep you out OF trouble
because you hsve DO idea of acting in good
faith with the prosecution. don't believe you
ever acted in good faith with saybedy in your
lfe- but you have oFerreacied Yourself this
time You think YOU have handed US a gold
brick, but you win find that You have that gold
brick left on your oVn hands. Way. you lied
10 Burns IN the very FIRST statement which you
4e9t. me nIst Gay you asreed 10 turn state
evidence, and you cunlingy tried throw the
even when you stood up 10 plead guilty in
case No sos. and wept crocodile tears which
momentsrily deceived the experienced newspaper
reporters who were present, and which fooled
a large part OF the general public into be-
liering that you really had ounce or two of
sincerity and decency in your composition Now
you can get out Of here, and I don't want
You 10 ever come back. The immunity agree
ment is on, and II 1 bsre my way you VIII
OF cases IN which you have been indicted"
RUFF BEGS FOR INTERVIEW
Burns thereupon escorted Ruef from the room
snd from thar time until Sunday night 10
September, just preceding the selection Of the
jury IN the first Ford trial. I never spoke to
Ruef on any sUh1ect-but that IS another story
and 1 viii tell II when we reach that point.
On June (. 1907. / preparing for my
opening statement IN the Schmitz case. which
Vss 70 be made on the following day. and I
sent out and secured the files Of the Bulletin
Egain 70 have them on hand from which
10 cross examine Ruef II be was placed upon
the witness stand by the defendant Schmitz.
On June 8, 1907. I made the opening state
ment FOR the prosecution TO the jury in case
No. sos in department No. Of this court
upon the trial OF Eugene z. SchmIfz. who was
Jointly indicted with Ruef FOR eTtcrti0D
Ruef had told me at both the meetings in
ny office that be had given 10 Schmitz half
the 5000 which be received as the first pay
meut from Pierre Priet from the French. res
tsursnt association. and half OF the So. 600 which
ne lad received from BIanco the proprietor Of
the New Poodle Dog. the second payment
from the French restaurant association; that
he was not quite sure. but. according 70 his best
$500 which he had received from Camille Mail-
bebesu the FIRST payment from the three
smaller French restaurants
Ia making my opening statement 10 the jury.
however. I omitted all mention OF these facts
ana reirslnea from stating that expected 70
prove that Schmitz received any part Of the
money which was paid 10 Ruef, and which
stated ] would prove had been paid 10 Ruef
because I had already told Ruef that the agree
ment with him was OF and ! had no intention
of putting him the witness stand slthough
Hiram Johnson. my associate in the trial Of
strengthen the case greatly IL we could prove by
Ruef that Schmitz had received half The money.
sisted IN return that Ruef would lie 50 much
shout other things that be would do more harm
nor want anything 10 do with him
On OF about June :. 1907 Burns came into my
private room the second floor Of sbe building
occupied By me- Sc Offices ~ 1loe Franklin
street and stated that be had Ruef downstairs
and that Rne1 wanted 10 have another talk with
Ile about the French restaurant case. and that
be. Burns believed that Ruef might now tell
tho truth 10 me.
] told Burns 10 20 and take him away: that
] would not him. that I had time 30
waste arguing with such liar, and thar was
Barns retire'i from the room and did not
anything OF Ruef.
on Monday. June 10. 1907 the prosecution
rested its upon the trial of Schmitz under
Indictment No sos in department No OF this
Among other witnesses tho defendant Eugene
p. Schmitz. examined ON the part OF the
drfensc.
PLACED on THE STAND
on cross examination ] ssksd the defendant
Schmitz. II Ruef had ever given him any IF the
money which RUef bad been paid by the French
restaurant keepers 70 represent them before the
were held up by the commissioners in the lat
ter part of 1904 and the early part Of 1906. and
schmitz testified that Ruef bad rot given him
any of that money. or any other money.
After court adjourned that day Burns and
johnson both urged 10 put Ruef the
stand in rebuttaI and when finally concluded
~ a. 81 7 foiS BURNS thar 7 wanted 70 he sure
what Ruef's answers would be to certain ques-
tons, and prepared the questions and told
write out what his answers would be
Burns returned with the paper containing the
tLeNErc- 4 Lta lOi4 BUTTS IlhL II hueI dskeu
him whether the agreement with him
neved or not 10 tell him that l was calling him
the same ] would call any other codefendant
who not trial. and that he could govern
himself accordingly and do as he pleased about
answering or refusing TO answer.
on June IL 1907. the sletense closed its case.
and late in the afternoon told Burns 10 have
Ruef brought 10 the courtroom ana shown 10 the
witness stand And I further told Burns 10 not
give Ruef any opportunity to speak to me before
Be took the stand.
Court was being held in the church in Bush
street between Lsguns 7nd OcfsTis streets. Ruef
brought IN through the door and I did
NOT see him until he took his place in. the wit
chair when called.
I seked him those questions only which I had
prepared and sent 70 him and 10 which he had
sent his written replies
The examination continued into the following
DAY, but 7 did not at any tine or speak 70
Ruef except when he was on the witness stand
snd then only from distance and 10 open court
IN the regular course OF the trial and in the
performance Of my duty prosecuting officer.
Upon cross examination Ruef testified in part
rs follows:
''Q.-Now. Mr. Ruef has not Mr. Burns taken
you frequently 10 the office OF the prosecuting
attorney. Mr.. Heneyz A.-Hr. Burns has taken
me To the office Of Mr.. Heney twice.
'Q-And bow recently Al think I should
amend that answer. Mr.. Campbell. Three times
.Q-1ess A.-Tbe last time was within the
week. and didn't see Mr.. Heney."
Ruef neglected 10 state that the last time he
wss ri my office be did not for the rea-
son rs berenbefore set forth. that had refused
him and hed sent word 70 him that dis