The San Francisco call., 1908-04-01

met Mr.. Heney. together with DIR. Nieto and
DR.. Kaplan standing the office of the
secretary Of the Temple Israel. which office
four then entered.
We all remained standing Just inside the
door, and after mutual greetings Mr.. Heney.
after apologising for bringing me out at such
a late hour and explaining that the reason
therefor was DIR. Nieto's departure the next
day for Europe, addressed ne substantially as
follows:
Judge. / have come here with these gentle
men, at their request, to have you tell them
what yonr practice is to recommendations OF
and he used. | think. the word codefendants" :"
or "accomplices lin criminal cases pending
in your department, and also whether you have
confidence IN Mr. Langdon and myself as his as
sistant." | replied In, either exactly or sub
stantially. the following language:
RESERVED FINAL DECISION
Il have confidence in you, Mr.. Heney, and
in the district attorney; and while | have con-
accommodation or suggestion is made by him
in case pending in my department it is my
furtherance OF Justice
Thereupon Dr. Kaplan spoke up and said;
But your honor, suppose man pleaded
guilty and afterward asked to change his plea p
l replied You have heard what ! have said,
gentlemen, as to my practice. OF course. in
all cases Of such accommodation and which
l insist shall always be made ia open court,
vince me that he is well advised 81 that good
and sufficient grounds exist for his motions, II
must be remembered that the anal determine
tion must always rest with me; but, of course,
/ would give great weight to any recommends
lions either you, Mr.. Heney. or Mr. Langdon
The whole conversation lasted no more than
minute OF two, and after making the sta tenents
temple and went home. The above is substan-
TALLY the whole OF the conversation that took
place. The name of Abraham Ruef or any
other defendant not mentioned by any one.
The conversation was' confined entirely to my
attitude toward recommendations made by the
district attorney or his office in criminal cases
generally.
DENIES RABBIS' VERSIONS
Judge Dunno goes further into the
particulars of the affidavits of Rabbis
Nieto and Kaplan, with special refer
ence to their versions of the midnight
meeting and denies point blank that
any Of the conversation quoted by them,
except such as he himself includes In
his own affidavit occurred. All that
occurred, he declares, is set forth in
substance and effect in his own affi-
davit He then continues:
Referring to the affidavit Of Abraham Ruef
herein. dated February IA. 1908, and that part
contained page Is thereof. / aver that on
or about. the l4th day Of January 1905. VII.
liam II. Lsngdon, the district attorney OF this
city and county, called on me in my cham
bers in Temple Israel and said to me in effect:
'Ruef is outside and wants to make a mo-
tion TO Withdraw his plea of guilty in the ex-
promptly told Mr. Langdon with some en-
phaeis that / would not consider such a motion
at that or any other time
RUFF CASE NOT MENTIONED
/ aver that L have, at no time. had any un-
oerstanding or agreement of any kind with the
c1strst eh attorney OF any6Eoy eise representns
/ would do in case No. 305, any other case
involving Abraham Ruef. and have never agreed,
nor have L ever said anything to lead any body
TO believe, that | would allow the plea of
guilty ia case No. 305 10 be withdrawn. And
/ have never been requested by the district at
torney or anybody for him or by anybody else
TO make such an agreement or statement. The
conversation | had with Mr.. Heney and DR..
Nieto and Or; kaplan detailed by me herein
ject l ever had, dealt only with the general
practice Of the court in my department, and
10 which conversation as ! have related. the
name OF Abraham Ruef or any specific case.
or Indictment either 305, or any other, was
not. in any respect, mentioned by any one
present
Judge Dunno refers to several other
minor particulars in which his name
was brought in Ruefs account of the
graft proceedings, and then concludes
as follows:
KNEW NAUGHT OF IMMUNITY
When said Abraham Ruef pleaded guilty 10 in
dictment No. 305 / did not know that the so
called immunity contract involved in these pro-
ceedings, any immunity contract. had been or
being negotiated with said Abraham Ruef.
And / did not know hear OF said SO called
Immunity contract until some time early in De-
cember, 1907. when G. ". Cobb, who had called
on me concerning certain proceedings then pend
ing in the court of appeal for the first district,
told thereof. When Mr.. Cobb told of
said called contract he said in effect:
at does not apply 10 the extortion In
dictment No. 305, to which Ruef pleaded guilty,
is specifically excepted. On that the court Is
fully protected" !"
Acation by Mr.. Langdon the exception as to
Indictment No. 305 being expressly stated over
the signature of said Abraham Ruef.
IGNORANT OF ALL PLANS
In the case OF the codefendant Eugene e.
Schmitz. jointly charged under Indictment 305,
l did not at any time know seek TO know
the plans or purposes of the prosecution or de-
fense therein. / did not know that said Abra.
ham Ruef was 70 be called as a witness therein
until he appeared in court and was placed on the
stand l did not know or seek to know what
he would testify to or be examined upon, and
knew nothing thereof except his testimony
was developed In open court. At that time and
until informed by Nr. Cobb, as aforesaid. | did
not know that immunity, so called. had been
promised to Abraham Rnef.
This affidavit is not made in behalf of either
the prosecution defense herein, but at the re-
quest and for the information of the Hon. VIII
liam p. Lawlor, the judge Of this court, presid-
ing in the case. (signed)
FRANK H. DUNNE.
Subscribed and sworn 10 before me this 30th
day of March, A. ID. 1905. (Signed)
W. T. HESS, Notary Public