The San Francisco call., 1908-03-20


aad never mentioned the ugly word
bribery to TREY I. Ford, Patrick
Calhoun, Thornwen Mullally or VIII
liam F. Abbott. He directly charges
that District Attorney Langdon, As
sistant District Attorney Heney and
William J. Burns attempted to suborn
? perjury by trying to cause him to
swear falsely in the trolley cases and
reiterates that he was ready to go to
prison for an indefinite time rather
than utter q lie. But he neglects to
include in his affidavit even a summary
or the conversation with Ford, which
he had recited previously TO 20 au-
ditors This important omission con-
cerned the amusing recital of how
General Counsel Ford OF the united
Railroads had asked him what ii would
cost to get the overhead trolley fran
chise passed. and how Ford. on later
day. had nearly tumbled from his chair
with astOnishment when Ruef glibly
set the price at $3.50, 600.
AFFIDAVITs NOW SERIALS
Ruers afhdavits have ceased 10 be
in the form of short stories" They
have become serials. Like many an
other 5ctionist the fallen boss has
graduated from the complete in one
installment form Of narrative and an
nounced last evening that hereafter
HIS efforts viii be in the continued in
our next class Last nights effort was
labeled Part L" Part IT. may be ex-
pected late this afternoon.
Not content with the matter con-
1ained in his new affidavit Reuf ap-
pended to it, for Submission to Judge
Lawlor, in whise court the document
was fled, q copy Of the affidavit filed
in Judge Dunne's court, making spe-
ciaI reference to several pages of the
earlier effort. Evidently the ambitious
author lad confidence in his earlier
efforts
In the body Of his affidavit Ruef in
serts an unobtrusive paragraph. say
ing that in all his conversations with
Burns, who was the member of the
graft prosecution chiefly in conference
with him. Burns had insisted that he
did not want Ruef to misrepresent the
facts. But he covertly says that the
testimony Burns wanted him to give
would have been perjured and not in
accordance with the facts. His great
love for verscity caused him 10 shudder
at such 'overtures."
FoRGETS OWN FACTS
Ruef would have his latest affidavit
represent that never did he discuss
the sordid subject OF buying super
Visorial votes for the United Railroads
Ruef, with his acute legal mind, says
that he told Burns at one time that
he would not be permitted to testify
in effect that I thought Ford under
stood the money was TO be given TO
the board OF supervisors TO pass the
trolley franchise under the rules of
evidence.
The dethroned boss affidavit is
meager in dealing with his relations
with the United Railroads. He does
not tell a quarter Of the facts he laid
before the graft prosecution and other
witnesses He makes no mention Of
the fact that during Schmitz' first and
second terms he received a salary Of
$500 a month from the street railroad
company, and that when Schmitz went
into Office for his third term the hon
orarium given the corrupt mayor S
boss was 1000. paid in currency and
acknowledged with no receipts. Nor
does he recite, as he once stated in
the presence Of 20 witnesses. that in
February. 1906. TREY L. Ford sent for
him and asked:
What viii it cost to put through
the trolley franchise efectng all lines
in the city2" and Ruef had replied:
III find out"
Neither does the affidavit continue
with Ruefs former story. and say that
the afiant returned to Ford and named
the cost as $3.50, 0oo and Ford nearly
fell out Of his chair
And Ruef had explained, I'm not go
ing to get il all myself. I'll have TO
employ another lawyer,
DENIES ATTEsTED FACTS
Nor does Ruef narrate in his latest
effusion that Ford had offered S150,000,
but had later compromised on 100000,
the amount ultimately paid TO Ruef. He
does not insinuate that James L. Cal
lagher was the other lawyer"
Part !" of Ruefs serial contained
between 1000 and 5000 words. 1t was
acknowledged before Notary Ceda de
Zoldo and was issued from the office
OF Ruefs lawyer Henry Ach. Al is
one Of the papers filed in the proceed
ings being pressed by Ruef to avoid
trial in the bribery cases growing out
Of the trolley franchise indictments.
In opening Ruef states that at no
time from May s. 1907. 10 January lS,
1908, was he informed that the immun-
ity contract was repudiated by the
prosecution, that the only time at
which il was ever even suggested or
fntimated that the immunity agreement
or any part Of il was repudiated were
on several occasions when Langdon and
Heney. and especially Burns. attempted
TO suborn perjury by trying to pro-
assure the conviction Of Eugene E.
Schmitz. TREY l. -'ord, Patrick Cal
.houn and others.
he charges that the prosecution
sought to intimidate him by threaten
ing a recall Of the agreement If he did
not testify as they desired. He refers
to the appended and earlier affidavit
that similar attempts were made TO
have him testify against Hartman,
Herrin, Governor Gillett and Schmitz.
Ruef swears in the paper that Heney,
at the opening of the Ford trial, had in
tended TO call him a witness for the
state. but that Ruef would not be used.
owing TO his unwilling gness to testify
ITO matters which We're unfounded in
fact" as he expressed 1t.
GIVES COURT HIS SIDE
Getting into the meat of his view of
the case Ruef blandly says he presents
ais version:
For the information Of this court that il
nsy the better Judge whether il shall beliese
ne manifold falseho0ds relative TO the mat
er of said Ford case. which the said Heney
Jas concocted and fabricated and inserted IN
is affidavit for the purpose of deludinR and
Receiving the court herein. and Of endea vorng
prevent II from resching just and fair
Conclusion herein. and with a view 10 wreak
Vengeance on this afhant because this affiant