The San Francisco call., 1908-05-06

With both the principal and the go
between testifying in confederation of
each other as to a Doodle fund of
$4,000 supplied Abe Ruef by the Park
side company for his influence as
political boss of San Francisco, Assist
ant District Attorney Francis j. Heney
welded together in the Ruef trial yes
terday the missing links in the chain
of evidence connecting the arch CRATER
with the bribe money offered Super
visor Jennings Philips. G. II. Umbsen.
who received the $4,000 In currency
from the Parkside company and paid
Ruef $4,000 of it, and ]. E. Green,
president of the Parkside company,
who had authorized the expenditure,
We're on the stand and told in detail
of their dealings with Ruef. Green's
testimony was in proof of the holdups
practiced by Ruef and Umbsen's was
confirmatory and in addition showed
the passage of the money in response
to the grafters demands. Willy Henry
Ach, Ruefs attorney, fought bitterly
TO show that the money paid Ruef had
been a lawyers fee, but structure of
differences along this line which he had
built up in cross examination of Green
was rudely shattered when Heney, In
redirect examination, elected this
meaning statement from the witness:
The real reason that l employed
Abe Ruef was because he was COM
monty known as the political boss of
San Francisco and that we believed we
could get the franchise in other
way"
why was the money raised for his
payment juggled on the books of the
the balance sheet?"
Because we knew by common re-
pute that Ruef was the political boss
of the city and we believed that it
would do the company no good to have
the fact of his employment by us
known"
Umbsen also gave testimony which
cemented the showing against Ruef.
He was on the stand but a few hours
before court was adjourned until the
evening at 1880 o'clock. Green resumed
the witness stand for cross examina-
tion at thel beginning of the morning
session. His testimony was character
lied throughout, as it had been the day
previous. by a painstaking frankness
and evident desire to tell all the facts
without reservation. Aeh began with
a series of long questions as to the
various meetings Green had had with
the supervisors. He brought out that
at one meeting when Attorneys E. p.
E. Troy and Albert M. Johnson had
been present, speeches had been made
by each of them against the granting
OF the franchise, Troy declaring that
the granting of such franchise to the
Parkside company would virtually be
q, gift of several millions.
Ach's questioning of Green was long
and tedious, occupying the entire
morning session and most of the aft
ernoon, but the purport of 1t all was
that Green had made many efforts to
have the franchise passed without sue
cess until Ruef had been employed as
an attorney.
Green answered Ach's questions free
~ and the latter, encouraged by the
of the witness, became
quite elaborate in his questioning,
leading the witness on and putting long
phrases and opinions into his mouth.
Heney sat quietly. hunched up In his
chair, apparently obliyious. to the pro-
ceedings, making but one objection
during the entire cross examination.
OPENED WAY FOR HENEY
The graft prosecutor showed, how
ever. when he took the witness for re-
direct examination. that he had been
watching the proceedings with the
keenest care, and by his supposed
had caused Ach to overstep
himself and open the door to lines
of testimony Heney could not have
brought cut without Ach first mention
ing them.
In one place Ach overreached him
self most seriously when he asked
Green if anyone. had ever told him
Ruef had been. holding up the fran
chise.
Yes; Umbsen told me Supervisor
Davis had told him Ruef was holding
II; back" responded Green. This. being
hearsay, could not have been brought
In by Heney, but drawn out by Ach
IT was just what the prosecution
wanted.
During Green's testimony, Juror
Mohrig, one of the most intelligent
of the jury, asked several
questions. His queries were directed to
the reason for the fee" paid
Ruef being contingent on the secur
ing of the franchise.
IF it had been a regular attorneys
fee would 1T not have been payable
whether the franchise was secured or
not?r he asked. Green replied that 1t
probably would.
why was Umbsen left alone with
Ruef at the meeting when Ruef de-
manded the extra 10000" again asked
Mohrig.
FOR the reason tnat ne MAD Deen
the negotiations previously
with Ruef.s said Green.
At the close of his second day on the
stand Green was excused subject to re-
call. Umbsen, who followed him.
seemed to be desirous of telling all the
truth, bat 1T was evident that he had
drilled himself for the ordeal and he
was easily confused when thrown out
of the track he had expected. His hon
esty OF intention was evident how
ever, and he made earnest efforts to
tell everything he knew about the
Parkside transactions with Ruef
Umbsen, in chronological order. sub
stantially said:
Il have known Abraham Ruef for
nearly 25 years and we have been on
very friendly terms. My first talk
with him In the Parkside matter was
in December, 1905. l had called on
Ruef on another matter. and during our
1 asked him why he was
holding up the Parkside franchise. He
replied
WANTED TO BE HIRED
well, the mayor has promised that
to you and 1t seems to be
his pet measure-now let's see him give
it to you
'I told him / thought he was him
self blocking 1t. He said that If he
was hired as an attorney he would