Los Angeles herald., 1908-03-07
BUR MS AND
HENEY HAY YED
IN AFFIDAV VT
RUFF TO FILE HOT CHARGES
AGAINST PROSECUTION
TELLS OF PLAN TO "GET" HER.
Rim AND GlLLETT
One Time Boss Asserts He Was
Urged to Testify Falsely Regard
ing Scandals in San
Francisco
BY Associated Press.

By Associated Press.
SAN FRANCISCO, March 6.-Tomor-
row morning at 10 o'clock Abraham
Ruef will, through his attorneys, Henry
Ach, Frank J. Murphy and M. Z.
Chapman, present to Judge Dunno
motion to allow him to withdraw his
plea of guilty entered on May 10 and
substitute a plea of not guilty IN the
case brought on Indictment No. 300,
one of the French restaurant extortlon
cases. To support his motion Ruef
will file affidavits of a sensational
nature the substance of which was
given out tonight.
In filing the motion Ruef states that
the plea of guilty was improperly and
inadvisedly rendered and that the de-
fendant is not guilty of the offense
charged, and that he was induced to
enter the plea of guilty by virtue of
an agreement and understanding with
the district attorney, William II. Lang
don, the assistant district attorney,
Francis ]. Heney, the special agent of
the district attorney, William j. Burns,
and the financial hacker of the district
attorney in this prosecution, Rudolph
Spreckels, and because of the agree
ment and understanding of the judge
presiding i'm this department of the
superior court, Judge Dunno, that the
plea of guilty should subsequently be
withdrawn and the plea of not guilty
substituted and the cause dismissed
against the defendant.
Accuses Langdon
The motion also will state that the
district attorney has heretofore con-
scented to the withdrawal of the plea of
guilty and that this plea was obtained
from the defendant by fraud, coercion,
duress and false pretenses.
The motion will be presented to the
court on March II.
Ruef states that his reason for filling
the motion at this time is that he may
not seem to be taking advantage of
the technical victory he gained by the
decision of the appellate court. and in
order that the stigma of the plea mag
be removed In a manner which Will
leave no doubt of his innocence.
In the affidavits to be presented in
connection with the motion he states
that he received nothing from the
French restaurant Keepers except some
legal fees.
The affidavit repeatedly accuses Spe-
cial Agent Burns, Assistant District
Attorney Heney and District Attorney
Langdon with subornation of perjury
in their attempts to make Ruef swear
falsely in the case against Patrick Cali
houn for bribing supervisors. His
whole plea for the granting of the mo-
tion Is based on the statement that
the immunity contract was abrogated
by the prosecution when they found
that he would tell the truth ON the
witness stand and when he refused to
sign false affidavits and swear falsely
in court
Charges Against Burns
Coming down TO the case brought
by William j. Tevis against r. A.
Crothers and Fremont Older, owner
and editor of the Bulletin respectively,
for criminal libel, Ruef states that
Special Agent Burns attempted to force
him to sign affidavits that were false,
and If the attempt told him that Judge
Dunno and Older were friends and
that Older and the Bulletin had stood
by him and therefore he should stand
by the Bulletin and it's editor and pro-
prietor and make a false affidavit
In various places in the affidavit Ruef
states that Langdon, Heney and Burns
repeatedly said to him that what they
wanted was testimony that would con-
Wet Patrick Cglhoun, and that they
We're willing to give him full immunity
if he would give such testimony.
In the Schmitz case, the affidavit
states, IHe prosecution uTBeu MIN 10
give false testimony, and attempted TO
get him to testify that he had pre-
vious arrangement in regard to what
testimony he should give.
After the Ford case had been tried,
the affidavit asserts, Heney sent word
to Ruef that he could help them in the
and that what they wanted
of him was testimony that would con-
Wet Calhoun.
After Herrn and Gillett
In his affidavit Ruef says that Burns
attempted on behalf of the prosecution
to secure from him statements in regard
to political matters which related to
William r. Herrin and e. H. Harri-
to the effect that they had entered into
a corrupt bargain with him regarding
to be paid to him for and con-
cerning the nomination of James NJ.
Gillett as candidate for governor of
California by the Republican state con-
vention at Santa Cruz in 1906. Ruef
states that the prosecution claimed
that Herrln, Hartman and Gillett had
committed crimes against the laws of
the state, for which they could be in
dicted, and that Burns Stated to him
that they had positive information and
that Herrin had paid him
(Ruef) large sum of money to pur-
chase the votes of the delegates repre-
senting the city and county of San
Francisco in that convention.
Burns stated to Ruef, according to
the affidavit, that the prosecution was
anxious to incriminate
Herrin. Hartman and Gillett and that
Heney had the support of President
Roosevelt in this connection and that
the prosecution desired the overthrow
of Herrin and Hartman in California
Ruef says in his affidavit that he
stated to Burns that he could not truth
fully say anything concerning Herrin,
Hartman or Gillett that would in
criminate them. and that not dollar
had been paid to him for his work at
the Santa Cruz convention.
The affiant says that on his infor-
nation and belief the grand jury which
indicted him was at all times under the
complete control and domination of the