Newspaper Page Text
2 Strong Circumstantial Case Is Being Made Out by Prosecution Against Indicted Mayor French Restaurant Men Tell Bribery Story Continued from Page 1, Coin. 3. 4 and 5. He heard Marcus Rosenthal. attorney Jit law. tell the Jury that, appreciating that his client's only hope lay in pur chasing protection, he had advised the restaurant man to go to Ruef. He heard Joseph Malfanti tell the jury that he contributed to the fund feeling like a. man "who had been held up by a footpad." And he heard the same men tell the Jury about the conversations they had had with the mayor about the delay In granting their licenses after they had contributed to the "fee." -It was not a nice day for the man who stalked into the courtroom with head erect In the morning and who left with gloom written on his face in the even ing. Coupled with the testimony of the previous day, the- prosecution nearly completed its proof of conspiracy yes terday. Special Prosecutor Heney an nounced when court adjourned last night that he would complete his direct case today. He suggested some side lights, which may Include the introduction of Abe Ruef as a witness on Monday. The court adjourned last night that he would complete his direct case today. He suggested some side lights, which may Include the Introduction of Abe Ruef -as. a witness on Monday. The prosecution has proved how the fight was started on the French restaurants by the police commission at the in- Ftlgation of the mayor. It has proved that the efforts of the restaurant men to -secure even a hearing prior to the deal with Ruef were fruitless. It has proved that through Ruefs debtor Loupy the restaurant men were advised to employ Ruef as "the only man who could help them." It has proved that after, they had given Ruef $5,000 the mayor reorganized the police commis sion to enable Ruef to earn the first in stallment of his two years* "retainer." It has proved that after paying Ruef the restaurant men complained to the mayor about the delays, and that the mayor promised to see that they got immediate relief. And the prosecution has proved that the restaurants -did get immediate relief and subsequent im munity. EVIDENCE IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL Without fetrard to Ruefs plea of guilty, the evidence touching his par ticipation In the holdup is direct-posi tive. Touching the mayor, It is circum stantial. But it is the kind of circum stantial evidence that removes the "reasonable doubts" of a Jury. The nature of a conspiracy makes circum stantial evidence generally the only available proof. And many men. have been hanged on circumstantial evidence not half so strong, logically convincing, as that mercilessly piled up against Schmitz by the prosecution. The defense; in cross examination, has apparently adopted three methods of attack: it has sought to show that the police commission's move against! the French restaurants did not origi nate with the mayor, but was a union labor spite movement; it has sought to show that the mayor changed front, not for pay. but because he had been approached by many influential persons and had concluded that the movement would prove, disastrous , to the union labor party; again. It has unwittingly proved that the mayor approved of the French restaurants and was a regular patron of them. And, 'finally, the de fense has attempted to prove by cross examination that the restaurant men fairly forced the JS.OOO "fee" into the unwilling hands of Ruef. It has suc ceeded in strengthening the damaging character of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The witnesses yesterday were Jean Loupy of the Pup, the original gobe tween for Ruef and the restaurant men; Max Adler, proprietor of the Bay State; i.arcus Rosenthal,_ Adler'a attorney; Michel Debret .of Marchand's, Joseph Malfanti of Delmonico's and Edward Marchand, stepson of Pierre Priet and a cashier at Marchand's. GOBETWEEV TELLS OP DEALS The firet real legal battle of the trial was developed by the examination of Debret, by whom Heney sought to prove statements made, by his partner, Priet, who completed the deal with Ruef and who later . died in France. Heney contended that it was his' right to prove -Priet's agency for Ruef by statements he had made for Ruef, and that in treating with Ruef he did in fact become Ruefs agent as well as the representative of his fellow restaurant m«. Campbell hotly contested Heney's claim and the noon adjournment was taken to enable Heney to produce the 100 authorities he promised. He did' not bring the entire 100, , but the; few that he did brhjg, coupled with his argu ment, resulted in the court overruling tlie objection Interposed by the defense. The testimony of Jean Loupy, the original gobetw«en, left little" room for conjecture as to the methods employed to bring the French restaurant men and their purses into the Ruef-Schmltz camp. Loupy was the proprietor of the Pup restaurant, where Ruef lield^hls politi cal levees and was Ruefs in the amount of $1,000. Ruef was also Loupy*s - attorney for- a ; nvmber of years. Loupy's testimony so ft^ as the prosecution was enabled to secure its admission was largely circumstantial, but strongly circumstantial. He told the jury that" Ruef visited the Pup almost nightly,, spending the hours between 7 o'clock and -midnight there with his political henchmen, and that Schmitz and Pohelm were frequent attendants upon the Ruef • levees. -' LOUPV PAID FOR PROTECTION Loupy testified that he was present at the meeting of {Tie police commission at which the renewal of- the license for Delmonico'B- was .considered 'and that previous to* that meeting he had discussed the situation with Adler of the Bay State." " ;. ; Attorney Campbell,, for the; defense, sought to secure' the refaction of this line of testimony on the ground that it was hearsay and inadmissable, but the court sustained the. prosecution. After the meeting of the police com mission Loupy said'he had talked with Malfanti of Marchand's and ' later the same night had telephoned to, Ruef. In response to Heney's for a recital of the- telephone conversation, Loupy said that Ruef had made an appointment for 11 o'clock the" next morning, which appointment was kept. "State the substance of that con versation." said Heney. rWell. I said, 'Mr. Ruef, what is the matter with . the Delmonlco license? \ I suppose it will* be our turn next and we will all be put our of business.' I asked him if hecould not help us and what his fee would be. Well, he. said he would take our cases for $7,000 a year and told me to go and see the rest of the, French restaurant keepers. He said, 'I will not. deal with anybody but you and I must; be paid .in, cur rency. I will not take gold' or "a check.'" "Well, what did you. do.theh?*.! ; "I. saw Joe Malfanti." 'He said see Adler and Blanco < and' l think he. said he would see Priet." ; "Did you . have a _ meeting?" \u0084 •'Yes, sir, I" think 'we met ;at the "What was; dpne;therer..^. ..,;,.._ "Pierre Priet asked ' me what guar antee we had. I told him I had /seen Mr. Ruef and Mr. Ruef would take care of us for two ; years for $7,000 a year. Priet said he thought that was .-ex orbitant.- Me 1 said, 'I- know Mr. Ruef. I'll go and see him myself.*," \u25a0.. ' "Did he see Ruef?" ,\u25a0'\u25a0 "Yes, and they told me to see the other restaurant men and see if. they would do anything. I went to Bab's, Frank's, the Occidental and Old Poodle Dog, the St. Germain and Jack's." "What did. you tell them 77 \u25a0 "I. told Babcock that our licenses would all be held Up, that we were all in the same boat. I also told him that I had seen Mr. Ruef, who would take care of us' for two years for $7,000 a year. Babcock said he would do nothing, and the rest said the same. I reported and Priet said that he had in the meantime seen Mr. Ruef and set tled for $5,000 a for 'two years, and that he was to. pay the money." "Who was to put up the money?" "Malfanti, Blanco, Adler, Priet and myself." >- " v* ! ; ." RESTAURANT MEV CONTRIBUTE j "Did you put It up?" "Yes, sir." "How was It to be divided?" "Each paid $1,175 except me. I said I didn't have so much as the others and had heavy ' expenses and could only pay $300." . "To whom did you pay it and when?" "I paid it to Joe Malfanti the day before it was paid to Mr. Ruef. I don't remember the date." On the cross examination Campbell gave Loupy an \u25a0 opportunity to swear that he had never heard of the-alleged French restaurant keepers', association. He 'told the counsel for the defense that Ruef had told him to see all the French restaurant men and that. Ruef would do business with Loupy alone. In . answer to Campbell, Loupy said Ruef had never threatened him with the loss of his license if Ruef was not employed. The cross examination paved the way for Heney to show more clearly the relations between Loupy and Ruef on the 'redirect. He brought out the fact that Loupy owed Ruef $1,000 and that he became unduly active in the license matter at a time when his own license had nearly its 'whole life to run. He also, as a re sult of Campbell's question, was en abled to ask Loupy why he wanted to employ Ruef, and drive another nail into- the "fee" theory. In. answer to Heney's question Loupy replied: "I. was afraid that I would lose my license. I went to Ruef because he was the head of the administration." j DID XOT WAJVT RCEF AS A LAWYER "Did you go to him because you wanted a lawyer?" "Yes," answered the witness with a show of uncertainty. "If Ruef had been a doctor, would you have gone to him just the same?" persisted Heney. "Sure," replied Loupy; "I went to him because he was the political boss." N. Max Adler, proprietor of the Bay State restaurant, was the most valu able morning, witness. He declared flatly that lie had, never heard of , the mythical Jrench restaurant' keepers' association from which the defense claims Ruef accepted a "fee." Adler .was. equally positive in his de nial of ever entertaining a belief that he was paying for legal services. He understood, he said, that Ihe was pay ing Ruef for protection. His lawyer had advised him that he had no reme dy at law and that what he needed was not a lawyer but Ruef and his influence over the police commission. HOCDUP OF RESTAURANTS Adler's testimony strengthened the chain of circumstantial evidence of a deliberate plan , to hold up the French restaurants. He swore that before and after the 1 waiters' strike at Tortoni's Loupy came to him and told him that all the French restaurants were in danger; that they must employ Ruef or they would all lose their licenses. Ad ler told the Jury how after putting up 11,175 for protection his license was not granted and his place was closed. He was In debt and losing money. He went to Ruef.' Ruef assured him that he would hear good news In a day or two, and within the specified time Hut ton was removed from the police com mission. The v renewal of Adler's r li cense was immediately forthcoming. Adler's refusal to pay the second year's installment was brought out in a manner strongly corroborative of his assertion that he knew he was paying for protection and not for legal services. \u0084 . , - The- defense confined -Its cross .; ex amination . to a brief showing of the fact that no direct " threats had been made by either .Ruef, Schmitz or Loupy. . PAID TO SAVE LICENSES On the direct . examination Heney asked: "Do you remember having had any conversation about the - licenses for French restaurants, - about the time of the waiters' strike at Tortoni's r* "res." replied the witness. "I talked about the matter with VJean Loupy, both before and after the strike." -V: i. "What did ' he cay to you?" • "The first time he came to Imy place and he said: 'This thing is serious. We have got/ to put up some, money here or we will all lose our; licenses. "Ruef Is the only man who can help '•us.'" "What did you;: tell him?' . "The first -time I told Loupy: I did not care anything about it. I was not in trouble and I had been doing busi ness: for 20 years." " . "Did you know the relations between Loupy and Ruef?" ;. "I - knew that Ruef made his head quarters at Loupys place across -the street' from mine." -'\ "Did you know the relations between Ruef and the administration?* ' *'I only knew that : Ruef was -the boss." pCfIBHSytPBBSsBiSR "When. did the question of the re newal' of your license arise?'.' "After Loupy came to -sec me," re plied, the witness. f,'"They -refused my license .'• at the ,- meeting •on January 3. The license \u25baexpired on' '-January.' 5 . j took . my ; lawyer, , Marcus - Rosenthal, to the meeting on January 3 and the com missioners refused to 1 listen: to him." ' advised" to go to ruef ..„,' "How^long had* Mr. Rosenthal ' been your attorney?" , queried'. Heney. "0h, : f0r;. 20 years.'; .•"." \u25a0, .- VWhat ; happened after the meeting adjourned?" * .» : .-. "We all (the restaurant; keepers) went home .together.^. My; attorney adi vised . me to ) gol to ' Ruef— that the - was the!only man who^could help.us." V "•' * "Did .. you -retain . the r services^ of Rosenthal T^^SgggSJSBgJJHWgv '' i" % 4: T \u25a0'-\u25a0. "He was' still my lawyer/, but ; not be fore'the -police commission. .- He^s- ihy lawyer.: yet.'*;^ ' .' ;.-.».'; .-.».' \u25a0** • - "' "What happened ; after : that ?" "Loupy;came again. -i He told'me that Tortonl j wa« closed ?, up j and f > that v" we" • all - put' up . the k money," otherwise ,we twould : alls be \u25a0. closed.'j:.The next f day we aIP. met— Lou py,^Malfanti. ' Blanco, Prlettsandimyself.- 'WeVagreed to>,htre Ruef.'^ .',^-.: ; '-^\u25a0•\u25a0:: ; ; ' " -. *7v"What did you expect to get for, your , money ?\._.. .:._i..;_-;: .; .-j_.;;^, ; ;\u25a0 ;': ; J the san frj^^ witnesses against iSchmiiz~Ltft?Joirighi,iMareus M&en&al, Wjai/orney,^ Ruef; Joseph Malfanti, Michel Debret. Jean Loupy, Max Adler and Edward: Marchand,^ French' ? 'restaurant i •\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0•\u25a0\u25a0 ~ ' •\u25a0 \u25a0\u25a0 \u25a0 ~ \u25a0 ~" '.\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0 .' '•\u25a0••\u25a0•\u25a0- '-\u25a0'-; \u25a0\u25a0>- ~~ ' -•\u25a0. ,- \u25a0•\u25a0 .\u25a0:.• . -;-i TV-- -•\u25a0.""' -...-.- . . .. • . . .-.- \u25a0-\u25a0.-.. ~~~~. . . - » . -- - ... -• - - -..\u25a0\u25a0.....-..\u25a0 . . - , .*, "Loupy said Ruef .would ; take $7,000 a year for. two years', protection.", "Did you make^the deal with Loupy?" I , "Loupy '.went \ to Ruef first, \u25a0 but Priet said he wouldn't trust Loupy — -he would go. ami Bee Ruef -himself^ He came backto the -second -meeting and said he -had an agreement for $5,000 a year."^-/^.,^,;' *,-\u25a0,'\u25a0 '•'What was your share?". . "I paid $1,175 to Joe'Malfanti." . "Why did you pay thatmoney?" "Because I, couldn't run my business without a license. \u25a0 Ruef was the only man- that could help: us. I thought I would lose my business : if I: did"- not Pay." '-. . - : :,-\u25a0;*- ;• / :';> \u25a0 :'.;\u25a0 Heney. attempted to show that Ad ler submitted to the first installment because he was deeply In .debt,', ; and that^when at the end of -the year he had got j out of debt he refused; to pay the second installment. The court sus-. tamed Campbell's objections, but the chief counsel : for -the defense in'/.his cross examination 'paved the way- for the admission" of.* the. testimony, which Heney subsequently elicited from Ad ler. - \u25a0 .- .\u25a0;- :\u25a0.\u25a0:\u25a0\u25a0-;.\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0 '_' \u25a0\u25a0 GOT PROTECTION AFTER PAYING There was no equivocation: about Ad-, ler's testimony. :He said he knew .what he was getting. He was forced -to pay for proterfion and he got protection, but: not- «ntll after he had been com pelled to call "on Ruef. He toldHeney that he paid .his ' share on.; January > 7 with a check on the Central trust com pany. His license was not forthcoming and he called on Ruef to protest. • "What did you say to Rueir" asked Heney. . ' > . "I called on -Mr.: Ruef two weeks later. The commission 1 had a > meeting and I did not get: my. license, y I told him, /Mr. Ruef, I amwithout'a license.; I am losing money.' . He said ; he would have good news for me in two or three days. Then' Mr. Hutton : was removed." I got my license." ' be^fl|Afej^fl^ai -; ,"Were you ever asked to»pay, again?" ""Yes. The next year j Malfanti: asked me to ; pay, and- 1 refused 'S because '; l waß ; out of : debt. "?. The , first time ; I i.was heavily, in> debt- and: I- wanted.tb. pro tect my credit— -I did ' not want- to'be shut up." v: [ . : \u25a0\u25a0 '; : :' \u25a0-_:,/\u25a0/; \u25a0•.-";'" ':.;''\u25a0 i Campbell took the, witness 'again and i permitted him :to deny/ that :he had ever heard of a French . restaurant keepers' association. ,"I never- knew anything about an association or a president," said the witness. "All I know was I gave my mone5 r ." i; •'. He explained the unequal division of contributions to ; the .'/fee" byj saying: "The division- was .simple enough/ Loupy said he was 'hard up and could not pay so much. I ; was hard up, too, but I was the; first man- to. need a li cense and I had to put up." t - AD VISED CLIENT TO SEE RUEF; Marcus Rosenthal, who has been Adler's attorney for \u25a020 years, said he had gone before the police commission to : present' Adler's r, petition for a,: re£ newal of license.' •* Tlie '^commission had refused: to' hear; him.' f." Adler. had -been ordered to /appear at the, meeting 'and show.' cause .'why. his' license should^not be refused. /.The" refusal rf of -thalbpard to hear : ,him " In /.'compliance witli*,,its own order and- his t observation Tof I the methods of the administration •'^'con vinced him ; that 'Adler. heeded Ruef,*- not a legal adviser. - 'After "leaving; .the meeting with rAdler.; and the other-res taurant men •he '•\u25a0 said fhe X advised, them not to spend their: money, for a lawyer but to see Ruef. . • ••/ ; ; ... ; - .' -'\u25a0 Michel Debret is the 'surviving owner of Marchand's. His X partner,- /Pierre Priet, who completed^ the > deal;! with Ruef, >dled :in"France,- ; arid;it *was ' by Debret ' that . Heneyi; got r, in .the :\u25a0 state ments made by" Priet after he had seen Ruef.\ r-:ri; ; 'f.,C-;p.;- : -; \u25a0 - .;\u25a0/,., ../\u25a0, ,- : ; -:-:\u25a0 ':'\u25a0 Debret '\u25a0'- said: '"I 'never v had ' any trouble . about myi license f rom i 1853 ;. t0 1904. . Then - Loupy fcame ( of ten^to /our place i and talked : about the trouble : for French restaurant ' keepers." \"Wef could see " that ,we .were goln g to"; be' held •up and we had a' meeting." ....'T* " ,'•. ; : \u25a0' "'\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0•. : "What was done then?*/ asked^Heney. "Priet " to - see"> Ruef /after -:'we had talked' the' matter over. ? "We; saw, that we could .-': hot get '"away without 'seeing' somebody,.; so- Priet, went^ to Ruef."-'"-- /\u25a0 ' ' \u25a0 '_'•»' ~ y -: : : : KNEW . RUEF COU LD FIX IT , "Because. he wai the. only man who couldjfix': It." \u25a0-„ 7-v/7 -v/ : .'"-\u25a0\u25a0,* ;\u25a0',: * /'Well, \u25a0 what' did : Pri.et report?". \u25a0 .-> \u25a0 "When Priet ; came ; back he ; said' Ruef would' take' our cases! for? ss,ooo a year for^wo^earß.". 7 -V'"n- ;^."v -' \u25a0\u25a0*\u25a0 : i'-'V. :;: - r : '\u25a0 . "Did he ' say: how.it was to Ibe \u25a0 paid ?" : "Yes.' 5: He ; said Ruef : would \ take no check, no gold ; that -' it : must'i be cur rency i and that -he; would tgive no "re ceipt"'/-,; \u25a0.-\u25a0.'\u25a0 : :-.'\ : \ : f >'\u25a0 \u25a0"'.\u25a0\u25a0.'-•\u25a0. :\u25a0•;.\u25a0;• •'';.; '\u25a0'- Then came .the .wrangle"; over the proof -Jof agency,- whlch'J continued '*\u25a0 over the]: noon':, recess \u25a0- and -Jt; until - : nearly :. 3 o'clockl .;'-. In / theTaf ternooh ; Heney; " hav ing won his contention, recalled Debret. , "What," .'said') Heney,%,"dld| Pierre; say to you when ihe returned; from 'Ruef ?", J ;.-\u25a0\u25a0 J.'He \ told l ,,'mej that? he :* ( Ruef ) ; was ' to get.: $10.000/, J ss^ooo J.theVflrst^year, and $s,ooo^ the ; second. f>lt^was^to lbel paid In . greenbacks .'and I there^would 1 be r no receipts. -*fvTheres: was ; T no ' /, agreement signed; that: I" kriowjabbut.''/;.;'.;.. : '/Dldy/>ur v firm: putiupT some, money?" / The, first'time $1. 175.15 Priet died-be fore -the I second'; paymentftwas: due. -I personally: made Tthe^soMn'd* payment of : $1.000 i to; Joe Maif anti.^., R 7 *:, . "Why: did ; ybu| agree jttf;this;iripney / ;tofßuef?"JV^^V^'-_;\..;;,';-;' > - ' "13, agreed J tofrtheipaVmentvbecause after^ourlconferenccs'.werdectded^tlrere was ! no) wayi toj get Tout! of ) 1 1 "unless Iwe paid ) Ruef ," as he .was J the{ political - boss whb|could;protectlus^''.^i;\ " U/l./ L ; '» \v ;;.^;'.-, : :'/Would-you: '/Would -you have I paid ;that':money" to* Ruef : If .you ; had; not •; thought -your.' fail ;ure"*to 'do , so^iwould Iruinlyour^busi : ness?7-;' Iy. .{• . :-/\u25a0/ " r V ; - ; :^/^-v','' ' ;'*" \u25a0} - T '\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0 "."No, sir." \u25a0 -\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0/ •'.•; , : ; \u25a0, \u25a0• '\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0-.'\u25a0', : . '.. ' '\u25a0 .; : V"TsCHJMiTZJ.KNBW,:qF!.DiBSAiL : >'' .' «\u25a0 „ "Did -V. Priet < ever .•\u25a0 tell ' you { any thin g about v ,- what "the i: mayor!. had « said-: 1 to h\mr;~''',"\.--;-,.\i.:y?X'- /..>.":;' -;zc. \u25a0'... : : i''^ \ ."Yes, .hessaid^he.wentfto -the mayor, .who* gave him; no satisfaction. He said he wouldlcall\ a"; meeting; of the police commission.";;.^ ;\ . ' - V w'What did you believe would ; happen to '; your licenses if you ; did not -pay ' this money ?" r " - -'\u25a0:.-[, ,'\u25a0 v."We< believed if we did! not pay 'the money ..we would be closed up," as ' Tor tohl'sr had "been; - that . there" was: no other out v. of it. I believed; that Ruef -andi Schmitz controlled ' the : po.f lice commission.". >:V^i./ ., •' ''*\u25a0 \u25a0''\u25a0'\u25a0'\u25a0> ;;."'-"Your;place! employed union waiters afid'cookB?" ;,\u25a0'•* ;*•:\u25a0' \u25a0''\u25a0'\u25a0. -y ::': :' "Yes.^.iWe ; never, had any trouble." Campbelltquerled:; "Well, you didn't have .any ; trouble S with the police or pollce^cprnmisslon -either, \u25a0; did , you?"; -i ; V'Not s af ter"»we ; : paid - for.; protection," was stheYdiscohcerting; reply.' '.- p ;«> Heney's jla'st"questlon was: "How did you' feel ;about that;money?" '\u25a0'.-. Jf/'Well,^ l j.f elt;;ilke ;ra \ man -who) had been' ; heldjupsby a fpdtpad.V,:'; , '. c .'.. ?2Campbe,ir~<broke'..;-'in; heatedly ;;- with: "Didn*t:Mr.;w.*J.' Burns tell you to say that?'V v .: : ;"\u25a0\u25a0 .\ \u25a0 ; • : ..- \u25a0 •;' ' : : \u25a0\u25a0- \u25a0.'..\u25a0;\u25a0". •\u25a0:•-•• \u25a0', .-.. /'Nobody, told me to say it. That is my^bwn\cohvlction. / That is- the way I felt: about ;it,"4 replied' the witness. "/ MALFANTI CORROBORATED 'Joseph^Malfantl.V proprietor of .'Del monlco's/l proved Jto\ be * the most dan gerousrwltness; fori the 'defense. -He in sisted^thatUnfh'isitalks .with the mayor that; Schmitz ; had full .knowledge of the deal^with : : Ruef |'and,] promised' to .'urge immediate i final; action; on theMicenses: It '.was tMalfantl?who came" closest to connecting '• Schmitz : directly with the holdup^ •: "-;; \u25a0' -. ';; - \u25a0"-,' /-.; -- '."\u25a0:• '."Did you ever . go "to see Schmitz?" Heney interrogated.: \u0084 . .. '_\u25a0'-.'\u25a0 v: "Yes, ;;with"-j ßlanco j and Priet, about the i second for! third £of .January. -....., The mayors seemed f astonished j that \u25a0;-. our '• li 'censes'shouldibejheld up. ; He said he had 4 never." 1 had ? any *". trouble . about v our places. ; ;; In ? f act, ; that ; he enjoyed them himsel f . .-.- He; was ;.very. polite ; to us and said ', he would - call ": a•; meeting ; .of -the police- commission."^; ' / > _.. . vTWhat did yqii'do after the ; meeting?" iV}''."Weii,-r itf- looked § pritty^vbHiev^^We : smelled;a>at. J :/I;waBFc"onvinced of; the i situation then,' but in:the>vening at .the regular^ meeting "Adler.'/ came y up JLwith his ? attorney. % It .was ;the J same X thing over. .•', The .'commissioners "-; would;: not listen to the lawyer.^ J They told Rosen thal. it .was; too late.'V . • '[-I ' ;-.i . ,-'. \u25a0". "What did you decide to do?" - "Nothing j, that evening; ' but»Loupy came around' and said, ' Let Malfanti and me | go ; to I Ruef.'l: We C telephoned J and made a meeting for, the next day." I. \i ; : t'Why . did • you' want ;to 'see Ruef ?*' -i *-*- ."Loupy had talked: about seeing Ruef, and I had made up my mfnd * that was the -V'ohly^ thing to * do. :; The : next ' day Loupy ' reported, j He *, said .'.that ;'\u25a0 Ruef would take ; s7,ooo -: a . year; to: protect . us : for two ; years. *J\We did Vnot^ then: raise the money, but told Loiipy ; . to go around and \u25a0; see > the '.''other/ restaurant ;' men j T to raise the^mohey.; Print said he. wouldn't trust; Loupy; with -that; amount;, of money and j that he would -go to "r ßuef himself.ViHe^cameuback-: and •'said -it \u25a0wouldbe $b,000.a year." .: ; ; . /._ X'iVWhat were-, you , to yget for, 5 ; the money \u25a0.'"*'/:/ ' ' \u2666 GUARANTEED ; PROTECTION >\u25a0 ,"We were to get y 6ur. licenses and n6t have any T trouble" for; two ,years." . ' s' . "How waslt to be paid?" '"ln currency,* and to be. taken by one person.":? v.--. : -:S, :"''':-.'.li''. '\u25a0 - \u25a0 . * : : • "Did Priet *get* ; a receipt?'.' : a "No; he said we should be glad to get Ruefs word'of ;hOnor.", j. " • : . "Did you ever-pay any money your-" self ?•••\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0'-. • : -' : .;//^ :•'\u25a0 •::':.' --•-"- '•' ' -:<--< ! V 'Tdid at;the endof the year— s3,ooo.", if "How did you*pay it?" • : j, .\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0 /\u25a0\u25a0' .VI got it changed, ihto-11,000 notes at the bank ' and \u25a0 took \u25a0itl to Riief '» '\u25a0 office, where I gayeiit to Ruel himself."' '.; :'Did you .go tto j Ruef ; because he waa a Jawyer?^-. '-it 2 . \ .* t. .','..-./>'" " went 1 ; to j.hlmy because; hejwas|the man';wh6.contrbH.fed'and could'do as;he pleased' with theTadmlnlstratlon.'' lt wbi go i to*- Rue* 1 or;lpse our; ; license -and -go out' of ; business;^ We '\u25a0\u25a0 paid / the : money and we ; got'ihisi word that everything would be: all' right." . \ ' :^ * ;' /'Did ;.;SchmitJt;f come > to> your place af ter^thenioheyAwas 1 paid; to Ruef ?"s~J . " Yes ; '.: he came ;In *to $ lunch,': and \ the waiter told^me the miaydr. was up stairs. I .went 1 up and /asked him why, I did not get l my? license;-* 13 was ; losing i money.' .The : mayor.- said,i/I >told : . him^ (Ruef ) : ; to go ; "rl gh t ' ah ead .'** He": said Fhe ' d ld not:un derstand ;why ' there^should* be' any- de^ lay." ' :^^i':':\; : .: : :'J: \u25a0-.. ?';\u25a0 ;f-l'.i' \u25a0 \u25a0 ; . : '•: . .".When Ruef you .'at^'a meeting of -the : police commission what occurred?','":- v "'. : ' "? ' . -"i '-\u25a0 ' •\u25a0".. 'v ;•-- \u25a0; -^y 'REMOyAI^OF^HUTTON, ;-;. / i-; \u25a0 i "Mr.Vßuef . Btood-iiip?and "asked for a conttnuahce^jHe gbt'lt/"^ i:*^t'.- "'.si* \u25a0* "Did Ruef, say? any thing to you about the' removal 1 of Huttoh?'' . ; '. \u25a0 ; ; ; ;\u25a0 , l"No, s ' sir ; Iwhenl he:' aßked } tort aeon • tiriuance gI:g I : expected 5 he J. was •- going i to give Hutton^< or- Reagan •>• little [vaca \u25a0 tiOn.VS-: l »-'r/*it'v5-. > -"\'J<i<: :i^: i-C : /~: *. ! -V , .-ii'Dld^yqu's'ee*. the. regulations -submit .ted-by.Ruef?'',;.':;.:.*"^/ :~~ : y r >-^:. : ','-'\u25a0' r' '\u25a0 i \ :i> "_"»Yes,''slr.""'. ',\u25a0-..:-.:'\u25a0\u25a0 :\u25a0/\u25a0.'\u25a0.. ; •\u25a0' . *;What "change"; did they make In the conduct of your business?" -'^^^ " : i"None at'all."..-.-'- 1 ' 1 .- ""'-'.. :."-. : --'-; ;':'\u25a0'\u25a0 I"'. . \u25a0'.-'" ; ." ,; " Why did c you'i pay .j the second ; year T*. \u25a0\u25a0 . "Well . \u25a0I X though it 1 1 vwas(a v i man <ofi my .wo'rd.^PrletT.was -dead, i so {I \ thought X I should! make r ,the;f collection. >1I* : sent ",to Adler ; and he • said * he I .', wouldn't*, payi any, more. //• Soi 1 5' thought %I 'X would a- save "money > by.; thatiYf Ii would £ him $I,ooo,^ get»|l',ooo cachlfrom> Blanco"; and Debret ahd.let him collect -theTrest!him£ self.'S I^told' him twhefftl^ gave] hiniUhe i $3,000] "el h4d ?m6'|f eXways J of j collecting it \u25a0 than"? I i had and ; he i could> get [the] re*t himsel f;v • Mr/|Ruef *said jthat;.was fall ri ght,*; he iild 'attend ; to" i t.','j:^; * -: -\A > The* cross S examination U resulted ,in thelslngleiexhibitiqnTof-illtfeellng^dur{, ingi' theS day. I '^, Campbell I asked : r : ;. "Did : ariyjoneUell!; you- that) you. had to .pay^ ,thls money?'/' -;!;\u25a0'..-"\u25a0 : •.\ '•.\u25a0\u25a0'\u25a0''• \u25a0•"-• : -'i:: >^v".That - wasn't f necessary,".^ replied 'the .witness/- • '"The -I circumstances j.QWere such |,that V we? knew >,w« '"had ,to T fgo around.7^ ,;\u25a0-,.."\u25a0- '.^V'' J'-'Vlii ,'-:--^ -'.i.-h. .;'.-.;, '.'".,''\u25a0 i '.-.A' laugh swept ar©uja4 U»e room Campbell, with the first exhibition of acrimony, demanded: - .; i • • "Please ' read' that answer/again. It seems :to be funny. My. friend Dwyer leads the laughter." V- , : .: Hiram. W. "Johnson retorted: , : ; .7 "Don't get sore : just '\u25a0 because you are getting the worst ; of it." .:< Both i attorneys flushed .and squared 1 themselves \u25a0 for '\u25a0 battle when the : cpurt I intervened with an 'admonition*. to' John son that : stilled the troubled waters. 1 \u25a0 Edward \u25a0 Marchand was - introduced, | apparently* for the . mere ' purpose "of | connecting the blinks .in, the \u25a0 tortuous I chain by. which the first- payment was effected. - He ,said he . drew a. check for I $5,000 arid cashed it/ securing five $1,000 notes, which he turned over to Priet. Two days later - he received checks for | $1,175 each from Malfanti. \ Blanco and. Adler : and cash \u25a0in an un stated amount 1 from Loupy. ,He was not cross examined, v: : . ;',;;/ I I PROSECUTION MAY CALL. RUEF ' Judge Dunne^aiinounced that he had secured the ; use*^-of -"Judge '.Cook's. court room, and that the "caseVwbuid proceed at 'lo:3o o'clock this morning. Special Prosecutor Heney' told ; the '• court that he expected to finish- his main case be fore noon . today. .He . admitted later that; he "might spring some side lights and s rushed off to i a' conference ; over the advisability. of putting Ruef on' the witness " stand 1- l or s the \ purpose of di rectly, r connecting / the mayor with a division of. the spoils. , :' :.' : i" RUEF STAR WITNESS Prosecution Holding Him in Reserve to -Testify "Against Schmitz Abe Ruef is being held in reserve by the -prosecution as ' the star witness against Mayor. Schmitz in": the pending trial , \u25a0 " for (extortion, i' Ruef 's '-: testimony will Y complete ii the case :-l against the mayor v and "fprj, that, reason will :not' be given "*to the Jury < until ~i all the 1 inter mediary ; points 1 have : been "established.' It .will •be • brought \ out ; through "• Ruef*a testimony^ that the -mayor.: has' been- ml conference^wlth^the police commission ers ; to.v ßuef ' and \ that 'the boss became "a party, to the transaction after \u25a0\u25a0 he had talked the matter over .with Schmitz. r . /;/.;" -i J -- ' That the , defense is' apprehensive of Ruefs ';•' testimony ..was , revealed ' last night, when' C. ;H. Falrall,* one of the mayor's attorneys, -paid .a visit to the prison house in Flllmore street. . Falrall was^ formerly i one ;of- Ruef 's but their business relations ceased after Ruef entered a j plea >[ of, guilty. ;S-The visit jOf Falrall -occasioned genral sur prise, as =it Iwas ': not^; believed that ? the defense-would undertake f, anything -so bold. : Fairall .was with Ruef « f or .': some ;tlme,; but nothing; was vouchsafed ? in regard to the* Interview. .. >- ' Ruef * did, not ; care to discuss the matter, but announced that' he was ab solutely,unchanged In his determination to tell 'the .whole; truth If "called to 'the witness stand... - , ic No; member of the prosecution could he; induced ; to 'discuss Falrall's action. It : is understood ';\u25a0 that i the * mayor's at torney^desired ..tol learn "If Ruef were to' go .on ; the' stand - for 'the prosecution and ".If ;not .whether his 'testimony could be"' used ; f or " the '( defense." > . f ;The,'case against the mayor naturally falls iritofive main; divisions.; It Is not necessary to prove 'that the mayor re ceived * any. .money,' J b*ut . it must be proved: that,', he exerted the Influence that; necessitated ' the payment - of money."; x : '~y -\u25a0 \u25a0<•}\u25a0 :.~ji~->: .~ji~-> \u25a0'\u25a0:\u25a0•') -;' '.'\u25a0', ">..;.; 1 The first division .of ; the case, cori sists of the pressure' brought •'to", bear, by, the .mayor on : the police commission. The second, division concerns the: action of ; the ;' commission "and -1 the"; third I the action* of •; the 'French! restaurant .pro prietors; iii ..raising;, a : protection f und: The % fourth {division of the ; case .' ends with 1 ' the 1 : payment : of -."the \u25a0! moneyj : to Ruef. -V Withj the r introduction of ;" some additional;,; testimony 4. the •will r have, completed ithe four "divisions oflthefcase. ;* ' - " v\" c \u25a0 \u25a0"•'" V- -?•\u25a0\u25a0.-•" Vi One' phase of the additional testimony will 'consist , of ; the ' proof ; of ?a; threat. This 5 can^be j? shown •circumstantially, and j then but t one ;. feature -will remain to complete the chain.* It .will be neces sary *to V show the connection -between Schmiti and \ Ruef,' the man .who exerted the pressure and ; the ; man .who >', received the] tnbiuiy; S ßuef will . be able to ; clear this ipißnt') for the grand;'jury and 'if necessary .'he .will rgo J further and* state that L;some>: of,; the;; French v restaurant money- found ; its ;way " into ? the pockets of ithe 'mayor.' ' -.-.-.- SUED; FOR* DIAMOND RING v • BY^ FORMER SWEETHEART Willows Belle "Will Not" Surrender Gem : Because Onetime I Suitor \u25a0.;'\u25a0:;;: ;.•',' 'Acts ;So;;Meanly-^.' ; '- , :>p l : :_ WILIiOWS, June I.7.— TJie suit , for the recoyery|of.'a diamond.Vvalued;at:slso, which Frank" Hagan," one of wealth iest \u25a0 young, men'} of [this fcounty/, has I In stituted "against , ; his "sweetheart;;. Miss Katie • . Feeney, ? also ;. of •\u25a0 .\u25a0\u25a0:. a "'l prominent family^haS: attracted^such^wide (atten tion'; that fthej courtroom $Is i nadequa te to saccommodat^,th"e 'crowd fthit | fgath ers! to jlistenUo^thftf bitter Across iexahi lnatlon' t whlch, both plaintiff and 'defend^ ant]have,been;uhdergolng,'| Hagan'gave the diamond £tq \ Miss \ Feeney,' f who ' was to ]J have \u25a0^become]? his ; wif e,' 'with .the alleged ,f understanding.;.'' that?, if :• they should quarrel , It would >bel returned Ito him?g*> Miss ! Feeney/ says "/Chat \ she * does not jWantltheTgerii.fbut] she] asserts! that Hagan I has f acted Sao i meanly^ about .: it that ? r she not -give "f it \u25a0'\u25a0 up ' unless compelled to~i do'.soi ' ' ;— * • : . ?The Spread of i San Franclneo" In the June Sunset Magazine that tells how!ithe'inew*cityj\under^the£impetus of Jts i rapid rebuilding ' is ; moving. sou th,* nil ing the ,* entire 5g penlnsula,vi being helped * tremendously^ In * suburban .ex pansion' by. the '.-'; Bay .*= Shore railway COUNTIES COMMITTEE MEETS IN PETALUMA Forestry and Irrigation the ; Subject of the Day's v Discussion . PETALtJMA, . June; 7.— The conven tion "of the counties. committee of the California Promotion , committee met in Petaluroa' thlsimornlng. "Forestry and Irrigatlon"in* California" was discussed at length. ""There .were 12 stated ad dresses'-In addition to the general speech making. \u25a0'" In the evening a ban-" quet •\u25a0was given. by the ladles of- Peta luma.* y.': > ; . In speaking of Irrigation In the San Joaquin valley, F.\V.-Yokum».-secre tary of the Merced county chamber of commerce . said It ' was a great deal cheaper ',to impound the water In the mountains than to take care of it after it" ; reached the valley by leveeing the streams.'He gave the history of Irriga tion'in" the 'valley from the time aban doned miners* ditches were used to con vey ' water. ' •He spoke of the effect on streams of good forests.on watersheds andiClosediwitha shorthistory of the drainage system." v ..*'•\u25a0>;.• . ; . W. A.' Beard, executive officer of the National Irrigation congress, in speak ing of "Irrigation In" the "Sacrame#o rValley,"- said. in part: ;'\u25a0 The 'flfteentb;. session of the national- Irriga tion congress : will >be held in - Sacramento •ia September - and : all \ who are \u25a0 Interested In tlie dcTcloptnent*- of any of tlirt great plan* of the reclamation nerrice ".for -the conservation. - con trol and ' ut Iliza t i.ou '\u25a0 ot . waters . of \u25a0 the - west ' are interested in session.* 1 - The Vast . Importance of :the: national policies :wtlch will-be discussed ma*eitnl**eTent.'a;!matter: D f : inter*4t In ererr portion . of '\ this 5 country,? cad -we; espect that iit wjflibe.-'lnipointJof »att<>ndance, .ln representa "tire'character!ana *In ,th» t measure of :lts/re-. sults^" the; greatest national contention e?er held. Jriv"-- r -TEl^X9J^'".BAKlA*.i'\Vqn^ \u25a0li Francis '\u25a0" Cuttle, 'l chairman ' of the trl c^ounties «;;'.? ref ores tati6.nTr> committee,' spoke ' of. the- early: work of 'tree plant -_ Ing and.': the* beginning t of "the fruit"in dustry- of ;the state. Hedescribed the 'efforts'; to "1 introduce ; the orange ' and showed the, results as they appear to day;;.!' • \u0084 ' ' ''\u25a0;" '• ' . Professor. Samuel Fortier of the Uni versity of " California: and the United States Irrigation service; said in part: ..\u25a0lrrigation - makes gardens and , orchards out .of desert -places of the 'state; it increases the yield \u25a0 of , ' both : field \u25a0» and orchard in ' localities where a rainless - summer :. robs the soil of its moisture; -it tends to subdivide the Ur^e estates into ~small v irrigated holdings; it; converts low producing' gn ln ranches Into intensiTely cniti- Tated small fields; it adds preatly to the number of . dlYersifled farms : it Increases the exports of all -soil .products; It does away with .the isolated" life .of the farmer 1 by the density .of rural settlements; .it- provide* most of the ad- Tantagcs of both country -and -city life: It con stitutes the safe anchor of the state by the es tablishment - of an . ever Increasing number of prosperous farm homes. ; -In' his. respd'nse < to 'the address of welcome':; Chairman- Andrea Sbarboro said irr part: '-:. '^MB^bMS "The hearty welcome which the California Tro motlon committee receives from: \u25a0 the people wherever we : have held our semiannual con ventions U due to the fact that the people of California know something of the great good which this ' association accomplishes for the en tire state.-. Supported by the progressive people of SanFranciflco, it disseminates information of the inexhaustible resources of our state thronirh out. the wide world - and thus assist* , th^ popu lating of our great state with desirable people. T F. E.'.Olmstead. district Inspector for California;: United - States forestry servlce,:' who .took -the, place of Chief Forester/ Gifford Pinchot.- spoke on the subject 'The , Use of California's Na tional Forests." '\u25a0 . ' PARDEE MAKES ADDRESS [ ;.' : Dr.- George r ,C. Pardee, former gov ernor, of California,, said In part: .; The histories of other countries, as well as those ; of parts of - o*r • own • nation and state, pove to us ; that \u25a0 the forests . ara necessary ad* juno ts \u25a0: of any \u25a0' and ail ,- schemes of contiguous and successful irrigation. For without the for eats * the ' meltinisr \u25a0 snows and rain* of the moun tains • run i off \u25a0 in . floods.' filling the streams In winter i«nd > spring -' and >. leaving ! . them dry la summer : and j autumn, when , more than 'at any other ' Beason of » the year water ' is needed tot irrigation. >It - Is ; not 1 claimed that denudation of . the . forested - mountains causes \u25a0a ' decrease in the i amount of ; snow and ' rain t&at falls upon thorn, but i t is certain ' that the fallen - leaves beneath . the \u25a0'• standing -. forests ' act vas Alters • for the -water that /alls upon them, and holds >it back. M that it la dealt out to the streams and riven th rough \u25a0a - longer ; part : of . the y ear. . ;.G^B..liUli. T chief forester of the stato of .Calif ornla.V spoke on #l The Forest Laws v of f California,", and - gave an ex haustive'review, of laws," their 'applica tion \u25a0: and ~ of .; the "- needs to make , these laws more effective, and- for new laws that , would [combine the ; state and .vari ous counties « in \ harmoniovls work -for the sbettermentfof^conditions.'/ He ' told of -the* need ;'of J forest protection and what^was, being done In this! matter,' .13 well -at of; the ! scant protection ', that • Is being.^glven'^under; present conditions. X- Lewis l E. f'Aubury,\ state 'mineraloglut ofiCalifornia, in fspeaktng on 'the; sub ject^of: the^ preservatlon"of- forests, said In f part: " . who have , studied \ conditions ' In ; older counwes I which at . one I time I were well | forested know, the necessity- of precervlng our moat valued treasure— the ? ..We % of - California : know full well the -benefits, arising; from our present : forest I reserve - policy; t and t we * know -• bow - vital :\u25a0: \u25a0 It is ; to ! every : interest [ in \u25a0 oar : state. ; ". Apparently It - is . the intention >. of { the . public lands convention { that '. is t to « meet ' In • Denver ; on June 1 18 to, take a particularly r vigorous slap at the ; president ilni In "connection with his forestry ! policy and to start a campaign to undo all th* good that It ha» accomplished, tj ;..• PRESIDENT'S POLICY ; Aubury discussed r this .{matter at : length 'i and t then . Introduced "; the fol ! lowing 'resolution, which^was'adopted: .'\u25a0\Vhcreag.=: certain, opposition* has been created against \ the \ policy I of ; the f government ?In 1 with drawing : from entry; certain . forested lands In the United i States, and t designating i the same fore*: :, reservet : i and * whereas, Iwe '*. believe^ that ' for ! a proper > protection \u25a0of \u25a0 the ;. timber ; and i the con servation of water that such a policy U neco-i sary; s ther#for« \u25a0 h«» It jONHMMMMMI *«'. Resolved; c by.s the \u25a0 count leu • committee of s the California v promotion - roramlttee. in "> conventinQ 1 assembled,"-- that 1 we ''heartily indorse the act NOMINATE MEN FOR POLICE COMMISSIONER Committee of Ten Submits List of 'Merchants to the Mayor PLAN TO OUST DINAN Members Work to Get Rid of Department Chief and Also Duff ey I The committee of ten. composed of representatives of five leading com mercial associations, has placed in the. hands' of Mayor Schmitz a new list of businessmen from which ! he has-* been asked to select the successor to W*. H. Leahy on the police commission. Schmitz at first was In clined to .regard the suy^estion with 'favor, but later changuC • *^s mind. He was then asked to name any business man of standing for the place, but aa yet he has taken no action. In all his dealings with the commit tee of ten. Schmitz has shown a strange spirit of Indecision. Whether he Is trlflin? with the committee or has been reduced to a state of nervous uncertainty as a result of the graft : prosecution is not known, but. he has : for thq nonce become a reed blowing hither and thither with every wind. "When the committee of ten began* its work It counted on the assistance of the .mayor, and although he has been appealed to several times he haa never been able to give a definite answer on anything placed before him. The com mittee places its main hope In Gov ernor Gillett. and will consult with the state executive when he returns from, Sacramento today. For some weeks r the committee ha* been endeavoring to find a means oC bringing .about reforms In the pollco [and public works departments. It ha 3 ; retained lawyers to study the situa tion, but it nas been found inexpedi ent to attempt ouster proceedings against any of the city officials. Th« committee desires especially to be rid of Chief Dtnan and President Duffey of tha boar// of public works. The i'commlttee Uz/iieves that In this it ts 'working aloe's: the same lines as tho grand jury aAd'will assist in every way possible. Meetings have 'been held throughout the week by the committee of ten and ! while no j definite results are yet in slg-htj the members believe -that great progress has been made. WINGFIELD DENIES REPORT ON CONSOLIDATED MINES GOLDFIELD. June 7. — George TVlng fleld today was asked to make a state ment'regarding the report that he an.l Senator Nixon had lost control of tha Consolidated -Mines company. Wingr fleld said: - "It is a lle.-pure and sim ple.- Jflxon and I have absolute control of the Consolidated. .W© have not solri a single share of stock and are buying right'along. \u25a0• Thi3 report comes from the sources'. that have been, harassing usVand. trying to force uato pay a dividend and is in line with their gen eral campaig-n , to undermine the pries of Consolidated and discredit its man agement.-" creating ' the forest resrrreif ' and v the prenent policy', of. their administration. » and w» , aN> highly commend our chief exeoutiTe for tb» able stand that he has talaen la connection with tbo carrying oat of this policy. Tomorrow the delegates will b« sbown about i Petaluma and will then be taken *on special electric cars to Sebastopol. - where they will be given a luncheon by the Sebastopol chamber of commerce. Later in the afternoon they will be taken to Santa Koaa. when* the Santa Rosa' chamber of commerce will entertain them with drives about the' city.' a .visit to the home of Luther Burbank and later, at a dinner. .- About' 150 delegates are In In at tendance. -^ Fresno was'choaen as the next meet ing place. , DR. PIERCES REMEDIES Bad Stomach Makes Bad Blood J You can not make sweet butter In * foul, unclean churn. Tha stomach serves as a churn in which to agitate, wort up and dlsinteerateourjood as it ts beiny digested. If It bo weak, sluggish and; foul the result will be torpid, sluggish. liver and bad; Impure blood. : The Ingredients of Dr. Pierce'a Golden Medical Discovery: are' just such as besft serve to correct and cure all such de- rangements. It is made np without a> drop of alcohol in its composition; chem- ically pure, triple-refined glycerine beinf used instead of -the commonly employed, alcohol. Now this glycerine Is of Itself ai 'valuable medicine, Instead of a deletert-i ous agent like alcohol, especially in thai cure of weak stomach, dyspepsia and tha \u25bcarious forms of indigestion. Prof. Flnlev Ellingwood, M.* D., of Bennett Medic ai College, Chicago, says of It: "In dy sdcpsU It serves an excellent pur-» pose. .-.* ,.• • -1» is one ot toe best manufact- ured product* of the jpresent time In its action upon enfeebled, disordered stomachs* enwdaUy if there is ulctraiion or catarrh ai SMtrttis (catarrh al Inflammation of stomach), it Is a most efflclent preparation. Glycerin* ; will relieve many cases of pyrosU (heartburn) md excessive gastric acidity. It Is useful la chronic Intestinal dyspepsia, especially tha flatulent variety, and In certain forms oC .chronic constipation, stimulating the secre- tory and excretory tnnctions of the intestinal Svhen combined. In Just the right propor*' tions. with Golden Seal root. Stone root, 1 Black. Cherrybark, Queen's root. Blood- root and Mandrake root, or the extracts of these,'' as in Dr. Pierces Golden- Medical Discovery, there can be no doubt of iU ~ great efficacy in the- cure of all stomach, liver and intestinal disorders and derange- ments. s.These sev« ral ingredients havf» the. strongest endorsement In* all such, ' cases of such eminent medical leaders a < Prof. B. Bartholow. M. D..of Jefferson Med- ical ColWgre. Pblla. ; Prof. Hobart A. Bare. 1 I M. D.. of Medical Departmtsnt. Untverslty ot 1 Pa.: Prof. Laurence Johnson. M. D.. Medical I D«p*rtnvent. University of New York: Prof- Edwin M. Hale. M. D., Habnemann Medical Colle^e.Chlcaco: Piof. John M. Scodder. M. D. r and Prof. John King. M. D.. Authors of tb« I American Dlspensatorr. and scores of other* I amemr tb« lead Ins medical men of. oar land. Who can doubt the curative virtues of * medicine the ingredients of which hay« S such a profetatonal endorsement? '-\u25a0•\u25a01 Constipation cured by Doctor Pierces ; Pleasant Pellets. On*»-v two a dose.- - PAQmfcl r ?: Genuine Must Bear Jg^g^t Fac-Simife Signature, • \u25a0\u25a0JLJrefuse substitutes.': vßv 9 IB^ s^l Pr«v«nts OOUT and I NOI CIST lON Ask your Physician