The San Francisco call. [volume], June 08, 1907, Page 2, Image 2

About The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913

Image provided by: University of California, Riverside; Riverside, CA

                
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