“A. Yes—no, your Honor—I don’t know—no, no. But having in mind—I will state what I had in mind—a statement your Honor had made at some previous time, that either side had the right to find out how the jury stood; that is, if they used legitimate means. I said to Mr. Blake, I said, ‘How do you think Mr. Kelly stands on the graft prosecution?’ ‘Well,’ he said, ‘Mr. Kelly is a very liberal-minded fellow and I think he would give Ruef a square deal.’ So I then said, ‘Well, I would like to find out whether any of Mr. Burns’ gumshoe men have interviewed him, or whether he belongs to the Good Government League or the League of Justice or any kindred organizations.’ He said he would find out the next time he met Mr. Kelly.”
See printed transcript on appeal The People vs. Abraham Ruef, Part II, Vol. II, p. 878. For Newburgh’s statement see same transcript, part and volume, pages 943 and 944.
In this there was remarkable similarity to the legal assistance given thugs who were from time to time arrested for interfering with the work of the Prosecution.
Murphy had figured in the Ruef trials, somewhat sensationally, from the beginning. When, for instance, Ruef, early in March, 1907, was a fugitive from justice, Murphy was acting as one of his attorneys. He was placed on the stand in Judge Dunne’s court. The Chronicle, in its issue of March 7, 1907, contained the following account of his testimony:
“Frank J. Murphy, one of Ruef’s lawyers, testified that he had last seen Ruef just outside Hebbard’s courtroom on Monday.
“Have you been doing any business with him since?”
“Murphy declined to answer this under his privilege as an attorney. ‘We are looking for an absconding and hostile defendant, and the witness should not be allowed to draw conclusions as to whether the business he is doing for him is privileged,’ declared Hiram Johnson.
“Heney suggested that it was the request to do this business rather than the business itself, that was sought by the Prosecution.