NYPL RESEARCH LIBRARIES
3 3433 08178148 0
\
\ \
\
r\
"THE SYSTEM"
AS UNCOVERED BY
1 he San r rancisco Caraf t r rosecution
BY
FRANKLIN HIGHBORN
(Author of "The Story of the California Legislature of 1909";
"The Story of the California Legislature of 1911"; and "The
Story of the California Legislature of 1913.")
*It is well enough, my fellow-citizens, to meet as we do
to-night, and to applaud the sentiments of patriotism,
and to echo the voice of indignation uttered upon this
rostrum. But another and more imperative duty de-
volves upon every one of us individually, and that is
to give his and her moral support to the officers of the
law. We must not content ourselves by merely adopt-
ing a set of resolutions, and then going home and
forgetting about it, placing all responsibility upon the
constituted authorities. This is not a case of the con-
stituted authorities. It is the case of the people of San
Francisco. And unless the people of San Francisco do
their individual duty in supporting the prosecution, the
officials of the courts and of the law must fail in their
efforts." — Walter Macarthur at the mass meeting called
at the time of the attempted assassination of Heney.
COPYRIGHT, 1915
by
FRANKLIN HICHBORN
San Francisco , ^'^o.
Press of The James H. Barry Company
1915
CO- ', .«j » .:»
THE NEW YORK
PUBLIC LIBRARY
ASTOR, LENOX AND
TILDEN FOUNDATIONS
R 1915 L
FRANKLIN HICHBORN'S
BOOKS ON
CALIFORNIA POLITICS
Story of the California Legislature of 1909 - - $1.25
Story of the California Legislature of 1911 - - 1.50
Story of the California Legislature of 1913 - - 1.50
"The System," as Uncovered by the San Francisco
Graft Prosecution -_-.-- 1.50
4 •
CONTENTS
Chapter
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
XIX.
XX.
XXI.
XXII.
XXIII.
XXIV.
Page
The Union Labor Party Movement... 11
The Ruef Board of Supervisors 22
The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 30
San Francisco After the Fire of 1906. . 49
Graft Prosecution Opens IZ
Ruef's Fight to Take the District Attor-
ney's Office 87
Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 96
Ruef Loses Fight for District Attor-
ney's Office 107
Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 110
Fight to Evade Trial 121
Ruef a Fugitive 130
The Trapping of the Supervisors 139
Confessions of the Bribe-taking Super-
visors 154
The Source of the Bribe Money 168
Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 186
Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 208
Schmitz Ousted from Office 215
The Real Fight Begins 240
The Glass Trials and Conviction 269-
The Ford Trials and Acquittals 279
The San Francisco Election of 1907... 300
Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef. 320
The Defense Becomes Arrogant 335
Jury Fixing Uncovered 357
Chapter Page
XXV. The Shooting of Heney 370
XXVI. The Calhoun Trial 388
XXVII. The San Francisco Election of 1909. . .405
XXVIII. Dismissal of the Graft Cases 425
XXIX. Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 440
XXX. Conclusion 455
APPENDIX.
Judge Lawlor's Ruling in Motion to Dismiss
Graft Cases i
How the Supervisors Were Bribed vii
Gallagher's Order Removing Langdon from
Office of District Attorney xii
The Ruef 'Tmmunity Contract" xix
"Immunity Contract'' Given Supervisors xxi
District Attorney Langdon's Plan for Reorgan-
izing the Municipal Government xxii
Roosevelt's Letter to Spreckels on the Graft
Situation xxv
Governor Johnson's Statement Regarding Ruef's
Imprisonment xxviii
Schmitz's Attempt to Control San Francisco's
Relief Funds xxxiii
Receipts and Disbursements of the Graft Prose-
cution xxxiv
PREFACE.
A tethered bull does not know that he is tied tmtil
he attempts to go beyond the rope's limits.
A community does not feel the grip of the "System"
until it attempts resistance. Then it knows.
San Francisco during the Ruef-Schmitz regime was
no more under the heel of the "System" than when
other "bosses" dominated ; no more so than to-day ; no
more so than other communities have been and are.
The political "boss" is merely the visible sign of the
"System's" existence. However powerful he may ap-
pear, he is, after all, but agent for the "System." The
"boss" develops power, does the "System's" work until
he is repudiated by the people, when another "boss,"
usually in the name of "reform," takes his place.
But the second "boss" serves the same "System."
Ruef entered San Francisco politics as a "reformer."
He supplanted other "bosses." But Ruef in his turn
served the "System" they had served.
San Francisco, when Ruef had reached his point of
greatest possible power, rose against him. The "Sys-
tem" was not immediately concerned. Ruef had lived
his day ; the hour for another "boss" to succeed him had
come. But San Francisco proposed to get at those back
of the "boss"; to get at the "System." And then San
Francisco found the "System" more powerful than her-
self; more powerful than the State of California.
And San Francisco was beaten down, humiliated,
made to understand that within her borders the laws
could not be enforced against those to whom the "Sys-
tem" granted immunity from punishment.
To secure evidence against bribe-givers, the State
granted immunity to bribe-takers who confessed their
crimics and joined with the State to bring larger crim-
inals to justice. And the "System's" agents cried out-
rage that bribe-takers should go free of punishment.
But the "System" granted immunity from punish-
ment to those who had bribed. And the apologists for
the "System" will tolerate no criticism of this sort of
immunity.
Other communities have risen against the "System's"
agents, the "bosses," and the "bosses" have given place
to other agents. But few communities, if any, have at-
tacked the "System" as did San Francisco. Had they
done so, unquestionably they would have found them-
selves as ineffective against corruption as San Francisco
has been shown to be.
The "System" is confined to no particular State or
locality; it permeates our entire public life. Judge
Lindsey in Colorado calls it "The Beast." In California
w^e call it. "The Southern Pacific Machine," for in Cali-
fornia the Southern Pacific Company was its chief bene-
ficiary. Other communities call it the "Organization."
The bull does not discover his rope until he strains at
it; the community knows little or nothing of the over-
powering "System" until it resists. San Francisco re-
sisted and discovered.
The mere bribing of a board of supervisors was not
extraordinary. Our newspapers furnish us daily with
sorry recital of bribe-taking public officials discovered
in other communities. But the effective, searching re-
sistance to bribe-giving which San Francisco offered
was extraordinary. It was a new thing in American
politics. It compelled the "System" to show its real
strength, and that, too, was new in American politics,
and extraordinary, also.
The "System" at San Francisco had taken the usual
precautions which ordinarily ensure it against successful
opposition, or even question. It had, through its agents,
selected the candidates for public office, including the
District Attorney. With the District Attorney loyal to
the "System" the "System" was secure against attack.
And even were the District Attorney to resist the "Sys-
tem," still was the "System" secure, for the "System"
could deny the District Attorney, through the public
officials it controlled, the funds necessary for successful
opposition.
But here again extraordinary circumstances worked
for the "System's" confusion. Not only had the "Sys-
tem" been mistaken in the caliber of the man whom
it had permitted to be nominated for District Attorney,
but patriotic citizens guaranteed the expenses of effect-
ive attack through the District Attorney's office.
Nevertheless, the "System" would ordinarily have
been able to laugh at the attack, and render it abortive,
by compelling the citizens who were backing the District
Attorney to withdraw their support.
Even at San Francisco, the supporters of the District
Attorney felt the force of such attack. Those who
supported the Prosecution found themselves harassed
in their business ventures, and snubbed in the social
circles in which they had moved. When Heney,
stricken down in the discharge of his duty, lay at the
point of death, a minister of the gospel prayed for the
wounded Prosecutor's recovery. Immediately from the
pews came silent expression of disapproval. That pastor
refused to be intimidated, refused to join with his fash-
ionable congregation against the Prosecution. He was
eventually compelled to resign his pastorate. Rudolph
Spreckels, while accounting for every dollar that the
Graft Prosecution had expended, asked to be excused
from naming those who had subscribed to the fund, lest
they be attacked. Ordinarily, those citizens whose in-
stincts had led them to guarantee the District Attorney
their support, would have been forced to abandon him.
But at San Francisco, a few citizens, in spite of
ridicule, abuse, social ostracism and business opposition,
stood firm for civic righteousness. This made San Fran-
cisco's attack upon the ''System" possible and stirred
the ''System" to extraordinar)- resistance.
The "System," seeing itself threatened, went to the
relief of the "boss," its agent, whom even its chief bene-
ficiaries despised. The "boss," through his puppet in
the Mayor's chair, declared the office of the District
Attorney vacant, and appointed himself to fill the va-
cancy. The boldness of the move startled the whole
community. But the act merely demonstrated the ex-
tremes to which the "System" was prepared to go. It
was not extraordinary in comparison with what was to
follow. Later on, witnesses were to be concealed, intimi-
dated, gotten out of the State : their kidnaping even
being attempted. The managing editor of a newspaper
opposing the "System" was to be taken on the street in
daylight, hurried across the country to a suburban tov.n,
forced into a stateroom of an out2:oin2: train, and sent
on his way to a distant city. The home of the pivotal
witness against the "System"-protected defendants was
to be dynamited, the witness and other inmates of the
building miraculously escaping with their lives. A public
prosecutor was, while conducting one of the "System"-
attacking trials, to be shot down in open court. A pris-
oner at the bar was to arise to denounce the judge on
the bench as a partisan and a scoundrel. Thugs were
to invade court-rooms while trials were going on, to
intimidate "System"-threatening prosecutors and wit-
nesses ; men were to be trapped as they offered bribes
to trial jurors ; agents of the Prosecution were to be
bribed to turn over to the defending element the Prose-
cution's papers and reports. An agent of the Prosecu-
tion in the employ of the Defense, working in the inter-
est of the Defense, was to sit at the Prosecutor's side
during the selection of a trial jury, to advise the Prose-
cutor of the character of the men under examination
for jurors, and with such advice mislead and confuse.
No ; bribe-giving at San Francisco was not so extra-
ordinary as the events which grew out of attempt to
punish for bribe-giving.
And now, as we look upon San Francisco beaten,
and retarded in her development because of that beat-
ing, the hopelessness of her opposition to the "System"
is the most startling thing of all. We see now, that
with a District Attorney intent upon doing his duty, with
funds ample for vigorous prosecution guaranteed, with
trial judges of integrity and ability on the bench, none
of the accused, so long as he remained loyal to the
''System" — so long as he did not ''snitch" — was in real
danger of suffering the law-provided punishment for
the crimes uncovered against him.
Ruef carefully weighed the ability of the Prosecution
to save him, against the power of the "System" to pun-
ish or to save, and knowing the power of the "Sys-
tern" as few other men knew it, Ruef betrayed the
Prosecution and cast his lot with the "System." The
outcome would have justified his judgment but for a
series of unusual events which none could have foreseen.
The most extraordinary incident of the whole Graft
Prosecution, we can now, with the ''System" uncovered
before us, see, was that Abe Ruef went to the peniten-
tiary. With full knowledge of the power, resources and
methods of the "System," it is not at all extraordinary
that guilty men under its protection should escape pun-
ishment. But it is extraordinary — due only to a chain
of extraordinary happenings — that one of its agents,
who continued faithful, who didn't "snitch," finds him-
self in prison and unable to get out.
The San Francisco Graft Prosecution uncovered the
"System" as it has been uncovered in no other American
city, for San Francisco made the hardest, most per-
sistent, and longest continued attack that a municipality
has ever made upon it. California has profited greatly
because of the uncovering, for while uncovered, the
"System" may be proceeded against intelligently, not in
the courts, but at the ballot-box. California has been
quick to profit by the opportunity which the uncovering
of the "System" has ofifered.
In preparing this volume for the press it is my pur-
pose— so far as lies in my power to do so — to keep the
cover off.
FRANKLIN HIGHBORN.
Santa Clara, Calif., Dec. 25, 1912.
CHAPTER I.
The Union Labor Party Movement.
Eugene E. Schmitz ^ was elected Mayor of San Fran-
cisco in November, 1901. He had been nominated by
the Union-Labor party. Tliis party was organized after
labor disturbances which had divided San Francisco into
militant factions, with organized labor on the one side
and organized capital on the other. ^
The convention which had nominated Schmitz was
made up in the main of delegates who had affiliations
with labor unions and were in close sympathy with the
labor-union movement.
But this did not mean that the new party had the
unanimous approval of the labor unions, or of the rank
and file of organized labor. A considerable faction, with
P. H. McCarthy, president of the State Building Trades
Council, even then a dominating figure in San Francisco
labor circles, at its head, advised against the movement,
and opposed the new party candidates not only in 1901,
1 Schmitz, previous to his election, was employed as a musi-
cian in a San Francisco theater. His connection with organized
labor came through membership in the Musicians' Union. He had
no intention of aspiring to the Mayor's chair until Ruef suggested
it to him.
2 The San Fi-ancisco labor strike of 1901 arose out of the refusal
of the organized teamsters to deliver goods to a non-union express
agency. The Employers' Association refused to treat with the
men collectively. Other organizations went out in sympathy.
James D. Phelan, who was then Mayor, was the intermediary
between the teamsters and their employees. He advocated recog-
nition. The negotiations failed. During the progress of the strike
12 The Union Labor Party Movement
but in 1903 when Schmitz was a candidate for re-elec-
tion.
On the other hand, the new party had in the begin-
ning the support of the Coast Seamen's Journal, pub-
lished at San Francisco, and one of the most influential
labor publications on the Pacific Coast. It had, too, the
advocacy of several earnest Labor leaders.
Very frankly, such leaders questioned the ultimate
consequences of the movement, expressing fears which
time was to justify. But to them the situation offered
no alternative. Their support and influence went to the
new party as an expedient of the times, not as the be-
ginning of a permanent poHtical organization.
But the movement, once started, got beyond their
control. During the first five years of Union-Labor
party activities in San Francisco many of these original
supporters were forced, first into silence and finally into
there were constant disturbances. A steamship company, for ex-
ample, employed prizefighters in the guise of workingmen to seek
positions as strikebreakers, and when interfered with to belabor
the pickets. Assaults were made upon non-union teamsters car-
rying supplies to and from railway stations. The Chief of Police,
in order to preserve peaceful trafRc, placed two policemen upon
each truck. Labor leaders asked not only that the police be with-
drawn from the trucks, but from the waterfront. This action the
Mayor refused to take, on the ground that it was his duty to pre-
serve public order, and that it was in the interest of all to avert
rather than suppress trouble. A meeting of representatives of the
several factions was held at the Mayor's office, September 23, 1901.
The story was circulated that the Mayor had said at the meeting
that if the v>^orkmen did not want to be clubbed let them go to
■work. Both sides now admit the stateinent was not made. Joseph
S. Tobin, Henry U. Erandenstein, Lawrence J. Dwyer and Peter
J. Curtis, who were present, have set forth in affidavit that "Mayor
Phelan did not say at said conference, as has been alleged, refer-
ring to the workingmen's strike, that 'if they don't want to be
clubbed let them go to work,' nor did he inake any statement of
like import." At the time, however, feeling was running so high
at San Francisco that the most extravagant stories were believed.
Opponents of the administration — those representing capital as well
as those advocating recognition of the unions — seized upon every
opportunity to discredit. Crafty adventurers of the type of Abe
Ruef lost no chance to work distrust and confusion. Out of the
turmoil came the Union Labor party.
The Union Labor Party Movement 13
open repudiation of the methods of the Union-Labor
party administration.
In the meantime, members of the McCarthy faction,
which had resisted the organization of the party, and
had opposed it at the 1901 and 1903 elections, became
its strong partisans. This element supported the party
ticket at the 1905 election; and in 1907, and again in
1909, when McCarthy was himself the Union-Labor
party candidate for Mayor.
But the Union-Labor party ticket which McCarthy
headed did not have the united support of labor leaders
who had organized the movement. Indeed, labor leaders
whom the McCarthy faction in 1901 called ''scabs" for
organizing the Union-Labor party, were, by the same
men who had condemned them in 1901, denounced as
"scabs" during the 1909 campaign for not supporting
the Union-Labor party candidates.
From the beginning, the Union-Labor party had the
support of elements outside the labor-union movement.
Much of this support came from citizens who, regard-
less of their attitude on trade-unionism, were dissatisfied
with the old parties. The situation offered exceptional
opportunity for the political manipulator. But the one
man with the political vision to see the possibilities of
the third-party movement, was not a member of a labor
union. He was a lawyer who had already attained some
prominence in San Francisco politics — Abraham Ruef.^
3 Ruef graduated from the University of California and from
the University of California law school with exceptional honors.
He was at twenty-one a practicing attorney. With Franklin K.
14 The Union Labor Party Movement
Ruef was quick to see the potentialities of the politi-
cal Frankenstein which groping labor leaders had
brought into being. He knew that they could not con-
trol their creation ; he knew that he could. He did not
overestimate his powers. He managed the new party's
1901 campaign.* Under his direction, success was won
for a cause that had been deemed hopeless. The genius
of Abraham Ruef made Eugene E. Schmitz Mayor of
San Francisco.^
Lane, the present Secretary of the Interior, Dean John H. Wig-
more of the Northwestern University, and others, he organized a
club for civic reform. His first political convention, he tells us in
his Confessions, showed him that representative government was
a farce. He resolved to devote himself to his law practice. But
almost immediately we find him an "errand boy" for Martin Kelly
and Phil Crimmins, powerful "bosses" in their day, but now prac-
tically forgotten. Ruef continued with Kelly and Crimmins for
ten years. He drifted with the machine, securing excellent train-
ing for his future career. His opportunity came in 1901, when, in
its effort to throw off the 3'oke of the bosses, the State secured
the enactment of a new primary law. Under this law Ruef took
his first step to secure control of the State political machine. He
seized upon the new law as a vehicle to organize a "reform"
movement. His organization took the name Republican Primary
League. He secured a large following. He was becoming power-
ful. He tells us in his Confessions that during this period he
was invited to dine at the homes of men of political and social
importance, among them William F. Herrin, chief counsel of the
Southern Pacific Company, and Patrick Calhoun, president of the
United Railroads. But as yet, Ruef had little real influence in the
"organization." Then came the labor imrest, and the Union Labor
party movement. Ruef managed to combine the Republican Pri-
mary League with the Union Labor party movement. This com-
bination was the basis of his campaign for the election of Schmitz.
4 Ruef also provided much of the funds employed in the first
Schmitz campaign. In a statement published May 16, 1907, Ruef
said: "When Schmitz first ran for Mayor I made his campaign
for him, and put up $16,000. My friends told me I was a fool.
I guess I was."
5 Out of the 52,168 votes cast for Mayor, at the 1901 election,
Schmitz received 21,776. His opponents — Wells (Republican) and
Tobin (Democrat) — divided 30,392 between them, Wells receiving
17,718 and Tobin 12,674. Up to the present time (1914) the Union-
Labor party has four times been successful in San Francisco
mayoralty elections. But only once, in 1905, has its candidate been
elected by majority vote. Changes in the San Francisco Charter,
ratified at the 1911 session of the State Legislature, place the elec-
tion of municipal officials on a non-partisan basis, and prevent elec-
tion by plurality vote. Henceforth all officials must be elected by
majority vote.
The Union Labor Party Movement 15
In practical acknowledgment of Ruef s services,
Schmitz issued an open letter, in which he stated him-
self privileged to consider Ruef his friendly counsellor.®
The issuance of that letter made Ruef the recognized
political representative of the Union-Labor party ad-
ministration, a position which he held until the estrange-
ment of himself and Schmitz under the strain of the
graft prosecution.'^
6 Schmitz's letter announcing his obligation to Ruef was as fol-
lows:
"My Deal' Ruef: Now that the election is over and I am to be
the Mayor of our native city, I wish to express to you and through
you to all your loyal friends and the faithful Republicans who sup-
ported my cause, my profound appreciation of the generous, whole-
souled, substantial and effective support accorded me in the exciting
campaign which has just closed. Viewed from your prominent
position in the Republican party, I know the seriousness of the step
which you took when you voluntarily and unconditionally offered
me your valuable aid, and I cannot in words properly give utter-
ance to my deep feeling in this regard. I can only say that your
action is worthy of yourself, and that no higher praise can be ac-
corded you.
"I have now for some fifteen years enjoyed your acquaintance
and friendship and your services as my attorney in many capaci-
ties, and I say without hesitation or flattery that I have yet to find
a more honorable, a more loyal, a more able attorney, or a truer
friend.
"I feel that I owe a great deal of my success in this campaign
to you and your friends, and I shall not permit myself at any time
to forget it.
"Though you have never asked or even suggested it, I shall, with
the utmost confidence and with a sentiment of absolute security,
feel myself privileged at all times to consider you as my friendly
counsellor and to call upon you whenever I may require assistance
in the solution of any of the perplexing and complicated questions
which must necessarily arise in the conduct of so vast and im-
portant an office.
"I trust that you will not hesitate to say that I may do so.
Again and again thanking you and your friends, I am,
"Very sincerely yours,
"E. E. SCHMITZ."
7 Ruef at once availed himself of the opportunities which his
position offered. He accepted regular "retainers" from public-serv-
ice corporations. He testified before the Grand Jury that he was
employed by the United Railroads through Tirey L. Ford, just after
the first election of Schmitz, at $500 per month, and that he gave
receipts to Ford for this money, during Schmitz's first term of
office, but received the money always in Ford's office in currency;
but that after the second election of Schmitz, he (Ruef) refused
to give any more receipts for this money, although he continued
to receive it from Ford the same as before with receipts, and that
i6 The Union Labor Party Movement
But the government of San Francisco did not pass
entirely under control of the Union-Labor party until
four years after Schmitz's elevation to the Mayoralty.
During the era of Union-Labor party power in San
Francisco, the Mayor and the eighteen members of the
Board of Supervisors were elected every two years. ^
Schmitz, under Ruef's management, was re-elected in
1903. But the Union-Labor party failed at that elec-
after the third election liis salary was increased to $1,000 per month,
which was paid in the same way by Ford without any receipts.
Ruef further testified that he was employed by the Pacific States
Telephone and Telegraph Company, immediately after Schmitz's
first election, through T. V. Halsey, and that Halsey paid him
$1,200 per month in currency without any receipt.
E. S. Pillsbury, general counsel of the Pacific States Telephone
and Telegraph Company, testified that he never heard of Ruef's
employment until after the indictments were returned against Hal-
sey, and that he, Pillsbury, attended to all of the legal business of
the company during the entire time Ruef was under employment.
Pillsbury received only $1,000 per month for his own services, and
testified that he would have objected to the payment to Ruef of a
larger salary than he was getting.
Pillsbury was a stockholder to the amount of $500,000 in his
own right, and was a member of the executive committee of the
board of directors of the company.
At the trial of The People vs. Tirey L. Ford, No. 817, I. W. Hell-
man, one of the most prominent of California bankers and at one
time a director of the United Railroads, testified: "Some five years
ago (the Ford trial was in 1907, which would make the date about
1902) Mr. Holland, who was then the president of the United Rail-
ways, came to me to ask my advice whether Mr. Ruef should be
employed as an attorney for the United Railwaj-^s, stating that by
employing him peace could be secured with the labor unions, that
he had great influence with them, and there would be general
peace, and it was to the benefit of the railways company to have
such peace. Mr. Ruef then was an attorney of high repute, recog-
nized as a good lawyer, and I said if that could be accomplished
it would be for the benefit of the railway company as well as for
the public, and I advised yes. Whether he has been employed or
not I do not know, because I afterward sold my interest in the
company and I never have inquired whether he had been employed
or not."
In this connection, it is interesting to note that Ruef in his
latest confession, the publication of which was begun in the San
Francisco Bulletin in May, 1912, states that his employment by
corporations as attorney did not begin until after the second
Schmitz election — that is to say, in 1903. Hellman's testimony
would indicate that his employment by the United Railroads dates
from 1902. Compare with footnote 77, page 74.
8 Under amendments to the San Francisco Charter, ratified by
the Legislature of 1911, the Mayor and Supervisors are now
elected" to four-year terms.
The Union Labor Party Movement , 17
lion, as it had in 1901, to elect a majority of the Board
of Supervisors. Many of the commissions, on the other
hand, through appointments by the mayor, had, by 1903,
passed completely under Union-Labor party control.
Gradually, the opinion grew in San Francisco that
the management of the departments was unsatisfactory,
if not corrupt. This opinion, in 1905, when Schmitz
was for a third time the Union-Labor party candidate
for Mayor, found expression in fusion of the Republican
and Democratic parties to bring about the defeat of the
Union-Labor party nominees.
This fusion was in the name of municipal reform.
The organizers of the movement were in the main op-
posed to machine political methods. When, however,
the movement gave evidence of vitality and strength,
the political agents of public service corporations be-
came identified with its leadership.^ The new leaders
were soon in practical control. Public-service corpora-
tions were largely instrumental in financing the move-
ment. Testimony was brought out before the Grand
Jury which conducted the graft investigations, that
nearly every public-service corporation in San Francisco
9 George P. Hatton. Southern Pacific lobbyist and politician,
and political manager for United States Senator George C. Perkins,
was one of the principal leaders of the 1905 "reform" movement.
He was at one time retained as an attorney by the Empire Con-
struction Company, affiliated with the Home Telephone Company,
which was seeking a franchise to establish a telephone system in
San Francisco in competition with the Pacific States Telephone
and Telegraph Company. The Home Telephone Company contrib-
uted to the "reform" campaign fund. Through the "reform" Board
of Supervisors, who were to be elected, and whose campaign was
thus financed, the Home Company was to get its franchise. But
the "reform" candidates were defeated, the Schmitz-Ruef Union-
Labor party candidates were elected. The Home Telephone Com-
pany thereupon proceeded to secure its franchise by employing
Ruef.
i8 . The Union Labor Party Movement
contributed to the fusion fund, the average of the con-
tributions being $2,500 for each corporation/^
On the other hand, the pubHc-service corporations
contributed Hberallv toward the election of the Ruef-
backed, Union-Labor party candidates. ^^ Ruef was
ah"eady on the pay-roll of the law departments of many
of them. Thus, generally speaking, it made little dif-
ference to the corporations whether the ''reform" fusion
candidates or the Ruef Union-Labor party candidates
were elected. The corporations had captained each
side, and in a large measure had financed each side.
The inevitable difficulties of a campaign, financed
and officered by public-service corporations, to correct
municipal ills for which the corporations were in
large measure responsible, were encovmtered from the
beginning. For the head of the reform or fusion ticket,
men who had been prominent in the organization of the
anti-Ruef crusade were suggested, only to be rejected
by the corporation allies who had after the reform
10 William Thomas, of the law firm of Thomas, Gerstle & Frick,
attorneys for the Home Telephone Company, testified before the
Grand Jury that his company had contributed $8,000 to the "re-
form" campaign fund. The testimony indicated that this money
was used at the primaries. Louis Sloss, one of the leaders of the
"reform" movement, testified that after the primaries, Detweiler,
who was at the head of the Home Telephone Company enterprise,
sent his personal check for $800 additional. Fairfax H. Wheelan,
one of the leaders of the "reform" movement, testified before the
Grand Jury that the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Com-
pany, in the name of T. V. Halsey, subscribed $2,000 to the fund;
and the United Railroads, concealing its identity under the name
"Cash," $2,000 more.
11 Dr. Charles Boxton was one of the Union-Labor party Super-
visors elected in 1905. At the second trial of Louis Glass, vice-
president of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company,
for bribery, Boxton testified that during the campaign, T. V. Hal-
sey, political agent for the company, met him on the street and
gave him a sealed envelope, saying: "If that will be of any use
to you use it."
Boxton found the envelope to contain $1,000 in United States
currency.
The Union Labor Party Movement 19
group's preliminary successes become identified with the
movement.
Finally, after several names had been canvassed, John
S. Partridge, an attorney of good ability and repute,
but scarcely known outside the immediate circle in
which he moved, was agreed upon as Mr. Schmitz's
opponent. Both the Democrat and the Republican party
nominated Mr. Partridge, and with him a complete
fusion ticket, including supervisors.
Partridge had a clear field against Schmitz, but his
candidacy failed to carry the confidence, or to awake
the enthusiasm which brings success at the polls.
The Union-Labor administration w^as openly de-
nounced as corrupt. Francis J. Heney/- fresh from
his success in prosecuting the Oregon land fraud cases,
went so far as to declare in a speech before one of the
largest political gatherings ever assembled in San Fran-
cisco that he knew Ruef to be corrupt," and, given
opportunity, could prove it.
12 Francis J. Heney when five years old went to San Francisco
with his parents. He was educated at the public schools of that
city, the University of California, and Hastings Lav.' School. After
being admitted to practice he lived for a time in Arizona, where
he served as Attorney-General. On his return to San Francisco
in 1895, he confined himself to civil practice until, at the sohcita-
tion of United States Attorney-General Knox, he undertook the
prosecution of the Oregon Land Fraud cases. He was at the close
of successful pi'osecution of these cases, when invited by Rudolph
Spreckels, Phelan and others, to participate in the prosecution of
the San Francisco graft cases.
13 Heney's statement was prophetic. The published account of
his speech (see Chronicle, November 6, 1905) was as follows:
"If I had control of the District Attorney's office, I would indict
Abe Ruef for felony and send him to the penitentiary, where he
belongs, for I have personal knowledge that he is corrupt.
"If you elect these people, the graft of this city will become so
great that the citizens of San Francisco will ask me to come back
and prosecute him. When the time comes I will do as the people
request as a matter of civic duty."
Heney's charge brought caustic reply from Ruef. In an open
letter to Heney, published November 7, 1905, Ruef said:
"Francis J. Heney: — In the published reports of your speech at
20 The Union Labor Party Movement
The public generally believed Heney's charges to be
justified. But of approximately 98,000 registered voters
only 68,878 voted for Mayor, and of these, 40,191 voted
for Schmitz. Partridge received only 28,687 ^* votes,
being defeated by a majority of 11,504.
Mechanics Pa\'ilion last Saturday night you are represented as
saying: 'I say to you, moreover, that I personally know that Abra-
ham Ruef is corrupt, and I say to you that whenever he wants
me to prove it in court I will do so.'
"I am not a candidate for office, but as a man I do not propose
to leave your false statement undenied.
"In the past I have paid little attention to anything said by
hostile papers concerning myself, feeling that the public fully un-
derstood the despicable motives underlying the utterances of their
proprietors. In your case a different situation presents itself. You
have recently acquired considerable repute as a prosecuting attor-
ney for the United States Government. Your statements, if un-
challenged, may be given some credence by those not familiar with
the true condition of affairs.
"In making the statement that you personally know that I am
corrupt 3'ou lied. You cannot personally know that which does
not exist.
"In making the statement at a time and place which allowed
no opportunity for a legal showing before the date of the election
which you seek to influence, you showed the same courage which
put a bullet into the body of Dr. J. C. Handy of Tucson, Ariz., in
1891, for whose killing you were indicted for murder, and upon
trial were acquitted because you were the only witness to the deed.
"You say whenever I want you to prove it in court you will
do so.
"I want you to try to prove it, and at once. I demand that
you begin at once. I know you cannot prove what does not exist.
"Why you should wait upon my desire, why you should depend
upon my wish to proceed with the performance of what must be
to every good citizen a public duty, I do not know.
"But as you declare that you will proceed only with my con-
sent, I give you here and now full consent and authority to pro-
ceed, and I go further and ask that you do so.
"I regret that your recent identification with the Citizens' Alli-
ance and with the corporations anxious to encompass the defeat
of a candidate in a political campaign should have made you so
far forget the regard for truth, justice and decency which should
characterize men in our profession, as to have induced you to
take the chance of ruining for life the reputation and standing of
one who is not rightfully amenable to your charge, and who has
not otherwise heretofore given you the slightest private or personal
provocation for your savage and mendacious attack.
"A. RUEF.
"San Francisco, November 6th."
14 To hold that only 28,687 electors of San Francisco wished
a change in the administration of San Francisco would be unjust.
Many who were opposed to Ruef's domination remained away from
the polls, through dissatisfaction with the management of the fusion
movement. Of the more than 40,000 who voted for the Union Labor
ticket, were thousands of union men who were opposed to the
The Union Labor Party Movement 21
Not only was Schmitz re-elected by overwhelming
majority, but the entire Ruef-selected Union-Labor
party ticket was elected with him.
Ruef, as Mayor Schmitz's recognized political ad-
viser, and political agent for the Union-Labor party,
found himself in control of every branch and depart-
ment of the San Francisco municipal government.
Schmitz-Ruef element. But Ruef cleverly Injected the Citizens'
Alliance issue, and the organized labor element was, because of
this, made to vote practically solidly for the Ruef-selected candi-
dates. The fact that voting- machines were used in every precinct
in San Francisco for the first time contributed to this. Members
of labor unions did not understand the working of the machines,
and were afraid to attempt to vote anything but the straight ticket.
This dissatisfied organized labor element, two years later, con-
tributed in no small degree to the election of Mayor E. R. Taylor
and the re-election of District Attorney William H. Langdon, there-
by making possible continuation until 1910 of the graft prosecution.
CHAPTER II.
The Ruef Board of Supervisors.
No observer of San Francisco politics, not even
Ruef himself, had expected the entire Union-Labor
party ticket to be elected. The election of the Super-
visors was the greatest surprise of all. Ruef, with his
political intimates, had selected the Supervisorial can-
didates, but more with a view to hold the organized
labor vote for Schm.itz than with idea of the fitness of
the candidates for the duties involved in managing the
affairs of a mamicipality of 500,000 population. ^^ Not
one of the eighteen elected was a man of strong char-
acter.^® Several were of fair, but by no means excep-
15 At Ruef s trial for offering a bribe to Supervisor Furey,
Supervisor James L. Gallagher testified tliat conferences for selecting
the Union Labor party ticket, from Sheriff down, were held at
Ruef's office. Gallagher testified of one of these conferences:
"The matter of the nominees for Supervisors was mentioned,
and all that I recollect about it is that it was stated that there
should be a good representation of prominent Union-Labor men on
the ticket, and Mr. Ruef stated that he had that in mind, and that
that would be done, and it was also stated that the members on
the Board of Supervisors that were Union-Labor adherents should
be nominated." See The People vs. Abraham Ruef, No. 1437 —
Transcript on Appeal, Part 3, Vol. 3, page 1278.
16 The eighteen members of the Ruef-Schmitz Board of Super-
visors were James L. Gallagher, attorney at law; Cornelius J. Har-
rigan, grocer; James T. Kelly, piano polisher; Thomas F. Loner-
gan. driver of a bokery delivery wagon; Max Mamlock, electrician;
P. M. McGushin, saloonkeeper; F. P. Nicholas, carpenter; Jennings
J. Phillips, employed in newspaper circulation department; L. A.
Rea, painter; W. W. Sanderson, employed in grocery store; E]. I.
Walsh, shoemaker; Andrew M. Wilson, employing drayman; George
Duffey, contracting plumber; Charles Boxton, dentist; M. W. Coffey,
hackman; Daniel G. Coleman, clerk; Sam Davis, orchestra musician;
John J. F\irey. blacksmith and saloonkeeper.
At the time the gra.ft prosecution opened, Wilson had resigned
his position as Supervisor to take up his work as State Railroad
Commissioner, an office to which he was elected in 1906; and Duffey
to be president of the Municipal Commission of Public Works, to
which office he was appointed by Mayor Schmltz.
The Ruef Board of Supervisors 23
tional ability. Of this type were Gallagher, an attorney
of some prominence who acted as go-between between
Ruef and the Supervisors ; Wilson, who was a sort of
second man to Gallagher, and Boxton, a dentist.
But for the most part they were men who had led
uneventful lives as drivers of delivery wagons, bartend-
ers and clerks. Without an exception, they saw in their
unexpected elevation to the Board of Supervisors op-
portunity to better their condition. Some of them
would not, perhaps, have sought bribes; few of them
knew just how they could employ their office to their best
advantasre ; but from the hour of their election the idea
of personal advancement was uppermost in the minds of
the majority of the members of the Schmitz-Ruef Board
of Supervisors.^^ Their Ignorance of the requirements
of their office, their failure to appreciate their large
responsibilities, and above all their ill-defined ambitions
made them promise of easy prey for the agents of the
public-service corporations, who were playing for spe-
cial privileges worth millions.
17 Supervisor E. I. Walsh in a sworn statement made to Heney,
March 8, 1907, testified:
"Q. And what was agreed upon there (in caucus) as to pro-
gramme? A. I couldn't say what was agreed upon with them.
"Q. Wasn't it arranged that every man should be treated alike
as to money? A. It wasn't openly suggested that Vv^ay; it might
have been said among the members that way.
"Q. That was the understanding you had. A. Yes, sir.
"Q. That you would be all treated equally and fairly? A. I
presume that was the way it was understood."
Supervisor Lonergan had been promised by Supervisor Wilson
$8000 for voting to give the United Railroads a permit to operate
its lines under the trolley system. At a second meeting Wilson
stated the amount would be ?4000 only. Of the scene on this occa-
sion, Lonergan testified at the trial in the case of the People vs.
Ford, No. 817:
"Q. What did he (Wilson) say on that occasion? A. There
was only $4000 in it for me.
"Q. What did you say. A. I asked him what the hell kind of
work that was and what did he mean by it. And he shook his head
and said that if I didn't like it, all right; something to that effect."
24 The Ruef Board of Supervisors
None realized this better than Ruef. From the be-
ginning, he recognized that the likeHhood of individual
members of the board yielding to temptation to petty
gain ^^ threatened his own larger purposes. He let it
be known that he would himself personally prosecute
any one of them whom he discovered to be ''grafting."
Ruef was emphatic in his position that the Supervisors
should have no financial dealings with those seeking
special-privilege advantages. He even defined regular
procedure for dealing with persons and corporations
that might elect to catch the easiest way to accomplish
their purposes by the use of bribe money. To this end
he arranged :
(1) That Supervisor James L. Gallagher ^^ should
represent him on the board. The Supervisors at once
18 Evidence of Ruef s distrust of his Supervisors was brought
out at many points in the graft trials. When he discovered that
individual Supervisors were, without his knowledge, taking bribes
from the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company, he
stated to Dr. Joseph S. Poheim:
"I see they have been trying to take my Supervisors away from
me, but I have fixed them; I would like to see one of them throw
me down." (See Transcript, People vs. Ruef, 1437, Part 3, Vol. 9,
p. 4018.) In the midst of the troubles brought upon him by the
graft prosecution, Ruef complained that "These fellows (the Super-
visors) would eat the paint off a house, and in order to hold them
together I had to descend to their level and take them in with me."
Ruef was also jealous of Schmitz's activity. When he learned
that Schmitz had promised franchises independent of him. he di-
rected Supervisor W^ilson to oppose them. "Butt in on this Parkside
business," he said to Wilson. "Mr. Schmitz has promised the Ocean
Shore and the Parkside; he is destroying my political influence;
these people ought to be made to come and see me."
19 Gallagher was by far the ablest mem/oer of the Ruef- Schmitz
Board of Supervisors. He was by profession an attorney at law.
In that capacity he had served first as Assistant City Attorney, and
finally as City Attorney. For a time he was law partner with Hon.
James G. Maguire, whose opposition, as member of Congress from
California, to the Pacific railroads refunding measures, won him a
national reputation. Maguire was candidate for Governor on the
Democratic ticket in 1898, but was defeated. Gallagher had served
as Supervisor previous to his election in 1905, and was one of the
most experienced members of the Schmitz-Ruef board.
At Ruef's trial on the charge of offering a bribe to Supervisor
Furej', Gallagher testified that soon after his election in 1905, Ruef
The Ruef Board of Supervisors 25
accepted Gallagher, and dealt with him as Ruef's rec-
ognized agent.
(2) Finally Ruef arranged for a regular weekly
caucus ^° to be held each Sunday night, on the eve of
the regular meeting day of the board, Monday.
The public was not admitted to these caucuses.
Those who were admitted were Ruef, Mayor Schmitz,
George B. Keane,^^ clerk of the Board of Supervisors,
who also acted as secretary of the caucus, and the
eighteen Supervisors.
At these meetings, which were held every Sunday
evening, Ruef was the dominating figure. Supervisor
told him there would be a number of matters coming before the
Board of Supervisors in which the corporations and other large
concerns would be interested; that there would be a number of large
deals coming before the board in which he wanted him (Gallagher)
to represent him on the board. Gallagher accepted the agency.
20 Gallagher testified before the Oliver Grand Jury of the nature
of these caucuses. From his testimony the following is taken:
"Q. They (the Supervisors) voted in the caucus and you knew
how the vote would be. A. Yes, sir.
"Q. And they would be bound by the caucus vote. A. That
was understood that a man would vote at the caucus in the way
he would vote at the meeting.
"Q. You were understood to represent Mr. Ruef and Mr. Ruef's
views. A. That was generally understood by members of the
board.
"Q. And whatever way you went meant programme. A. I
believe Mr. Ruef told a number of them so, and that circulated
among the othei's; it was generally understood by them."
21 Keane's lasting loyalty to Ruef makes him one of the most
interesting characters of the graft cases. He entered Ruef's employ
in 1898 as a law clerk. He remained in Ruef's office until January,
1902, when Mayor Schmitz took office. Keane was then made sec-
retary to the Mayor. He served in that capacity until January,
1906, when Ruef gained control of the Board of Supervisors. Ruef
then made him clerk of the board. At Ruef's trial for offering a
bribe to Supei'visor Furey, Gallagher testified that Ruef told him
that Keane should be clerk. Gallagher notified the other members
of Ruef's decision, and that closed the incident. Keane was, how-
ever, much more than a mere clerk. Supervisor Wilson testified
at the Ruef trial for offering a bribe to Furey, that he (Wilson)
owed his nomination to Keane. Keane was elected to the State
Senate where his loyalty to Ruef in foul as well as fair weather
made him a conspicuous and somewhat notorious character. At
present writing, Keane is foremost in the movement to bring about
Ruef's release from State prison.
26 The Ruef Board of Supervisors
Wilson, testifying at the graft trials, stated that Ruef
took the position of "chief counsel and adviser for the
board in matters that were to come before the board."
Keane, as secretary of the caucus, took full notes ^^
§
of the proceedings and sent written notices ^^ of the
meetings to each of those who were admitted.
The first of these caucuses was held shortly before
the Schmitz-Ruef board took office. The organization of
the board was provided by the Supervisors authorizing
Ruef and Schmitz to make up the committees. Ruef
undertook the task. He prepared the committee lists,
and submitted his selections to Schmitz and Gallagher.
Schmitz and Gallagher suggested unimportant changes.
The committees were then announced to the Super-
visors at the next caucus. There wxre objections raised,
but these objections, with one exception, were denied in
all important particulars. The organization of the
Schmitz-Ruef Board of Supervisors was thus perfected.
Ruef's way seemed clear. The committee organ-
ization of the Board of Supervisors was his own. The
Supervisors were to hold no open meeting until they
had met with him in secret caucus to ascertain his
22 At Ruef's trial on the charge of offering- a bribe to Super-
visor Furey, Keane testified that these notes had been destroyed
in the great fire of April 18-19-20, 1906. Keane testified further
that Ruef was a constant attendant at the caucuses; that Schmitz
was an occasional visitor; that Super\asor Gallagher presided.
23 Notices of the caucus meetings were sent to Ruef precisely
as though he had been a member of the Board of Supervisors. At
Ruef's trial for offering a bribe to Supervisor Furey, the following
letter of notification was introduced as evidence:
"San Francisco, June 21st, 1906.
"Hon. A. Ruef, San Francisco — Dear Sir: I respectfully beg
leave to notify you that the Board of Supervisors will meet in
caucus on Sundaj^ evening, June 24th, at 8 o'clock p. m., at Hamil-
ton Hall, Steiner street, near Geary. Your attendance is respect-
fully requested.
"Yours truly, GEORGE B. KEANE, Clerk."
The Ruef Board of Supervisors 27
wishes. The official clerk of the board, who was also
secretary of the caucus, was his tried henchman. Gal-
lagher, the ablest of the Supervisors, flattered at being
made his representative, and further bound by mer-
cenary ties, was ready to do his slightest bidding. And
never had entrenched boss more fruitful field for ex-
ploitation.
But scarcely had the new administration been in-
stalled, than a weak point developed in Ruef's position.
District Attorney William H. Langdon, who had been
elected on the Ruef ticket, gave evidence that he pro-
posed to enforce the law, regardless of the effect upon
the administration of which he was a part, or upon
Ruef's plans and interests.
The first intimation the public had of Langdon's
independent attitude came when gambling games in
which Ruef was popularly supposed to be interested
were raided under the personal direction of the District
Attorney. Langdon had first attempted to close the
places through the police department. Failing, he had
attended to the matter himself.^* The gamblers ap-
24 The San Francisco Chronicle in its issue of March 8, 1906,
said of the District Attorney's raids on the gamblers:
"The political push and the underworld generally are astonished
at District Attorney Langdon's unexpected outbreak. He has
descended upon them like a thunderbolt out of a clear sky. For the
moment even wrath is less in evidence than surprise. It was not
expected. It is not what was paid for. It is like being murdered
b5^ one's dearest friend. There is a complete reversal of the usual
experience of mankind. In most cities the lid is on and weighed
down before election but lifted and thrown away as soon as the
votes are counted. To be allowed to run wide open before election
and to be closed down and nailed up as soon as the new official is
fairly seated is outside of all precedent. And all that after the most
liberal contributions. There is a feeling in criminal circles that
somebody is guilty of obtaining money under false pretenses. The
District Attorney is the one official for whose friendship the law-
breakers have the most earnest longings, and behind their closed
doors the idle gamblers are trying to figure out what 'lay' this
28 The Ruef Board of Supervisors
pealed to Ruef, but Ruef was helpless. Langdon would
not be turned from his purpose. The gamblers and
capitalists interested in gambling establishments charged
Langdon with political ingratitude.
But those who were laboring for the development,
and were opposing the exploitation of San Francisco,
saw in Langdon's course the first sign that Abraham
Ruef was not to have undisputed sway in San Fran-
cisco.^^ With Langdon in the District Attorney's ofhce
it was still possible that the laws could be enforced —
even against Abraham Ruef. The raiding of the gam-
bling dens marked the beginning of the division in San
dreadful Langdon is really on. and by what trade he has been in-
duced to ignore all the promises expressed or implied, which those
assumed to be able to speak for him dispersed so freely when votes
were in demand.
"As for the public, it was for none of these things. Among the
decent portion of society the 'motives' of the District Attorney do
not arouse even passing curiosity. V^''hat does interest them is
the present vigor of his work, and the probability of his keeping
it up."
25 Ruef had consented to Langdon's nomination for District At-
torney, because he considered that Langdon's intimate acquaint-
ance with the teachers and pupils of the San Francisco public
schools would help the ticket. For the three years preceding the
campaign Langdon had been Superintendent of Schools at San
Francisco. Ruef told Langdon after the election that he had no
idea that any one other tlian Schmitz could be elected on the
Union-Labor party ticket that year. When during the campaign
Langdon began to develop strength in the contest for District At-
torney, Ruef sent him a check for $200 for "campaign expenses,"
saying that the money had been contributed by Tirey L. Ford of
the United Railroads. Langdon returned the check to Ruef with
the statement that he preferred to pay his own campaign ex-
penses. During the campaign at every meeting he addressed,
Langdon made the statement: "The laws are on the statute
books; all may know them. I pledge myself to the enforcement
of these laws." To be sure, few if any paid much attention to
what Langdon meant, but that was no fault of Langdon's. Every-
body was to learn from the hour that he assumed the duties of
his office that he meant just what he said. Rudolph Spreckels
testified at the Calhoun trial that when Langdon's raids on the
gambling dens were made public he felt that "we had a District
Attorney who was desirous of doing his duty." The raids were
made in February, 1906. Spreckels, Heney, Phelan, Older and
others were already considering plans for the exposure and check
of the reign of Ruef.
The Ruef Board of Supervisors 29
Francisco, with those who approached the Ruef admin-
istration with bribe money on the one side, and those
who resisted with the check of law enforcement on
the other.
CHAPTER III.
The San Francisco Ruef Ruled.
The decade ending 1910 was for California an era
of extraordinary enterprise and development. A third
transcontinental railroad, the Western Pacific, was com-
pleted ; vast land-holdings as large as 40,000 acres in a
body were cut up into sm.all tracts and sold to settlers;
waters brought to the land by vast irrigation enter-
prises increased the land's productiveness three and even
ten fold ; petroleum fields, enormously rich, were opened
up and developed ; the utilization of the falling waters
of mountain streams to generate electric power, brought
cheap light and povver and heat to farm as well as to
city factory. The Spanish war had brought thousands
of troops to the coast. Practically all of them passed
through San Francisco. This particular activity had its
influence on local conditions. The State's population
increased from 1,485,053 in 1900 to 2,377,549 in 1910.
Up to the tim.e of the San Francisco fire, April 18,
1906, San Francisco, of the cities of the State, profited
most by this development. San Francisco bank clear-
ances, for example, increased from $1,029,582,594.78 for
the year ending December 31, 1900, to $1,834,549,788.51
for the year ending December 31, 1905, a gain of 80
per cent.
San Francisco's increase in population during those
five years, can, of course, only be estimated. On the
The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 31
basis of the registration for the 1905 municipal election,
approximately 98,000, San Francisco had, at the time
of the 1906 disaster, a population of about 500,000, an
increase from the population of 342,782 shown by the
1900 census of practically 50 per cent, in five years.^^
The rapid increase in population, the sustained pros-
perity of the community, and its prospective develop-
ment made San Francisco one of the most promising
fields for investment in the country.
The public service corporations were quick to take
advantage of the San Francisco opportunity. Those
corporations already established sought to strengthen
their position ; new corporations strove for foothold in
the promising field. Thus, we find the Home Telephone
Company, financed by Ohio and Southern California
capitalists, seeking a franchise to operate a telephone
system in opposition to the Pacific States Telephone and
Telegraph Company, which was already established.
And we find the Pacific States Company taking active
part in municipal politics to prevent the Home fran-
chise or any other opposition telephone franchise being
granted. The corporation holding the light and power
monopoly, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, had
by the time of the third Schmitz inaugural, practical
control of the San Francisco field. But it was face to
face with a clamor for reduction of gas rates. The
company was charging one dollar a thousand for gas.
The Union-Labor party platform of 1905 pledged the
26 Patrick Calhoun, in a letter to the press, dated March 21,
1906 — less than a month before the great fire — stated that the time
was near when the San Francisco street-car system would have
to serve a million people. The 1910 census, taken four years after
the fire, gave San Francisco a population of 416,912.
32 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled
Board of Supervisors to a seventy-five-cents-per-thou-
sand rate.
Another matter of tremendous importance to the
growing municipaHty was that of the supply of water.
The Spring Valley Water Company had a monopoly
of this necessity, but demand for municipal water to
be brought from the Sierras was strong. A committee
of experts had been appointed to pass upon the various
sources of supply. Ruef appeared before them as
spokesman for the Supervisors. The experts resigned
when it was made clear to them that instead of being
permitted to make an adequate study of all available
sources of supply they were to report upon the Bay
Cities project alone. ^^ After the ousting of the Schmitz-
Ruef administration the Bay Cities project was ignored
and bonds authorized to bring water from Hetch-
Hetchy valley. The Spring Valley Water Company,
however, has been successful in blocking this project,
and in 1914, San Francisco seems almost as far away
from realizing her ambition for a supply of pure water
as in 1905-6 when Ruef and his followers were at the
height of their power.
The public-service problem which was attracting the
most attention at the time of the great fire, was that of
street-car transportation. The principal lines had passed
into the hands of the United Railroads."^ The corporation
27 Ruef testified before the Grand Jury that the water deal
would have been the most important pulled off by the Board of
Supervisors. He testified that he had told Gallagher to tell the
members of the Board there would be more money in it than had
been received in any other deal. Ruef gave Gallagher to under-
stand that the amount to be divided would be as much as $1,000,000.
28 The United Railroads was controlled by Eastern capital. Be-
fore the entrance of the United Railroads into the San Francisco
field, California capital had dominated in purely local public utilities.
The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 33
had, at the time of Schmitz's election in 1905, practically
a monopoh' of the San Francisco street-car service.
The company's principal lines were operated by the
cable system. But fully five years before the fire, all
traction officials as well as the general public, recog-
nized that San Francisco had outgrown the cable road.
It was admitted that electric lines must be substituted
for the cable, but there was sharp division as to the
character of the electric lines which should be installed.
The officials of the United Railroads proposed the over-
head trolley method of propulsion ; the public, so far as
it could find expression, declared for the underground
conduit system.-^ In taking this position, the public
was in reality backing up the municipal engineers, who
had been sent to Eastern States to investigate electric
transportation systems, and who had found in favor
of the conduit and against the trolley. ^^
29 The public's opposition to the overhead trolley system was
that the poles and wires would be a disfigurement of what were
regarded as the best streets; that the wires were dangerous, and
would interfere with the work of firemen in fighting fires; that San
Fi'ancisco was as much entitled as Washington and New York to
the best system. Rudolph Spreckels at the trial of Patrick Cal-
houn for offering a bribe, testified as to his own opposition:
"I believed that the overhead trolley was unsightly; that it in-
creased the risk of fire; that it was dangerous; that it was noisy
and unsightly. I believed from my own observation of the opera-
tion of the underground conduit system in other cities that it was
preferable, that it was more sightly, just as rapid, and in every
way more in keeping with a city of the size and importance of San
Francisco. Having been born here, and having large property in-
terests I felt it my duty, as I always have, and hope I always shall,
to protect the interests of this community and to protect the inter-
ests of its citizens and its property owners. That was mj'' purpose
in opposing that fi-anchise and that grant."
30 As early as 1901. C. E. Grunsky, at that time City Engineer,
was directed by the Board of Supervisors to gather data on the
operation of electric roads under the conduit system. Grunsky's
findings were to the effect that conduit-electric roads were rapidly
replacing other types of street nnilroads.
The city also employed J. C. IT. Stutt as consulting engineer,
34 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled
The San Francisco Merchants' Association, however,
apparently dissatisfied with the reports of the engineers
employed by the municipality, employed Mr. William
Barclay Parsons to report on the relative merits of the
trolley and the conduit systems.
Mr. Parsons took issue with the city's engineers, and
recommended the trolley as against the conduit. ^^ The
directors of the Merchants' Association thereupon de-
clared for the trolley system.
Criticism of this action of the directors was followed
by submission of the question to a referendum vote of
the Association membership. The members voted in
opposition to the directors, declaring against the trolley
and for the conduit. ^^
and sent him to New York and Washing'ton to inspect and report
upon the conduit systems in operation in those cities.
He reported that tlie system was giving satisfaction in both
cities, and in many cases was being substituted for the trolley.
Engineer Stutt in comparing the two systems said:
"As between the overhead system and the conduit-electric sj'^s-
tem, it Is natural for private corporations to prefer the overhead
trolley system on acount of the first cost of roadbed construction,
which is more than twice as great for the conduit system. The
conduit system leaves the street open with the view unobstructed
by poles, conductors, feed, guard and suppoi'ting wires and without
the menace to the public and especially to the firemen, always in-
herent in the bare overhead electric conductor."
This report was widely quoted during the overhead -trolley-
conduit agitation that was a feature of a greater part of Mayor
Schmitz's administrations.
31 Mr. Parsons found for the overhead trolley on the following
general groimds:
(1) That a uniform system was necessary.
(2) That the lines must be extended to the suburbs.
(3) That operation by overhead trolley is more satisfactory
than by the conduit sj^stem.
(4) That the greater part of the roads could be operated under
trolley only.
32 Several questions were presented. The following is the vote
as given in the Merchnnts' Association Review, the organization's
oflicial publication, for February, 1906:
"TOTAL VOTE OF MEMBERS. 364.
"1 — Do you favor Mr. Parsons's view of a uniform system of over-
head trolley lines throughout the entire city, including a central
line of ornamental trolley poles, with lights furnished by the
Railroad company between the tracks on Market Street, and a
The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 35
But the most determined opposition to the installa-
tion of the trolley system came from improvement clubs,
whose purpose was to promote the best development of
San Francisco.
Prominent among these organizations were the Im-
provement and Adornment Association,^^ the Sutter
Street Improvement Club^* and the Pacific Avenue Im-
trolley line with ornamental poles and lights furnished by the
Railroad upon Sutter Street?
"Votes received — Yes, 121; No, 204.
"2 — Do you favor an overhead trolley system throughout the city
except on Market Street?
"Votes received— Yes, 67; No, 212.
"3 — Do you favor an underground conduit system for Market Street
and for the streets with cable lines leading into Market Street
in the central downtown district and in the adjacent residence
district, the remainder of the system to be overhead trolley?
"Votes received — Yes, 198; No, 84.
"4 — Irrespective of what shall be done on any other streets, which
system do you favor for Sutter Street: (a) an imderground con-
duit, or (b) an overhead trolley line if equipped with ornamental
poles and lights furnished free by the Railroad company, or (c)
an improved cable system?
"Underground
Conduit Trolley Cable
"First Choice 217 93 5
"Second Choice 42 83 62
"Third Choice 7 14 94
"5 — Do you favor changing the cable lines on Nob Hill to electric
lines by tunneling the hill and constructing a winding driveway
with parks on California Street, as proposed in Mr. Parsons's
report?
"Votes received— Yes, 158; No, 140."
This vote was taken after an extended debate at a banquet
given by the Association in which Patinck Calhoun, president of
the United Railroads, argued for the trolley system, and Frank J.
Sullivan, president of the Sutter Street Improvement Club, spoke
for the conduit.
33 The Improvement and Adornment Association employed D.
H. Burnham to draw plans for the development of San Francisco.
These plans, while drawn to attain a maximum of utility, were in-
tended to secure a maximum of beauty as well. Streets were to be
widened, boulevards built, parks established. The carrying out of
these plans would have made San Francisco one of the most beau-
tiful cities of the world. Their preparation cost the association
$17,500. Mr. Burnham volunteered his own services.
34 The objection of the Sutter-Street Improvement Club to the
overhead trolley was set forth in the following statement, issued
less than a month before the great fire of 1906:
"The Sutter Street Improvement Club is unalterably opposed to
the construction of an overhead trolley line on the Sutter Street
system. We desire that the public should have no misconception of
our position. We propose to contest to the end any attempt to get
36
The San Francisco Ruef Ruled
provement Club. The membership of these organiza-
tions consisted of some of the largest owners of San
Francisco properties. The leaders were comparatively
young men. natives of San Francisco, whose interests
an overhead trolley on the entire Sutter Street system, and for
that purpose we pledge ourselves, and promise to provide the
necessary counsel to maintain our position in the courts. AVe want
the public with us in this fight, as the fight is being made in the
interests of the whole people.
"Our own investigations make us absolutely certain that if the
public understands the true situation, it will not be misled by the
specious arguments of the United Railroads. The conduit electric
system, despite what the United Railroads and its representatives
may say, is practicable, safe, efficient and superior to an overhead
trolley. We are further satisfied that the company is seeking, by
an offer of $200,000 which they offer to the people, to save itself an
expense of several million dollars, which the conduit electric system
would cost, if it should be required to reconstruct all its lines using
the conduits; but we believe — and we are certain that the citizens
of San Francisco will agree with us in this — that since the United
Railroads, through the watering of its stock, has already made
many millions of dollars out of its properties, and is now taking,
and will take many millions of profits from our people, that it can
afford to contribute to San Francisco the cost of the most attractive
and efficient system of electric railroads. The United Railroads
has put forward many arguments which have been and are easily
met:
"First: It contended, as the public will remember, that the con-
duit electric system was impracticable on account of the accumu-
lation of rain water in its conduits. This claim it has been forced
to abandon.
"Second: It proclaimed loudly that the added cost of construc-
tion of an electric conduit was such that the life of its franchise
would not justify the outlay. Now, they have abandoned this claim,
and assert that it is not the cost of construction, but that there are
other reasons.
"Third: They have declared that a uniform system was de-
sirable. They now admit that a completely uniform system is
impracticable, owing to grades, making it necessary to operate some
lines by cable. Their only contention now is that the overhead
trolley system is more efficient than either the cable or conduit
electric system.
"Mr. C. E. Grunsky is our authority for the statement that in
making the change from the conduit electric to the trolley, in
passing from city to suburbs, there are no objectionable features,
nor danger. Sir Alex. B. W. Kennedy, consulting engineer to the
London County Council, in recommending the adoption of the conduit
electric system for London's municipal street railways, said:
'There is no difficulty in arranging the cars so that they can be
run from the underground (conduit) to the overhead and vice versa,
either with no stoppage at all at the point of change, or with a
stopping of only a few seconds. There is no engineering difficulty
v.'hatever in using a mixed tramwav system, i. e., partly under-
ground (conduit) and partly overhead.'
"We would suggest that the public compare the present over-
head trolley system, operated by the United Railroads these many
years in this city and county, with the service rendered by the Call-
The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 37
were inseparably wrapped up in the community, and
who aimed to promote the best possible development of
the city of their birth and fortunes.
Prominent in this group were Rudolph Spreckels ^^
fornia Cable Railway. There is no overhead trolley system in San
Francisco to-day which surpasses the service given by the Cali-
fornia Street Company.
"It is claimed that the public will be given a speedier and moie
efficient service if the overhead trolley is permitted. We ask the
thousands of citizens who have been compelled to wait for overhead
trolley cars, and to stand up in those overhead vehicles, whether
or not the overhead trolley has thus afforded them satisfactory
service? If we may judge the future by the experience with the
overhead trolley of the past, it means fewer cars (hence less expense
to the United Railroads), overcrowding and discomfort of passen-
gers. The only advantage which thus far has come from the sys-
tem seems to be to the company itself. It employs fev/er men as
a result of that system, but the comfort and convenience of the
public have not been substantially bettered by it as against the
cable.
"Before asking our people to give them an overhead trolley sys-
tem throughout the whole city, the United Railroads would do Vv^ell
to show on some one of their overhead trolley lines now in opera-
tion a frequent, efficient and satisfactory service to the public. We
do not want for San Francisco an extension and perpetuation of
the unsightly, noisy, dangerous, uncomfortable and inefficient sys-
tem of overhead trolleys as operated by the United Railroads
to-day.
"Citizens of San Francisco: Be not deceived by the selfish and
specious arguments put forward by the United Railroads. If the
public will stand together, we will win out in this fight; and, if it
should be necessary to that end, the supporters of our organiza-
tion will put before our citizens a plan for building a complete con-
duit electric system of railroads for San Francisco, to be built, in
the first instance, by our people, but with a provision giving to the
city an option to purchase the same at any time in the future at
actual cost and interest, so that municipal ownership of the said
system may result just as soon as the city is ready for it.
"All that we ask is that the people stand fast, and save their
city from what we believe would be a calamity from which it would
not recover in the next twenty-five years.
"Respectfully.
"Frank .1. Sullivan, Rudolph Spreckels. .Julius Rosenstirn. Geo. W.
Merritt, W. D. McCann, Houghton Sawyer. Edward P. E. Troj*.
Secretary."
35 Rudolph Spreckels Is a native of San Francisco. At seven-
teen he was employed in his father's (Claus Spreckels) sugar re-
finery at Philadelphia. The Spreckels refinery was at the time in
a life-and-death struggle with the "Sugar Trust." Young Spreckels
was given his first lessons in the methods employed by the "trust"
elements to crush competition. His Philadelphia training in large
degree prepared him for the work M'hich later he was to do at
San Francisco. At twenty-two he became president of the Ha-
waiian Commercial and Sugar Company, owners of one of the
largest sugar plantations of the Hawaiian Islands. The venture
had been a losing one. Spreckels put it on a paying basis within
38
The San Francisco Ruef Ruled
and James D. Phelan/^ rated among the heaviest prop-
erty-owners of San Francisco. These men were ready
to join with the United Raih-oads in any plan which
proposed the highest development of the street-car serv-
ice.^^ On the other hand, they were prepared to oppose
a year, and sold it at large profit. Before he was twenty-five he
had become a millionaire in his own right. He has been engaged
in business at San Francisco for many years, but only when moved
by corrupt conditions to take up the fight for honest government
did he become active in politics. He financed the graft prosecu-
tion. He has since taken active part In California politics, but
has steadfastly refused to accept public office, preferring to do
his work as a private citizen.
36 James D. Phelan is a native of San Francisco. He is one
of the largest owners of real estate in San Francisco and in Cali-
fornia. From his youth he has taken keen interest in public af-
fairs. He was chairman of the Charter convention of 1900 v>'hich
framed San Francisco's present municipal Charter. He was Mayor
of San Francisco from 1896 to 1902. After the San Francisco fire
he headed the Relief Committee and was largely instrumental in
directing the work of rehabilitation. President Roosevelt desig-
nated him by proclamation to receive funds for the relief work,
and to use the United States Mint as depository. In 1900 the
Democratic minority in the State Legislature gave him compli-
mentary vote for United States Senator. In 1914 he was elected
to the United States Senate, being the first Federal Senator from
California to be elected by direct vote of The People. Senator
Phelan has for many years been close friend and business asso-
ciate of Rudolph Spreckels. He was one of the heaviest backers
of the graft prosecution.
37 Rudolph Spreckels testified at the trial of Patrick Calhoun:
"I suggested to Mr. Calhoun one thing, that if it was a question
of the length of the franchise, of the length of life of the present
franchise, standing between the people getting the system which I
believed it was entitled to, I would personally be glad to do what-
ever was in my power to have the Charter amended so that they
might enjoy a longer term of franchise, to work out the difference
in cost: but that I believed it was all iinportant that San Francisco
should have the very best of street-car service obtainable."
United Railroads officials objected to the conduit system on the
ground that the conduits would fill with water. Spreckels sug-
g'ested that property owners agree to drain the conduits without
expense to the United Railroads, thus demonstrating their prac-
ticability, on the understanding that if the conduit system were
found to be practical it should be installed. But in this the United
Railroad oflicials would not acquiesce. (See testimony taken at
the Calhoun trial.) The following is taken from Charles S.
Wheeler's testimony given at the Calhoun trial:
"Mr. Heney: Q. Did not the property owners on Sutter street
and the property owners on Pacific avenue, Mr. Rudolph Spreckels
and Mr. Phelan in particular, state that they would not oppose the
United Railroads obtaining a franchise or permit for the under-
ground conduit on Sutter street?
"Mr. Stanley Moore: That is objected to, If your Honor please.
The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 39
any attempt to exploit the service to the detriment of
San Francisco.-^*
as calling- for the conclusion of the witness and the mental mind
and statement and hearsay of other persons.
"Mr. Heney. I am not asking for their mental mind. I am
asking about direct statements at these meetings of committees of
the Board of Supervisors.
"The Court: I will overrule the objection.
"Mr. Stanley Moore. Vv^e take an exception.
"A. I have [heard] both of them make such statements; Mr.
Phelan in substance before the Board of Supervisors, and I have
heard Mr. Spreckels make it in the Supervisors' chambers." (Se«
Transcript of Testimony, page 3197.)
38 Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads, had sev-
eral conferences Vv^ith Rudolph Spreckels on the questions involved
in the street-car situation. Of these conferences Spreckels testified
at the Calhoun trial:
"Mr. Calhoun stated that he was very anxious to obtain the
overhead trolley privilege, that he understood that I was actively
opposing it, and he wanted to know whether I was open to convic-
tion on the subject. I told him that my mind was entirely free, that if
he could prove to my satisfaction that the underground conduit was
not feasible that I would have no objection. I told him that the
arguments that lie had presented, namely, that the Sutter street
system could not be converted into an underground conduit system
because of the accumulation of water at some number of points —
I think 16 were mentioned — was hardly worth while urging since
Mr. Holland, a former president of the United Railroads, had,
together with Mr. Chapman, urged that reason, and I related to Mr.
Calhoun that I had questioned Mr. Chapman and Mr. Holland at
length in regard to it and had satisfied myself that their reasons
then urged were not legitimate or reasonable; that during the
conversation with Mr. Holland I had asked him to state all of the
reasons that he had for desiring the overhead and urging against
the installation of the underground conduit; that Mr. Holland and
Mr. Chapman had both assured me that the only I'eason was the
fact that it was an engineering impossibility; that the accumula-
tion of vi'ater in the conduits during' the rainy season would pre-
vent the successful operation of the cars, that there would be
repeated interruptions and general dissatisfaction as the result. I
then proposed to Mr. Holland, I said: 'If that is the only reason
and you can convince me that that is true I have no objection to
withdrawing my opposition, but I want to propose this: Suppose I,
or the property owners on the system involved, agree to pay the
expense of the pi'oper drainage of those conduits, and succeed for a
period of twelve months in treating the conduit drained at those
points you indicate, and succeed during that entire term to keep
them free from water, so that you and yovir engineers will be
obliged to admit that there was not one hour during' the twelve
months during which you could not successfully operate an under-
ground system, will you then agree to install that system?' Mr.
Holland and Mr. Chapman looked at one another and finally said
'Well, no, we cannot do that.' Then I said: 'Gentlemen, you are
wasting my time and your own because your ai-gument is not the
truth and is not the only reason you are urging, or that Is prompting
you to object to putting in that system.'
"Mr. Holland then proceeded and asked me how I proposed to
insure that result and I told liim I was not an engineer, but that
40 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled
A conference of the directors of the Improvement
and Adornment ^Association with officials of the United
common sense told me and indicated to me that it might be pos-
sible to carry off the \vater at those points through an ordinary
stone sewer-pipe and distribute the accumulated waters to the
various streets running parallel to Sutter street, and in that way
carrying it off and keeping the conduits free from water. Mr. Cal-
houn said: 'Well, there are other reasons — the question of a uni-
form system.' He urged very strongly that it would be a very de-
sirable thing to avoid transferring, or it would be an exceedingly
nice thing if a man could go to his home without transferring, and
have a uniform system of cars operating over all of the system. I
told Mr. Calhoun it was hardly a possible thing, that no man would
want to stand at any street corner and wait for fifteen or twenty
cars to go by until some one car of a particular brand would come
along which would take him to the particular part of the city he
cared to go to. Then Mr. Calhoun wanted to know if the matter
couldn't be coinpr^omised, whether I would be satisfied, if the United
Railroads would agree to construct an underground conduit system
on Sutter street from Market to Powell. He wanted to know also
about constructing an underground conduit on Market street, and
I told him no, that this did not enter into my calculations, that I
was looking to the welfare of the city of San Francisco, that it did
not involve merely getting Avhat I wanted in front of the particular
properties in which I was personally interested, and I told him that
the reasons that had been urged against the granting of an over-
head trolley — that it was unsightly, dangerous and noisy and not
the most modern system, was my objection, and that it held good
for the entire city and not alone on the streets in wliich I was
interested as a property owner. Mr. Calhoun urged further the
desirability of the overhead trolley, that it had given satisfaction
elsewhere, and I suggested that he might first make the street
cars then operated by the overhead trolley in San Francisco a
success and satisfactory to the people; that I felt that it was far
from a success, and personally, as one of the largest propery-owners
on Ellis street, I would emphatically prefer the ordinary cable
system to the electric lines that they were then operating. Mr.
Calhoun asked for another appointment and it was had I think on
the following morning, a meeting at the same place, at the Canadian
Bank of Commerce; I think our meeting on that occasion was held
in the office of the inanager, Mr. Kains.
"Q. What was said there? A. I will not be absolutely certain
as to whether all that I have related occurred at the first interview,
or whether some that I will relate as having occurred now, did
not occur on the first interview. The two meetings were close to-
gether, and the subjects that I will relate may have occurred, some
of them in the previous meeting and some in the latter. Mr. Cal-
houn proceeded to ask me about Pacific avenue. He said: 'Would
you be satisfied if we agreed to operate the underground conduit
system on Sutter to Powell, on Market to Valencia, running it, if
■^ve changed the systein on the Pacific avenue line — to agree to put
in the conduit there, otherwise maintaining the cable?' And he
also proposed that it might be a nice thing to withdraw the entire
street railway system from Pacific avenue, making of that street a
boulevard, and placing overhead trolley on Broadway where there
was no car line. He said, 'Of course, Mr. Spreckels, you are an
owner of carriages and automobiles, and I suppose you don't use
the street-cars, and it would be more desirable from the standpoint
of a property owner to have your residence under those circum-
The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 41
Railroads was finally arranged. ^^ The meetings were
held in March, 1906, less than a month before the great
fire. There were, before the attempted adjustment was
abandoned, several sessions.
The citizens urged Patrick Calhoun, president of the
United Railroads, to give up his trolley design for
Market and Sutter streets. As a compromise, he sub-
stantially agreed to build the underground conduit as
far as Powell on Sutter, and as far as Valencia on
Market, picking up the trolley on Valencia, McAllister,
Hayes and Haight streets. The Adornment Committee
directors wanted the conduit system on Sutter street
extended as far as possible, and held out for Van Ness
stances on a boulevard than on a sti'eet having a street-car service
with the attending objections.' I told Mr. Calhoun that my fight
was not a selfish one, that I did have carriages and automobiles,
that I did not use the street-cars and had no need for them, but that
I had in mind the rights of other people living on the street — that
there were many people living on the street who were not so for-
tunate as I, who did not own carriages and did not own auto-
mobiles and had undoubtedly been brought to buy their property
on Pacific avenue because of the fact that it had a street-car
service there. Mr. Cnlhoun also in one of these interviews said
that he would tunnel Powell street hill commencing at Sutter and
make that the most important transferring point in San Francisco.
I asked Mr. Calhoun at the time whether it was because I was
interested in property at the corner of Sutter and Powell. Mr.
Calhoun expressed surprise and said he didn't know that I was an
OM'ner of property there. I think that in substance was the con-
versation as I remember it."
39 Patrick Calhoun, Tirey L. Ford and Thornwell Mullallj'^ were
among the officials representing the United Railroads at the con-
ference. At the meeting, first mention of .$200,000 in connection
with the proposed change in the street-car system was made.
Citizens had contended that the objection of the United Railroads
in opposing the conduit system was the difference in the initial
cost of installation. This point came up, and President Calhoun
stated that he would, if the trolley system were allowed, give the
difference between the cost of installing the two systems, for any
public purpose. This difference, Calhoun stated, would be about
$200,000. Turning to James D. Phelan. of the Adornment Com-
mittee, Calhoun stated that the money could be used in extending
the so-called Park Panhandle, part of the Burnham plans, and a
matter in which Phelan wa.s greatly interested. Phelan replied
that San Francisco woiild not accept money for any such purpose,
and was able to construct the Park Panhandle if the people
wanted it. (See testimony of .James D. Phelan at the trial of The
People vs. Patiick Calhoiin for offering a bribe, page 2750.)
42 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled
avenue. Calhoun would not consent to install the con-
duit bevond Powell.
In the midst of this deadlock, the San Francisco
Chronicle published what purported to be reports of the
several conferences. Up to that time there had been no
publication of the meetings.
Following the Chronicle publication. Calhoun, in a
letter to members of the Adornment Association, de-
clared the information contained in the Chronicle article
to be inaccurate,*" and offered to let the people decide
whether they wanted a conduit system on Market street
to Valencia, and on Sutter street to Powell, or a uni-
form all-trolley system throughout the city.
Mr. Calhoun's suggestion seemed reasonable until he
stated in an interview that by the people he meant the
Board of Supervisors.
He was asked how he proposed to ascertain the
wishes of the people.
"I should suggest," he is reported as replying, "that
the matter be referred to the decision of the Board of
40 The Chronicle in its issue of March 23, in referring to Mr.
Calhoun's letter practically charged him with lack of good faith.
The Chronicle said:
"The alleged 'inaccuracy' of the Chronicle's interesting report
of the compromise reached by the United Railroads and the Society
for the Adornment of the City proves to be that the electric con-
duit in Sutter .street is to stop at Powell street instead of extending
to Polk street, as proposed, and which is the least which should
have been accepted if any compromise whatever was to be made.
We shall be greatly surprised if when the changes are finally made
there is not a great deal less conduit than Mr. Calhoun now seems
to agree to. We gravely doubt whether Mr. Calhoun expects to
construct a foot of conduit in this city. However, he does agree
to do so under certain conditions and we shall see what we shall
see. ... It does look as though some settlement of the matter
would be reached, as the T'nited Railroads have receded from their
Iron-clad determination not to consider the electric conduit at all.
When that \^ accomplished we shall speedily see the last of the
cables south of California street, a consummation as devoutly wished
by the people as was the introduction of the cable in place of the
lior.«=e-car a quarter of a century ago."
The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 43
Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors is a public
body selected by the people, and represents the ideas
and wishes of the people of the city."
The reply was not well received. The Supervisors
were even then under suspicion of corruption. Less
than a fortnight before, March 10, the Examiner had
called the board's action on an ordinance which was sup-
ported by the Home Telephone Company "suspicious,"
and had stated that the board had "made the mistake
of acting as a bribed Board of Supervisors would have
acted." *"■
41 It was openly charged that money had been used to put this
franchise through 'the preliminary steps necessary for its granting.
The Examiner in its issue of March 10, some five weeks before the
fire, said:
"The Supervisors owe it to themselves to bring back the tele-
phone franchise order for further consideration. Since the hasty
vote on the ordinance last Monday ugly rumors have been the
measure. The regard of the Supei^visors for the good name of the
Board demands that they should clear the record of the SUS-
PICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES that surround the vote on the order.
"The present Board of Supervisors was elected on a platform
that pledged its members to a municipal ownership programme.
Among the purposes specifically announced was the ACQUISITION
OF A TELEPHONE PLANT to be owned and operated by the city.
"Yet the FIRST ACT OF THE BOARD in dealing with a pub-
lic utility question is to favor an ordinance granting a franchise
for fifty years to a private corporation without proper compensa-
tion to the city and V^^THOUT ANY CONTRACT that would
enable the city to buy out the plant at a just appraisement when
the time comes to acquire a municipal telephone system.
"The bill was introduced after a brief hearing and passed to
print on the 26th of February. On the 5th of March it was
passed to a vote in the Board of Supei-visors without discussion.
One of the members of the Board who rose to explain his vote was
shut off with such indignity that he left the Supervisors' chamber.
Nor, indeed, did all the members know what they were voting on;
for one of the Supervisors later in the session asked if the tel'^-
phone franchise was not to be called up, and was surprised to be
told that it had already been passed upon.
"This sort of 'gum-shoe' legislation will not do for San Fran-
cisco. It inevitably rouses the suspicions of crookedness that have
been hawked about the streets since Monday last.
"A telephone franchise is not a matter to be treated lightly. It
is an affair of more moment than passing a street or even of
fixing a water rate. It deserves the deepest consideration, for the
division of service between two companies creates a confusion In
business that should be taken carefully into account. It Is only
the wretched service given by the old company that has brought
tlip liaoklng of a certain popular support to the advent of a new
44 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled
Later on, the Supervisors themselves confessed to
having been bribed to grant the telephone franchise.
The public, not at all blind to what was going on, be-
lieved, even at the time Mr. Calhoun made his sugges-
tion, although there was no proof, that the Supervisors
had been bribed.
San Francisco was opposed to any plan that would
put trolley cars on the city's best streets. Submission
of the issue to the people would have been popular.
Mr. Calhoun's proposal that it be left to the Supervisors
was met with suspicion, and open distrust of Mr. Cal-
houn's motives.
In answer to the criticism which Mr. Calhoun's sug-
gestion had aroused, Mr. Calhoun, in a second letter to
the Adornment Association, withdrew his offer to sub-
mit the question to the people, and announced the in-
tention of his company to proceed with preparation of
a plan for a uniform trolley system to be installed
wherever the grades v^ould permit. "^-
company. The manner in which the obvious evils of a division of
service can be lessened requires much more thought than has yet
been given, and inany changes in the ordinance should be made
unless the last state of the San Francisco telephone service is to be
worse than the first.
"It is the duty of the Supervisors to recall the ordinance,
answer the rumors of crooked work by seeing that everything is
carried on above board and in the open, and treat the franchise
in accordance with their anti-election pledges to the people. They
cannot afford to rest under appearance of evil that now surrounds
the late vote on the order.
"We do not wish to believe that any undue influence was used,
but the Supervisors must have heard the rumors that are frequent
in the streets, and they must realize that they have made the
mistake of acting as a bribed Board of Supervisors would have
acted. They have broken their pledge, but happily it is not too
late for them to correct the gross error."
42 Mr. Calhoun's second letter, as introduced as evidence at his
trial for offering a bribe (page 2775, Transcript, The People vs. Cal-
houn"), was as follows:
"San Francisco, March 23. — Messrs. James D. Phelan, R. B.
Hale, Herbert F. Law. Rufus P. .Jennings and others — My dear
Sirs: You will recall that the only condition on which I consented
The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 45
This second letter was made public in March, 1906,
less than a month before the fire. The position taken
by the United Railroads was generally condemned.'*^
to even consider the introduction of an underground conduit on
Marlcet street from the ferries to Valencia, and on Sutter from
Market to Powell, was to secure harmony and unanimity of action
in the development of San Francisco. You will further recall that
I distinctly stated that 'if all sides to this controversy are not
willing- to faithfully and loyally abide by what the people of San
Francisco may determine on this subject, the United Railroads
prefers to urge, in the interest of the development of San Fran-
cisco, a uniform system of overhead trolley operation.'
"The development of the last few days, the threatened litiga-
tion against my company, and the action of the Sutter- Street Im-
provement Club, demonstrate that harmony and unanimity of
action, so much to be desired, cannot be obtained, and that the
United Railroads cannot expect all parties to the controversy 'to
faithfully and loyally abide by what the people of San Francisco
may determine on this subject.' On the contrary, if the people
should elect to put an overhead on Sutter street, the address of
the Sutter-Street Improvement Club distinctly states 'we pledge
ourselves and promise to provide the necessary counsel to maintain
our position in the courts.'
"In view of these facts, I desire to inform you that the United
Railroads will proceed to prepare a plan for the improvement of
the transportation of San Francisco. The essential feature of
which plan will be a modern, up-to-date, efficient and uniform sys-
tem of electric propvilsion, through the introduction of the overhead
trolley system wherever the grades of the streets of the city will
permit. When this plan is perfected it will be presented to the
proper authorities of the city for their consideration. We will be
very glad to go over it with you. Under the circumstances, it will
be useless for me now to furnish the preliminary plan of which we
spoke.
"In conclusion, permit me to express my appreciation of the
motives which led you to seek a conference with me, and the
earnest desire of every gentleman who participated in that confer-
ence to reach a basis of harmonious action in order that the de-
velopment of San Francisco might not be obstructed and delayed.
"Very truly scours, PATRICK CALHOUN, President."
43 The Chronicle commented upon Mr. Calhoun's new position
as follows:
"The letter written by Patrick Calhoun of the United Railroads
to the committee of citizens who have sought to induce him to
change his attitude on the subject of overhead trolleys was not in
good taste. It exhibited corporative arrogance in its most exas-
perating form. Mr. Calhoun is too well bred, or perhaps too
cautious a man to tell the public to be dairmed. hut every line of
his communication breathes the spirit of the insolent utterance of
William K. Vanderbilt, and the community will take it that
way. . . .
"There is an ill-concealed menace in Mr. Calhoun's declaration
that the United Railroads has a plan in preparation which, when
perfected, 'will be presented to the proper authorities of the city for
their consideration.' As he plainly tells us that this plan provides
for an 'efficient and uniform system of electric propulsion through
the introduction of the overhead trolley system wherever the grades
46
The San Francisco Ruef Ruled
But the opposition took more practical form than mere
denunciation. A group of capitaHsts, headed by Claus
Spreckels, father of Rudolph Spreckels, Rudolph Spreck-
els and James D. Phelan, announced their intention to
organize a street-railroad company, to demonstrate the
practicability of operating electric cars in San Francisco
under the conduit system.
The plan was given immediate endorsement both by
press and general public. The project was explained in
detail to Mayor Schmitz, who in a published statement
gave the enterprise his unqualified approval.** But
of the city will permit,' the announcement is equivalent to a
notification that 'the proper authorities of the city' will be appealed
to for permission to carry out such a scheme, whether the people
like it or not. His defiant attitude suggests that he feels pretty
sure that the authorities will be on the side of the United Rail-
roads against the people, but he may be mistaken on that score.
There is a point beyond which even complaisant authorities would
not wish to press the matter to oblige a corporation which shows
so little regard for the desires and needs of a community from
which it extracts over eight million dollars annuall5^" (See San
Francisco Chronicle, March 25, 1906.)
44 Mayor Schmitz in his statement, said:
"If Claus Spreckels can see his way clear to carry out his great
purpose, the fact stands that he must be known more than ever
as he has been known in the past, as the greatest public benefactor
of the West. I will say, if he can see his way clear, reservedly,
for I doubt that any citizen of this city or State can point to any
understanding that he "has announced he would accomplish, that
he has failed to accomplish. Not only is his determination, but
within his control is the money to carry out his determination,
and I have yet failed to find the man that can say that any object
can fail of accomplishment when determination and money walk
hand in hand.
"If Mr. Spreckels can carry out his announced desire to network
San Francisco with railroads operated by the underground con-
duit system, I can only saj'- that through his wonderful ambitions
of purpose San Francisco will take a stride forward that is won-
derful to contemplate. Such action upon the part of Mr. Spreckels
would place San Francisco not only in advance of any city in
America, but would place it in advance of any city in the world
in the battle for public control of utilities operated for the public
benefit. The offer of Mr. Spreckels is not only one that must
awaJcen the amazement, but the approbation of every public-
spirited citizen. While the rest of the great cities of the world (as
well as San Francisco before Mr. Spi-eckels made his offer) are
puzzling to find means through which they can accomplish the
great purpose of municipal ownership, Mr. Spreckels has come
forward and has offered, for the good of the people, to demonstrate
the efficiency of a system that will mean that not only shall the
The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 47
when the incorporators sought further interview with
Mayor Schmitz, they found themselves unable to secure
a hearing.
The company, under the name of the Municipal
Street Railways of San Francisco, was formed with
Claus Spreckels, James D. Phelan, George Whittell,
Rudolph Spreckels and Charles S. Wheeler as incorpora-
tors. The capital stock of the company was fixed at
$14,000,000. Of this, $4,500,000 was subscribed, ten
per cent, of which, $450,000, was paid over to the
treasurer.*^
beauty of San Francisco be not sacrificed, but that the public
desire for rapid transit shall be fulfilled. Backed with the mil-
lions he controls, his offer is significant, and is one that we cannot
contemplate lightly.
"As Chief Executive of the city I can only express the hope
that something will happen that will permit Mr. Spreckels to carry
out his object. At one stride this would place San Francisco at
the head of the world in the titanic struggle now waging between
the people and the corporations for the control of those utilities
in which the people are interested for comfort and the corporations
for profit. Great as is his offer, it adds not only enthusiasm, but
rekindles hope in iny always expressed desire that my administra-
tion would mark the first victory of the municipality in its fight
to control those things that are theirs.
"The people are on the eve of winning for themselves those
things that are theirs. If the offer of Mr. Spreckels can be carried
out, and I see no reason why it cannot, the battle is ended. Not
only will San Francisco be the victor, but from the battle she
will emerge, her beauty unmarred and her railways standing as
exemplifications of the fact that what in science is possible is
capable of actual and practical accomplishment." (See San Fran-
cisco Call, March 24, 1906.)
But in spite of this approval, after the organization of the new
company was assured, Rudolph Spreckels found the Mayor's door
closed to him when he attempted to secure an interview. (See
Rudolph Spreckels' testimony at the Calhoun trial.)
45 The purposes of the incorporators were brought out at the
graft trials. At the Calhoun trial, when James D. Phelan, former
Mayor of San Francisco, and one of the incorporators, was under
cross-examination, Calhovm's attorney referred to other public
utility ventures in which Claus Spreckels had been interested, and
asked:
"Q. You knew of the matter of the rival gas or competing gas
lines, and the rival and competing electric lines, and the rival and
competing steam railroads down the valley at the time you went
into the corporation to put in the People's Street Railroad? A. I
knew, and I know the effect they had; they reduced rates in both
cases; and if our system accomplished the purpose of bringing Mr.
Calhoun's railroad to a realization of the public desire to have a
conduit system, our purpose would have been accomplished. It
+8
The San Francisco Ruef Ruled
With this $450,000 an experimental Hne, under the
conduit system, was to be built on Bush street.*^
The articles of incorporation provided that the fran-
chises acquired under them should contain provisions
for the acquisition by the City and County of San
Francisco of the roads thus built.'*'
The new company filed its articles of incorporation
with the Secretary of State at Sacramento on April 17,
1906.
In the early morning of the day following, April 18,
came the San Francisco earthquake and fire. For the
moment the public forgot all differences in the common
disaster. But the lines of division between exploiter,
and builder could not be wiped out, not even by the
destruction of the city. Tlie contest, which had, without
any one realizing its full significance, been fast coming
to a head before the fire, was to take definite shape after
the disaster.
was the last resort. I looked upon it, as an incorporator, as the
last resort. We had negotiated in a friendly way for months, and
I saw the fruit of all the conferences fade away and believed that
arrangements had been made by Mr. Calhoun with the city admin-
istration, and the only resort left to us to do was to build a road
of our own to demonstrate that it was practicable and possible'
profitable — a conduit system."
4G As early as April 3. 1906, a petition was circulated for signa-
tures among residents and property owners on Bush street, asking
the Board of Supervisors to grant a franchise to operate street-cars
on Bush street under the electric-conduit system.
47 The San Francisco Examiner of March 31, 1906, set forth
that "an important feature (of the plans for competing street
railways) was that the city should have the right at the end of
ten j'ears or any shorter period that might be preferred, to take
over the system and operate the same itself, the terms of the
transfer to be such as would be just both to the builders and to
the municipality."
Among the purposes for which the Municipal Street Railways
of San Francisco was formed, was set forth in the articles of in-
corporation the following: "To accept and acquire franchises for
street railroads, elevated railroads and subways, containing provi-
sions for the acquisition thereof by the City and County of San
Francisco, or siich other conditions as maj' be lawfully inserted
therein."
CHAPTER IV.
San Francisco After the Fire.
The great San Francisco fire was brought under
control Friday, April 20, 1906. The Sunday following,
the first step was taken toward getting the scattered
Board of Supervisors together. George B. Keane, clerk
of the board, is authority for the statement that the
meeting place was in a room back of Supervisor Mc-
Gushin's saloon. *^^ The ashes of the burned city were
stfll hot ; the average citizen was thinking only of the
next meal and shelter for the night for himself and
dependents. But the public-service corporations were
even then active in furthering plans which had been
temporarily dropped while San Francisco was burning.
At the McGushin-saloon meeting, Keane found with
the Supervisors Mr. Frick of the law firm of Thomas,
Gerstle & Frick. Mr. Frick was on hand to represent
the petitioners for the Home Telephone franchise,
which, at the time of the disaster was pending before
the board.
For months previous to the fire, no subject affecting
a San Francisco public-service corporation had, with
the single exception of the United Railroads' scheme
for substituting electric for cable service, created more
discussion than the Home Telephone application for
48 See Keane's testimony In The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, Part
3, vol. 1, page 455.
50 San Francisco After the Fire
franchise. There had been allegations that the progress
which, previous to the fire, the Home Company had
made toward securing its franchise, had been paid for,^®
but for weeks after the fire few citizens had time to
think about it. The people forgot for the time the
issues w^hich had before the disaster divided the city.
But the 'agents for the public-service corporations did
not forget. We find a representative of the Home
Telephone Company picking his way over the hot ashes
of the burned city to McGushin's saloon to meet the
Supervisors that the interests of his company might be
preserved. The developments of the graft prosecution
indicate that even as the Home Company was seeking
out the Supervisors, the United Railroads was getting
into touch with Ruef.^^
But if the corporations were quick to avail them-
selves of the situation to secure privileges denied them
49 See footnote 41, pag-e 43.
50 Supervisor Gallagher testified in the case of The People vs.
Ruef, No. 1437, that about a week before the fire "Mr. Ruef stated
that the United Railroads wanted to secure a permit to use elec-
tricity upon their lines and asked me to speak to the members of
the Board of Supervisors about it and let him know whether it
could go through the Board, and about what amount of money it
would take. I told him that I would do so." (See Transcript on
Appeal, page 850.) Similar testimony, to show that the United
Railroads was dealing with Ruef during the month preceding the
fire, was brought out at trials of other defendants in the "graft"
cases. This would make the date of Ruef's activity on behalf of
the United Railroads about the time of Mr. Calhoun's announce-
ment that he would proceed to present plans for the trolley system,
to the "proper representatives" of the People (the Supervisors),
who were even then, through Ruef, receiving bribe money from
public-service corporations.
Gallagher testified further (see same transcript, page 853) that
within a week after the fire Ruef stated to him that the IJnited
Railroads still wanted its electric permit, and directed that Galla-
gher find out whether such a permit could be put through the
Board. Gallagher testified that he saw members, put the question
to them, and reported back to Ruef that in his judgment the per-
mit could be put through by paying each member of the Board
the amount which Ruef had specified, ?4,000.
Sail Francisco After the Fire 51
before the fire, they were also active in the work of
rehabilitation — so far as such activity served their plans
and purposes.
This was well illustrated by the course of the United
Railroads. Within a fortnight after the fire, that cor-
poration had established efficient service over a number
of its electric lines. For a time, passengers were car-
ried without charge. On April 29 and 30, however,
fares were collected from men, but not from women and
children. With the beginning of May, fares were col-
lected from all persons. For a time, in a glare of much
publicity, the United Railroads contributed these col-
lections to the fund for the relief of the stricken city.
The Home Telephone Company had no plant to re-
store nor authority to establish one ; but on Ruef 's sug-
gestion it, too, contributed to the fund for the relief of
the stricken city— $75,000.^'
The United Railroads' activity in restoring its elec-
tric roads, was in curious contrast to its failure to take
advantage of the possibilities offered by its cable sys-
tems. As some excuse for this inactivity, the corpora-
tion's representatives alleged that the cable slots had
been closed by the earthquake, making restoration of
the cable roads impractical.
The alleged closing of the slots was even used as
argument against the conduit electric system. °^ But
")i Supervisor Gallagher testified at graft trials that Ruef had
told him the payment of this $75,000 to the Relief Fund was a
good thing, as it would tend to shut off adverse criticism. But
the Home Company people had asked that the money be not turned
over to the Relief Fund until such time as the ordinance granting
the franchise had been approved or the matter definitely deter-
mined.
52 As early as May 5, C. E. Loss, a railroad contractor, came
out with the proposition that the city should abandon all idea of
52 San Francisco After the Fire
•
as a matter of fact, there were many to testify that the
damage done the cable slots was not from the earth-
quake, although the slots in the burned district had
been warped more or less by the heat of the fire. But
this damage was easily remedied. On the Geary-street
road, for example, cars were run for an hour or more
after the earthquake. The fire warped the Geary-street
cable slot, but this was easily and cheaply remedied by
a force of men with cold chisels and hammers. ^^
conduit systems, because the cable slots had been closed by the
earthquake. In this, Loss was disputed by City Engineer Thomas
P. Woodward. Woodward, in an interview printed in the Exam-
iner on May 5, 1906, said:
"I think Mr. Loss was mistaken when he said the earthquake
closed the cable slots. I have not made a careful examination of
the various roadbeds in San Francisco, but from what I have seen
as I have gone about the city, I am inclined to think that no in-
jury was done the cable slots by the earthquake.
"The lines on Sacramento, California. Geary, Sutter and Haight
streets appear to be all right outside the burned district. Where
the metal was subjected to the intense heat, the slots are warped
out of shape, and in some places closed."
Loss's allegations called forth the following editorial comment in
the Examiner of May 5th:
"Even an earthquake shock and a conflagration do not long
obscure the vision of certain wealthy gentlemen where there is a
chance to turn a calamity to their individual account.
"Before the catastrophe, San Francisco had indicated with
great emphasis to the United Railroads that it would not permit
the reconstruction of the cable system into an overhead trolley,
but would insist upon a modern up-to-date conduit electric rail-
road, the safety, utility and efficiency of which had been demon-
strated in New York 'and other Eastern cities.
"The emergency created by the destruction of the traffic sys-
tems in the city has compelled permission for a temporary trolley
line because it could be constructed more quickly than any other.
"It is not intended, and the United Railroads must be made to
realize that it will not be permitted, that the unsightly poles and
dangerous wires will be allowed to cumber the new and more
beautiful San Francisco, any more than it will be permitted that
the rough shacks and sheds which temporarily shelter the people
in parks and streets and otherwise vacant lots .shall remain after
the emergency which called them into being has ceased."
53 A. D. Shepard, vice-president and secretary of the Geary-
street Railroad Company, gave the following statement to the
Examiner as to the condition of the Geary-street roadbed:
"We can run cars as far as the road goes, but the power-house
is not ready for business. The smokestack at Geary and Bu-
chanan streets must be built up to comply with the ordinance of
the citj' before we can get a permit to build fires under the boilers.
The smokestack should be repaired by the end of this week, and
cars will probably be run over the road then. I cannot say just
San Francisco After the Fire 53
Statements from officials of the United Railroads,
now of record, indicate that the company's cable lines
suffered no greater damage than did other cable sys-
tems. An affidavit of Frank E. Sharon, for example,
who before the fire was superintendent of cables and
stables belonging to the United Railroads, made in the
adjustment of fire losses sustained by that corporation,
sets forth that the company's principal cable power
house and repair shops situate on Valencia street were
damaged but little by the earthquake. °* Although the
what day we will begin to run cars. All depends upon the smoke-
stack and the Board of Public Works.
"Our line was not injured by the earthquake, and we ran cars
for some time after the shake. It was the fire that drove us out
of business. The heat warped the slot, making it narrow in places
and wide in other spots, but this is easily remedied." (See Exam-
iner, May 30, 1906.)
54 Sharon's affidavit was introduced at the graft trials. It was
as follows:
"State of California, City and County of San Francisco — ss.
"Fi'ank E. Sharon, being first duly sworn according to law, de-
poses and says: That he was for many years prior to April 18,
1906, the superintendent of cables and stables belonging to the
United Railroads of San Francisco, and situate at the corner of
Market and Valencia streets; that on the property situate at said
Market and Valencia streets were located what is known as the
Market and Valencia Power House and Shops, consisting of power-
house, stables, machine shops, special machine shops, mill, offices,
store-rooms, sheds, etc.; that he was such superintendent on April
18, 1906; tliat on the morning of April 18, 1906, immediately follow-
ing the earthquake he proceeded to the above described premises,
arriving there at about 8 a. m. ; that none of the buildings above
described were materially damaged by the earthquake; that the
walls of all the buildings were standing and intact; that the roofs
of all the buildings were on and uninjured by the earthquake, with
the exception of the roof of a portion of what is known as the
power-house, which was damaged by reason of a small portion of
the chimney adjoining the power-house on the west falling thereon;
that the greater portion of said brick from the top of said chimney
fell toward the south or east into the driveway; that extending
from the base of said chimney to the crown thereof and on the
east and west side thereof are cracks which were in said chimney
for many years prior to the earthquake of April 18, 1906, which
cracks were opened somewhat by said earthquake; and the boilers
in said power-house were not injured to any extent and steam
was kept under said boilers for some time after the earthquake;
that In his judgment the building as a whole was intact and the
machinery not injured in any material part of the earthquake; that
the building caught lire from the adjoining buildings on the east
54 San Francisco After the Fire
buildings were damaged by the fire, the damage to the
contents, including the machinery by which the cable
cars were operated, was, according to statements made
by the United Railroads in fire-loss adjustment, com-
paratively small. The company placed the sound value
upon this machinery and contents, after the earthquake,
but preceding the fire, at $70,308.80. The salvage was
placed at $60,933.80, leaving a total fire loss of $9,375. •''•'
The cable cars, with few exceptions, were saved.
The most serious loss of cars was on the Powell-street
system, where sixty-four were destroyed. Only one
Valencia-street car was burned. After both earthquake
and fire, the United Railroads had available at least 150
cable cars for its Market and Powell-street systems.
This does not include the cable cars available on the
Hayes and McAllister roads. The power-houses of
these two last-named systems were not destroyed by
fire. The allegation has been made that the McAllister-
street cable was kept running for several hours after
the earthquake.
But whatever the possibilities for the restoration of
and southeast late in the afternoon of April 18, 1906; said buildings
were not dynamited nor backfired for any purpose.
"F. E. SHARON.
"Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of August,
A. D. 1906.
"CHARLES R. HOLTON.
"Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco,
State of California."
55 The loss included $25 damage to two engines which cost new
$24,000; $2,000 damage to six boilers, new cost $30,000; $210 water-
tank, cost new $3-50; $500 damage to pipes, valves and fittings,
which cost new $10,500; material in store-room worth $2,000, a
total loss; $4,800 loss of two tension carriages used for taking up
fslack of the cable. These tension carriages could very easilv have
been restored. This loss, $4,800. and the $2,000 stock loss, de-
ducted from the total of $9,375, leaves a total loss of $2,575 to the
nmchinery of a plant e.'stimated to have cost $115,848.
San Francisco After the Fire 55
the United Railroads' cable properties, no steps were
taken toward that end. Instead, trolley wires were
strung over the tracks of cable systems. Street-car
service was one of the greatest needs of the first few
weeks following the fire. Statements that cable prop-
erties could not be restored were generally believed ; the
trolley service was accepted as a matter of expediency ;
few thought, however, that it was to be permanent. ^^
oG As late as November 13, 1906, seven months after the fire,
the San Francisco Call published an editorial article on the trolley
permits which showed that even then their nature was not fully
understood. The Call said:
"The insolent disregard of public rights in the streets by the
United Railroads is inspired, of course, by ulterior purpose to en-
trench the corporation in the possession of privileges, permits or
franchises granted at a time of stress and confusion whose legality
may and probably will be questioned later.
"The Call does not desire to assume an attitude of hindeiing
or hampering pi-ogress. We recognize fully that every new street-
car line adds materially to the value of property within its tribu-
tary territory. In a word, the growth of a city or a neighborhood
is, "to a considerable degree, dependent on facilities for urban
transit.
"But it does not follow from these considerations that fran-
chises should be granted for nothing to any and every applicant
who is able to construct a street railway. The right to use the
streets is the most valuable privilege possessed by a municipality.
It should be made to yield a corresponding revenue.
"All this might seem so obvious as scarcely to require state-
ment, but in practice the principles here laid down have been vir-
tually disregarded in San Francisco. In no instance was there
more flagrant disregard of public rights than in the wholesale
grants of permits or franchises to construct overhead trolley lines
"The United Railroads at the time professed to regard these
permits as merely temporary, but that profession was not very
long maintained. The company now declares that many, if not all,
of these permits amount to absolute franchises in view of the
capital invested in making the necessary changes. That is the ex-
planation of the outrageous disregard of public rights shown in
tearing up some five or six miles of streets at once and in different
parts of town. This process is obviously wasteful as a financial
proposition, and is calculated besides to arouse general indignation.
We find these weighty considerations disregarded on the advice of
the corporation's lawyers, to bolster up an invalid claim to the
possession of franchises obtained by trick and device in an hour
of public confusion.
"What the extent of the corporation's claim under these per-
mits may be we are not advised, and there is no Immediate means
of finding out as long as the administration which granted these
hole-and-corner permits remains in power. The same influences
that made the ?4ayor and Snppivi.«orR so complaisant to the will
56
San Francisco After the Fire
Within two weeks after the fire, the United Rail-
roads had trolley wires strung over the cable tracks on
Market street. The little objection made to this course
went unheeded. The Market-street trolley cars, two
weeks after the fire, were as welcome to The People of
San Francisco as were the temporary shacks which were
being erected upon the sites of the old city's finest
buildings. Market-street trolley cars gave as sorely-
needed transportation as the shacks gave needed shelter.
The opening of the Market-street trolley line was
made subject for rejoicing throughout the city. In the
midst of this good feeling toward his company, Presi-
dent Calhoun gave out that if allowed to place over-
head wires on Sutter and Larkin streets, he would
place 2,000 men at work and have both these lines in
operation within thirty days.^'^
But the era of good feeling was not of long dura-
of the United Raih'oads are still operative. It was only the other
day that another permit for a street-car line was granted, and
granted illegally. This administration stays bought.
"Therefore, the streets are torn up in a dozen different parts of
town and left in that condition untouched for months with the
full consent of the administration. But this political condition
is not permanent. Some of these people will go to jail. They will
all be ousted at the next election. San Francisco has had enough
of them.
"The United Railroads is endeavoring to fortify one wrong by
committing another. These things will not be forgotten in a hurry.
We are convinced that the corporation is pursuing a shortsighted
policy. Costly litigation must ensue to test the validity and extent
of the overhead trollev permits. The people will not consent to
see their most valuable property traded away by a lot of con-
scienceless boodlers, and if it should prove that the United Rail-
roads has been able to make two wrongs constitute one right, it
is very certain that a movement of irresistible force will follow
for a reduction of street-car fares.
"We are convinced that it will pay the United Railroads to be
fair and decent with the people of San Francisco. The present
policy is neither fair nor decent. The service is bad, public rights
in the streets are outraged, and. worst of all, the corporation is
the most malign, corrupting influence in the politics of our munic-
ipal government. There will come a reckoning."
57 .See .«;tatement printed in San Francisco Examiner, Mav 4,
1906.
Sail Francisco After the Fire 57
tion. On May 14, less than a month after the fire,
the Supervisors received a communication signed by
President Calhoun as President of the United Rail-
roads, setting forth that if the board would permit the
use on the cable lines of the standard electric system
in use on the company's other lines, the United Rail-
roads would be glad to put all of their lines in com-
mission as rapidly as could be accomplished by the most
liberal expenditure of money and the largest possible
employment of men.°^
That very day, the Supervisors took the initial step
toward granting to the United Railroads a blanket per-
58 Calhoun's letter to the Supervisors read:
"United Railroads of San Fi'ancisco.
"President's Office.
"San Francisco, May 14, 1906.
"To the Honorable Board of Supervisors of the City of San
Francisco — Gentlemen: The United Railroads of San Francisco re-
spectfully represents that, notwithstanding- its urgent and earnest
efforts to provide adequate street railway transportation on the
lines being operated, constant piessure is being- applied and innu-
mei-able requests are being presented to it to increase its trans-
portation facilities.
"The company is anxious to please the people, and is willing to
do its part in the immediate upbuilding- of the Greater San Fran-
cisco, but owing- to the unavailability of material and machinery
for operating- its cable systems, as well as the great length of
time necessary to rebuild destroyed power-houses and reconstruct
its cable conduits, a long- time would necessarily elapse before the
cable systems could be operated so as to give the required relief
to traffic congestion.
"If your Honorable Board will permit the use on the cable lines
of a standard electric system such as is now used on the com-
pany's other lines, we will be glad to put all of our lines in com-
mission, and will agree to have them in complete operation wher-
ever grades will permit as rapidly as the most liberal expenditure
of money and the largest possible employment of men will accom-
plish. The necessary expenditure for labor and materials to do
this work will run into the millions, and will afford much-needed
employment to several thousand deserving men.
"We believe the prompt reconstruction of your lines of trans-
portation will inspire confidence in all investing capital and greatly
aid in the prompt rebuilding of your city.
"We submit these suggestions for your consideration at the
request of many of our citizens from every walk of life.
"Respectfully,
"PAT. CALHOUN, President."
58
San Francisco After the Fire
mit, authorizing that corporation to substitute the trol-
ley system for all its cable lines.
Immediately, San Francisco's opposition to the trol-
ley system was revived. All classes joined in con-
demning the action of the board. The Sutter Street
Improvement Club, representing large down-town in-
terests and property holders, adopted resolutions de-
manding that the Supei"visors refuse to grant the per-
mit. The San Francisco Labor Council, representing
over 100 affiliated unions, with a membership of more
than 30,000 wage earners, declared as strongly against
such action. The press charged the United Railroads
with taking advantage of the city's distress to force the
trolley upon her.
59
59 The trolley permit was passed to print on May 14. The Ex-
aminer, in its issue of May 15, said:
"The United Railroads, with the rapacity for which it has ever
been noted, is seeking to capitalize the city's woe to its own ad-
vantage.
"Before the disaster of April 18 it had been balked in its pur-
pose to make San Francisco a trolley town. The protests of citi-
zens who knew that the undei'ground system is better than the
cheap, unsightly ti-olley system and had been proved safer, had
blocked the United Railroads project. And it seemed certain that
the scheme to cumber Market street and Sutter street with poles
and wires was definitely stopped.
"The emergency which demanded the swiftest possible estab-
lishment of a transportation system, gave the United Railroads its
opportunity to revive the discreditable scheme. As an emergency
service nobody could object to the overhead trolleys. But it was
understood that the service was absolutely tempox-ary in its char-
acter and should only obtain during the pendency of present con-
ditions.
"Yesterday, however, there appeared out of the void of forbidden
things an ordinance that was hastily passed to print, granting a
franchise to the United Railroads to trolleyize its whole system.
"It was expected evidently that this iniquitous measure could
be sneaked through under cover of the present stress and excite-
ment without people realizing until it was too late what had been
done.
""When the scheme was flushed it was still attempted to make
it appear that this was a temporary measure, a representation ab-
solutely varying with the language of the ordinance.
"But the scheme has not succeeded yet.
"It Was to be expected that, like the looters who have to be
kept from other people's property by soldiers and police, San Fran-
cisco's misfortune would bring out a horde of corporate ghouls
San Francisco After the Fire 59
Then came explanations and defense. Mayor
Schmitz in public interviews set forth that the proposed
permit was not a permanent measure, nor under its
provisions could the United Railroads indefinitely oper-
ate trolley cars in Market street.®" The Labor Council
which had at first adopted resolutions condemning the
policy of granting the permit, adopted resolutions of
confidence in the "present city administration." Presi-
dent Calhoun himself solicited citizens to attend the
meeting of the board at which a vote was to be taken
on the proposed permit, to urge action favorable to the
United Railroads.^^
eager to snatch privileges during the time of disorder. But it was
likewise to be expected that the city administration, which has
been so alert to protect private property, would be equally alert
to protect the precious possessions of the city.
"The railroads can only do what the city permits, and a strong
official scrutiny of the ordinance which was yesterday passed to
print should result in its final defeat.
"No matter what other claims an administration may have to
the gratitude and respect of the citizens of San Francisco, it cannot
afford to be known as the administration that put trolley poles on
Market street."
60 The day that the ordinance granting the trolley permit was
ordered printed, Mayor Schmitz stated in an interview as published
in the Examiner:
"The pi'oposed franchise is merely a temporary measure. It
does not mean tliat the United Railroads can indefinitely operate
their cars by the overhead trolley in Market street, or in the
streets formerly occupied by cable roads. It is necessary now to
have transportation. The cable roads cannot be repaired, I am
told, for some time. Meanwhile, the franchise to string overhead
wii*es has been granted. It can be revoked."
61 At the Calhoun trial, William H. Sanderson testified to hav-
ing been introduced to Calhoun by Ruef at a public meeting, a few
days before the trolley permit was granted. He was then asked:
"Q. What, if any, conversation then ensued between yourself,
Mr. Ruef and Mr. Calhoun? A. Well, I stated — Mr. Calhoun was
at that time sitting at a large table in the room, where the com-
mittee had held its session, and he rose out of his seat, and the
three of us held a conversation following that introduction. I
stated to Mr. Calhoun — I asked him when the people of North
Beach were or might expect railroad facilities, that the population
was coming back to that portion of the city, and that other por-
tions of the city were provided with facilities, and that we were
compelled to walk through miles of burned district in order to get
anywhere; and Mr. Calhoun said in reply, that if the people of
6o San Francisco After the Fire
Long before the board met to take final action it
was recognized that in spite of opposition the permit
San Francisco desired railroad facilities, they should co-operate
with the railroad company that was here to provide them with the
same; and I said to Mr. Calhoun that I thought that we were
ready to do anything- that the company desired us to do, and asked
him what in particular he wished us to do, and he said: 'There is
that trolley privilege matter before the Supervisors; that comes up
next Monday, and you people of San Francisco ought to come down
before that Board, that the people of San Francisco, or you, are
vitally interested in the matter of this trolley permit.' Mr. Ruef
then said: 'Come down before the Board next Monday, Sanderson,
and make a talk on behalf of your organization in favor of the
trolley permit. We will see that you get the privilege of the floor.
A number of citizens of San Francisco will be there, and we pro-
pose to show the press that the people of San Francisco are behind
this permit.' I said to Mr. Calhoun: 'The papers tell me that
this is a very valuable franchise and you ought to pay the city
something for it." And Mr. Calhoun said in substaiice that he
thought that the company would be paying al! ili.it tlie privileges
was worth if it built the road. Then I suggested to hhn that per-
haps that sentiment which objected to the disllgurement of Mai-ket
street and Sutter street by the erection of poles and wires, ought
to be placated to some extent, and I asked him why he would not
at least put the feed-wires under ground; and he said that that
would entail an expense which the company at that time was not
or did not think it advisable to meet. And then I asked him why
he would not put the poles 200 feet apart instead of 100 as — or 200
feet apart, as was done in European cities, and he said that the
100- foot system was the more advisable in his opinion. And then
Mr. Ruef said to me: 'The passage of this permit will mean im-
mediate work for 5,000 men. W^e will be able to take them out of
the camps and put them at work.' And I said to Mr. Ruef: 'That
is all very well, ]VIr. Ruef, but it seems to me that there is another
side to this question — a political side. The people of San Fran-
cisco are at last all behind your administration. W^hat they need
in this crisis is leadership, and we will have to take such leader-
ship as you give us; and now that everybody is with you, and
even the Bulletin has quit, it is not good policy on your part to
stir up another newspaper war. The Examiner has been your
friend ever since Schmitz was first elected, and it will not swallow
the trolley proposition in its present form, and it is charging your
administration with corruption. If it persists in its fight it will
eventually break your back. It seems to me that it would be a
comparatively easy matter to placate this opposition by exacting
some compensation for this permit, either in the way of cash or by
way of a percentage of the proceeds of the road, or you might
limit it as to time; give them a permit for five or ten years. You
have them at your mercy and they are bound to accept whatever
terms you prescribe.' Mr. Ruef then said: 'To hell with the Ex-
aminer, no public man can afford to swallow that paper. This
thing will go through on Monday. It is all settled.' And then I
said: 'You don't need me then,' and Mr. Calhoun said: 'I don't
think we do, Mr. Sanderson.' That is all the conversation, or that
is substantially all the conversation that took place in regard to
that matter."
San Francisco After the Fire 6i
would be granted. ^^ And it was granted. On May 21,
the Supervisors passed the ordinance which gave the
United Railroads authority to convert its cable systems,
wherever grades would permit, into trolley lines. For
this privilege, no money compensation, nor promise of
compensation, was made the city.®^
Demand that Mayor Schmitz veto the ordinance
granting these extraordinary privileges followed. Nev-
ertheless, the Mayor affixed his signature to the trolley
permit-granting ordinance.
Fair expression of the feeling this action engendered
will be found in the San Francisco papers of the latter
part of May, 1906. ''Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz," said
the Examiner, for example, ''has betrayed the trust
reposed in him by the people, violated his solemn pledge
in favor of an underground conduit system, and joined
Abe Ruef and the United Railroads in the shameless
work of looting the city at the time of her greatest
need."
The Ruef-Schmitz administration protested at the
62 Saifl the Examiner in its issue of May 16, 1906: "It looks
very much as if Patrick Calhoun, Thornwell Mullally and their pals
of the ITnited Railroads had sneaked up behind San Francisco just
as she lay wounded from earthquake and conflagration. In the
g'uise of helping her, they were caught picking her pocket. If the
Supervisors aid and abet them, the people will be warranted in
setting up their effigies in lasting bronze, a group of everlasting
infamy, with the inscription: 'THESE MEN LOOTED SAN FRAN-
CISCO AT THE TIME OF THE GREAT FIRE OF 1906.' " .
63 Of the failure to exact pay for the franchise, the Examiner
of May 17, 1906, said:
"Mayor Schmitz and the Board of Supervisors must know, and
if they do not know they are now informed, that the franchises
they propose to give away to the United Railroads are worth a
great deal of money to the city of San Francisco, and they cer-
tainly do know that the city never was so greatly in need of money
as now. To give avvay so much of value at such a time is so
hideous a crime that it will leave a scar upon the reputation of
everybody concerned in it. no matter what that reputation has been
up to the time of the infamy."
62 San Francisco After the Fire
criticism. The eighteen Supervisors, seventeen of whom
were within a year to confess that they had accepted
bribes and all of whom were to be involved in the
scandal, joined in a letter ^^ to the Examiner, announc-
ing that such criticism was unwarranted, and injured
the city. The letter contained veiled threat that ques-
tioning of the Supervisors' motives would not be tol-
erated. The threat, however, intimidated nobody. Crit-
icism of Ruef and the administration continued.
But in spite of the hostility toward him, Ruef con-
trolled the San Francisco delegates who were named
that year to attend the Republican State convention.
The convention met at Santa Cruz. Ruef held the bal-
ance of power. He was the most sought man there.
64 The Supervisors' letter to the Examiner was as follows:
"San Francisco, Cal., May 26, 1906.
"To 'The San Francisco Examiner,' Citj' — Gentlemen: The
Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, re-
gretting- the hostile stand which your journal has in these dis-
tressing times assumed toward the rebuilding of our destroyed city,
by indiscriminately attacking every vested interest and all intend-
ing investments of capital in this city, respectfully submits for your
consideration the propriety of joining with instead of assailing
those who are in good faith and with their energy and ability striv-
ing to restore and rebuild our beloved city.
"Irrespective of any personal feeling caused by j'^our wanton
attacks on his Honor the Mayor, and on this Board, we ask of 3'ou,
as citizens of San Francisco and as the legislative branch of our
government, to cease your thoughtless and dangerous efforts to
drive away from our city everj* interest which has expressed its in-
tention to assist in our rebuilding and which has manifested a
practical confidence in our future. Otherwise, the day will cer-
tainly not be far distant when the people, realizing the result of
your course, will seek to protect the city against its further con-
tinuance.
"In all good faith for the city's interests and without any per-
sonal rancor, these suggestions are submitted to your careflil at-
tention.
"Respectfully, James L. Gallagher, Max Mamlock. Chas. Boxton,
L. A. Rea, F. P. Nicholas, Andrew M. Wilson, Geo. F. Duffey, J. J.
Furev. M. W. Coffey, Daniel G. Coleman, C. J. Harrigan, J. .1. Phil-
lips. P. M. McGushin. E. I. Walsh, Sam Davis, Jas. T. Kelly,
Thomas F. Lonergan, W. W. Sanderson."
San Francisco After the Fire 63
He had the nomination for Governor in his hands.
He gave it to James N. Gillett.®^
While the convention was in session, a dinner was
given the State leaders of the Republican party at the
home of Major Frank McLaughlin, then Chairman of
the Republican State Central Committee. Ruef was one
of the select few present. A flash-light picture of that
banquet board shows him seated in the place of honor
at the center of the table, the remaining guests with the
exception of the host, McLaughlin, who is seated at
Ruef's side, standing.
At Ruef's back stands James N. Gillett, who had
just received, with Ruef's assistance, the party nomina-
tion for Governor, his hand resting upon Ruef's shoul-
der. Others in this flash-light group are George Hatton,
political manipulator, whose connection with the 1905
mayoralty campaign in San Francisco has already been
noted ; J. W. McKinley, head of the Southern Pacific
Law Department at Los Angeles, who was chairman of
the convention ; Rudolph Herold, a politician prominent
in the counsels of the old "Southern Pacific machine" ;
Justice F. W. Henshavv^ of the California Supreme
Bench, who was nominated at the convention for re-
election f^ Walter F. Parker, political agent for the
65 Ruef, in his story of his political career, "The Road I Trav-
eled," states that in an interview with William F. Herrin, chief
of the Southern Pacific law department, previous to the primary
campaign, the necessary expenses of the primary campaign and
of the primary election v/ere discussed. Herrin, according to
Ruef's account, agreed not to oppose the Ruef tickets. "As agreed
prior to the primary," Ruef goes on to say in his narrative: "Her-
rin paid me $14,000 for the purpose of securing for his organization
the certainty of the votes of the San Francisco delegation." See
San Francisco Bulletin, August 31, 1912.
66 Henshaw was re-elected. After Ruef had been convicted and
the Appellate Court had refused to grant him a new trial, Hen-
shaw, before the briefs had been filed in the matter of the appeal
64 San Francisco After the Fire
Southern Pacific Company ; Warren R. Porter, who had
just received the nomination for Lieutenant-Governor ;
Congressman J. R. Knowland, prominent in the counsels
of the "machine" that at the time dominated the State,
and Judge F. H. Kerrigan of the Appellate Bench,
whose decision in favor of the Southern Pacific Com-
pany while on the Superior Bench, in the so-called San
Joaquin A'alley railroad rate case, made him a con-
spicuous figure in California public life.^'
The group represented the most effective forces at
the time in California politics. Ruef, at the Santa Cruz
convention, reached the height of his power. He left
Santa Cruz planning a State organization that would
make him as great a factor in State politics as he was
at the metropolis.
But on his return to San Francisco. Ruef found him-
self harassed by criticism and beset by opposition. At
every point in the municipal administration, with the
exception of the District Attorney's office, was sugges-
tion of graft and incompetency. The police department
could not, or w^ould not, control the criminal element,
^lerchants, in the middle of the day, were struck down
at their places of business and robbed. Several were
fatally injured in such attacks, being found dying and
even dead behind their counters. Street robberies were
of daily occurrence.
In the acres of ash-strewn ruins, was junk worth
hundreds of thousands of dollars. The police seemed
from the Appellate to the Supreme Court, signed an order granting
Ruef a new hearing. See Chapter XXIX.
•5" See decisions in Edson vs. The Southern Pacific Co., 133
Cal. Reports and 144 Cal. Reports.
San Prancisco After the Fire 65
utterly powerless to protect this property. It became
the loot of unchecked bands of thieves.
A reign of terror prevailed. Citizens feared to ap-
pear on the streets at night. Merchants charged that their
business was seriously injured by these conditions. On
all sides, blame w^as placed upon the Schmitz adminis-
tration which Ruef was known to control.^^
Then again, Ruef's toll from the tolerated gambling,
saloon and social evil interests was getting too heavy
for his own safety.^^ The public was given hint of this
when the newspapers quoted George Renner, a promi-
nent businessman, as asserting that a liquor license could,
be secured if the applicant "put the matter into Ruef's
hands and paid a fat little fee." Ruef, in his reply,
stated that the liquor people were nuisances anyhow.
Ruef had long acted as attorney for the California
Liquor Dealers' Association. The Association, after
08 Nor was this criticism confined to San Francisco; it was gen-
eral throughout the State. The Sacramento Bee, in describing the
conditions prevailing at San Francisco, said:
"In the hold-ups which are now terrorizing the people of San
Francisco the citizens are seeing the effects of a loose or dishonest
municipal administration. The form of lawlessness now prevailing
in San Francisco follows upon bad local government as inevitably
as night follows day."
69 Definite figures, alleged to be the graft schedule enforced
in the San Francisco tenderloin after the fire, were published. The
Chronicle of April 24, 1907, said on this score:
"After the great disaster of last April, or so soon as the new
tenderloin began to build up and the Barbary Coast district began
to establish itself, a schedule of prices for protected, vice was for-
mulated. This schedule has been rigidly adhered to. In the case
of houses of ill-fame, the proprietors were required to pay the po-
licemen on the beat the sum of $5. the sergeants $15, the captains
$25, and the chief of police $75 to $100 every week for the privilege
of conducting their nefarious business. The gambling houses were
assessed according to their ability to pay, but the average price
for police protection, according to Heney, was about the same as
the houses of prostitution. The dives along Pacific street and in
the Bai'bary Coast district were required to pay $50 every week to
the police captain and the chief, those two functionaries presumably
dividing the money. The sporting saloons where women of the
night life congregate were taxed a similar amount."
66 San Francisco After the Fire
Ruef's flippant characterization of the liquor people,
boldly dispensed with his services and employed another
attorney, Herbert Choynski, in his stead. Choynski
made no effort to placate Rnef. On the contrary, he
gave out interviews to the press charging that Ruef
had received $500,000 for the trolley permit, and that
each Supervisor had been given $4000 or $5000 for his
vote.
This story was given some credit, although few real-
ized the amount of truth it contained.
The Supervisors were spending money freely. Alen,
who in private life had earned less than $100 a montli,
and as Supervisors were receiving only that amount,
gave evidence of being generously supplied with funds.
Supervisor Coffey, a hack driver, took a trip to Chicago.
Lonergan, driver of a delivery wagon, announced plans
for a tour of Ireland with his wife and children. Wil-
son planned a trip through the Eastern States. The
official head of the administration. Mayor Schmitz, left
on a trip to Europe, leaving Supervisor Gallagher as
acting Mayor.''^ Reports printed in San Francisco pa-
pers of Schmitz. the orchestra player, as guest of the
most expensive European hotels, did not tend to lessen
the opposition to the administration.
70 Ruef advised strongly against Schmitz leaving San Francisco.
In an interview printed in the San Francisco Call, May 16, 1907,
the day after he had plead guilty to a charge of extorting money
from French restaurant dives, Ruef said:
"The great mistake of this whole thing began with the Mayor's
trip to Europe. The Mayor had been proclaimed as the man of
the hour after the disaster of last April. He was suddenly seized
with the desire of making a trip to Europe, where he expected to
be received as one of the crowned heads. He thought his fame
would spread throughout the world and he hoped to be lionized
abroad and, incidentally, gain social prestige. The whole thing
was a mistake. T begged him not to go. I pointed out to him
that the city was in ruins and the place for the Mayor was at
honv?. He persisted, and all my pleadings were in vain."
San Francisco After the Fire 67
The general dissatisfaction with the administration
finally found expression in a mass meeting intended to
inaugurate a movement to rid the community of Ruef's
influence/^ The meeting was called in the name of
various promotion associations and improvement clubs.
It was to have been held in the rooms of the California
Promotion Association, a temporary shack that had
been erected in Union Square, a public park in the
business district. But the crowd which gathered was so
great that the meeting had to be held in the park itself.
When the committee in charge met to complete final
preparations, preliminary to calling the meeting to order,
Ruef and Acting Mayor Gallagher, with astonishing
assurance, appeared before the committee and offered
their co-operation in the work in hand. Their presence
does not appear to have been welcome. Nevertheless,
before the resolutions which the committee had under
consideration were read before the crowd, all harsh
references to Ruef and the municipal administration had
been expurgated. In effect, the expurgated resolutions
called upon commercial organizations, clubs, labor unions
and similar bodies to form a committee of 100 for
public safety.
In the meeting which followed the expurgation of
the resolutions, the organizers of the movement lost
control. Their counsel was for moderation in a situa-
tion where all elements were at work.
71 At a preliminarv meeting of the organizers of tiiis movement,
held in the office of the California Canners?, October 10. 1906, re-
sponsibilitv for the state of affair? in San Francisco was charged
to Ruef. it was stated at this meeting, and given out to the press,
that convincing evidence had been secured against Ruef wliich
warranted his prosecution.
68 San Francisco After the Fire
The crowd was made up of Ruef claquers who
shouted everybody down ; members of Labor Unions
who had been led to believe that the purpose of the
gathering was to break down the unions ; and of radi-
cals who were for proceeding immediately to clean up
the town. Those responsible for the gathering appeared
appalled at its magnitude, and showed themselves unable
to cope with the situation.
William A. Doble presided. Samuel M. Shortridge,
an attorney who was to play a prominent part in the
graft trials, stood at Doble's side and acted as a sort of
director of the proceedings. The expurgated resolutions
were read by the President of the Merchants' Associa-
tion, E. R. Lillienthal. The aves were called for and
the resolutions declared to have been adopted. The
next moment announcement was made that the meeting:
stood adjourned.
An angry demonstration followed. The people had
met to discuss lawlessness. They refused to be put off.
The adjourned meeting refused to adjourn. There were
cries of Drive Ruef out of Town. One speaker,
A. B. Truman, denounced Ruef as a grafter. For the
moment an outbreak seemed imminent. At this crisis,
Acting Mayor Gallagher appeared.
'T would suggest," he announced. '^^ ''that you dis-
perse to your respective homes."
72 Acting- Mayor Gallagher was emphatic in declaring that no
vigilance committee should disgrace San Francisco. The interior
press, which was following the San Francisco situation closely and
from an independent standpoint, advised Mayor Gallagher that the
best way to prevent organization of such a committee would be to
enforce the laws. Said the Stockton Record:
"If Acting Mayor Gallagher and his associates wish to abate
the agitation in favor of a committee of safety for San Francisco,
they should do less talking and take more energetic action against
San Francisco After the Fire 69
Citizens who did not care to participate in what
threatened to become a riot began leaving the park.
But Ruef's henchmen did not leave.
Ruef, who had cowered in fright when the crowd
was denouncing him, was concealed in a room in the so-
called Little St. Francis Hotel, which after the fire had
been erected in Union Square Park. From his hiding
place he could see the crowd without being seen. At
the right time, he appeared on the steps of the building
which were used for the speaker's stand. His followers,
now in a majority, cheered him wildly. The next
moment, Ruef w^as in control of the meeting which had
been called to protest against the conditions in San
Francisco, for w^hich the administration, of which he
was the recognized head, was held to be accountable.'^^
the thug element. The police department of the afflicted city is
now virtually on trial. It is even under suspicion of offenses graver
than that of inefRciency.^ One or two more crimes of violence with
well-known people as victims will Are the public indignation of
San Francisco to a point where incapable officers will be forced
aside and an authority created to meet the grave emergency con-
fronting respectable citizenry."
The Stockton Independent went even further. Said that paper
of the San Francisco situation:
"Acting Mayor Gallagher of San Francisco declares there shall
be no vigilance committee and no lynching in San Francisco. If
he and the police are unable to prevent daily murders, or attempted
murders, by single ci'iminals, how can he prevent good citizens in
hundreds of thousands from lynching those criminals if they catch
them? Perhaps some of the purblind members of the police force
may be among the first to be lynched."
73 After Ruef's capture of the Union Square meeting, Rev. P.
C. Macfarlane, pastor of the First Christian Church at Alameda,
said in a sermon (October 21, 1906) of the San Francisco situation:
"Let a few resolute, clean-handed business men of San Fran-
cisco who are not cowards, who are not quitters or grafters," get
together and make a purse of twenty, fifty or a hundred thousand
dollars, then employ the ablest attorney to be had and set quietly
to work to find the graft and punish the grafters. They could
make chapel exercises on Sunday afternoon in San Quentin look
like a political rally in San Francisco inside of two years.
"Thus Eugene E. Schmitz stands befoi'e the world as a man who
tried to reform and could not. He is a moral inebriate. He is a
welcher. He is a wanderer on the face of the globe, a man with-
out country, expatriated by his own cowardice. This is Dr. Jekyll.
"But there are some who see in Schmitz Mr. Hyde. These do
JO San Francisco After the Fire
The first serious attempt to oust Ruef from his dictator-
ship had failed.
But while the protestants against prevailing condi-
tions were hot with the disappointments of this failure.
District Attorney Langdon issued a statement that he
had determined to seize the opportunity presented by
the impanelment of a new Grand Jury to inaugurate a
systematic and thorough investigation into charges of
official graft and malfeasance in office. To assist in
this work, he announced, Francis J. Heney had been
requested to become a regular deputy in the District
Attorney's office, and had accepted. That the investi-
gation might not be handicapped by lack of funds, Mr.
Langdon stated Rudolph Spreckels had guaranteed that
he would personally undertake the collection from pub-
lic-spirited citizens of a fund to provide for the expenses
necessary to make the investigation thorough.'^'* It be-
not give the Mayor credit for even a spasm of virtue and say that
the great work of the morning of April 18 was done by General
Funston and prominent citizens of their own volition. These peo-
ple say that he has now gone from San Francisco, taking with him
vast sums of money gained through the granting of the trolley
franchise, plotted even while the embers smoldered, and that he
will never return.
"The United Railroads is universally believed to have acquired
its trolley franchises hy corrupt means. It is said that prominent
merchants will crane and crook and bow and scrape to get a nod
of recognition from Abe Ruef. Ruef has used the advantages given
him by the state of affairs to corrupt the greatest city in Califor-
nia. Ruef owns the Board of Supervisors. The Police Commission-
ers belong to him. The saloon-keeper v/ho wants a license, a cor-
poration that wants a favor from the Board of Supei'visors, has
only to retain Ruef as an attorney at a fee sufficiently large."
Dr. Macfarlane gave expression to what many thoughtful men
were thinking, but of which few with interests at San Francisco
dared to admit openly.
74 Mr. Langdon's statement was published October 21, 190(5. It
was in full as follows:
"In view of the present extraordinary conditions prevalent in the
City and County of San Francisco, the unusual increase in crime,
which threatens to grow worse as the winter sets in, and in view
of the numerous charges of offlcial graft and malfeasance in office,
I have determined to seize the opportunity presented, by the im-
panelment of a new grand jury, which has been set dov/n for next
San Francisco After the Fire 71
came known that William J. Burns, who had been
associated with Heney in the Oregon land-fraud cases,
had been retained to direct the investigation, and that
for several months his agents had been quietly at work.
The effect of these announcements was immediate.
Wednesday by Hon. Thomas F. Graham, the Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court in the City and County of San Francisco, to inau-
gurate a systematic and thorough investigation into these condi-
tions. It is my official duty to do so, and in pursuance of that duty
and in view of the magnitude of the task, I have decided to seek
the best assistance obtainable. It is my purpose to set at rest
these charges of official graft by either proving them false or con-
victing those who are guilty. If the charges be untrue, their falsity
should be demonstrated to the world, so as to remove the impres-
sions which have been circulated to the injury of the credit and
fair name of the city. If they be true we should show to the coun-
try that there is enough strength, virtue and civic pride in our
people to enable the regularly constituted macliinery of justice to
re-establish conditions on a clean, righteous and just basis, without
resort to any extraordinary expedients outside the law. This is to
be an honest, fair, thorough and searching investigation. We shall
protect no man. We shall persecute no man, but we shall prose-
cute evei'v man who is guilty, regardless of position or standing in
the city. In order that we may have the benefit of expert sei-vices
in this work I have requested Mr. Francis J. Heney, who has won
national fame for his work in the prosecution of the Oregon land
fraud cases, to become a regular deputy in my office. Mr. Heney
lias accepted. It is unfortunate that this work should be com-
menced during a political campaign, but the conditions in San
Francisco to-day require that radical action be taken at once, and
though I may be charged with instituting this investigation at this
particular juncture for political advantage, I must ask the public
to judge me bv the results attained, which will be the best answer.
"I am not unmindful of the great difficulties Involved in this
investigation. It will be both laborious and costly. The money
available under the appropriations made to the District Attorney's
office and tlie grand jury is, of course, uttei-ly inadequate. Often
previous investigations by other grand juries have been made abor-
tive because of this lack of necessary funds to meet expenses. In
the present instance we shall not suffer this severe handicap. I am
authorized to announce that Mr. Rudolph Spreckels has guaranteed
that he will personally undertake the collection from public-spirited
citizens of a fund to provide for the expenses necessary to make
the investigation thorough and so that good i-esults may ensue.
'I'he city is in deep affliction consequent upon the dreadful calami-
ties of last spring; it is in danger from certainly increasing inva-
sion of desperate criminals from all over the world; some of the
public departments are undoubtedly in bad hands, and I appeal to
my fellow-citizens to give this investigation their moral support,
so that the innocent may be protected, so that the guilty may be
punished, and so that San Francisco may be helped to her feet and
started again on the high road of prosperity in her material condi-
tions, and have restored decency, efficiency, honesty and honor in
her public affairs.
"Wri.TJAM TT. LANODON. District Attorney."
72 San Francisco After the Fire
All talk of "vigilante committee" and "lynching" ceased.
The case of The People of San Francisco vs. the
Schmitz-Ruef Administration was to be presented in
an orderly way in the courts.
And the united press of San Francisco, legitimate
business interests, and a great majority of the people
welcomed the alternative.
CHAPTER V.
Graft Prosecution Opens.
Three days after the announcement of his plans,
District Attorney Langdon appointed Heney to a regu-
lar deputyship. But even before Langdon had taken
office, as early as December, 1905, Fremont Older,
editor of the San Francisco Bulletin, had suggested to
Heney that he undertake the prosecution of those re-
sponsible for conditions in San Francisco.
The Bulletin had been the most fearless and con-
sistent of the opponents of the Schmitz-Ruef regime.'^^
After Ruef's complete triumph at the November elec-
tion in 1905, he boasted that he would break the Bulletin
with libel suits. With every department of government
in his control, Ruef appeared to be in a position where,
even though he might not be able to make good his
threat, he could cause the Bulletin much annoyance if
not great financial loss.
Older went on to Washington to engage Heney to
75 The persecution of the Bulletin during this period was char-
acteristic of Ruef s methods and reflected the state of lawlessness
which prevailed in San Francisco. R. A. Crothers, proprietor of
the paper, was assaulted and badly beaten. The newsboys organ-
ized into a union. The boys were sincere enough, but the move-
ment was in reality engineered from the tenderloin. Soon a strike
of newsboys against the Bulletin was inaugurated. Copies of the
paper were snatched from the hands of citizens who purchased it.
Bulletin carriers and agents were assaulted. Tugs of its delivery
wagons were cut. When the paper was delivered to stores, sticks
and stones were thrown in after it. The police did not interfere.
The manifestations of lawlessness went unchecked. Libel suits
were brought against the Biilletin. Business boycotts were at-
tempted against it.
74 Graft Prosecution Opens
defend the paper, should Ruef attempt to make his
boast good. Heney gave Ruef's threats little credence.
"I would be very glad to defend you," he told Older,
*'but I am afraid I'll never get a chance to earn that
fee." ^«
Incidentally Older stated that he believed a fund
could be raised to prosecute the corrupters of the San
Francisco municipal government, and asked Heney if
he would undertake the prosecution, if such a fund
could be secured.
Heney replied that he would be glad to undertake
it, but stated that at least $100,000 would be required.
And even with this amount, Heney pointed out to Older,
all efforts would be futile, unless the District Attorney
were genuinely in sympathy with the movement to
better conditions.
On Henev's return to California earlv in 1906,
Older brought him and Rudolph Spreckels ^^ and James
76 See address made by Heney before Citizens' League of Jus-
tice in October, 1908.
T7 Rudolph Spreckels, although connected with large enterprises,
had steadfastly refused to employ Ruef as an attorney, or to join
with him in any way. Given control of the San Francisco Gas
Company, for example, although he was importuned to do so,
Spreckels refused to employ Ruef as attorney for that company.
Spreckels testified at the trial of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun,
that he had first realized the necessity of proceeding against Ruef
and the Ruef-Schmitz adininistration when Ruef proposed to him
to organize a syndicate to purchase San Francisco municipal bonds.
Spreckels testified that Ruef set forth his plan as follows:
"He (Ruef) asked me if I would get together a syndicate for the
purpose of bidding on these bonds; that he would guarantee that if
T did get up such a syndicate, our bid would be a successful bid:
that we would not be obliged to bid above par. and that he would
guarantee that we would be the successful bidders. My reply to
Mr. Ruef was that I could not understand how anybody could make
such an agreement or promise, and how did he propose to make
such a statement — to carry out what he had stated. He said:
'Why, that is a simple matter. You know my connection with the
Labor Unions and the Labor L^nion party. Just at the time that the
bids are about to come in. T will arrange to tie up this town; we
will have the l>isge.«:t stiike thnt the cojnmunlty has ever known,
Graft Prosecution Opens 75
D. Phelan together. Heney and Spreckels met for the
first time. Phelan vouched for Langdon's ^^ integrity
and honesty of purpose. Indeed, Langdon was already
giving evidence of his independence of the Ruef organ-
ization. Up to that time no attempt had been made to
raise the funds necessary to conduct a practical investi-
gation. Phelan stated that he would subscribe $10,000
and Spreckels agreed to give a like amount. Spreckels
undertook to look the field over and expressed confi-
dence that he could get twenty men who would sub-
scribe $5000 each, making the $100,000 which Heney
had declared to be necessary for the undertaking. The
question of Heney's fee was then raised."^^
and I would like to see any of your bankers or your capitalistic
friends bid on the bonds under those circumstances, excepting
yourself, those that are in the know' — words to that effect, was
his expression. I said to Mr. Ruef: 'Do you mean to say, Mr.
Ruef, that for the purpose of making money you would bring about
a strike which might entail even bloodshed, for the mere sake of
making money?' And Mr. Ruef flushed up and said: 'Oh, no; I
was only joking.' And he soon withdrew from my office."
It is interesting to compare Spreckels' attitvxde toward Ruef
with that of I. "W. Hellman, as shown by Hellman's testimony at
the trial of Tirey L. Ford. See footnote 7, page 15.
78 Heney, in his address on the work of the Graft Prosecution,
October, 1908, paid Langdon the following high tribute:
"Mr. Langdon, as soon as we laid the matter before him and
convinced him it was in good faith and not to sei've private inter-
ests, said: 'Yes. I will appoint Mr. Heney assistant in my office
and give him full sway to make a thorough investigation, on one
condition, and that is that I am kept personally in touch with
everything going on at all times. I am District Attorney and I
propose to be District Attorney and to act upon my own judgment.'
And there never has been a time that Mr. Langdon didn't have ab-
solute sway over all matters, and did not wholly consent to what
was done, and he has had the final say in everything, and I wish
to say that there is more credit due to him than to any of us. He
had a greater personal sacrifice to make.
"The first thing he had to take into consideration was that he
Iiad gone into office as the candidate of the Labor party, and he
knew he would be called a traitor and denounced if it appeared
that any man who had been on the same ticket as he had been
elected upon had been grafting. He had to possess more moral
than physical courage, and a nigher kind of moral courage, and
that courage was exercised to the credit of San Fi'anelsco a.s well
as to the credit of Mr. Tiangdon."
70 The Craft Defense lal.ored without success to make it appear
76 Graft Prosecution Opens
"If there be an}i:hing left out of the $100,000 we
will talk about fee," Heney replied. "But I don't think
there will be anything left and I will put up my time
against your money."
It was practically settled at this meeting that Heney
should devote himself to the prosecution of corrup-
tionists against whom evidence might be secured. He
returned to Washington early in March to wind up his
affairs there. Before he could return to San Francisco,
came the earthquake and fire.
Heney got back to San Francisco April 25, one week
after the disaster. He had another conference with
Spreckels.*^ Spreckels told him that he wanted the
investigation begun at the earliest possible moment, and
that he (Spreckels) would himself giiarantee the ex-
penses which might be incurred.^^ Heney notified
that Heney was compensated for his service. Out of the Prosecu-
tion fund, the expenses — rental, clerical hire, etc. — of offices, so far
as they were maintained especially for the work of the Graft Pros-
ecution, were paid. These were known as "Heney's offices." When
Rudolph Spreckels was on the stand at the Calhoun trial, he testi-
fied under Heney's announcement that the Defense could ask him
any question it chose and no objection would be made. Earl
Rogers, for Calhoun, endeavored to make it appear that Heney was
getting pay.
"Mr. Spreckels." Rogers asked, "in addition to paying Mr.
Heney's office expenses, amounting to five or six hundred dollars
a month, have you paid other expenses for Mr. Heney?"
"No, sir," Spreckels replied.
Heney, the testimony all through shows, received not a dollar
to compensate him for his services to the city; moreover, it shows
that he had given up business which would have brought him large
fees, that he might be free to conduct the Graft Prosecution. See
transcript Calhoun trial, pages 3837 and on. 3746, 3743, etc.
The efforts of well-compensated attorneys for the Defense to
make it appear that Heney was paid for his work, furnish one of
the amusing features of the graft trials.
so The conference was held on May 10 or 11. This was four
days before the Supervisors took the preliminary steps toward
granting the United Railroads Its overhead trolley permit, and sev-
eral months before the brilie money wa« paid.
81 See testirnonv of Rudolpli Spreckels at trial of Th» People
va. Patrick Callmun. No. 1436.
Graft Prosecution Opens 77
Burns, and as early as June ®^ Burns had begun the
investigation that was to result in the downfall of Ruef,
and the scattering of his forces.
By the middle of the following October, Heney had
so arranged his affairs as to be free to devote himself ,
to the San Francisco investigation. His appointment as
Deputy District Attorney followed.
In view of one of the principal defenses advanced
by Ruef and his allies, namely, that the graft prosecu-
tion was undertaken to injure the United Railroads,
these dates are important. The services for which the
bribe money which got the United Railroads into diffi-
culties was paid, were not rendered until May 21, 1906,
long after final arrangements had been made for Burns
to conduct the investigation and Heney to assist in the
prosecution. The actual passing of the United Rail-
roads bribe money was not completed until late in
August ®^ of that year. Burns was at work, and had
82 Al McKinley was the first detective put to work for the Graft
Prosecution. On May 25. 1906, Chief Burns detailed liim to watch
Ruef. Later, June 19, 1906, Burns directed Robert Perry to shadow
Ruef. Perry did so until nearly a year later, when Ruef was placed
in the custody of an elisor.
83 That prosecution of officials of the United Railroads was not
thought of when the graft prosecution was begun, was brought out
at the trial of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, No. 1436. The fol-
lowing, for example, is taken from Rudolph Spreckels' testimony:
"Mr. Heney — Q. At the time that Mr. Phelan agreed to con-
tribute the $10,000, Mr. Spreckels, what did you say, if anything,
about contributing yourself? A. That was in the first meeting, I
think, Mr. Heney, and I told him that I was ready and willing to
contribute a similar amount; that I believed it would be possible to
get others to join and contribute.
"Q. At that time was anything said by any person about prose-
cuting Mr. Calhoun? A. Absolutely no.
"Q. Or any person connected with the United Railroads Com-
pany? A. The discussion was entirely confined to the administra-
tion, the corrupt administration as we termed it.
"Q. At that time did you have any purpose or intention of
prosecuting Mr. Calhoun? A. I had not.
"Q. Did you have any reason to believe that Mr. Calhoun at
78 Graft Prosecution Opens
received pay for his services before the bribe-giving
for which United Railroad officials were prosecuted had
taken place.®*
Langdon's announcement that he would appoint
Heney as a Deputy District Attorney, to assist in in-
vestigating into charges of official corruption, brought
upon him the condemnation of the municipal administra-
tion and of the leaders of the Union-Labor party. P. H.
McCarthy and O. A. Tveitmoe, who, from opposing the
Union-Labor party movement in 1901-3 had, by the
time the Graft Prosecution opened, become prominent
in its councils, were particularly bitter in their denun-
ciations. At a Ruef-planned mass meeting held at the
largest auditorium in the city October 31, 1906, for the
purpose of organizing a league for the protection of the
administration, Langdon was dubbed "traitor to his
party," a man ''who has gone back on his friends,"
''the Benedict Arnold of San Francisco."
that time had committed any crime? A. I had no indication of
such a crime.
"Mr. Moore — Was that time fixed, Mr. Heney?
"Mr. Heney — Ye.s, it was fixed; the first conversation, and he
has fixed it as nearly as he could.
"The Court — Have you in mind the testimony on that point, Mr.
Moore? There was some reference to it in an earlier part of the
examination.
"Mr. Heney — Q. When you had the talk with Mr. Heney in
April, 1906, did you say anything about prosecuting Mr. Calhoun,
or anybody connected with the United Railroads? A. I did not.
"Q. Did j'ou at any time tell Mr. Heney that you desired to
have him prosecute Mr. Patrick Calhoun? A. I did not, at any
time.
"Q. Did you tell him at any time that you desired to have him
prosecute an3' person connected with the United Railroads Com-
pany? A. I did not." See transcript The People vs. Patrick Cal-
houn, No. 1436, page 3730.
84 Rudolph Spreckels testified at the trial of The People vs. Pat-
rick Calhoun, No. 1436:
"Mr. Perry was employed to get information in regard to Mr.
Abraham Ruef and the city administration as early as June, 1906,
and his efforts and of one other man employed at that time were
directed toward that and that only."
Graft Prosecution Opens 79
Heney was denounced as "the man from Arizona."
On the other hand Mayor Schmitz was called "the
peerless champion of the people's rights," and Ruef,
"the Mayor's loyal, able and intrepid friend."
Thomas Egan, one of the organizers of the Union-
Labor party, stated of the graft prosecution : "This
movement, led by Rudolph Spreckels and engineered by
James D. Phelan, conceived in iniquity and born in
shame, is for the purpose of destroying the labor organ-
izations and again to gain control of the government
of our fair city."
Ruef, in an earnest address, insisted upon his inno-
cence of wrongdoing. "As sure as there is a God in
heaven," he announced solemnly, "they have no proof
as they claim." ^''
Acting Mayor Gallagher issued a statement in which
he took the same ground as had Egan at the Dreamland
Rink mass meeting, that the prosecution was a move-
ment on the part of the Citizens' Alliance to disrupt the
labor unions.^®
85 See San Francisco newspapers, November 1, 1906,
86 Gallagher's statement was in full as follows:
"It seems to me that these assaults that are being made upon
Mayor Schmitz are exceedingly reprehensible. It is strange that
the gentlemen who are making the attacks did not see fit to make
them while Mayor Schmitz was here. Especially does this apply
to Langdon, who, by reason of past association with Mayor Schmitz,
and favors received by him from the Mayor, should have been the
last man to attempt to besmirch the Mayor in his absence. I am
satisfied that all these attacks upon the administration officials
have their origin in the long-continued attempt on behalf of the
Citizens' Alliance to disrupt the labor organizations of the city.
An administration that is friendly to organized labor is an impass-
able obstacle in the way of such a purpose. The enormous amount
of labor of all kinds that will have to be performed In this city
during the next few years has undoubtedly prompted the organizers
of the old Citizens' Alliance to renew their assaults upon the offi-
cials elected by the Union Labor party in the hope that they may
thereby themselves secure control of the municipal administration
8o Graft Prosecution Opens
From another angle, officials of public service cor-
porations charged those identified with the investigation
with being in league with the labor unions. In one of
his statements to the public, Patrick Calhoun, president
of the United Railroads, set forth that, "1 confidently
expect to defeat alike the machinations of Rudolph
Spreckels, his private prosecutor, with his corps of hired
detectives, and Mr. Cornelius, president of the Carmen's
Union, the leader of anarchy and lawlessness, and to see
fairly established in this community the principles of
American liberty, and the triumphs of truth and jus-
tice." «^
Then, too, there were points at which the two sup-
posed extremes, corporation magnates and Labor-Union
politicians, touched in their opposition to the prosecu-
tion. At a meeting held on November 2, 1906, less
than two weeks after Heney's appointment, John E.
Bennett, representing the Bay Cities Water Company,
read a paper in which Heney and Langdon were de-
nounced as the agents of the Spring Valley Water
Company. The Chronicle, in its issue of November 3,
charged that the paper read by Mr. Bennett was type
and thus work out their own will in the matter of the conditions
under which labor shall perform the task of rebuilding this city.
"So far as I am concerned personally, I consider that the dis-
ruption of the labor organization would be a great sacrifice of the
interests of all of the people. The city must be built up; but the
Citizens' Alliance and all organizations and individuals in sympathy
with it may as well understand, first as last, that the work will
only be done through organized labor, and not by the employment
of pauper labor in competition with the mechanics and artisans of
the labor unions.
"That this view of the situation is well recognized by the labor
organizations of the city is shown by the action of the Building-
Trades Council last night in approving and indorsing my action In
removing Mr. Langdon."
87 Contained in a statement published May 18. 1907. See San
Francisco papers of that date.
Graft Prosecution Opens 8i
proof of a pamphlet that was to be widely distributed,
and that the proof sheets had been taken to the meeting
by George B. Keane, secretary of the Board of Super-
visors.®^
On the other hand, practically the entire press of
the city,®^ the general public and many of the labor
88 The nature of the attacks upon the supporters of the Prosecu-
tion is shown by the proceedings in the libel suit brought by the
San Francisco First National Bank against the Oakland Tribune.
Rudolph Spreckels was president of the bank; the Tribune was one
of the stanchest of the opponents of the prosecution. The Tribune
charged that the Graft Prosecution had for one of its objects the
unloading of the Spring Valley Water Company's plant upon San
Francisco, and that the First National Bank was burdened with
Spring Valley securities. Among other things the article set forth:
"The recent disclosures of the methods by which it was sought
to unload Spring Valley's old junk, called a distributing system,
together with its inadequate supply of inferior water, on the city
at an outrageous figure by the swinging of the 'big stick' has not
enhanced the value of the securities of the corporation in the view
of the national examiners. Even the efforts to cloud the real pur-
poses of the promoters of the Spring Valley job by calling it a civic
uprising to stamp out municipal graft is said to have failed to mis-
lead the Federal experts. The suggestion that the 'big stick' would
force the city to purchase the plant of the decrepit corporation for
$28,000,000 after its real estimate was appi^aised by an expert at
$5,000,000 and held by the bondholders to be worth, as realty specu-
lation, $15,000,000, has not enthused the Federal bank examiners in
relation to the value of Spring [Valley bonds as security for a
national bank."
The First National Bank did not hold Spring Valley Company
securities. As the Tribune's charges were calculated to injure the
bank, action for libel followed. At the hearings, it developed that
the articles had been furnished the Tribune by the political editor
of the San Francisco Chi^onicle, who testified that he was paid fifty
dollars a week for his Tribune articles. This was more than his
salary as political editor of the Chronicle. He admitted on the
stand that he had heard what he stated in his article, "only as a
matter of gossip."
89 The San Francisco Call, in an editorial article, printed October
22, expressed the general sentiment in San Francisco. The Call
said:
"San Francisco will v/elcome the undertaking by Mr. Francis J.
Heney of the duty to search out and bring to justice the official
boodlers and their brokers that afflict the body politic. Public
opinion is unanimous in the belief that Supervisors have been bribed
and that administrative functions such as those of the Board of
Works and the Health Board have been peddled in secret market.
Even the Board of Education is not exempted from suspicion.
"These convictions, prevailing in the public mind, call for veri-
fication or refutation. The sudden affluence of certain members of
the Board of Supervisors, the current and generally credited reports
that the United Railroads paid upward of $500,000 in bribes to
grease the way of its overhead trolley franchise, the appearance of
82 Graft Prosecution Opens
unions gave the prosecution unqualified endorsement,
welcoming it as opportunity, in an orderly way, either
to establish beyond question, or to disprove, the charges
against the administration of incompetency and cor-
ruption.^*^ Rudolph Spreckels's statement, that "this is
public ofRcials in the guise of capitalists making large investments
in skating rinks and other considerable enterprises — these and other
lines of investigation demand the probe. If there has been no dis-
honesty in office the ofRcials should be the first to insist on a
thorough inquiry.
"If it is true, as we believe, that official boodling has been the
practice, a systematic inquiry will surely uncover the criines. It is
impossible to commit such offenses where so many are concerned
without leaving some trace that can be followed and run to earth.
The crimes of the gaspipe thugs seemed for the moment hidden in
impenetrable mystery, but patient search discovers the trail that
leads to conviction. Criminals are rarely men of high intelligence.
They betray themselves at one or other tuin of their windings.
T^'^e are convinced that some of our Supervisors and not a few of the
executive ofRcials appointed by Schmitz are in no degree supc;rior
in point of intelligence and moral sense to the gaspipe robbers.
"Mr. Heney's record as a remorseless and indefatigable prose-
cutor of ofRcial rascals is known. He will have the assistance in
his new work of Mr. William J. Burns, who did so much to bring
to light the Oregon land frauds. Those crimes were surrounded and
protected by fortifications of political influence that were deemed
impregnable. When the inquiry was first undertaken nobody be-
lieved it would ever come to anything. It was a slow business,
even as the mills of the gods grind slowly, but if fine the grist
of the criminal courts of Oregon is large and satisfying.
"The people of San Francisco have been sorely tried. Fire and
earthquake we cannot help, but the unhappy city has been made
the prey of a set of conscienceless thieves who have done nothing
since our great calamity beyond promoting schemes to fill their
own pockets. Our streets, our sewers, our schools and our public
buildings have been neglected, but the sale of permits and fran-
chises, the working of real estate jobs and the market for privileges
of every variety have been brisk and incessant. Officials have
grown rich: Some of them are spending money like a drunlcen
sailor. It is time for housecleaning and a day of reckoning. Heney
and Burns will put the question: 'W^here did they get it?' "
90 Bishop Montgomery, of the Roinan Catholic Churcli, in an
interview in the San Francisco Call, October 20, 1906, said in ref-
erence to the San Francisco graft prosecution:
"Mere accusations have been so long and so persistently made
that the public has a right to know the truth; and, above all, those
who are innocently so charged have a right to a public and complete
vindication. Nottiing now but a thorough and honest investigation
can clear the atmosphere and set us right before the world and
with ourselves.
"I have such confidence in the courts of California that I believe
no innocent man needs to fear that he will suffer from them, and
no guilty man has any just right to complain. ■
"I believe the investigation has been undertaken in good faith
for the best interests of the city, and that it will be conducted
thoroughly and honestly."
Graft Prosecution Opens 83
no question of capital and labor, but of dishonesty and
justice," ^^ was generally accepted as true expression of
the situation.
Those directly connected with allegations or sug-
gestion of irregular practices, issued statements dis-
claiming any knowledge of irregularity or corruption.
General Tirey L. Ford, chief counsel of the United Rail-
roads, in a published interview,^^ stated that no political
boss nor any person connected with the municipal ad-
91 Mr. Spreckels' statement was contained in an interview
printed in the San Francisco Call, October 28, 1906. It was as fol-
lows:
"This is no question of capital and labor," he said, "but of dis-
honesty and justice. There is no association of men, capitalists or
others, behind what we have undertaken, and it cannot be made a
class question. No one knows that better than Ruef. And it will
be impossible for him to fool the workingman by these insinuations.
"I want the workingmen of this city to recall that meeting which
was recently held in Union Square. I was asked to attend that
meeting and be its chairman. I refused to preside, to speak or go
there unless I could be assured that it was not to be a movement
of the capitalistic class on the one hand against the workingmen on
the other. And because I did not receive that assurance I did not
attend. Mr. Heney stayed away for the same reason.
"Now, who was it that originated that meeting? Sam Short-
ridge. Who was it who drew the resolutions; who was it who
prompted the speakers and the chairman? It was Sam Shortridge.
"Mr. Ruef says that meeting was dominated and arranged by the
Citizens' Alliance. Vei'y well. Then let Mr. Ruef explain to the
workingmen why it was that a few days afterward he hired Sam
Shortridge as his attorney.
"I believe that it is impossible to fool the laboring men of this
city now. Absolutely and definitely I want to say to them that there
is nothing behind this movement but the desire for a clean city.
It is absolutely regardless of class. Every man who owns a home,
who has a family, is as much interested in what we have under-
taken as is the wealthiest citizen."
92 See San Francisco Examiner, October 28, 1906, from which the
following is taken: "Of course there was no bribery (said General
Ford), nor offer to bribe, nor was there anything done except upon
clean and legitimate lines."
"Q. General, if any bribe, or offer to bribe, had been made by
your company to any person connected with the San Francisco
mvinicipal administration, or to any political boss having control of
the same, or if any member of the Board of Supervisors, or of the
municipal government had benefited to the extent of one dollar
financially by the agreement to grant to the United Railroads the
privilege desired, you, in your official capacity, would undoubtedly
be aware of it, would you not? A. I am certain that I would; I
am, therefore, equally certain that no such thing was ever done or
contemplated."
84 Graft Prosecution Opens
ministration had benefited financially to the extent of
one dollar in the trolley permit transaction, and that
had any one profited thereby, he (Ford) in his official
capacity would have known of it. Those connected
with the administration were as vigorous in their de-
nials.^^ Many of them expressed satisfaction at the
prospect of an investigation. Supervisor Kelly went
so far as to suggest that the municipality give $5000 to
93 The following- are excerpts from interviews published in the
San Francisco Examiner, October 23, 1906:
Abraham Ruef : "I am satisfied that if Mayor Schmitz had known
that this investigation was afoot he would have postponed his trip
abroad and would have remained here to disprove all allegations
of graft."
Supei'\'isor Andrew Wilson: "I shall be glad to welcome any in-
vestigation as to my official acts or as to my official conduct. I
never took a dishonest dollar in my life."
Supervisor Patrick McGushin: "The more they investigate, the
better I shall like it. I do not believe Mr. Heney has any evidence
of graft. Speaking- for myself, he can investigate me or my bank
account if he likes."
Acting- Mayor James L. Gallagher: "So far as the administra-
tion is concerned from the statements I have received, everything
is straight. So far as the Police Department is concerned no one
can tell. I can not tell."
Supervisor Jennings Phillips: "This investigation will be a good
thing. There has been so much talk of graft and so inany accusa-
tions that it all will be settled once and for all. If Mr. Heney has
any evidence I know nothing of its nature nor against what part of
the administration it is directed."
Supervisor Edward Walsh: "As a Supervisor I have tried to do
my best. I court an investigation. I do not pay much attention to
Mr. Heney's statements. I have been here thirty-seven years and
I can hold up my head, as can every other member of this Board."
Supervisor Michael Coffey: "Nothing would afford me more
pleasure than to have them investigate my integrity and my official
acts. I hope they'll make a full and thorough investigation and clear
us all of the slurs that have been cast upon us."
Supervisor S. Davis: "I think there is nothing to this whole
thing. If Mr. Heney can find out anything let him do it. It is hard
to have insinuations cast at you. My personal connection with the
administration has been straight."
Supervisor F. P. Nicholas: "There has been so much noise about
graft that it will be a good thing to go thoroughly into the matter.
Personally I court an investigation of my official acts. If Mr. Heney
has any evidence of corruption I know nothing of It."
Supervisor Daniel Coleman: "These loud cries of graft that have
been current of late will be silenced through this investigation. It
should be thoroughly gone into so that the purity of the adminis-
tration cannot hereafter be questioned."
Supervisor Max Mamlock: "I do not think It is worth my while
to think about this investigation. I do not see where Mr. Burns or
Mr. Heney could get any evidence of graft."
Graft Prosecution Opens 85
assist in the inquiry. "Let us," said Supervisor Loner-
gan, "get to the bottom of this thing. These cracks
about graft have been made right along, and we should
have them proved or disproved at once."
But in spite of this brave front, the developments
of the years of resistance of the graft prosecution
show the few days following Heney's appointment as
Assistant District Attorney to have been a period of
intense anxiety to Ruef and his immediate advisers.
Ruef held daily consultations with Acting Mayor Gal-
lagher, Clerk Keane, and his attorney, Henry Ach.
The public knew little of these consultations, but a
rumor became current that Mayor Gallagher would sus-
pend District Attorney Langdon from office. Little
credence was given this, however. Nevertheless, on the
night of October 25 Acting Mayor Gallagher suspended
Langdon from office, and appointed Abraham Ruef to
be District Attorney to conduct the graft investigation.^*
94 Acting--Mayor Gallagher's order removing- Langdon is printed
in full in the appendix. One of the charges alleged against
Langdon was that he had appointed Francis J. Heney to be his
deputy for ulterior purposes. Of Heney it was alleged that he had
"in a public speech in said city and county (San Francisco),
aspersed the character and good name of a prominent citizen of this
community (Abe Ruef), and stated that he knew him to be cor-
rupt, etc."
Acting-Mayor Gallagher's order of removal was made in per-
suance of Sections 18 and 19 of Article XVI of the San Francisco
Charter, which read as follows:
"Sec. 18. Any elected officer, except Supervisor, may be sus-
pended by the Mayor and removed by the Supervisors for cause;
and any appointed officer may be removed by the Mayor for cause.
The Mayor shall appoint some person to dischaige the duties of the
office during the period of such suspension.
"Sec. 19. When the Mayor shall suspend any elected officer he
shall Immadlately notify the Supervisors of such suspension and the
cause therefor. If the Board Is not in session, he shall immediately
call a session of the same In such manner as shall be provided by
ordinance. The Mayor shall present written charges against surh
suspended officer to the Board and furnish a copy of the same to
said officer, who shall have the right to appear with counsel before
the Board in his defense. If by an affirmative vote of not less than
86 Graft Prosecution Opens
The following morning the San Francisco Call, under
a large picture of Ruef, printed the words : "THIS
MAN'S HAND GRIPS THE THROAT OF SAN
FRANCISCO."
fourteen members of the Board of Supervisors, taken by ayes and
noes and entered on its record, the action of the Mayor is approved,
then the suspended officer shall thereby be removed from ofRce;
but if the action of the Mayor is not so approved such suspended
tfBcer shall be immediately reinstated."
CHAPTER VI.
Ruef's Fight to Take the District Attorney's
Office.
The iinpaneling- of the Grand Jury was to have been
completed on October 26. Heney was appointed As-
sistant District Attorney on October 24. Ruef, to secure
control of the District Attorney's office before the Grand
Jury could be sworn, had little time to act. But he was
equal to the emergency. Gallagher removed Langdon
and named Ruef as District Attorney the day after
Heney's appointment and the day before the impaneling
of the Grand Jury was to have been completed.
Ruef had, however, considered Langdon's suspension
from the day of the District Attorney's announcement of
his plans for investigating graft charges. Gallagher
testified at the graft trials that Ruef had, several days
before Langdon's suspension, notified him it might be
necessary to remove Langdon from office.®^ The Act-
ing Mayor expressed himself as ready to carry out
whatever Ruef might want done.
Gallagher testified that the names of several attor-
95 Gallagher testified at the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No.
1437, to the conversation at Ruef's law offices when Ruef first
broached the matter of Langdon's removal, as follows: "The sub-
stance of the conversation was that Mr. Ruef stated that it might
become necessary to remove Mr. Langdon from the ofl^ce of Dis-
trict Attorne3^ and to appoint somebody else. I replied that that
was a matter for him to make up his mind on; If he determined it
had to be done, I would do it; words to that effect, I cannot give
the exact language."
88 Fight for District Attorney's Office
neys, including that of Henry Ach, Ruef's attorney and
close associate, were canvassed as eligible for appoint-
ment as Langdon's successor. Nothing definite was
decided upon, however, until the day that Langdon's
position was declared vacant. On that day, Gallagher
received word from Ruef to call at his office. There,
according to Gallagher's statement, he found Thomas
V. Gator, a member of the municipal Board of Election
Gommissioners. Henrv Ach came in later.
Ruef told Gallagher that he had decided it was nec-
essary to remove Langdon, and that he had decided to
take the place himself. Gallagher assured Ruef that
whatever Ruef decided in the matter he, the Acting
Mayor, would stand by. The papers removing Langdon
had already been prepared. Gallagher read them over,
for typographical errors, he states in his testimony, and
signed them.
The Board of Supervisors was to have met that day
at 2 :30 P. M. in regular weekly session. Gallagher, as
Acting Mayor, was to preside. But it was well after
6 P. M. when Gallagher arrived, from Ruef's office, at
the council chamber.
He appeared worried and disturbed. The Supervis-
ors, who had been waiting for him for nearly four
hours, were called to order. The communication remov-
ing Langdon was read and adopted without debate or
opposition.^® Gallagher then announced that he had
appointed Ruef to be Langdon's successor.
96 The San Francisco Chronicle, in its Issue of October 26, thus
describes tlie proceedings attending Langdon's removal:
"Gallagher took the cliair at 6:.30 p. ni. and there was ten min-
utes' perfunctory business.
"His honor seemed uneasy. Init at the careful prompting of
Fight for District Attorney's Office 89
How completely Ruef dominated the municipal de-
partments was shown by the fact that he filed his bond,
his oath of office, and his certificate of appointment at
the various municipal offices without hint of what was
going on reaching the public. Ruef had commanded
secrecy, and secrecy was observed. After Gallagher
had announced Ruef's appointment in open meeting of
the Supervisors, the filing of the papers was made public.
Although the Supervisors, in open board meeting,
endorsed Gallagher's action without apparent hesitation,
nevertheless the abler among them did so wath misgiv-
ings. Supervisor Wilson went straight from the meeting
of the board to Ruef's office. He told Ruef that in his
judgment a mistake had been made ; that the papers
would call the removal of Langdon confession of guilt. ^^
Secretary Keane, he called for 'communications from executive
officers.'
"Keane then announced. 'From his honor, the Mayor,' and read
Gallagher's letter suspending District Attorney Langdon 'for neglect
of duty' and sundry other cliarges.
"During the reading of the long document there was no sound
in the hall save the hoarse voice of Seci'etary Keane, and on its
completion Supervisor Sanderson arose.
"Gallagher explained that Langdon would 'be given an oppor-
tunity next Thursday afternoon at 2:30 o'clock to appear before
the board and defend himself against the charges.'
"He then recognized Sanderson, who offered a motion accepting
the communication from the Mayor and directing that Langdon be
directed to appear to answer.
"Supervisor Wilson seconded the motion.
"Upon the call for the 'ayes,' although the Supervisors usually
let silence indicate their consent, there was a chorus of approval,
and upon the call for the 'noes' there was dead silence.
"Supervisors L. A. Rea and J. J. Furey were not present."
97 At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, page of Tran-
script 2654, Wilson testified: "I told him (Ruef) that I thought it
was a bad move at this time and that the papers in the morning
would state it was simply a confession of guilt; and I said that I
had stood there and taken my program on the matter, but I felt it
would ruin my chances in the face of an election, running for Rail-
road Commissioner, and he said I would feel better after I had
something to eat, and we went over to Taifs and had supper. On
the way over he (Ruef) sent Charlie Hagerty In to notify Mr.
Heney of his removal."
90 Fight for District Attorney's Office
But Ruef laughed at his fears, and to cheer him up,
took him to a popular restaurant for dinner.
But before leaving his office, Ruef performed his
first act as District Attorney. He wrote a curt note to
Heney, dismissing him from the position of assistant. ^^
Later in the evening he appointed as Heney's successor
Marshall B. Wood worth.
The order of dismissal was delivered to Heney
within ten minutes. Heney's answer reached Ruef as he
sat at dinner with Supervisor Wilson and Henry Ach,
who had joined the group. Heney's reply was quite as
pointed as Ruef's letter of dismissal. Heney stated he
did not recognize Ruef as District Attorney.
The battle between the two forces was fairly on.
Ruef and his associates, as they sat at dinner, discussed
the advisability of taking possession of the District At-
torney's office that night, but concluded to wait until
morning. In this Ruef suffered the fate of many a
general who has consented to delay. When morning
came, District Attorney Langdon had his office under
guard, and San Francisco was aroused as it had not
been in a generation.
Supervisor Wilson had not misjudged the interpreta-
tion that would be placed upon Langdon's suspension.
The Call the following morning denounced Ruef as
"District Attorney by usurpation ; a prosecuting officer to
save himself from prosecution." The Chronicle set forth.
98 Ruef's order dismissing- Heney was as follows:
"Ml'. Francis .7. Heney: You are hereby removed from the posi^
tion of Assistant District Attorney of the City and County of San
Francisco.
"Dated, October 25, 1906. (Signed) A. RUEF,
"Acting- District Attorney."
Fight for District Attorney's Office 91
ill a biting editorial article, that *'as long as they (the
Ruef-Schmitz combine) felt safe from prosecution, they
jauntily declared that they would like to see the accusa-
tions fully justified, but the instant they began to realize
the possibility of being sent to San Quentin, they turned
tail and resorted to a trick which every man in the
community with gumption enough to form a judgment
in such matters will recognize as a confession of guilt."
The Examiner called the removal of Langdon and
the appointment of Ruef, "the last stand of criminals
hunted and driven to bay."
''They have," said the Examiner, ''come to a point
where they will stop at nothing. . . . William H.
Langdon, the fearless District Attorney, and Francis J.
Heney, the great prosecutor, have driven the bribe-
seekers and the bribe-takers to a condition of political
madness. In hysterical fear they last night attempted
their anarchistic method of defense."
The Bulletin devoted its entire editorial page to
Ruef's new move, heading the article, "Ruef's Illegal
Action is Confession of Guilt."
"Nothing," said the Bulletin, "in the history of an-
archy parallels in cool, deliberate usurpation of authority
this latest exhibition of lawlessness in San Francisco.
. . . Government is seized to overthrow government.
Authority is exercised in defiance of authority. The
office of the District Attorney is seized deliberately, v/ith
malice aforethought, with strategy and cunning and used
as a fort for thieves to battle down the forces of citizen-
ship. The criminals, accused of felony, after inviting
investigation and pretending to assist, have shown their
92 Fight for District Attorney's Office
hypocrisy by committing an act of anarchy which, while
it might be tolerated for the time being in San Francisco,
would result in the execution of these men in any gov-
ernment of Europe."
Gallagher's action, while upheld by the Union-Labor
party leaders, and by the unions which these leaders
dominated, was condemned by independent labor organ-
izations.
The Building Trades Council, with which all the
building trades unions were affiliated, dominated by
P. H. McCarthy, promptly endorsed Gallagher's action
in removing Langdon. But many of the affiliated unions
not only withheld endorsement, but some of them re-
pudiated the action of the central body.
The Bricklavers and Masons' Union, for example,
with 800 members present, and w^ithout a dissenting vote,
adopted resolutions declaring that ''the President and
Secretary ^^ of the Building Trades Council are not fit
persons to be at the head of the Union movement in
San Francisco," and denouncing the course of the mu-
nicipal administration, wdiich the Building Trades Coun-
cil had approved, as 'liigh-handed defiance of the law."^"^
In spite of this repudiation by the unions. Ruef issued
99 p. H. McCarthy and O. A. Tveitmoe, respectively president
and secretary of the Building Trades Council.
100 The resolutions adopted by Bricklayers' and Masons' Inter-
national Union No. 7, were as follows:
"Whereas, The office of District Attorney of San Francisco
County has been declared vacant by the Acting Mayor and Super-
visors at a time when the said District Attorney was preparing an
investigation into the official acts of the said Supervisors and
others; and
"Whereas. One of the persons accused by the said District
Attorney of being guilty of criminal acts, has been appointed bj'
the Acting Mayor and Super^'isors to fill the office thus vacated;
and
"Whereas, The Building Trades Council of San Francisco has
Indorsed the action of the administration, and the president and
Fight for District Attorney's Office 93
a statement in which he denounced the prosecution as a
inovement ''to destroy the Union Labor organization and
to control the situation in San Francisco in the interest
of those who are opposed to the success of the wage-
earning classes." He announced further, "I have ac-
cepted this office, the first political position I ever held
in my life, because I believe it to be my duty to the
public to bring to an end this constant defamation and
to stop the publication of matter detrimental to the city's
growth and material interest."
"I do not intend," he said, "to make any changes in
the personnel of the District Attorney's office until it is
determined what fate Mr. Langdon shall meet, with the
exception that Mr. Heney will not be retained. I will
not have Mr. Heney in my office because I do not be-
lieve that his moral standing is equal to the position." ^^^
secretary of said Council has aided and abetted said usurpation of
power to the utmost of their ability; therefore, be it
"Resolved, That this Union condemn the action of the Council
in this matter, and that we condemn the president and secretary
of the Council for lending or selling- their aid to help to prevent
the investigation of the public acts of ofRcials who have thrown
themselves open to suspicion, and thereby placing the honest union
men of San Francisco in the false light of indorsing such high-
handed defiance of the law; and be it
"Resolved, That we deny that the proposed prosecution of the
present administration is an attack on organized labor; and further,
be it
"Resolved, That it is the sense of this Union that the president
and secretary of the Building Trades Council are not fit persons to
be at the head of the Union movement in San Francisco, and that
the delegates representing this Union in the Council are hereby
instructed to use every honorable means to carry out the spirit
of this resolution; and further, be it
"Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be furnished by the
corresponding secretary to each and every Union affiliated with the
Council, so that they will consider this an invitation from this
Union to assist in ridding the central body of officers whom we
believe have done all in their power to bring unionism into dis-
repute."
Similar resolutions were adopted by .Journeymen Plumbers, Gas
and Steam Fitters' Local. No. 442.
101 See Ruef s statement as published in the San Francisco
Chronicle, October 26, 1906.
94 Fight for District Attorney's Office
District Attorney Langdon was out of the city when
Acting Mayor Gallagher announced his suspension from
office. Langdon hurried back prepared to resist the
executive's action. ^^^ Even while Ruef and his asso-
ciates were debating the advisability of taking possession
of the District Attorney's office that night, attorneys for
the prosecution were at work on papers in injunction
proceedings to restrain Acting Mayor Gallagher, the
Supervisors and Ruef from interfering Avith the Dis-
trict Attorney in the discharge of his duties. The papers
Vvere not ready before 5 o'clock of the morning of the
|26th. At that hour, Superior Judge Seawell signed an
brder temporarily restraining Ruef from installing him-
self as District Attorney, and from interfering with
Langdon in the discharge of his duties as District At-
torney. By eight o'clock that morning. Presiding Judge
Graham of the Superior Court had assigned the case to
Judge Seawell's department ; a police officer and two
deputy sheriffs had been installed in the District Attor-
ney's office with instructions to enforce the restraining
order. For the timiC, at least. District Attorney Langdon
was secure in his office.
Ruef appeared two hours later. He was that morn-
102 Mr. Langdon, on arriving in San Francisco, issvxed the fol-
lowing statement:
"No person in California believes that my alleged suspension is
due to neglect or inefficiency. No dissent is necessary before the
people. It is plain that my removal is deemed necessary by Ruef
and Gallagher to pr<^vent an honest, searching investigation of
conditions that prevail in municipal affairs in San Francisco. Their
plan will come to naught, however.
"As District Attorney I shall pursue this investigation to the
end. I denj' the legal right of the Mayor or the Board of Super-
visors to suspend or dismiss me. The provision of the Charter
purporting to give that authority is clearly unconstitutional. The
citizens must determine whether or not tiiey w^ill countenance this
high-handed proceeding in a community which is supposed to be
governed by the law, and not by the will of a boss and his puppet."
Fight for District Attorney's Office 95
ing to have represented the defendant in a murder trial.
The People vs. Denike, but began the day by formally
withdrawing from the case on the ground that as Dis-
trict Attorney he could not appear for the defense. He
appeared in the police courts ready to prosecute a libel
suit which he had brought against the proprietor of the
San Francisco Bulletin, but the justice had been served
with Judge Seawell's restraining order and the libel-case
hearing was postponed. In Judge Dunne's department
of the Superior Court, Ruef received something of a set-
back. The Court made a special order permitting one
of Langdon's deputies to prosecute in a criminal action
then pending, regardless of who might be District At-
torney. The restraining order kept Ruef and Wood-
worth out of the District Attorney's office. By noon it
was evident that at the big event of that eventful day,
the impaneling of the Grand Jury, Langdon, and not
Ruef, would, as District Attorney, represent The People.
CHAPTER VII.
Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled.
The hard fight of the morning of October 26th to
prevent Ruef taking possession of the District Attorney's
office had been carried on practically without the general
public being aware of the proceedings. Langdon had
been suspended early in the evening of the previous day.
. The temporary order restraining Ruef from interfering
with the District Attorney had been signed at 5 o'clock
in the morning. The general ptiblic found by the morn-
ing papers that Ruef had attempted to seize the office,
but of the steps taken to stay his hand the papers had
nothing. The question on every man's lip was : Will
I Judge Graham recognize Ruef or Langdon as District
i Attorney at the impaneling of the Grand Jury?
The court was to meet at 2 o'clock. Long before
that hour arrived, the halls of Temple Israel, a Jewish
synagogue in which several departments of the Superior
Court met during the months following the great fire,
were packed with citizens. The street in front of the
building soon became jammed with a struggling mass of
men demanding entrance. The crowd became so great
that none could enter or leave the building.
Plain-clothes men were on all sides, and succeeded in
clearing a space about the entrance. The work of clear-
ing the building of all who could not show that they
had business there, then began. In this work, deference
Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 97
was shown Ruef s adherents. Notorious saloon-keepers,
ex-prize fighters and strong-arm men friendly to Ruef
were permitted to remain. Opponents of the administra-
tion who protested against removal were vmceremo-
niously thrown out.
Although little groups of partisans of the adminis-
tration appeared in the crowd, the citizens assembled
were in the main clearly in sympathy with the prosecu-
tion.^^^ The arrival of Langdon, Heney and Spreckels
was signal for outbursts of applause. Ruef apparently
appreciated the feeling against him. He appeared guard-
ed by two detectives of the regular police department,^^*
and a body-guard of partisans. The crowd began to
press about him. Several of his followers made motions
as though to draw revolvers. Ruef hurried into the
building. To add to the confusion, there was, planned
or without planning, misunderstanding as to the room in
which the hearing was to be held. The representatives
of District Attorney Langdon's office finding themselves
misinformed as to the meeting place, forced their way
from hall to hall seeking reliable information. When
103 The San Francisco Chronicle in its issue of October 27 thus
described the crowd: "Every man the police put out of the build-
ing was cheered by the crowd and every time policemen laid hands
on anyone they were hissed. However, it was evident that the
citizens who gathered outside the Temple Israel yesterday after-
noon did not come prepared to fight with the police force. In the
crowd standing outside almost every man prominent in the business
and professional life of the city could be seen. Manufacturers,
merchants, lawyers, doctors, men engaged in all the various lines
of wholesale and retail business, and all the professions, included
among the latter being many Protestant ministers, Catholic priests
and Jewish rabbis. Here and there in the great concourse of peo-
ple were scattered little groups of men of the type that may be
seen hanging around the tenderloin."
104 Detectives Steve Bunner and Tim Riordan. These men
accompanied Ruef for nearly a month. Late in November, after
Ruef had been indicted, they were sent back to active duty.
98 Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled
the room was finally located, it was found to be packed
with Ruef followers. The sheriff ordered the doors
closed. The Court's attention was called to this. Dis-
trict Attorney Langdon insisted that the doors be opened
and the crowd permitted to enter to the capacity of the
room. He pointed out that some had been admitted and
others kept out, and insisted there should be no dis-
crimination. This course was taken. The crowd poured,
in until every available foot of standing room was occu-
pied.^^5
Eighteen of the nineteen citizens required under the
California law for Grand Jury service had already been
drawn at former sessions of the court. As soon as
order had been secured, the name of the nineteenth was
taken from the jury box.
This detail over, Heney called the Court's attention
to the provision of the California law, that no person
whose name does not appear on the assessment roll of
the county in which he serves is eligible for Grand Jury
service, and that the courts have held further, that bias
or prejudice of a Grand Juror against a person indicted
is sufficient grounds for setting aside the indictment.
Heney then stated that he wished to examine the nine-
teen men as to their qualifications as Grand Jurors.
Ruef. announcing- himself as an officer of the court.
105 While the crowd was pressing into the room, a deputy sheriff
undertook to search Heney for concealed weapons. Heney com-
plained of the officer's conduct, protested vigorously. "That is the
man standing there," cried Heney, "he did so at the request of Abe
Ruef."
"T^^ho was informed that Mr. Heney was armed," responded
Ruef.
It developed that Heney was not armed, and the incident went
no further. But it indicated the sharpness of the division between
the two factions.
Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 99
arose to speak. Heney objected to Ruef appearing, if
by officer of the court he meant District Attorney or
Acting District Attorney. Ruef answered that he ap-
peared only in his capacity as member of the bar. On
this showing he was allowed to proceed.
Ruef contended that the procedure proposed by
Heney was irregular; that if followed the validity of
the Grand Jury would be imperiled. He stated that he
did not want to see the Grand Jury made an illegal body.
Heney replied that he intended, as Assistant District
Attorney, to present felony charges against Ruef, and
desired to examine the prospective Grand Jurors as to
their bias for or against Ruef. Furthermore, Heney
insisted, the Court had authority to excuse a juror if
he were not on the assessment roll. To accept as Grand
Jurors men whose names were not on the assessment
roll, or men biased or prejudiced against Ruef would,
Heney insisted, make the proceedings a farce.^^^
106 The Chronicle of October 27, 1906, contains the following
account of Heney's reply to Ruef: " 'I now announce to the
court,' said Heney fervently, 'that I intend as Assistant District
Attorney, to present charges of felony and misdemeanor against
Abraham Ruef, and I desire to examine the members of this panel
to determine if any member entertains bias or prejudice for or
against Abraham Ruef in the matter of the charges which are to
be presented by the District Attorney's office. I understand that
there is no question as to Abraham Ruef's right to have the indict-
ment set aside if any member of the Grand Jury is biased or preju-
diced against him. It would be a farce,' Heney went on. his voice
swelling, 'it would be adding to the comedy of errors enacted last
night (the attempted removal of Langdon from office), if we have a
Grand Jury which is biased or prejudiced. It has iDecome public
through the newspapers — to some extent, at least — that Abi-aham
Ruef is to be investigated. The People have the same right as the
defendant to examine the members of the panel as to their qualifi-
cations. I know that a number of the members do not possess the
qualifications provided by the statute, as they are not on the
assessment roll, and I desire to question them on that point. The
Court has the right to excuse a juror if he is not on the assess-
ment roll. The Supreme Court has decided that a. man has the
right to be investigated by a Grand Jury of nineteen men who are
qualified according to the statute and none others. It is not neces-
sary to take for grand jurors the nineteen whose names are first
lOO Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled
In reply to Heney, Ruef defied him to produce any
evidence '*in open court before an untutored Grand
Jury for an indictment." Ruef charged Heney further
with employing abuse "to make the Grand Jury illegal
so that nothing might come of any indictment."
At this point, the Attorney General of the State,
U. S. Webb,^*^^ addressed the Court. At his suggestion
drawn from the box. We should examine them, so that a member
who has a bias or prejudice as to a particular person may be in-
structed that he shall not participate in the investigation of that
person.' "
107 Under the California law, the Attorney-General may at his
discretion, take the prosecution of a criminal case out of the hands
of a District Attorney. It was within General "Webb's province to
have taken charge of the San Francisco graft trials. In a state-
ment given wide publicity at the time, General Webb stated that
he had no intention of taking charge of the graft trials unless Ruef
succeeded in seizing the District Attorney's office. Long after,
however, Heney, in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs.
Patrick Calhoun, Thornwell Mullally, Tirey L. Ford, William M.
Abbott, Abraham Ruef and Eugene E. Schmitz. No. 823, set forth
a statement made to him by Ruef when Ruef was pleading for
immunity, in which Webb's presence at the impaneling of the Grand
Jury was touched upon as follows:
"Ruef said in reply in substance, 'You are prejudiced against
me, Heney, ever since we had that quarrel during last election.
You know that the public-service corporations are responsible for
the conditions which exist in San Francisco and that I can help
you send some of the officials of those corporations to the peni-
tentiary, and I can also help you to clean up this city and make it
impossible for corruption to get a foothold here again for a long
time. You are afraid to trust me, but you are making a mistake.
The moment it becomes known that I have gone over to the prose-
cution the most powerful influences in this State will all be arrayed
against us, and particularly against me. The moment you attack
Pat Calhoun you in fact attack Herrin. You don't know the rela-
tion between these parties and the corporation as well as I do. I
am very fond of Tirey Ford, but I don't care a rap about Pat Cal-
houn, and would just as soon testify against him as not. But the
m-oment it becomes known that I am ready to do so my life will
no longer be safe. I will have to stick to the prosecution from the
moment I start in with it. You don't know what de.sperate means
these people are capable of resorting to. My life will not be safe.
If they keep me in the county jail with O'Neil as Sheriff they will
kill me to a certainty. You don't know how manv influential people
are involved in this thing. You and Burns think vou know, but
there are a lot of people whom you don't know anvthing about who
are mixed up in it. I tell you that the combined influence of all
these people will make it next to impossible to secure convictions
and will make it very dangerous for all of us. It will not do to
lessen the v/eight of my testimony any by having me plead guiltv
in that extortion case. Besides that, the Court would not allow
me bail after I had pleaded guilty, and the Supreme Court may
Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled loi
the Grand Jurors were excused for the day. General
Webb then stated that he knew of no law for the pro-
cedure which Mr. Heney suggested. He admitted,
however, that such procedure would be desirable, and
advise:d that no hasty action be taken in coming to a
decision.
Heney in reply read from California decisions to.
show that The People have the authority to make ex-
amination of Grand Jurors, and continued :
"The only question remaining is as to when this ex-
amination shall be made. Suppose the foreman of the
Grand Jury is biased or prejudiced. Does it require
any argument that now is the time to make this examina-
tion instead of waiting until we have presented our evi-
dence to the Grand Jury? Shall we first have to give
those whom we accuse time to bribe witnesses and get
them out of the country? Shall we let the defendant
come in and quash the indictment, if there is any bias
or prejudice, and then be enabled to protect himself
against prosecution?
"After the miserable fiasco (the attempted removal of
knock out the elisor, and then I would be absolutely in the hands
of the other people, and they would surely kill me. Sheriff O'Neil
is loyal to me now, but the moment he knew I was going to testify
against Schmitz he would be very bitter against me, and would do
whatever those people wanted him to do. Moreover, Herrin will
get Attorney-General Webb to come down and take these cases out
of the hands of Langdon and yourself, and he will declare the
immunity contract off upon the ground that the District Attorney
has no power to make one and will prosecute me on some of the
bribery cases now pending against me, and if they convict me Her-
rin will see to it that I am not pardoned by the Governor. He
now controls the Governor and the chances are he will continue to
name the Governor and control him for the next twenty years.
Webb was a deputy in Ford's office when Ford was Attorney-
General, and it was Ford who got him to come down here and
'butt in' at the time you were impaneling the Grand Jury. I know
you fellows thought it was I who got him to come down here, but
as a matter of fact I did not know any more about it than you did
until he appeared there, and I am sure it was Ford who did it."
I02 Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled
Langdon) which occurred last night," Heney went on,
"what more important duty for this Court to perform
than to say immediately that the law is more powerful
than any man or any set of men in San Francisco?"
As Heney concluded, the packed courtroom burst into
applause. The crowd outside heard, took it up and
cheered wildly. As soon as order was restored, Henry
Ach, one of the attorneys appearing for Ruef, suggested
that Heney, the Attorney General and himself, get to-
gether to present the question of whether Langdon or
Ruef were District Attorney to the Supreme Court.
Ach stated that he feared if Langdon or Heney attended
a session of the Grand Jury and Ruef were to be found
to be District Attorney, then the acts of the Grand Jury
might be invalidated.
Heney replied that in acting as prosecutor it had
been his rule **to have no conferences, treaties or alli-
ances with persons charged with crime, or with their
attorneys." On this ground, Heney declined Mr. Ach's
proposition.
Judge Graham made no rulings that day on any of
the points raised, but ordered a continuance until the
following Monday.
After adjournment of court, the appearance of Lang-
don and Heney at the entrance of the building brought
forth cheers from the crowd that all through the pro-
ceedings had waited outside. A speech was demanded
of Langdon.
"My friends," he replied, "we have no speeches to
make. We have a duty to perform and we will perform
that duty."
Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 103
Immediately behind Langdon came Ruef, closely
guarded by police and detectives. He was pale and
worn and clearly frightened. The crowd pressed about
him. Threats came from his followers to shoot into the
crowd if it pressed too closely. Ruef finally reached his
automobile and was driven away.^^^
The topic of discussion of the two days that elapsed
before Judge Graham decided the questions that had
been raised by Heney's proposal to proceed with the ex-
amination of the Grand Jurors, was whether Graham
would allow such examination. It was alleged that no
less than four of the citizens drawn for Grand Jury
service were not on the assessment roll. There were,
108 Whil«i Ruef was struggling through the crowd to reach his
automobile Dr. Shadwick O. Beasley, Instructor in Anatomy at the
Cooper Medical College, was assaulted by some unidentified person.
Dr. Beasley turned, shook his first at Ruef and hissed him. The
doctor was immediately placed under arrest. Dr. Beasley, on his
part, swore out a warrant charging an unknown deputy sheriff
with battery. Beasley was then made subject of petty persecu-
tion. He was, for example, held up on the street by a deputy
sheriff and charged with carrying a concealed weapon. He was
searched by two men, but nothing more deadly than a case of
surgical instruments was found upon him. Dr. Beasley complained
bitterly of the rough treatment from the officers.
The San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of October 27, 1906,
thus describes the scene which followed Ruef's appearance before
the crowd:
"With fists and clubs Chief of Police Dinan and his squad from
the Central Police Station fought off the crowd of angry citizens
assembled about the Temple Israel who sought to lay violent hands
on Abe Ruef when the curly-headed usurper of the functions of the
municipal government was leaving the scene of the Grand Jury
meeting yesterday afternoon. And in the wake of the police were
the Ruef heelers from the tenderloin with their hands on theii
pistols, threatening to shoot down the citizens of the city of San
Francisco who should dare to approach too near the sacred person
of their tenderloin idol.
"It was one of the most remarkable scenes ever witnessed in
any city of this country. Stung with the outrageous assumption
of the powers of the public prosecutor when he was about to be
placed on trial himself for crime, the citizens of the city, among
whom are names that stand highest in business and professional
circles, sought to make him realize the impudence of his conduct.
That he escaped a swift punishment for his arrogant seizvire of the
office of the Distrir-t Attorney is solely due to the presence and
strenuous efforts of the police."
I04 Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled
too, charges that Ruef controlled several of them. Some
of the papers printed the names of those whom it was
alleged were either under obligations to Ruef or con-
nected with his political organization.
A second crowd filled courtroom, building and street
when Judge Graham's court was called to order the fol-
lowing Monday. Mounted policemen, plain-clothes men
and detectives, directed by two captains of police, were,
however, on hand to preserve order.^°^ There were no
demonstrations. Judge Graham announced from the
bench that after due deliberation, he had concluded that
the District Attorney had the right to interrogate the
Grand Jurors as to their qualifications. He stated fur-
ther that inasmuch as Langdon was the de facto District
Attorney, Langdon would conduct the examination.
The prosecution had won the first skirmish in the
years-long fight upon which San Francisco was entering
for the enforcement of the law.
The next move came from Attorney Samuel M.
Shortridge. Shortridge appeared v/ith Ruef's attorney.
Henry Ach, and Marshall B. Woodworth. Ruef had
named Woodworth, it will be remembered, as Heney's
successor in the District Attorney's office.
Mr. Shortridge read Acting Mayor Gallagher's order
suspending Langdon and appointing Ruef, and also
called the Court's attention to the fact that Ruef had
filed his official bond as District Attorney. Shortridge
109 In sending his ofRcers to handle this crowd, Chief of Police
Dinan gave the following instructions:
"The captains, sergeants and officers so detailed are instructed
that they are sent to the place designated for the purpose of doing
strict police duty. They will see that the streets and sidewalks
are not obstructed, and that no violations of the law are per-
mitted."
" Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 105
stated that the matter was pending before Judge Seawell,
and asked the Court, "in deference to Judge Seawell,"
to postpone proceedings until the District-Attorney con-
troversy should be decided. Shortridge expressed him-
self as fearful that, if the examination of the Grand
Jurors went on, Judge Seawell's decision might invali-
date the Grand Jury proceedings.
W. T. Baggett, Assistant City Attorney,^^" followed
Shortridge. Mr. Baggett read a letter from the Acting
Mayor, setting forth the fact of Langdon's removal, and
joined with Shortridge in pleading for delay. But the
pleas of both gentlemen were denied. Judge Graham
repeated his opinion given earlier in the day that Lang-
don should be recognized as the de facto District Attor-
ney, and ordered the impaneling of the Grand Jury to
continue.
Shortridge thereupon announced his desire to par-
ticipate in the examination of the Grand Jurors. Heney
objected to Shortridge appearing as a representative of
the District Attorney's office. Shortridge replied that
he respected Judge Seawell's order, and had no intention
of violating it. He asked if he would be permitted to
act in the capacity of amicus curiae ^^^ in examining
jurors. This privilege was accorded him.
The examination of the Grand Jurors occupied more
110 Under the San Francisco municipal charter, the District
Attorney has charge of criminal cases, and the City Attorney of
civil cases in which the city is concerned. The City Attorney also
acts as adviser to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. The two
are independent offices.
111 Shortridge stated that as amicus curiae, it was his duty to
see that the proceedings were without flaw. Heney refused to take
him seriously, however, referred to him facetiously as the "curious
friend of the Court," and suggested that the Court unassisted might
be able to determine what was competent evidence.
io6 Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled
than a week. Several of the nineteen were excused, it
being found that their names were not on the assess-
ment roll.
The examination was concluded ^^- on November 7th
and the Grand Jurors sworn. B. P. Oliver was ap-
pointed foreman. From him the body received its name
of Oliver Grand Jury. The Grand Jury organized by
electing C. G. Burnett secretary. But one important
question remained to be decided, namely — Was Ruef or
Langdon to represent The People at the investigation
into graft charges which the Grand Jury was ready to
begin ?
112 The following nineteen citizens composed the Grand Jury
that conducted the investigation of San Francisco "graft" charges:
E. J. Gallagher, photographic supply dealer; Frank A. Dwyer,
real estate; Herman H. Young, baker and restaurant proprietor;
Mendle Rothenburg, liquor dealer; James E. Gordon, merchant;
Alfred Greenebaum, merchant; Wallace Wise, haberdasher; Jere-
miah Deasy, insurance agent; Rudolph Mohr, brewer; C. G. Burnett,
capitalist; Charles Sonntag, merchant; Morris A. Levingston, liquor
dealer; B. P. Oliver, real estate; W. P. Redington. druggist; Chris-
tian P. Rode, drayman; Ansel C. Robinson, merchant; Dewey
Coffln, real estate; F. G. Sanborn, law book publisher; Maurice
Block, merchant.
CHAPTER VIII.
RuEF Loses the District Attorney's Office.
While the impaneHng of the Grand Jury was going
on before Judge Graham, Ruef was disputing Langdon's
title to the office of District Attorney before Judge Sea-
well. In these proceedings Samuel M. Shortridge ap-
peared with Ruef's attorney, Ach, and Deputy City At-
torney Baggett, not as amicus curiae, but as Ach's asso-
ciate in the legal contest to force Langdon out of office.
The principal feature of Ruef's case was the intro-
duction of affidavits, signed by sixteen members ^^^ of
113 The Supervisors who signed the affidavits exonerating Ruef
and themselves were: Charles Boxton, Jennings J. Phillips, W. "W.
Sanderson, F. P. Nicholas, L. A. Rea, Edward I. Walsh, Andrew
M. Wilson, J. J. Furey, Sam Davis, C. J. Harrigan, James T. Kelly,
P. M. McGushin, Thomas F. Lonergan, Daniel G. Coleman, Max
Mamlock and M. W. Coffey. Each of them made declaration as
follows:
"This affiant has never committed a felony of any kind or char-
acter, and has never been a party thereto, and there is not and
can be no evidence presented of or concerning any felony com-
mitted by the undersigned or threatened by the undersigned. It is
not true that this affiant has ever been party to the commission of
any crime or any misdemeanor.
"This affiant further says that any and all charges, assertions
and innuendoes contained in the complaint and contained in the
public press of and concerning any alleged felonies, misdemeanors
or wrongful acts committed or alleged to have been committed by
this defendant are absolutely untrue and false, and this affiant has
never been guilty of any violation of the law, and, so far as the
knowledge of this affiant is concerned, each and all of the other
defendants named herein are absolutely innocent of the commis-
sion of any crime or felony or offense against the laws of the
State of California; and this affiant further says tliat he has no
knowledge, direct or indirect, of the commission of any felony or
or any misdemeanors or of any violations of the laws of the State
of California, or any thereof, or of the City and County of San
Francisco, by either or any of the defendants named herein."
At the graft trials it developed that the Supervisors had signed
this affidavit without reading it. At the trial of The People vs.
Glass, No. 675, Supervisor Michael Coffey testified that "On tlie
afternoon that affidavit was signed, I came down late to a meeting
io8 Ruef Loses District Attorney's Office
the Board of Supervisors, in which the Supervisors de-
nied committing felony of any character. Later, after
the Supervisors had confessed, these affidavits were to
be used by the defense at practically all the graft trials
in efforts to break down their testimony against the
bribe-givers.
During the examination, Ach endeavored to force
from Langdon and his deputies a statement of what evi-
dence they had against Ruef. In this Ach failed. On
the other hand, the prosecution sought to bring out tes-
timony that Ruef had directed Gallagher to suspend
Langdon. ^^* To this end Heney placed Ruef on the
stand. But Judge Seawell stated ^^^ that he did not at
that time wish to go into question of motive and the
point was not pressed.
of the board and the members of the board were in the Notary
Public's office. I went over there and met Mr. Keane, and Mr.
Keane produced that paper and asked me to sign it, and I signed
it and gave him a dollar to pay the Notary fees. I did not read the
affidavit at that time. It was not read aloud to me while I was
there. I did not talk with any person about what was in this
affidavit before it was prepared. I did not know who prepared it."
See page 237 of transcript on appeal.
Supervisor Wilson testified: "Mr. Ruef got up that affidavit, I
believe. I signed it because there was a rumor going about that
some of the Supervisors had gone over to the prosecution. It was
so stated in the public press and there was a little excitement
among the members of the board and we understood this was sent
down by Mr. Ruef to stiffen thein up and to find out if that was
so. It was not read at the notary's office while I was there. 1
did not read it before signing it." See Transcript on Appeal The
People vs. Glass, page 278.
Supervisor Eoxton testified: "I signed the affidavit just shown
me at the request of the clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Mr.
George Keane. I do not know who prepared the affidavit. No one
had talked with me as to the facts that were to be put in it. I
knew nothing about its contents at all. It was supposed generally
amongst the members there was some talk about it, that there was
some of the members there that were a bit weak-kneed, and would
probably tell all they knew, so this affidavit was framed up, as I
understand it. to tie them down a little tighter." See Transcript
on Appeal, The People vs. Glass, page 251.
Practically the same testimony was given by other Supervisors
at the various graft trials.
114 See footnote 95, page 87.
1115 The passage between Heney and Ruef's lawyers which fol-
Ruef Loses District Attorney's Office 109
The outcome of the proceedings was a second victory
for the prosecution. The injunction against Ruef was
granted ; ^^^ Langdon was left in peaceful possession of
the District Attorney's office.^^^ Later, Judge Seawell
issued a permanent writ of prohibition against the Board
of Supervisors restraining that body from removing
Langdon from office.
Langdon and his deputies, after a three-weeks fight,
were free to proceed with the graft investigation.
lowed Judge Seawell's ruling- is thus set forth in the San Francisco
Chronicle of November 3rd:
" 'You can ask Mr. Ruef if he is guilty of any crimes or felonies,'
Ach suggested to Heney.
" 'I suppose he'll plead guilty here?' responded Heney skepti-
cally.
"Samuel M. Shortridge, of Ruef's legal staff, took this remark
to heart and hotly said to Heney, 'You'll plead guilty before he
does.' The Judge informed Shortridge that Heney obviously spoke
in jest, but Shortridge thought it a poor joke. Ruef considered
Heney's whole pi'oceeding a joke."
116 Judge Seawell in his decision said:
"I am clearly of the opinion that the Charter, in so far as it
relates to removal and suspension, does not apply to the District
Attorney. I am firmly convinced that neither the Mayor nor the
Board of Supervisors has any power to remove or suspend him.
The District Attorney should not be left to the investigation of
the municipal authorities. I can conceive how he might be com-
pelled to proceed against the very persons who might be conduct-
ing an Inquiry. I will grant the injunction as prayed for against
Mr. Ruef."
117 A movement to secure Heney's dismissal from the District
Attorney's office, on the ground that he had accepted a fee in
addition to his salary as Assistant District Attorney, to act as
prosecutor was started. But the allegation was not su.stained and
another failure was scored by the defense.
CHAPTER IX.
RUEF AND SCHMITZ InDICTED.
Within twenty-four hours after organizing, the Grand
Jury had begun investigation into graft charges. Ten-
derloin extortion, especially in connection with the so-
called ^'French Restaurants," was the first matter taken
up. The inquiry involved both Schmitz and Ruef.
The term "French Restaurant" in San Francisco is
used in connection with a particular type of assigna-
tion house. These establishments contain a restaurant
on the ground floor, and sometimes banquet hall and
private rooms without assignation accompaniments. The
stories overhead are devoted to private supper bedrooms.
Some of these assignation places are several stories in
height. Before the fire, among the establishments al-
leged to be 'Trench Restaurants" were Marchand's,
Delmonico's, the New Poodle Dog, the Bay State and
the Pup. The extent of the business conducted by these
places is indicated by the testimony of A. B. Blanco,
who stated under oath at the graft trials that he had
$200,000 invested in the New Poodle Dog, while Joe
Malfanti testified that he had about $400,000 invested in
Delmonico's. ^^^
French Restaurants had long been a scandal in San
Francisco. Toward the close of 1904, the Police Com-
118 See Transcript on Appeal The People of the State of Cali-
fornia vs. Eugene E. Schmitz. pp. 500 and 557.
Ruef and Schmitz Indicted in
mission, then absolutely under domination of Schmitz
and Ruef, gave evidence of proceeding against such
places. The commission, as a beginning, revoked the
liquor license of a ''French Restaurant" known as Tor-
toni's. Without a license to sell liquor a "French Res-
taurant" could not continue in business. These licenses
had to be renewed once every three months. The Police
Commission had arbitrary power to grant, or to refuse,
application for renewal. One by one renewal applica-
tions of other French Restaurants were held up. It
became a matter of common report that all the "French
Restaurants" were to be treated as Tortoni's had been,
namely, driven out of business by having their licenses to
sell liquors revoked.
And then Abe Ruef appeared before the Police Com-
missioners as attorney for the "French Restaurant"
keepers.^ ^^ Ruef asked that consideration of the French
Restaurant cases be postponed for two weeks. This was
accorded him. But his request that during those two
weeks the places be permitted to conduct their business
as before, namely, that they be allowed to sell liquors
119 Ruef stated that he appeared as attorney for the French
Restaurant Keepers' Association. But those who paid him the
money for his efforts in this instance testified at the trial of The
People vs. Eug^ene E. Schmitz that they l^^eld membership in no
such organization, nor had they heard of it. In May, 1907, Ruef
stated to Heney that he had closed the bargain with the French-
restaurant keepers to represent them on JANUARY 6, 1905. He
Insisted that he had at first fiatly refused to represent them; that
he had had no intention v/hatever of so doing until the San Fran-
cisco Bulletin denounced him for having had th« licenses held up
and challenged him to take the cases and to attempt to defend
himself upon the theory that the money so obtained by him was
received as an attorney's fee.
Heney examined the Bulletin files and found that the first time
the Bulletin had mentioned the French-restaurant hold-up as an
attempt on the part of Ruef to extort money from the restaurant
proprietors was in the last edition of The Bulletin for JANUARY
7, 1905. (See Henev's affidavit in the case of The People vs. Patrick
Calhoun, et als., No. 823, pp. 141 to 143, inclusive.)
112 Ruef and Schmitz Indicted
in the private supper bedrooms, was denied by a tie
vote, two commissioners of the four voting for Ruef
and two against him.
Before the two weeks' extension of time which Ruef
had secured had expired, Mayor Schmitz had removed
from office one of the commissioners who had opposed ^^°
Ruef's request that the sale of hquors in "French Res-
taurant" bedrooms be continued.
The opposing commissioner out of the way, the board
by a vote of two to one, adopted certain rules submitted
by Ruef for the management of French Restaurants. ^^^
By the same vote, the commission then granted the
French-Restaurant licenses, action upon which had so
long been delayed.
All this was done before the public. There were, of
course, charges of graft and extortion, which most peo-
ple, although without definite proof, believed. Heney,
nearly a year later, in his speech in the Partridge
campaign, referred to in a previous chapter, charged
graft. A Grand Jury had made ^^^ an honest attempt
to get to the bottom of the scandal. The efforts of this
early Grand Jury came to nothing.
120 Commisioner Harry W. Hutton.
121 These Ruef-provided rules directed that no liquors be served
in supper bedrooms on the first and second floors of the establish-
ments, and required the French restaurants to take out hotel
licenses and to keep registers the same as hotels. What the
keepers of the places thought of the regulations came out at the
Schmitz trial. Joe Malfanti of Delmonico's, for example, testified:
"They (the Ruef rules) made no change in the running of my
business — not a single change. I had a hotel license for years
before and I always had a register, so there was no change in my
place whatever."
122 The Andrews Grand Jiiry, named from its foreman, T. P.
Andrews. The v.-ork of the Andrews Grand Jury was not lost,
however. It served as basis for much of the investigation con-
ducted by the Oliver Grand Jury.
Rucf and Schmitz Indicted 113
The Oliver Grand Jury had not been in session a
fortnight, however, before the whole miserable story of
Ruef's connection with the French Restaurant cases had
been spread before it.
Thomas Regan, who had served as Police Commis-
sioner during the Schmitz administration, testified that
as early as the summer of 1904 Schmitz had told him
that the "French Restaurants" were bad places and
should not be permitted to exist. When Tortoni's was
closed, Schmitz stated to Regan, according to Regan's
testimony, that the French Restaurants were all run
alike, and should all be closed. Acting upon the Mayor's
suggestion, the Police Commission ordered the investi-
gation into the methods of the French Restaurants which
created such a sensation in San Francisco during the
closing months of 1904. Licenses were denied in some
cases. In others, hearings of applications for renewals
were postponed from time to time. Some proprietors
were called upon to show cause why their licenses
should not be revoked. Of all of which, Commissioner
Regan testified, he kept Mayor Schmitz informed.
The course of the commission threw the keepers of
the French Restaurants into a panic. Their attorneys
found themselves helpless and could give their clients no
encouragement. Marcus Rosenthal, for example, who ap-
peared before the commission on January 3, 1905, on be-
half of the Bay State Restaurant, testified at the Schmitz
trial, that he was not permitted to say anything; that the
commissioners would not listen to him, nor hear testi-
mony. After that meeting he had advised his client,
and a little group of "French Restaurant" keepers who
114 Ruef and Schmitz Indicted
had gathered about hmi, that it would be useless for
them to appeal to any court, because under the law
there could be no review of the action of the Police
Commissioners ; that the commission could arbitrarily
dispose of any saloon-keeper, and he could not seek
remedy in the courts.
And then, having explained the situation fully, Rosen-
thal told them, what every observer in San Francisco
knew, "There is only one man who could help you, and
that is Mr. Ruef." ^^^ The French Restaurant keepers
received this advice from all sides. Joe Malfanti testi-
fied at the Schmitz trial that ''numerous friends advised
me to see Ruef."
And to Mr. Ruef the "French Restaurant" keepers
finally found themselves compelled to go — at the urgent
suggestion of a fellow French Restaurant keeper, Jean
Loupy.
Loupy was proprietor of the French Restaurant
known as the "Pup." At Loupy's place Ruef maintained
a sort of headquarters. There he took his dinner prac-
tically every night, entertained friends and received his
henchmen.
Ruef had from time to time acted as Loupy's attor-
ney. He had also loaned Loupy money. At the time
123 Rosenthal testified at the Schmitz trial: "I told them from
my observations and how things were going- in the city and had
been going for some years, that there was only one man who could
help them — it was a "question of life and death with them — and I
said there Is onlv one man who could help you, and that is Mr.
Ruef."
Rosenthal, when examined on this point before the Grand Jury,
refused to testify on the ground that conversation between attorney
and client was privileged. Adler got into trouble with the Grand
.Tur>^ over his testimony on this point. Both Rosenthal and Adler.
however, testified at Schrnitz's trial.
Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 115
of the French Restaurant troubles, Loupy, according to
his testimony, owed Ruef $1000.
When the closing of the French Restaurants seemed
inevitable, this Loupy brought word to the French Res-
taurant proprietors that Ruef would represent them all
before 'the Police Commission for $7000 a year,^^* on a
contract for two years. The sum" was finally cut to
$5000,^25 $10,000 for the two years. For the first year
"Marchand's," "Delmonico's," 'The New Poodle Dog"
and the ''Bay State" paid $1175 each. Loupy for the
"Pup," on the grounds that he had been put to considera-
ble expense and was a poorer man than the others, paid
only $300.^26
124 N. M. Adler, proprietor of the Bay State Restaurant, testified
at the Schmitz trial as to Loupy's negotiations. Loupy called upon
him twice. "The first time he came." Adler testified, "he told me
that things were very serious, and we would have to put up some
money and hire Mr. Ruef; that he was the only man that could
help us. I told him that I could not understand the proposition;
that I had run my business for twenty years, and didn't think that
they could do me any harm. At that time Ruef was making his
headquarters at the Pup restaurant. I could see that from my
place across the street. He went there regularly."
Then Adler testified to the meeting before the Police Commis-
sioners at which his attorney, Rosenthal, had not been permitted
to speak, and continued: "Afterwards, Loupy came to me again,
and told me that Tortoni had closed up, and that we should put up
the money or we would be all closed. This was after we had been
to the meeting of the Police Commissioners."
125 The testimony bi*ought out at the graft trials showed that
Ruef received $8500 from the French restaurants, $5000 the first
year from the five in the combine; $3000 the second, and $500 addi-
tional from Camille Mailhebeau. Ruef stated to Heney later and
so testified at the Schmitz trial, that half of the $8000 received
from the combine he turned over to Schmitz.
126 The five restaurant keepers were asked at the Schmitz trial
whether they had employed Ruef because he was a lawyer or
because of his recognized power as political boss. They testified
as follows:
A. B. Blanco of the "New Poodle Dog" — "Well, being a political
boss we thought he had influence enough to get our licenses."
N. M. Adler, of the "Bay State"— "Well, the way I took it, Mr.
Ruef is a boss. He had an influence over the commission. He was
the only man who could help us." On cross-examination: "I
understood that if I did not employ Ruef I would not get my
ii6 Ruef and Schmitz Indicted
The money being paid over to Ruef/^' Ruef ap-
peared before the PoHce Commissioners, as has already
been told, with his plan for regulating the French Res-
taurant business in San Francisco.
Ruef's arrangements with the French Restaurant
license. I understood that Mr. Ruef was the only man who could
get my license."
Michel Debret of "Marchand's" — "Well, I agreed to (pay the
money to Ruef) because having consulted we saw we had no way
to get out of it unless we paid Ruef, as he was a political boss, to
protect ourselves." "Because we thought — we thought if we didn't
pay the money we would be treated like Tortoni's, we would be
closed; we had no way to get out of it." "I believed that Ruef
and the Mayor controlled the Police Commissioners."
Joe Malfanti of "Delmonico's" — "I did not pay this $1175 for
fun; I had to save my license. I had about |400,000 invested there.
I never figured on what effect it would have upon my business if I
did not get a license. If it was for myself alone I would close
the place, but I figured on my partners, what they had paid. They
had a lease for five years and could not go through with it and I
did it as a favor. If I was alone I would close. I would not
make any fight. Numerous friends advised me to see Ruef." "I
went to Ruef — Ruef was the man that controlled the administra-
tion— Ruef was the one that could do the thing. His relation with
the Mayor was so he could do what he pleased."
Jean Loupy was asked by Heney: "Did you go to him (Ruef)
because he was a lawyer or because he was a political boss?"
"Because he was a political boss," replied Loupy.
127 Ruef would not take a check, neither would he accept gold
— he insisted upon having currency — neither would he give a re-
ceipt. The money was taken to him by Pierre Priet, a French-
restaurant keeper. Regarding the transfer of the money, Joe
Malfanti, at the Schmitz trial, gave the following testimony:
"Mr. Heney — Q. What did he say you were to get for the five
thousand dollars, Priet? A. Yes.
"Q. Yes, what did Priet say you were to get for your money?
A. We were going to get the license.
"Q. For two years? A. No, we were going to have no trouble
for two years about a license.
"Q. Five thousand dollars a year? A. Yes, sir.
"Q. Now, then, what was said about how the money was to be
paid? What did Priet say about how the money was to be paid?
A. In currency.
"Mr. Campbell — That is under the same objection and exception.
"The Witness — And that two people, not three, only two people,
not three.
"Mr. Heney — Q. What do you mean, that no one was to go
with him to Ruef? A. Yes.
"The Witness — Priet said the money should be brought there in
currency and paid with two people.
"Q. Did Priet get you a receipt? A. I don't think he ever
looked for any. I asked him about that when he came back. He
said: 'Well, you should be glad to get his word of honor.' That
is what I got from Priet."
Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 117
keepers were concluded during the first week in January.
Police Commissioner Regan testified that sometime after
January 3, Mayor Schmitz asked him to vote to restore
the French Restaurant licenses. ^^® Regan objected on
the ground that it was not right to ask him to vote first
one way and then another. With Commissioners Regan
and Hutton voting against issuing the licenses, the li-
censes could not be granted. Either Hutton or Regan
had to change their attitude, or one of them had to be
removed from office. Police Commissioner F. F. Poheim
testified at the Schmitz trial that at a conference on the
French Restaurant problem held early in January, 1905,
which he and Schmitz attended, Schmitz announced :
"We will have to give these people (the French Res-
taurant proprietors) their licenses if we can. If we
cannot do anything else we will have to remove Hutton."
And during the week following Ruef's first appear-
ance before the commissioners as representative of the
French Restaurants, Mayor Schmitz removed Hutton.^^®
128 Regan testified at the Schmitz trial:
"The Mayor asked me to vote for the French liquor licenses.
The first time he did so he put it on political grounds. He re-
quested me to vote for them, saying it would hurt him politically
if the license was not granted; and that they had so many friends
and so many rich people frequented those places that it would be
a very unpopular thing to take the licenses away, and he re-
quested me to vote for them. That it would be unpopular to take
them, the licenses, away, as they, the restaurants, had so many
friends and so many rich people frequented the places. I said I
didn't think it was right, that he knew he got me to close those
places up. That I could not vote for them, as they were immoral
and should be closed. The second conversation was all of the same
tenor."
129 Commissioner Poheim took papers from Ruef's office to the
Mayor on the day of Hutton's removal. Poheim testified at the
Schmitz trial:
"I took papers from Mr. Ruef's office that I believe were the
papers of removal. He told me that they were. That was the day
of Hutton's removal."
ii8 Ruef and Schmitz Indicted
The licenses were then issued to the "French Restaurant"
keepers. ^^°
Much of the story of these transactions was presented
to the Grand Jury. But the evidence was not secured
without effort. Many of the witnesses were unfriendly ;
others afraid of the consequences of frank statement of
facts. Witnesses disappeared and could not be found.
Several known to have testified were threatened and even
assaulted. One French Restaurant keeper, before the
investigation had been concluded, had been indicted for
perjury. Three attorneys who were more or less in
touch with the tenderloin situation had been cited for
contempt for refusing to answer questions put to them
in the Grand Jury room. But point by point the evi-
dence was presented.
130 The Chronicle in its issue of February 1, 1907, thus sum-
marized the evidence against Schmitz and Ruef, and the nature of
their defense:
"Those operations are these: There are in this as in all other
cities certain dens of vice, ranging from the very fashionable down
to those patronized by the dregs of society, which can exist only
when licensed to sell liquor. To give or withhold the license is
within the discretion of the Police Commissioners, and from their
action there is no effectual appeal. Since Ruef got control of the
majority of these commissioners they have been mere puppets,
giving or withholding the licenses of these places as directed by
Schmitz. That being the case, when renewals of licenses were
necessary, the applicants were refused. That meant the ruin of
their business. In the end, either from their general knowledge,
or because as advised, they applied to Ruef. When the fee was
settled and paid — in the case of the French restaurants ?5,000 a
year — Ruef notified Schmitz, who. as the prosecution is evidently
prepared to prove, then directed the licenses to issue, and thej-
were issued. In tlie aggregate, enormous sums were annually
collected from these places by Ruef or his agents, and without
that payment they could not have continued business. The reve-
nues thus obtained were evidently the sources of Schmitz's sud-
denly acquired wealth. Presumably some small share was paid to
the subordinates.
"Certainly that is extortion, and extortion of the most vill.iinous
kind. To the ordinary reader it is completelj^ covered by the lan-
guage of the statute. The contention of Ruef and Schmitz is not
that they did not get the money, or that it was not a villainous
thing, but merely that it was not a villainy expressly forbidden by
statute, and that therefore to indict them for it is 'persecution.'
If there are any people in the city who uphold or condone such
things thev are no better than Ruef or Schmitz themselves."
Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 119
The Grand Jury, on the evidence, indicted Schmitz
and Ruef on five counts for extortion. ^^^ Bonds were
fixed at $10,000 on each charge, $50,000 for each de-
fendant.
Ruef ^^^ was released on $50,000 bail.
131 The press throug-hout the State was a unit in approving the
Grand Jury's action. The San Francisco Chronicle fairly expressed
the general sentiment. It said:
"Every decent man in San Francisco breathes freer to-day.
The fact cannot be concealed that there Was an uneasy feeling in
the community that the machinations of the boss would again se-
cure immunity for himself and those who were with him in the
gi-afting business. The facility with which he turned the Grand
Jury preceding the present one into an instrument to accomplish
his own purposes inspired the fear that by hook or crook he may
have obtained control of the one now sitting; but the promptitude
with which the first indictment was brought allays all apprehen-
sion and converts it into confidence that the body now in session
is in deadly earnest and that it will earn the gratitude of its fel-
low citizens and cover itself with glory by striking an effective
blow which will put an end to flagrant venality in office and re-
store the good name of San Francisco."
The San Francisco Examiner said of the indictment of Schmitz
and Ruef: "The light breaks, the reign of political terror seems
at an end. Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz and Abe Ruef, his mentor
and master, have been indicted for extortion. The move of polit-
ical regeneration and civic reform that has been sweeping the
country has hit San Francisco with the force of all the other suc-
cesses behind it. In other cities and other States the powerful
rascals as well as their satellites have been sent to prison. Evi-
dently San Francisco and California are to rid themselves of the
arch political criminals. . . . Thursday, November 15, 1906 (the
day on which Ruef and Schmitz were indicted), is a day to be re-
membered. It marks the beginning of San Francisco's regenera-
tion. It is a day of heroic events to be told to children and
grandchildren. It is the day of the declaration of independence of
California's great metropolis."
132 Ruef denounced his indictment as absurd, insisting that he
had merely taken fees for services rendered. In an interview pub-
lished in the San Francisco Chronicle of November 16, 1006, he said:
"The whole thing is absurd. I was simply acting in the relation
of attorney to a client. I took my fee for rendering legal services.
I was retained by a contract as attorney by the restaurant keepers.
If it is extortion for an attorney to accept a fee from his client,
we all might as well go out of business. This is exactly the same
charge that was made against me once before and was found base-
less. I have nothing to fear."
On November 17 the Chronicle, touching upon Ruefs defense,
said: "E^^ery branch of the city government which is controlled
by Ruef men is known to be utterly rotten. The only question has
been whether under the advice and direction of low legal cunning,
the grafters have kept themselves immune from the law. And the
que.stion is a))ont to be settled."
I20 Ruef and Schmitz Indicted
Schmitz, the day after the indictments were brought,
was reported to have started for home from Europe.
Schmitz's probable reception on his arrival at New
York apparently gave keen anxiety at San Francisco.
Heney states that Justice F. W. Henshaw called at
his ( Heney 's) office and asked Heney, as a favor, to tell
him whether Schmitz would be arrested upon his arrival
in New York, as William J. Dingee of the Contra Costa
Water Company, wanted to arrange for Schmitz's bail
in New York City. William F. Herrin of the Southern
Pacific Company is credited with interesting himself in
Schmitz's behalf in arranging for the bond that was
furnished when Schmitz reached San Francisco.
Schmitz's bond was furnished by Dingee and Thomas
Williams, president of the New California Jockey Club.
The New California Jockey Club operated the notorious
Emeryville racing and gambling establishment. Mr.
Dingee was at the time one of California's most promi-
nent capitalists.
CHAPTER X.
Fight to Evade Trial.
The Indictments against Schmitz and Ruef were re-
turned November 15. Schmitz reached San Francisco
on his return from Europe on November 29/^^ He at
once joined with Ruef in the fight to prevent the issue
raised by his indictment being presented to a trial jury.
133 On his arrival in New York after being^ indicted for extortion
in the French Restaurant cases, Mayor Schmitz in an interview
widely published at the time gave his attitude toward the French
Restaurants. The Mayor explained that these restaurants had ex-
isted so long in the city that they had become a recognized adjunct
of a gay life of a gay town. He had not favored their suppression,
and whenever the Police Commissioners agitated the revoking of
their liquor licenses, he had opposed them.
"The French restaurants did no great harm," he is quoted as
saying, "and to destroy them would be to ruin the men who had
invested money in them." The character of some of the heavy in-
vestors in these establishments was brought out in the report of
the commission appointed by Mayor E. R. Taylor to ascertain
causes of municipal corruption in San Francisco, as disclosed by
the investigations of the Oliver Grand Jury. The report set forth:
"The business (of the French restaurants) is very prosperous,
and, as is usual, the landlord shares in its prosperity. People of
social prominence were known to accept a portion of the profits
of such establishments, through the extremely liberal rentals paid,
and the system is received with easy toleration. One of the largest
of these assignation places was located on a prominent corner of
the downtown shopping district where hundreds of women daily
passed its doors. The building, five stories in height, had four
stories devoted to the private supper bedrooms. The land was
owned in trust by one of the largest, if not the largest, trust com-
pany in the West. A lease was sought and obtained by a man no-
torious in the line of business above described; the building was
constructed by the trust company according to plans satisfactory
to him for this purpose, and the enterprise was conducted there for
seven years until the building was destroyed by fire. The signifi-
cant thing about such a transaction is, not that there are people
who are willing to accept money from such a source, or financiers
willing to put trust moneys to such uses, but that the facts, though
well known, did not seem to detract in the slightest from the social
recognition accorded to the persons so taking a share of the profits,
while the officer of the trust company which made the lease of that
particular house situated in the shopping district, was appointed a
regent of the State University."
122 Fight to Evade Trial
The two defendants were to have been arraigned on
December 3, but at their earnest soHcitation arraign-
ment ^^* was continued until December 6.
On that day the plans of the defendants became ap-
parent. It was seen that they would divide the defense,
demanding separate trials ; and it was quite as evident
that their first move would be an attack upon the validity
of the Grand Jury.
Attorneys Frank C. Drew and John J. Barrett ap-
peared for Schmitz, while Ruef v/as represented by
Samuel M. Shortridge and Henry Ach. At the close of
the proceedings, Ach asked that subpoenas be issued for
the members of the Grand Jury to appear in court the
following Monday to testify for the defendants. This
meant the examination of the Grand Jurors for bias.
134 During the reading of the first of the five indictments,
Schmitz stood, but Ruef remained seated. When the second indict-
ment was read, both the defendants kept their seats. Heney de-
manded to know what was going on. Judge Dunne announced that
the arraignment must proceed as in ordinary cases. During the
reading of tl^e remaining indictments both defendants remained
standing, but Ruef kept his back turned toward the court. Com-
menting upon this incident, the Chronicle, in its issue of December
8, 1906, said in an editorial article:
"In Judge Dunne's court a rogue on trial insolently refused to
stand and be arraigned like any other criminal, apparently on the
assumption that a political boss was above the courts. He was
finally compelled to stand and let his shame be seen. He sat, how-
ever, through one arraignment, and the people have reason to com-
plain that the trial Judge did not earlier enforce the respect due to
the majesty of the law. In another instance there is a more grave
offense. A lawyer presumed to bandy words with the Judge on
the bench, and is reported to have said to the Court in a loud and
insolent tone, evincing evident disrespect, 'And I have heard con-
siderable oratory from you.' Nothing was done about it, and Judge
Dunne owes it to the people to explain why he did not promptly
commit the insolent fellow to jail. The Judge on the bench repre-
sents the m.ajesty of the law. He sits for the people in solemn
judgm.ent on offenders. He is expected to enforce due respect for
the tribunal, and for that purpose is invested with the power of
summary punishment for contempt. Our alleged administration of
criminal justice is disgraceful, and the evil permeates the entire
machinery, from the policeman on his beat to the highest tribunal."
Fight to Evade Trial 123
The long technical fight to disqualify the Grand Jury
had opened. ^^^
In the attack upon the Grand Jury, Joseph C. Camp-
bell joined with Schmitz's attorneys, Drew and Barrett,
while Frank J. Murphy and Charles H. Fairall appeared
with Shortridge and Ach for Ruef. Ach, in moving to
set aside or quash the indictments, stated that the motion
was made for Schmitz and Ruef jointly, but that the
defendants reserved the right to plead and to be tried
separately.
135 The attack upon the Grand Jury had, however, been begun
the day before, and was progressing in another department of the
court even as Ruef and Schmitz were arraigned. Investigation into
graft conditions had by this time got beyond the tenderloin. Sev-
eral minor indictments had been brought. Supervisor Fred P.
Nicholas had been indicted for accepting a bribe of $26.10. As
chairman of the Public Building and Grounds Committee, the Grand
Jury found he had accepted a 10 per cent, commission on $261
worth of furniture purchased for the city. Several witnesses
had been indicted for perjury in connection with the graft in-
vestigation. That the investigation was going far was now con-
ceded. The defense concentrated to disqualify the Grand Jury. On
behalf of Nicholas and Duffy, the Grand Jurors were haled into
Judge William P. Lawlor's court December 5, the day before
Schmitz and Ruef were arraigned. The defendants were repi'e-
sented by Frank J. Murphy, who was to play a prominent part in
the graft defense. The following taken from the examination of
Foreman B. P. Oliver, as printed in the San Francisco Chronicle
of December 7, is a fair sample of the nature of the inquiry:
"Did you say to anyone that this is just the beginning of the
investigation of municipal corruption?"
"I have said that from the statements I have heard in the Grand
Jury room that the corruption of the municipal administration was
so great that the present Grand Jury could hardly expect to make
any impression upon it. As to when and where I made that state-
ment I cannot tell," replied Oliver, who proceeded: "As to myself,
the mere testimony I have heard in the Grand Jury room has filled
me with horror and disgust."
"Does it fill you with such horror that you believe everyone con-
nected with the administration is corrupt?" asked Lawyer Fairall
of counsel for the defense. "I do not believe anj'one to be corrupt
until he is proved to be so."
"Could you act fairly and impartially, as a Grand Juror, while
having your present feeling of horror and disgust?" "Yes, abso-
lutely so, for I have a conscience."
"You feel that your conscience would enable you to act fairly?"
"I do. If I erred at all it would be on the other side, so as to be
sure that I did the accused no injustice."
This examination went on for several days. The same examina-
tion of the Grand Jurors followed in the case of Ruef and Schmitz,
and was repeated for the third time on behalf of public-service cor-
poration agents who were indicted later.
124 Fight to Evade Trial
Ach's motion was based on nineteen counts. The
point most insisted upon was that Grand Juror Wallace
Wise was disqualified because of his having been on a
petty trial jury panel during the current year. Wise,
being thus disqualified, Ach argued, the whole indict-
ment failed as much as though the whole nineteen Grand
Jurors were disqualified. ^^^
Judge Dunne, after a three days' hearing, swept
aside the multitude of technical objections which the va-
rious attorneys for the defense had advanced. In par-
ticular did he refuse to declare the whole nineteen
Grand Jurors disqualified, because of the alleged dis-
qualification of Juror Wise.
The prosecution had gained another point in its fight
to bring the defendants to trial on the merits of their
cases.
But the attack upon the Grand Jury had scarcely
begun. After Judge Dunne's ruling, the nineteen Grand
Jurors were to be put on the stand and examined one
by one for bias.^^^ The defense went further, and had
136 The question of the eligibility of Grand Juror Wise was
finally decided by the State Supreme Court in the matter of the
application of A. Ruef for a writ of habeas corpus (150 California,
p. 665.) The Court held that the presence on the Grand Jury of a
member who had served and been discharged as a juror by a court
of record within a year of the time that he had been summoned
and impaneled to act as a grand juror does not affect the validity
of an indictment found by the Grand Jury.
137 The Chronicle, in its issue of December 18, 1906, said of the
attack upon the Grand Jury:
"The fact that the felons whom we are trying to convict are
officials has nothing to do with their demonstration of the fact that
it is impossible, under the laws, to put thieves in the penitentiary,
when there is a large band rounded up at one time and they all
fight. Under our laws the half-dozen rascals who have already been
indicted for their share in the orgy of official plunder in this city
can block our criminal courts. The disgraceful farce of putting
the Grand Jurors and the District Attorney on trial instead of the
scoundrels who have been indicted can apparently be protracted
for weeks. Happily the Legislature meets early next month, and if
Fight to Evade Trial 125
Rudolph Spreckels up to question him as to his motives
in guaranteeing a fund for the investigation of graft
conditions. ^^^ District Attorney Langdon was also
placed on the stand to be examined as to his motive in
appointing Heney his assistant. He denied most em-
phatically that he had appointed Heney for the sole pur-
pose of instituting criminal proceedings against Ruef and
Schmitz.
The examination of Grand Jurors, prosecutors and
citizens lasted from December 17 until January 22. On
the last named date, Judge Dunne denied the motion to
set aside the indictments for bias. The prosecution had
gained another step toward bringing the defendants to
trial.
Judge Dunne stated that he was ready to set the
cases for trial the next day. But the defendants had
it does not put a speedy end to it we are mistaken. We are get-
ting an object lesson which, perhaps, was needed. The whole mis-
erable machinery of obstruction must be swept away. Whoever is
indicted by a Grand Jury must go to trial, unless, in the opinion of
the trial Judge, extraordinary conditions indicate that some inquiry
should be made to be conducted solely by himself. The public will
be satisfied with nothing short of that, nor will it be satisfied with
that. The abuses of appeal must be ended."
138 Mr. Spreckels testified in part as follows: "I am not inter-
ested in the downfall of any man. either Eugene E. Schmitz or
Abraham Ruef. I did guarantee the sum of $100,000 to detect any
wrongdoing whatsoever in the city of San Francisco. I indicated
that to Mr. Heney. I cannot recollect as to dates, but I think it
was a short while before the commencement of these proceedings.
It was since the calamity of April 18. I had been interested for a
long while before that in starting an investigation. ... I did
not guarantee to Mr. Heney $100,000, but I did guarantee that for
the purpose of investigation for the collection of evidence. I would
personally guarantee $100,000 for the expenses. . . . My object
was merely to ascertain the truth or falsity of things that had
been generally stated. Some of the things I had known of myself.
I knew there was an effort made in the city here of doing things
in the past. Mr. Ruef, himself, had had a conversation with me
which indicated that he was in a position to do certain things,
and knowing these things I was willing that an investigation should
proceed to the bottom, and to furnish the money necessary to col-
lect the evidence. I have stated publicly relative to this fund of
$100,000."
126 Fight to Evade Trial
another delaying play. They demurred to the indict-
ments. The demurrers were not disposed of until Feb-
ruary 18.
In the meantime, the defense had made several com-
plicating moves. The first of these was an application
to Judge Graham to have the case against Schmitz
transferred from Judge Dunne's court. At the same
time Schmitz surrendered himself to the Sherifif, and
applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas cor-
pus, and a writ of prohibition, setting up the points
already raised in Judge Dunne's court against the indict-
ments. The Supreme Court finally decided against
Schmitz.
But there remained another way of having the case
transferred from Judge Dunne's court. The law gov-
erning changes of venue could be changed by the Legis-
lature. The 1907 Legislature had convened early in Jan-
uarv. A measure was introduced in both Senate and
Assembly under the terms of which a defendant in a
criminal action was permitted to secure a transfer of his
case from one court to another by merely filing affidavit
of his belief that he could not get fair trial in the court
in which his case was pending.^^^ The measure was
139 The San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of January 17, 1907,
said of the Change of Venue bill:
"Assemblyman Grove L. Johnson of Sacramento, and Senator L.
A. Wright of San Diego, have introduced Identical bills which pro-
vide in brief, that in any criminal trial the accused may displace
the Judge upon his mere affidavit that he 'believes he cannot have
a fair and impartial trial.' Upon the filing of such an affidavit the
services of some other Judge must be secured, provided that in
counties having more than one department of the Superior Court
the case shall be transferred to some other department of the same
county. The bill provides that the act shall take effect immediately
upon its passage. The obvious intent of the law is to enable the
indicted boodlers of this city to select the Judge who shall try them,
to set aside all that has thus far been done to get them before a
jury and ha,ve their cases retried from the beginning."
Fight to Evade Trial 127
known as the "Change of Venue Bill." Its chief sup-
porter in the Legislature was George B. Keane.
Keane was not only clerk of the Board of Supervis-
ors, but he was a member of the State Senate represent-
ing a San Francisco district. Keane championed the
•'Change of Venue Bill." ^*^ The measure passed the
Assembly, but failed of passage in the Senate. Ruef in
his efforts to escape trial before Judge Dunne had lost
again.
Early in February, w^hen the efforts of Schmitz and
Ruef to evade trial were being pressed the hardest, agita-
tion against the Japanese gave Schmitz opportunity not
140 Ruef had, as early as 1904, secured a hold on the State Leg-
islature, by putting up and elcting a Union Labor partj^ legislative
ticket. "I told the legislators," said Ruef in a statement published
after he had entered San Quentin prison, "to vote on all labor ques-
tions and legislation directly involving labor interests always for
the labor side. I told them on all other questions to follow the
Hei'rin program. Herrin was appreciative. He expressed his sense
of obligation." — Abraham Ruef's "The Road I Traveled," published
in San Francisco Bulletin, July 6, 1912.
Keane, at the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, admitted
that he had supported "The Assembly bill providing for changes of
place of trial in certain cases," at the special request of Ruef. See
transcript on appeal, part 3, book 1, pages 442-3. Keane was also
active in the advocacy of other measures changing the law govern-
ing criminal cases. One of these practically forbade public comment
on a criminal trial from the impaneling of the Grand Jury until the
rendering of the verdict. Commenting upon this anti-publicity bill,
E. H. Hamilton, in a dispatch from Sacramento to the San Francisco
Examiner, published in that paper March 5, 1907, said: "This bill
had been sneaked through the Senate the other night when no one
was paying any attention, but Senator Boynton moved to reconsider
the vote by which the bill was passed, and brought up the matter
to-day, asking that the bill be given a free discussion before it was
acted upon. He showed that it was directly in opposition to the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State,
because it was aimed directly at the freedom of the press and in-
tended to prevent newspapers from publishing accounts of criminal
trials.
"Senator Sanford of Mendocino said that it was an attempt to
muzzle the press and to prevent people from ascertaining what was
going on in criminal lawsuits, but the Senate refused to reconsider
the vote by which it had passed the unconstitutional bill."
Keane also pressed an amendment to the codes to prevent sten-
ographers and bookkeepers testifying against their employers. Dur-
ing the discussion in the Senate Committee on the Change of Venue
bill, Keane offered an amendment to make this measure take effect
immediately.
128 Fight to Evade Trial
only to absent himself from the State, thus bringing the
proceedings so far as they applied to him, to a standstill,
but to restore his prestige. Schmitz was quick to avail
himself of the situation.
The question of admitting Japanese to California
schools was then under consideration at Washington,
A request was extended the San Francisco Board of
Education, through California Congressmen, that the
members of the board go to Washington for confer-
ence with the government authorities. Members of the
board held consultation with Schmitz, after which word
was circulated about the State that in defense of the
public schools against the Japanese, Schmitz must, on
behalf of San Francisco and California, go to Washing-
ton.
A telegram was received from Congressman Julius
Kahn, a close supporter of Ruef and Schmitz, who rep-
resented a San Francisco district in Congress, stating
that "at the request of the President and Secretary of
State we ask you to come here immediately for a con-
ference with them and the CaHfornia delegation."
Schmitz started for Washington on February 3.^^V
He was absent from San Francisco until March 6. He
did not, however, as had been predicted, return amid
popular acclaim. The outcome of the Washington nego-
tiations was not satisfactory to California. There was
141 On the way across San Francisco Bay to take the train at
Oakland, in the words of newspaper reports of the incident, mem-
bers of Mayor Schmitz's personal following who accompanied him,
"were frankly delighted with the prospect of the indicted Maj'or
returning from the national capital covered with glory, and ac-
claimed the savior of the country from a war with Japan."
Ruef regarded the incident cynically. "As soon as Schmitz got
aboard that train," said Ruef on the day of the Ma3''or's departure,
"the nation was saved."
Fight to Evade Trial 129
popular belief that the Mayor's mission had failed. At
the State line Schmitz received the startling word that
Ruef was a fugitive from justice; that Sheriff O'Neil
had failed to discover the fugitive's whereabouts and had
been disqualified. During the month of his absence
from San Francisco, the Mayor was soon to learn, events
of tremendous importance to himself and to his admin-
istration had occurred.
CHAPTER XL
RuEF A Fugitive.
Three months ^^^ after his indictment in the "French
Restaurant" extortion cases — three months of continuous
fighting to evade the issue — Ruef found his last technical
obstruction, as far as the State courts were concerned,
swept away, and was forced to enter his plea to the
charge contained in the indictment. He pleaded "not
guilty." His trial was set for March 5.
Up to the day before the date fixed for the trial to
begin, nothing had come up to indicate further delay.
On IMarch 4, however, Ruef's bondsmen surrendered
him into the custody of the Sheriff. Ruef then applied
to Superior Judge J. C. B. Hebbard for a writ of habeas
corpus. The application was based on the allegation
dealt with in a previous chapter, that Grand Juror Wise
was ineligible, because he had been drawn as a trial
juror within a year before the impanelment of the
Grand Jury of which he was a member. On the ground
that Wise was ineligible for Grand Jury service, Ruef's
attorneys contended, their client's restraint was in viola-
tion of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the
Federal Constitution, thereby raising a Federal issue and
paving the way for appeal to the Federal courts.
14 2 Ruef and Srbmitz were indicted November 15, 1906. The date
of Ruef's plea of ">7ot guilty" was February 18, 1907.
Ruef a Fugitive 131
In opposing Ruef's new move, Hiram W. Johnson,"^
who had been employed to assist the District Attorney
in the "graft" prosecution, pointed out that the cases
named in the petition were pending in a co-ordinate
branch of the Superior Court; that they were set for
trial the following day; that the points, including the
Federal points, had been made subject of extensive argu-
ments before Hebbard's colleague, Judge Dunne, and
in the course of those arguments every question pre-
sented in the proceedings had been passed upon.
Ach, representing Ruef, denied that the Federal ques-
tion had been presented. Johnson insisted that it had.
An unfortunate scene followed. ^^* Hebbard showed
symptoms of intoxication. Johnson, Langdon and
Heney finally refused to participate further in the pro-
ceedings and walked out of the courtroom. ^*^
143 Hiram "W. Johnson is a native of California, having been
born at Sacramento. He was educated at the Sacramento public
schools and the University of California. At twenty-one he had
been admitted to practice at the California bar. He was active for
years against the corrupt political conditions in California before
he came into prominence as one of the prosecutors at the graft
trials. In 1910 he was selected to lead the movement against the
political machine which dominated the State. As primary candi-
date for Republican nomination for Governor, he visited practically
every community in California, making one pledge to be carried
out in the event of his election, "to kick the Southern Pacific out
of political control of the State." He was nominated and elected.
His election resulted in political revolution in California. (See
"Story of the California Legislature of 1911" and "Story of the Cali-
fornia Legislature of 1913.") He was one of the founders of the
Progressive party at Chicago in 1912, and was that year candidate
for Vice-President with Poosevelt on the National Progressive
ticket. In 1914 he was re-elected Governor of California with over-
whelming vote. Johnson is the first Governor since 1853 to secure
re-election in California.
144 See Heney's afl^davit in The People vs. Ruef, No. 823.
14.5 "Again we protest," said Johnson when the final break came,
"in behalf of the District Attorney of this city and county, and in
the name of the people of California. We do not believe in this;
we will not participate in it; and we take our leave of this court.
We will not participate in any proceeding which does not, accord-
ing to our ideas, comport with the dignity of justice, the dignity
of this court, or our own dignity."
132 Ruef a Fugitive
The withdrawal of the District Attorney and his
assistants did not delay Judge Hebbard's decision. He
denied the writ Ruef prayed for, but he allowed an
appeal from his order to the Supreme Court of the
United States, and admitted Ruef to bail pending that
appeal.
One of Ruef's attorneys filed the writ of error issued
by Judge Hebbard with the clerk of the Federal Circuit
Court. May 2 was set as the date for the appearance
on the writ of error before the United States Supreme
Court at Washington.^*^
The Aetna Indemnity Company had furnished Ruef's
bond. This company surrendered Ruef to the Sheriff in
the forenoon. In the afternoon it furnished the bail that
had been imposed by Judge Hebbard.
Ruef, in Hebbard's order granting him opportunity
to take his case to the Federal Courts, had basis for fur-
ther struggle in the courts to evade trial. But he under-
took a new move. After leavinsf Hebbard's courtroom
on the afternoon of March 4, Ruef dropped out of sight
as completely as though the earth had opened and
swallowed him.
For three days the regular peace officers of San
Francisco searched San Francisco for him but they did
not find him.
146 On March 25, 1907, Ruef's appeal in the habeas corpus mat-
ter was dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Of
this move, Frank J. Murohv, one of Ruef's attorneys, is quoted in
a published interview: "'We have instructed our representative in
Washington to withdraw the writ of error filed by us. This de-
cision was reached on account of the decision of the State Supreme
Court to the effect that the participation of an incompetent juror
does not affect the validity of an indictment."
This action left the Prosecution free to proceed with Ruef's trial
without any possibility of the proceedings being questioned later.
Ruef a Fugitive 133
When Ruef's case was called for trial in Judge
Dunne's department on the morning following the pro-
ceedings in Judge Hebbard's court, Ruef's attorney,
Samuel M. Shortridge, was present, but not the de-
fendant.
Shortridge was in the position of an attorney in
court without a client.^*'' After a wait of four hours, to
give Ruef every opportunity to make his appearance,
Heney moved that the bonds of the absent defendant be
declared forfeited, specifying the bonds originally given
147 Judge Dunne ruled that Ruef, being a fugitive from justice,
and his trial one for felony, at which the defendant must be present
at every stage of the proceedings, there was no trial before the
court. Shortridge was in the position of counsel without a client.
During the examination of Coroner Walsh, after his failure to find
Ruef, Shortridge insisted upon interrupting the examination. Judge
Dunne after repeated warnings, found Shortridge guilty of con-
tempt of court, and sentenced him to serve twenty-four hours in
jail. The Chronicle of March 9, 1907, contains the following ac-
count of the incident:
"Have j^ou not said," Walsh was asked by Heney, "that you
hoped he (Ruef) would be acquitted and that you would do all you
could for him? Are you not in sympathy with him?"
Again the Coroner quibbled and Judge Dunne ordered: "Answer
the question. Do you sympathize with him or not?"
Still the witness hesitated, and again the Judge asked with
vigor: "Are you in sympathy with him?"
"If he is innocent I am in sympathy with him, if he is guilty
I am not."
"I suppose you wish it to appear that you are not in sympathy
with him so that you may take charge of the jury," suggested
Heney.
Samuel M. Shortridge, one of Ruef's lawyers, here said that he
objected on behalf of his client to the line of examination.
Heney proceeded without paying any attention to Shortridge's
interruption. Shortridge again entered an objection, and Judge
Dunne ordered him to take his seat.
"But I wish to be heard on behalf of my client," persisted Short-
ridge.
"Take your seat, Mr. Shortridge, or I will order the Sheriff to
cause you to do so or remove you from the court room," declared
Judge Dunne.
"Am I to understand that I am not to be heard in this court?"
demanded Shortridge with play of great indignation.
"Mr. Shortridge, your conduct is boisterous and offensive and
tends to interfere with the orderly conduct of the court. I declnre
you guilty of contempt and sentence you to be confined in the
County Jail for twenty-four hours. Mr. Sheriff, take him into
custody."
134 Ruef a Fugitive
as well as those furnished in the proceedings before
Hebbard.
Judge Dunne, in ruling upon Heney's motion, stated
that he was proceeding as though the proceedings be-
fore Judge Hebbard had not occurred. Those proceed-
ings, he announced, he felt were under a species of
fraud. He ordered Ruef's original bonds forfeited and
took the question of the forfeiture of the bonds in the
proceedings before Judge Hebbard under advisement.
He considered it his duty, he said, to proceed with the
trial of the case until ordered to desist by the Supreme
Court or by the Court of Appeals.
Attorney Shortridge announced to Judge Dunne that
in proceeding with the hearing he might find himself in
contempt of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Judge Dunne stated that that would not embarrass
him, and in any event, he would not proceed with the
matter until the defendant was in court.
The day passed without the defendant's whereabouts
being discovered. Sheriff O'Neil reported that he had
been unable to find the fugitive, but expressed his belief
that he would be able to do so eventually. With that
understanding court adjourned for the day.
The day following, Ruef's attorneys appealed to the
State Appellate Court ^^^ for a writ of prohibition to pre-
vent Judge Dunne and others from further proceeding
against Ruef in the extortion cases, and to show cause
148 The two principal points on which the defense based their
applications for writs of habeas corpus and of prohibition were:
(1) That Juror Wise, having sat on a petty jury within a year,
was disqualified to act as a Grand Juror, and hence the indictments
were fatally defective.
(2) That the matter was before the Supreme Court of the
United States on a writ of error.
Ruef a Fugitive 135
why the writ should not be made permanent. Ruef being
in hiding, the appHcation was not signed by the peti-
tioner. The Appellate Court, after twenty-four hours,
denied the petition. Ruef's representatives then went
before the State Supreme Court with the same repre-
sentations. And here, again, eventually, Ruef lost.
In the meantime, Ruef had not been found. The day
following his disappearance, Judge Dunne disqualified
the Sheriff and named the next officer in authoritative
sequence in such matters, the Coroner, W. J. Walsh, as
elisor, to arrest Ruef and bring him into court.
Coroner Walsh had no better success than had Sheriff
O'Neil. Ruef had disappeared on the night of Monday,
March 4. On Friday, March 8, after three days of
unavailing search by O'Neil and Walsh, ^*^ Jwdge Dunne
disqualified Walsh and appointed William J. Biggy ^^°
as elisor to arrest the fugitive.
Within two hours Biggy, accompanied by Detective
William J. Burns, had located Ruef at a road-house in
the San Francisco suburbs and had placed- him tuider
arrest.^^^
149 Heney, in his affidavit in contention that an Elisor should
be appointed to bring Ruef into court, indicated the conditions
which were handicapping- the prosecution.
150 Biggy afterwards became Chief of Police of San Francisco.
151 Ruef was with one of his henchmen, Myrtile Cerf, when ar-
rested. Long after, when he had plead guilty to one of the extor-
tion charges, Ruef stated in an interview published in the San
Francisco Call, May 16, 1907, that it had been his purpose "to wait
until the Legislature had acted on the Change of Venue Bill," which
was considered in a previous chapter, and which at the time of
Ruef's flight was being engineered through the Senate by George
Keane in his capacity as Senator. Ruef, in his interview, stated
further: "We had expected that this bill would go through. Nat-
urally we were surprised when we learned that Campbell, the May-
or's (Sehmitz's) attorney, was at Sacramento lobbying against ihe
bill. What his object was I do not know. He even wont to George
136 Ruef a Fugitive
Having taken his man/^^ the ehsor was at a loss to
know what to do with him. To put him in the city
prison was to turn him over to the police ; to put him
in the county jail was to turn him over to the Sheriff.
The Chief of Police was even then under indictment with
Ruef, a co-defendant ; the Sheriff had been disqualified.
The only alternative was for Biggy himself to hold Ruef
until the court could act. Biggy accordingly secured
suitable quarters at the Hotel St. Francis, and there held
Ruef a prisoner until the following Monday, when he
was taken before Judge Dunne.
Judge Dunne refused to admit Ruef to bail, re-
manded him to Elisor Biggy's custody, and continued his
trial until the following morning, Tuesday, March 12.
Ruef immediately made application to the Supreme
Court for a writ of habeas corpus, asking to be released
from the custody of Elisor Biggy and placed in charge
of the Sheriff. But here again Ruef was defeated.
Elisor Biggy continued his keeper for many months fol-
lowing.
Ruef, after his appeal to the Federal Supreme Court,
had exhausted every legal device known to himself and
his attorneys to escape trial in the extortion case pending
Keane, who had charge of the bill, and tried to switch him to the
other side."
During the period of Ruef's disappearance, his attorneys had in-
sisted that they were unaware of his whereabouts. Myrtile Cerf,
his companion in flight, refused to say before the Grand Jury with
whom he had telephonic communication while at the roadhouse, on
the ground that such testimony might Incriminate him.
152 Ruef's arrest threw the administration into the greatest con-
fusion. Supervisor "Wilson testified at the trial of The People vs.
Ruef, No. 1437, Part 3, Vol. 7, p. 3175, that at 2 o'clock of the morn-
ing following Ruef's capture, he went down to Henry Ach's apart-
ment to ascertain if the rumor that Ruef had been found were
true.
Ruef a Fugitive 137
before Judge Dunne.^^^ His last recourse gone, Ruef
found himself brought face to face with trial before a
jury. On March 13 the selecting of jurors to try Ruef
began in Judge Dunne's court.
But events of far greater moment than petty extortion
had the attention of San Francisco. Even as Ruef was
in hiding, Detective Burns and his assistants had trapped
three members of the Board of Supervisors in bribery.
This opened up the most fruitful field of the graft
153 Of the procedure which made possible Ruef s long technical
fig-ht to escape trial, the San Francisco Chronicle on November 10,
1906, said:
"The disgraceful condition of our criminal laws permits guilty
men to put off their doom almost without limit. Where money
makes unscrupulous talent available that course is invariably taken
by those caught in the toils of justice. There are many objects
to be gained by these delays. Witnesses may die or be spirited
away. Most important of all the public becomes wearied and
finally forgets or loses its zest for the enforcement of the law.
When that stage is reached the 'pull' comes into play. By the
connivance of the District Attorney, and especially of the Judge,
continuance after continuance can be granted until proof becomes
impossible and the case is dismissed. The adoption of such a course
by any accused person of bad reputation is moral evidence of guilt
which is conclusive with the public. We have had in this city
many disgraceful criminal trials. We have had many obvious mis-
carriages of justice. There have been wealthy men whom every-
body feels should be in the penitentiary who have hardly ceased
for a day to flaunt their faces in decent society. We have never
had a case in which the obstruction to the cause of justice began
so early as Ruef began it, or was conducted with such brazen ef-
frontery. It is not within our recollection that any accused person
of whose guilt there was reasonable doubt had adopted such a
course. Its adoption is the recognized sign of guilt.
"But while our laws affecting court practice are very bad, they
do afford the means of ultimately bringing criminals to trial and
convicting them if the evidence is sufficient and the jury unbiased
and uncorrupted. It only requires that the public maintains its in-
terest and thereby sustains its officials in their efforts to secure
justice. In this case the advantage is with the public. There is
no possibility of a 'pull' with the District Attorney. His assistant,
Mr. Heney, is himself a master of the criminal law and in notable
cases elsewhere has triumphed over similar efforts for delay made
in behalf of criminals of far higher social and political standing
than Ruef. In fact Ruef has no standing of any kind in the com-
munity in any way different from that possessed by other political
bosses supposed to be corrupt. The indignation of this community
is a righteous indignation and it will never abate until under the
due processes of law the truth in respect to Ruef and his rousta-
bouts is dragged out in open court."
138 Ruef a Fugitive
prosecution, and immediately the extortion cases became
of comparative unimportance. The trapping of the
three Supervisors led to confessions from fourteen oth-
ers, which involved not only Ruef in enormous bribery
transactions, but also prominent members of the bar,
and leaders in the social, financial and industrial life of
California.
CHAPTER XII.
Trapping of the Supervisors.
Months before the OHver Grand Jury was convened,
it w^as common gossip in San Francisco that the members
of the Board of Supervisors were taking money from
the pubHc service corporations.^^* BeHef of this had got
beyond the stage of mere newspaper accusation. It had
become the firmly- settled conviction of the law-abiding
element of the community. For this reason, as the
154 At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, Supervisor
Andrew M. Wilson testified to a conversation which he had had
with Ruef at Ruef's office early in September, 1906. He was asked
to state what he had said to Ruef on that occasion. Wilson re-
plied:
"A. I told him Mr. Choynski was across the street; I pulled the
blind aside at his office, and showed him Mr. Choynski talking- to
Jesse Marks; that he had stated to Marks the exact amount on the
trolley proposition.
"Mr. Sullivan: Q. ,Who had stated to Marks the exact amount
on the trolley proposition? A. Mr. Choynski, and that I had ad-
vised him a few weeks before that not to continue that fight for
the attorneyship of the Liquor Dealers.
"Q. Advised who? A. Mr. Ruef; and that Mr. ChojTiskl was
telling him what he had said to McGushin at one of the meetings
regarding the $4,000 on the trolley.
"Q. That who had said what he had told Mr. McGushin? A.
Yes, sir.
"Q. That who had said it? A. That Mr. Choynski had said
that McGushin looked paral5^zed when he mentioned the exact
am.ount, but denied it; and I says to Mr. Ruef, 'He has the cor-
rect amount on the trolley,' and he stated that there must be a
leak somewhere in the Board; and I told hiin I thought
"Q. (Interrupting). Who stated that there must be a leak
somewhere in the Board? A. Mr. Ruef; and I stated that I thought
it came through Morris Levy, and that possibly he got his infor-
mation through Supervisor Kelly, as they were very friendly.
"Mr. Ach: Q. Who said that, you or Ruef?
"Mr. Sullivan: Q. Who said that? A. I stated that to Mr.
Ruef, that I thought the source of the leak was through Super-
visor Kelly telling Morris Levy, and Morris Levy telling Choynski."
— See Transcript, page 2643.
140 Trapping of the Supervisors
months wore away in technical wrangling in the
"French Restaurant" extortion cases, the public became
impatient that time and energy should be expended in
comparatively unimportant matters, while big graft went
unprobed.
Partisans of the administration took advantage of this
sentiment to belittle the prosecution.
Under this sort of hammering, the prosecution, dur-
ing the months of February and March, 1907, unques-
tionably lost ground in public opinion.
But with Ruef holding the Supervisors to rigid ac-
counting, and agents of public-service corporations lynx-
eyed ^^^ to detect any weakness in their position, and
quick to report with warning and advice to Ruef at any
suggestion of danger. Burns and his associates were able
to make little headway in securing evidence of big graft
that would justify indictment or warrant trial.
The Supervisors looked to Ruef absolutely. Some of
them took bribe money from others than himself in spite
of his warning, but when they scented a trap they hur-
ried to Ruef for advice.
When he directed them to return the bribe monev
155 Supervisor James L. Gallagher testified at the trial of The
People vs. Ruef, No. 14.37, of a note which had been delivered to
him by Mr. Abbott, attorney for the United Railroads, from Tirey
L. Ford, head of the United Railroads law department, to be de-
livered to Ruef. The substance of the note, Gallagher testified,
was that "The Grand Jury is taking up the investigation of the
charges concerning the United Railroads permit; not much headway
has been made; it is intended to endeavor to trap some of the Su-
pervisors."
Gallagher, unable to find Ruef, went back to Ford, according
to Gallagher's testimony, and asked if the note were so important
that Ruef should be hunted up. Ford had directed him to open the
envelope and read the note. Gallagher did this, made a short-
hand memorandum of it. and read the message to Ruef later. See
transcript, The People vs. Ruef, Part 3, Vol. 2, pp. 976 to 983.
Trapping of the Supervisors 141
they promised to do so, and in some cases actually re-
turned it.
Ruef was a competent captain over men who had all
confidence in his ability to keep them out of trouble. So
long as he was in touch with the Supervisors his posi-
tion so far as the Supervisors was concerned was al-
most impregnable. When, however, Ruef was caught
in a position where he could no longer consult freely
with his men, advise them and reassure them, his or-
ganization went to pieces in a wild scramble of every
member thereof to save himself.
This occurred when Ruef was placed in the custody
of Elisor Biggy.
Ruef fully appreciated this weak point in his posi-
tion. He realized from the beginning of the Graft
Prosecution the danger of members of the Board of
Supervisors being trapped in independent bribery, and
himself becoming involved through their confessions.
Even before his flight from trial in the extortion case,
he knew that his fears bade fair to be realized.
Some fortnight before Ruef's flight, Supervisor Lon-
ergan had been to Ruef with confession of having taken
$500 from Golden M. Roy. Roy was proprietor of a well-
known cafe and was counted by men in Lonergan's
position as one of the supporters of the administration.
But the more astute Ruef at once suspected betrayal.
Ruef bluntly informed Lonergan that he had been
trapped, directed him to return the money Roy had given
him and warned him of the risk he ran in accepting
bribes.
Ruef's fears were well founded. Roy, in his dealings
142 Trapping of the Supervisors
with Lonergan, was acting for Detective William J.
Burns.
The trap which Burns had prepared for the eager
Lonergan was plausibly baited.
Roy was a restaurant keeper with several side enter-
prises, among them interests in a skating-rink. An ordi-
nance regulating skating-rinks was pending before the
Supervisors. Roy, acting under direction of the District
Attorney, approached Lonergan w4th a statement that he
wished the ordinance defeated. Lonergan accordingly
met Roy at the skating-rink office. In an adjoining
room, placed so they could see and hear, were Detective
William J. Burns and two others. From their places of
concealment the three men heard the bargain, and saw
Roy pay Lonergan $500 to defeat the skating-rink ordi-
nance.
Roy, acting for the District Attorney, then attempted
to trap Gallagher. He offered Gallagher $1000 for his
work on the skating-rink ordinance. Gallagher refused
to take any money and said that Roy was a friend of
the administration and it should not cost him anything.
Roy urged Gallagher to accept the money, alleging that
it came from a pool ; that Gallagher was entitled to it ;
that he, Roy, had given money to several Supervisors
already. Gallagher asked him to tell which ones. Roy
refused, saying, "You would not expect me to tell on
you."
Gallagher immediately suspected Lonergan and told
his suspicions to Wilson, and the two hunted up Loner-
gan and charged him with getting the money.
Gallagher hurried Lonergan to Ruef much the same
Trapping of the Supervisors 143
as they would have rushed a man showing the symp-
toms of a deadly malady to a physician. Ruef warned
him and advised him. The thoroughly frightened Su-
pervisor assured Ruef that he would be careful in the
future, and that he would return the money he had
received from Roy.^^^
But even as Ruef was dealing with Lonergan, Super-
visor Edward I. Walsh was walking into a trap set in
duplication of that into which Lonergan had fallen.
Walsh, at the skating-rink, with the eyes of Burns
and others upon him, accepted $500 from Roy — who
was working as before under direction of the District
Attorney — as the price of his vote on the skating-rink
ordinance.
The third Supervisor to fall into the District Attor-
ney's trap was Dr. Charles Boxton.
Dr. Boxton ^^^ was a different type from Lonergan
and Walsh. He had had the advantage of superior
education and training. A specially prepared trap was
set for him at Roy's house. Boxton was introduced into
the front room separated from the dining-room by fold-
ing doors. The dining-room had been darkened, and
the folding doors left slightly ajar. Burns, with his
assistants, was concealed in the dining-room, where they
156 An interesting incident of this transaction grew out of word
being carried to Roy, that Ruef had told Lonergan that Roy was a
stool pigeon for Burns. Roy went to Ruef's office with a show of
great indignation, demanding to know what Ruef meant by such
a charge. Ruef apologized and denied.
157 Boxton is thus described by Ruef, in his account of the graft
cases: "Dr. Boxton was a dentist; he held the position of dean and
professor of dentistry in an established medical and dental college.
He was a popular man about town; had been one of the grand of-
ficers of the Native Sons' organization; an officer of the First Cali-
fornia Regiment in the Philippines, and had been several times
elected Supervisor by large and popular votes."
144 Trapping of the Supervisors
could see all that took place in the front room, as well
as hear what was said. They saw Roy offer Boxton
the money ; heard him tell Boxton that the ordinance
was to be defeated ; saw Boxton take the money.
The trap was to be sprung once more, with Loner-
gan, for the second time,^°^ the victim.
Lonergan, instead of returning the $500 he had ac-
cepted in the skating-rink transaction, as he had prom-
ised Ruef he would do, accepted an additional $500 from
Roy. As before. Burns and his men witnessed the
transaction.
Roy had told Lonergan of an ordinance authorizing
the establishing of an oil refinery in which Roy claimed
to be interested. He promised Lonergan $500 to sup-
port the measure. The ordinance had been cleverly
prepared, with an acrostic in the title, spelling the word
"Fake." ^°^ Roy had interested Boxton in the measure
as well as Lonergan. Boxton had introduced it at a
regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors. On March
7, while Ruef was a fugitive, Lonergan went to Roy's
house to get the money to be paid him for the support
of the ''Fake" ordinance.
158 The reason for springing the trap on Lonergan the second
time was that the plan of Burns's had miscarried on the first trap.
Burns had put a man in partnership with Lonergan, who was to
induce Lonergan to cash a draft for $200, shortly after Lonergan
had received the $500 in marked currency.
W^hen Lonergan was asked to cash the draft, he said all right,
but that he would have to go home and get the money. He went
home and brought back gold. About this time the Chronicle pub-
lished a story to ths effect that several Supervisors had been
trapped.
159 The acrostic was made by skipping two lines to the third,
the first word of which began with "F," then skipping two lines
to the sixth, skipping two lines to the ninth, and finally skipping
two lines to the twelfth; the first letter of the first word of each
of these lines spelt the word "Fake."
Trapping of the Supervisors 145
The same arrangements had been made for Lonergan
as for Boxton. Burns and his men were concealed in
the darkened dining-room; the folding doors were ajar.
Lonergan took the money.
''What," he demanded of Roy, "have you in the next
room?" and advanced toward the partially-open folding
doors. At that Burns threw the doors open.
"You see," said Burns, "what he has in there."
"I want you to arrest this man," cried Lonergan, in-
dicating Roy. "He bribed a Supervisor."
"Yes, I saw him do it," replied Burns. "But you
did not tell me to arrest him when he bribed you down
at the skating-rink."
Lonergan at first denied the skating-rink incident, but
finally admitted it. Langdon and Heney were sent for,
and joined the party at Roy's house. Lonergan was
urged to tell what he knew of graft of the Schmitz-Ruef
administration. He finally consented. It was not a
long story. Supervisor James L. Gallagher had acted
as go-between, Lonergan stated, from Ruef to the Su-
pervisors. From Gallagher, Lonergan testified, he had
received $475 to influence his vote in the ordinance
granting permits to the organized prize fight promoters
to hold fights once a month ; $750 to influence his vote
in fixing gas rates at 85 cents per thousand instead of
75 cents, as had been pledged in the Union Labor party
platform on which he had been elected; $3500 in the
matter of granting the Home Telephone Company's
franchise; $4000 for his vote in granting the United
Railroads its permit to establish the overhead trolley
system. Lonergan stated further that Gallagher had
146 Trapping of the Supervisors
promised him $750, and later $1000, to influence his vote
in the matter of passing an ordinance for the sale of a
franchise applied for by the Parkside Realty Company,
with the ''biggest thing yet" to come, when the deal
was consummated, by which the city' would accept the
plans of the Bay Cities Water Company.
In addition to the sums received from Gallagher,
Lonergan confessed to receiving $5000 from T. V. Hal-
sey, representing the Pacific States Telephone and Tele-
graph Company. Halsey had paid Lonergan the money,
the Supervisor said, to oppose the granting of a fran-
chise to the Home Telephone Company.
Walsh and Boxton were sent for. On their arrival
at Roy's house they were closely questioned, and urged
to confess, but neither would make a statement that
night. Boxton insisted that he w^ould admit nothing
unless the other Supervisors made statements. But on
the following day, March 8, Walsh made a statement
under oath to the District Attorney and Heney, in which
he confessed to receiving bribes from Gallagher, except
in the Home Telephone bribery, in the same amount
and under like conditions that Lonergan had stated
bribes had been paid him.
Startling as these confessions were, they as a matter
of fact involved none but Lonergan, Walsh, Gallagher
and Halsey. At no point did they touch Ruef. or
Schmitz, or those who had furnished the bribe money.
Boxton with Walsh and Lonergan had been trapped in
bribery. Two had confessed to receiving money from
Gallagher, but even though the third, Boxton, added
his confession to theirs, it vrould not have provided
sufficient to convict. The confessions of the three were
Trapping of the Supervisors 147
uncorroborated as to each bribe. The remaining fifteen
Supervisors would to a certainty have sworn they voted
for the several measures without inducement. With such
testimony from the fifteen, no motive could have been
shown for Gallagher to bribe Lonergan, Walsh and Box-
ton; the measures could, with the votes of the fifteen,
have been passed without the votes of the three Super-
visors trapped. To make out even a fairly good case
against Ruef, it was absolutely essential to have Gal-
lagher's testimony, and in addition thereto, the testimony
of a majority of the m.embers of the Board of Super-
vlsors.^^^
The prosecution had made progress in trapping the
three Supervisors, and in getting confession out of two
of them. But at best it was only an opening wedge.
The least slip would have lost all the ground gained.
The three trapped Supervisors might be sent to State
Prison. Had they been, Schmitz with the fifteen Super-
visors remaining would have filled their places by ap-
pointment. The situation would then be more difficult
for the prosecution than ever.
While the agents of the District Attorney were deal-
ing with the complicated problems which the first break
in the line of the graft defense brought upon them, Ruef
iGO With the testimony of all the Supervisors, including Gallagher,
the prosecution subsequently found great difficulty in convicting
Ruef. In the Parkside case, all the Supervisors testified in regard
to two promises made to them, and all the officials of the Parkside
Company testified to negotiations with Ruef and to the payment of
money to him. In addition thereto, William J. Dingee, who was an
entirely disinterested party, testified to a conversation with Ruef,
which was highly incriminating in its character, and which
amounted to an admission on the part of Ruef that he was receiv-
ing money in the Parkside matter.
With all this evidence before it, the jury stood six for acquittal
and six for conviction.
148 Trapping of the Supervisors
continued a fugitive. Gallagher, Ruef's immediate repre-
sentative, realized the seriousness of the situation. He
had no real loyalty for Ruef. His one thought was for
Gallagher. He could for the moment see no hope for
himself, except in the defeat of the prosecution. He
accordingly exerted himself to block Burns, and to pre-
vent the conditions of graft in the Board of Supervisors
from becoming public.^^^ Supervisor Wilson was as-
sisting him. As encouragement, the anxious Ruef had
sent Gallagher word by his sister to remain firm. But
the leader was gone ; Ruef's grip was loosened. From
Gallagher down to the wretched Lonergan, the Super-
visors were thinking of saving themselves alone.
Ruef's word, sent by his sister to Gallagher, was for
Gallagher ''to sit on the lid." Gallagher soon after ob-
served to Wilson that ''the lid was getting a little
warm" ; that he thought he would get in touch with the
prosecution to see what could be done with the other
161 Wilson testified at the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437,
of the anxiety of the Supervisors during this period. Although "Wil-
son had resigned from the board to accept the ofRce of State Rail-
road Commissioner to which he had been elected, he went to a con-
ference of the Supervisors to decide what should be done. The fol-
lowing is from Wilson's testimony:
"Q. You were not then a Supei-visor, were you? A. No, sir.
"Q. Who told you to go there? A. I was helping Mr. Gallagher.
"Q. Helping Gallagher do what? Don't you know? A. Sit on
the lid, that is what we called it.
"Q. Helping Gallagher sit on the lid? A. Yes, sir.
"Q. W^hat does 'sitting on the lid' mean? That is a bit of the
vernacular that I am not acquainted with.
"Mr. Dwyer: That is vernacular authorized by the President-
elect of the United States, I suppose it is good English?
"Mr. Ach: Well, he is a big man; I suppose he might sit on
something that might be a lid. The Court: Finish your answer.
"Mr. Ach: Q. What do you mean? A. Trying to keep the
facts of the condition of the Board of Supervisors from becoming
public.
"Q. What do you mean by that? A. The condition of the
Board, the graft matters."
Trapping of the Supervisors 149
side. Wilson assured Gallagher that he considered such
a move would be a wise one.
Gallagher's first definite Vv^ord that as many as three
Supervisors had been trapped reached him through Dr.
Boxton's attorney, H. M. Owens. Owens told Gallagher
that Boxton had made full statement of the situation to
him and that he was convinced, and so was Boxton, that
if Boxton went to trial he would be convicted.
The effect of this information upon Gallagher can^
be appreciated when it is realized that Gallagher, acting
as Ruef's go-between, had himself paid Boxton money.
Owens stated further that the question of giving the
Supervisors immunity, provided they made complete con-
fession, had been broached, and the suggestion had been
made that Gallagher meet some member of the prosecu-
tion to discuss this point. The names of Langdon and
Burns were suggested, but Gallagher did not care to
meet them. He finally agreed, however, to an appoint-
ment with Rudolph Spreckels.
Before the meeting between Gallagher and Spreckels
took place, Langdon, Heney, Spreckels and Burns had a
conference. It was suggested that Spreckels might in-
dicate to Gallagher that the prosecution would like to
have his confession and statement, and that the District
Attorney would unquestionably be able to extend to him
immunity ^^^ on the strength of his giving full and free,
162 At the trial of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, No. 1436,
Spreckels testified to his own attitude on the question of immunity.
He said: "I would be willing to grant immunity to any man who
would bring to bar a man of great wealth who would debauch a
city government, and who would use his wealth to corrupt indi-
viduals and tempt men of no means to commit a crime in order
that he might make more money." — See transcript of testimony,
page 3325.
i^o Trapping of the Supervisors
truthful testimony concerning crimes in which he was
involved while acting as a Supervisor in connection with
the public service corporations and others.
Three meetings were held between Spreckels and
Gallagher before the matter was concluded. The meet-
ing-place was in the grounds of the Presidio, the military
reservation at San Francisco.
The first of the three meetings was preliminary only.
Spreckels explained to Gallagher the aims and purposes
of the prosecution.^®^ Gallagher would make no admis-
sions, and indicated that under no circumstances would
he consider the District Attorney's immunity proposition
imless all the Supervisors were included within its pro-
visions.
After this preliminary meeting, Spreckels conferred
with Langdon and Heney. It was agreed that Galla-
gher's testimony was essential. He was, indeed, the
163 At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, Gallagher testi-
fied that Spreckels told him in substance as follows:
"Mr. Spreckels then stated that he was not actuated by vindic-
tiveness in the matter, that he did not wish to make any more
trouble or cause any more distress than was necessary in carrying
out what he had undertaken, and that his purpose was to endeavor
to stop the unlawful transactions, — dealings of corporations and
large interests in this city with public officials; that his reason, that
his view of the matter was that in order to accomplish that, that
it would be necessary, or that he did not desire unnecessarily to
injure anyone, and that the members of the Board of Supervisors
and those who were engaged with them in the matter, outside of
those who represented the corporations and big interests, were not
as important from his standpoint as those who had, as those in
control of those interests, because the members of the — the public
officials and political bosses would come and go, but that the cor-
porations and big interests remained; that they were, as he thought,
the source of the trouble, and therefore, he did not consider it im-
portant, or so important, to punish the officials as to reach those
that were in his judgment primarily responsible for the conditions,
that he felt that the District Attorney would grant immunity to the
members of the Board of Supervisors if they would tell the whole
truth of their transactions with the corporations and other persons,
large interests, that had had any dealings with them of an unlaw-
ful character. I think I then said to him I would consider the mat-
ter and would talk with the members of the Board of Supervisors
about it."
Trapping of the Supervisors 151
pivotal witness. The confessions of Lonergan, Boxton
and Walsh showed that he had carried the bribe money
from Ruef to the Supervisors. Furthermore, the testi-
mony of a majority of the Supervisors would be neces-
sary. Under the circumstances it was decided that im-
munity could very properly be extended to all the Super-
visors.
This decision Spreckels took back to Gallagher. Gal-
lagher called his leaderless associates together.
By this time it was generally known among the Su-
pervisors that Lonergan, Walsh and Boxton had been
trapped, that at least two of them had made statements
to the prosecution. Furthermore, there were rumors
that other members had been to the prosecution and
made confessions.
Gallagher explained the seriousness of the situa-
tion.^^* He explained to them the immunity proposition
which the prosecution had made, and stated that the
matter rested in their hands. He said that he was will-
164 Gallagher at the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, made
the following- statement of what he said to the Supervisors:
"My best recollection of the statement is that I said to them
that some of the members of the Board of Supervisors had been
trapped in accepting money on some matters before the Board, and
that they had made statements to the prosecution, as I understood,
or w^ere about to do so, and that I had seen Mr. Spreckels and
talked with him concerning the other members of the Board of
Supervisors, and that Mr. Spreckels had stated to me that the pur-
pose was not to prosecute the members of the Board of Supei'\'lsors
provided they would make statements, full and true statements, of
their relations in the transactions with the quasi-public corporations
and large interests in the city that they may have had unlawful
dealings with; that Mr. Spreckels had stated that the public officials
were coming and going, and that the political bosses were coming
and going; his object was to reach the source of the condition that
he was trying to eradicate; that the corporations and these other
interests remained all the time, and that he felt that they were the
ones that should be the object of his efforts at eradicating that
condition in the city. Mr. Spreckels stated that he was not actuated
by vindictiveness in the matter; in other words, Mr. Ach, as nearly
as I could, I repeated the statements of Mr. Spreckels to me."
See Transcript on Appeal, page 1471.
152 Trapping of the Supervisors
ing to sacrifice himself, if necessary, but that the whole
matter was with them to decide.
Wilson and Boxton urged that the terms ofifered by
the prosecution be accepted.^^^
The Supervisors present were at first divided. Some
of them announced that they would take the attitude of
denying all graft.
"Very well," replied Gallagher, "any one who wants
to take that attitude will be excused from further dis-
cussion."
But none of the troubled officials left the room.
Boxton stated that he would involve Gallagher in a
statement, and that Gallagher would have to testify to
all the money transactions he had had with the board.
The Supervisors knew, even then, that Gallagher had
already been involved by the confessions of Walsh and
Lonergan. Under the urging of Gallagher, Wilson and
Boxton, they finally decided to make confession.
Ruef was not present at that last secret caucus of the
Schmitz-Ruef Board of Supervisors.
Gallagher took back v/ord to Spreckels that he had
communicated to the Supervisors the message which
Spreckels had delivered to him from the District Attor-
ney, to the effect that immunity would be granted to
the Supervisors, provided they would make sworn dec-
165 "I told them," said "Wilson in his testimony in the case of
The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, "that I had always taken orders
from Mr. Ruef, that I looked upon him as the political captain of
the ship, that I had followed out his orders; that I did not feel that
I should sacrifice myself, or ask Mr. Gallagher to sacrifice himself
through the condition that had been brought about; that I thought
it would be unreasonable for any Supervisor to ask Mr. Gallagher
to sacrifice himself, that some of the others might walk the streets
and feel that they v.'ere honest men; that I did not feel he should
be sacrificed alone in the matter."
Trapping of the Supervisors 153
laration of the crimes in which they were involved, giv-
ing a truthful account of all matters. The Supervisors,
Gallagher told Spreckels, had decided to accept the prop-
osition, and would meet the District Attorney for the
purpose of making their statements.
Gallagher rather tardily asked immunity for Ruef,
but Spreckels stated that he had not discussed this fea-
ture with the District Attorney, and that Gallagher would
himself have to take the matter up with the authorities
directly.
In considering this immunity arrangement with the
bribed Supervisors, the fact should not be overlooked
that during the five months which had passed since the
opening of the graft prosecution, Spreckels and Heney
had been meeting officials of the public service corpora-
tions involved practically every day at luncheon. But
the corporation officials would give no assistance in ex-
posing the corruption which was undermining the com-
munity.^®^
166 The public service corporation officials were encouraged by
Spreckels and Heney to give information which would lead to the
indictment and conviction of Ruef and Schmitz, and thus clean up
the city. Instead of giving such information, they pretended that
the rumors in regard to bribery were all baseless.
At the Pacific IJnion Club, where they generally lunched, Spreck-
els and Heney were the recipients of many kind words of encour-
agement and of congratulation, up to the time that Ruef plead
guilty in the French-restaurant case. Immediately thereafter the
atmosphere commenced to change. The indictment of some of the
prominent members of the club was not pleasing. During the first
trial of Glass, he and his attorneys constantly lunched at the Pacific
Union Club, and many men, prominent in finance, would stop and
chat ostentatiously with Glass and his lawyers, and would then
ignore Spreckels and Heney, who would be sitting at a near-by
table.
An attempt to keep Rudolph Spreckels out of membership in the
Bohemian Club was almost successful about this time, while Drum
was elected a director of the Pacific Union Club while still under
indictment, and Thomas Williams, of the New California Jockey
Club, one of the bondsmen for Schmitz, was elected President.
CHAPTER XIII.
Confessions of the Supervisors.
The resignation of Supervisor Duffey to take charge
of the municipal department of pubhc works, and of Su-
pervisor Wilson ^^^ to take the office of State Railroad
Commissioner, left sixteen members of the elected
Schmitz-Ruef Board of Supervisors at the time of the
exposures of the graft prosecution. The sixteen, after
the surrender at their last secret caucus, made full con-
fession of their participation in the gains of the organ-
ized betrayal of the city.
Supervisor Wilson added his confession to the six-
teen. Thus, of the eighteen Union Labor party Super-
visors elected in 1905, four years after the organization
of that party, seventeen ^^* confessed to taking money
from large combinations of capital, the very interests
which the party had been brought into being to oppose.
The public service corporations, confronting a party or-
ganized primarily to control municipal govermnent to
167 To the places thus vacated, Mayor Schmitz appointed O. A.
Tveitmoe and J. J. O'Neil. Tveitmoe and O'Neil assumed their
duties as Supervisors after the bribery transactions were completed.
They did not become involved in the graft exposures, but served
to the end of the terms for which they had been appointed.
168 The eighteenth Supervisor, who made no confession, was
Duffey. Duffey, according to Gallagher's confession, participated
with the others in the graft distributions. In the hurrj* of the
final arrangements for the confessions, however, Gallagher gained
the impression that confession was not to be required of Duffey.
Rather than give appearance of lack of good faith, the prosecu-
tion decided to abide by the impression which Gallagher claimed he
had formed.
Confessions of the Supervisors 155
the end that equitable conditions in San Francisco
might be guaranteed those who labor, by the simple
process of support before election and bribery after
election, secured as strong a hold upon the community
as their most complete success at the polls could have
given.
These large interests, approaching the new order
with bribe-money, found politicians operating in the
name of organized labor, ostensibly to promote the best
interests of labor, to be not at all formidable. And when
the exposure came, and the bribe-giving corporation
magnates were placed on their defense, their most potent
allies in the campaign which they carried on to keep out
of the penitentiary, were found in the entrenched lead-
ers of the Union-Labor party.
The Supervisors' confessions corroborated the state-
ments previously made by Lonergan, Walsh and Boxton.
The bribery transactions to which the seventeen Su-
pervisors confessed, came naturally under two heads :
The first class included the briberies carried on
through Ruef, who dealt directly with those who fur-
nished the bribe money. Ruef employed Gallagher as
agent to deal with the Supervisors. Thus Gallagher did
not come in contact with those who furnished the money,
while the Supervisors were removed still further from
connection with them. Ruef, on his part, in passing the
money, did not come into immediate contact with the
Supervisors except in Gallagher's case. It was bribery
reduced to a fine art. In this group of transactions were
included the bribery of the Supervisors to grant to the
United Railroads its trolley permit; to the Home Tele-
156 Confessions of the Supervisors
phone Company, its franchise ; to the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, an 85-cent gas rate ; to the prize fight
combine, monopol}^ of the pugiHstic contests in San Fran-
cisco. In this class, too, is properly included the Park-
side Transit Company, which had, at the time the ex-
posure came, paid Ruef $15,000 to secure a street rail-
road franchise, with a promise of $15,000 more when
the franchise had been actually granted. The Su-
pervisors received nothing in this transaction, but they
had been told by Ruef's agent, Gallagher, there would
be, first $750 each for them in the Parkside matter.
Later on they were told the sum would be $1000 each.
The second class of bribes included those which
were paid directly to the Supervisors. They included
the bribes paid by T. V. Halsey, agent of the Pacific
States Telephone and Telegraph Company to a majority
of the Supervisors to prevent their awarding the Home
Telephone Company its franchise. Gallagher did not
participate in these bribery transactions, and could only
indirectly throw light upon them. But in the other cases
Gallagher was the pivotal witness. He received the bribe
money from Ruef, and, after taking out his share, he
paid the balance to the other Supervisors.
With a wealth of detail, Gallagher told how he had
received the money, when and where, and went into the
particulars of its distribution among his associates. He
had received from Ruef in all, $169,350.i«9 Of this, he
169 This was the amount that Ruef turned over to the Super-
visors. It represented a comparatively small part of what he re-
ceived from the Public Service corporations. From the United Rail-
roads alone, because of the granting- of the trolley permit, he re-
ceived $200,000. In addition he was drawing a regular fee of $1,000
a month from the United Railroads.
The Supervisors were not always satisfied with the amount Gal-
Confessions of the Supervisors 157
had retained $27,275 for himself; the balance, $142,075,
he had divided among his associates on the board.
This enormous corruption fund which Gallagher di-
vided with the Supervisors had come from four sources.
The so-called prize-fight trust had furnished $9,000 of it;
the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, $13,350; the
Home Telephone Company, $62,000, and the United
Railroads, $85,000.
The first money that passed from Ruef to Gallagher
and from Gallagher on to the Supervisors, the confes-
sions showed, was for the prize-fight monopoly. This
particular bribery seems to have been intended as a
trying-out of the several members to ascertain which of
them would take money in connection with the discharge
of their duties as Supervisors.
Every member of the board accepted the package of
bills which Gallagher tendered him. Indeed, several of
them displayed surprising alertness to secure all that was
their due. Ruef, it became known among them, had
given Gallagher $9000, which evenly divided, meant $500
for each of the eighteen Supervisors. But Gallagher
gave them only $475 each. An explanation was de-
lagher gave them. There were times when they entertained the
idea that Ruef had sent more than Gallagher gave. They accord-
ingly delegated Supervisor Wilson to ascertain from Ruef whether
all the money intended for them was reaching them. Rnef refused
to discuss the matter vath Vl^ilson. Wilson, at the trial of The
People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, testified:
"I told him (Ruef) that the Supervisors had asked me to call
and see him; that they v/anted other information to confirm Mn
Gallagher's reports to the Board on these money matters. He said
that he did not care to discuss that with anyone other than Mr.
Gallagher; that it took up time and that whatever Mr. Gallagher
did on the Board was with his full knowledge and consent; that the
matters were being handled satisfactorily by Mr. Gallagher, and
when anything arose, any other condition confronted him, he
would look elsewhere for a leader, but he did not want to go m
at that time and discuss those matters with anyone."
158 Confessions of the Supervisors
manded of him. He stated that he had taken out 5 per
cent, as his commission.
So strong was the dissatisfaction created by the hold-
ing out of this 5 per cent, that Ruef arranged to pay
Gallagher a larger amount than the others received to
compensate him, no doubt, for his extra services as
bribe-carrier.
The new arrangement for the compensation of Gal-,
lagher was followed when the Supervisors were paid
after fixing gas rates at 85 cents per thousand cubic
feet, instead of 75 cents,^^^ the sum pledged in their
party platform.
One of the Supervisors, McGushin, refused to break
his platform pledge, and held out for the 75-cent rate.
In distributing the gas money, Gallagher paid nothing
to McGushin.1^1
But to each of the remaining sixteen Supervisors,
Gallagher confessed to giving $750. Following the new
rule that he was to have extra compensation, Gallagher
kept for himself $1350.
At the time of the gas-rate bribery. Supervisor Rea
was making it unpleasant for his associates. Mr. Rea
170 About the time the 85 -cent gas rate was fixed, one of the
Pacific Gas and Electric Company's stations was burned. Ruef
stated to Gallagher that the fire v/ould be used as one of the rea-
sons for fixing the 85-cent rate; that it would probably appeal to
the public as an excuse for fixing the rate at 85 cents when the
platforin of the party had mentioned 75 cents. See Transcript, The
People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, page 784.
171 When McGushin refused to follow directions and give the
Pacific Gas and Electric Company an 85-cent gas rate, Gallagher
went to Ruef about it. At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No.
1437, Gallagher testified: "T told him (Ruef) that McGushin was
rather demurring at receiving the money, at taking the money, and
that I had told Mr. McGushin that he had better go down and talk
with Mr. Ruef. He (Ruef) said, "All right, if he comes around I
will talk with him,"
Confessions of the Supervisors 159
had accepted $475 prize-fight money from Gallagher,
without, he testified before the Grand Jury, knowing
what it was for. A few days later he told Schmitz of
the matter. Schmitz contended that no such work was
going on. Rea, when he received his $750 in the gas-
rate case, went to Schmitz with a statement that money
was used to have the gas rate fixed at 85 cents. Rea
asked Schmitz what he was to do with the money. He
testified before the Grand Jury that Schmitz replied:
"You keep quiet. I will let you know."
That was the last Rea heard from Schmitz on the
subject. Rea testified before the Grand Jury that he
still had the money Gallagher had paid him in the prize-
fight and gas-rate cases.
Rea's trip to Schmitz seems to have kept him out of
the division of the Telephone and the United Railroads
money.
The Telephone bribery was somewhat complicated by
the fact that rival companies were in the field bidding
for Supervisorial favor. It developed that eleven of the
Supervisors ^^^ had accepted from T. V. Halsey, repre-
senting the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Com-
pany, bribes to block the granting of a franchise to the
172 The Supervisors who accepted money from Halsey, acting
for the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company, to prevent
a franchise being- avi^arded an opposition company were: Boxton,
Walsh, Wilson, Coleman, Nicholas. Furey, Mamlock, Phillips, Lon-
ergan, Sanderson and Coffey. The amount paid in each instance
was $5,000. Halsey promised several of the bribed members from
$2,500 to $5,000 in addition to be paid them, if they remained faith-
ful, after their terms had expired. The money, the several members
testified, had been paid to them by Halsey in an unfurnished room
in the Mills Building v/hich had been temporarily engaged for Mr.
Halsey's use bv Frank G. Drum, a director of the Pacific States
Telephone and Telegraph Company. Examples of the methods em-
ployed to corrupt the laboringmen Supervisors who suddenly found
themselves placed in a position of trust and responsibility will be
found in the appendix.
i6o Confessions of the Supervisors
Home Telephone Company. On the other hand, the
Home Telephone Company had paid Ruef $125,000^^^
to be used in getting favorable action on its application
for a franchise. Ruef gave Gallagher $62,000 for the
Supervisors. Ruef states that he divided the re-
mainder with Schmitz. In this way, the administration
was bribed to grant the Home Telephone franchise,
while eleven ^^* of the Supervisors, a majority of the
board, were bribed not to grant it.
The complications which this created almost disrupted
the Ruef-Schmitz combine. The difficulty was threshed
out in a Sunday night caucus. Those who had received
money from the Pacific States people, with Supervisor
Boxton at their head, insisted that the Home franchise
173 This is the amount given by Ruef in his "confession." He
states that he received $25,000 when he agreed that the Home Tele-
phone Company should have the franchise; and $100,000 when the
franchise was granted. According to his statement he gave $65,000
to Gallagher for the Supervisors; $30,000 he gave Schmitz; $30,000
he kept himself. Gallagher testified on several occasions that he
received but $62,000 from Ruef. The details of Ruef's confessions
are not dependable. On Ruef's own statement of the basis of
division of this particular bribe money among the Supervisors,
Gallagher received only $62,000 of Home Telephone money from
him.
174 Ruef was himself to blame for the complication, for he had
given certain of the Supervisors to understand that the purpose of
the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company was to prevail, and
that the Home Telephone Company would not be granted its fran-
chise. The Supervisors in taking the Pacific Telephone and Tele-
graph Company's money, not unreasonably supposed they were
taking from the favored of the administration. Supervisor Wilson
in his confession said: "The first conversation I had with Mr.
Ruef, affecting money matters, was on the Pacific States Telephone
matters. I told him that I had been out to dinner with Mr. Halsey,
and I understood that everything was going to be satisfactory with
their company. He CRuef) said that it would terminate that way."
Acting upon this hint. Wilson accepted $5,000 from Halsey.
Later he told Ruef of having got the money. Ruef told him that
he should not have taken it. Wilson has testified that he offered
to return it. "Xo," he claims Ruef replied, "don't do that just now.
Wait and see. I will let you know later. You might get into a
trap by giving it back; you had better wait."
Ruef claims, however, that he advised Wilson to return the
money. i
Confessions of the Supervisors i6i
should not be granted. On the other hand, Ruef and
Schmitz, with the thousands of the Home Company in
view, insisted that it should be. Both Ruef and Schmitz
warned the Supervisors that they were perhaps at the
dividing of the ways.
"Well," replied Boxton significantly, ''if men cannot
get a thing through one way they might try and get it
through in another."
Mayor Schmitz demanded of Boxton what he meant
by that. "Well," Boxton replied vaguely but defiantly,
"you know there are other ways of reaching the mat-
ter." i^«
But Boxton was unable to prevail against the support
which Ruef and Schmitz were giving the Home Tele-
phone Company. Although eleven of the Supervisors
had taken money from the Pacific States Company to
oppose the granting of a franchise to the rival Home
Telephone Company, all but four of those present at
the caucus decided to stand by Ruef and Schmitz, and
voted in caucus to grant the Home Company its fran-
chise.^''®
The next day, in open board meeting, with Boxton
still leading the opposition, the franchise was awarded
to the Home Telephone Company.
175 For description of this "dividing of the ways" scene, see
testimony of Supervisor Wilson, Transcript on Appeal, The People
vs. Ruef, page 2843.
176 Gallagher in his confession said of the decision of the Su-
pervisors to stand by Ruef and Schmitz: "Mr. Wilson talked to a
number of those bovs (Supervisors who had taken money from the
Pacific States's agent), he being one of those who had taken this
money, and he told me that notwithstanding the fact that they had
taken this money that he didn't feel that he wanted to stand out
from the leadership of Mr. Ruef and wanted to act with him and
myself in the matter and said that he would talk to the other boys
about it, and see how they felt about the proposition of voting for
the Home Telephone franchise anyhow."
6
1 62 Confessions of the Supervisors
The division of the money received from the Home
Telephone Company people was one of the hardest
problems in bribe distribution which Ruef and Gallagher
were called upon to face.
The first plan was to pay the Supervisors who had
at the last supported the Home Telephone franchise,
$3500. At once those Supervisors who had, from the
beginning remained faithful to the administration's sup-
port of the Home Company and had refused to accept
money from Halsey, pointed out that they would receive
$3500 only, while the Supervisors whom Halsey had
bribed would get in all $8500; that is to say, $3500 from
Gallagher for voting to grant the franchise and $5000
from Halsey not to grant it. It was, those who had
remained true contended, inequitable that Supervisors
who had been faithful to Ruef and Schmitz from the
beginning should receive only $3500; while those who
had been temporarily bought away from the administra-
tion received $8500.
The "justness" of this contention appealed to all. A
compromise was finally arranged, under which those who
had stood out to the end against granting the Home
franchise, should receive no part of the Home Telephone
bribe money; those who had received $5000 from Halsey
but finally voted for the Home franchise, were to return
$2500 of the $5000 to Halsey, and receive $3500 from
Gallagher, making the total of the telephone bribe money
for each $6000; those who had received nothing from
Halsey were each to be allowed $6000 of the Home Tele-
phone money. In this way each Superv^isor who had
voted for the Home franchise would get $6000 for his
Confessions of the Supervisors 163
vote. In the case of four of the Supervisors the entire
$6000 came from the Home Company. Gallagher, too,
was one of this class, all his compensation being Home
Telephone money. But Gallagher received $10,000.
Eight of the Supervisors had received money from Hal-
sey, and yet voted to give the Home Company its fran-
chise. These received $3500 Home Company money
from Gallagher and were allowed to keep $2500 of the
Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company money
that Halsey had given them. Thus the Pacific States
was forced to pay the Supervisors part of the bribe
money they received for granting its rival a franchise.
Incidentally, some of the Supervisors did not return half
the $5000 to Halsey. But this is a phase of the ethics
of bribery upon which it is unnecessary to touch.
Ruef regarded this unique discipline of the Pacific
States as just punishment for its offense of trying to
buy his Supervisors away from him.^^^
Following the telephone bribery, came that of the
United Railroads to secure the much-opposed over-head
trolley permit. On account of this permit, Gallagher tes-
tified, Ruef had given him $85,000 to be distributed
among the Supervisors.
Of this $85,000, Gallagher kept $15,000 for himself,
177 In his confession, Gallagher stated that under this arrange-
ment he paid $3,500 each to Coffey, Coleman, Furey, Lonergan,
Mamlock, Nicholas. Phillips and Wilson; $6,000 each to Davis,
Duffev, Harrigan and Kelley, reserving $10,000 for himself. Those
who received no part of the Home Telephone Company money were
Boxton, Sanderson, Walsh, McGushin and Rea. Of the five, Boxton
and Sanderson received $5,000 each from Halsey of the Pacific Com-
pany, and Walsh, according to his recollection, $3,500. McGushin
and Rea received none of the bribe money paid by the two tele-
phone companies.
164 Confessions of the Supervisors
gave Wilson $10,000/^^ and to each of the other -Super-
visors with the exception of Rea,^^^ $4000.
Gallagher's testimony relative to the offer of a bribe
in the matter of the Parkside Realty Company franchise
was quite as explicit. He swore that Ruef had stated
to him there ought to be $750 for each Supervisor in
this. Later on, with a change in the proposed route,^^^
Ruef had told Gallagher that the amount would be $1000
to each Supervisor. Gallagher had conveyed this in-
formation to the Supervisors. At the time of Ruef's
flight, arrest and the attending breaking up of his organ-
ization, the Supervisors were impatiently waiting for this
money to be paid.
181
178 Gallagher testified before the Grand Jur3^ that the additional
compensation had been given Wilson because he was more useful
than any other member, besides himself, in keeping the Supervis-
ors in line and in passing information regarding prospective bribe
money.
179 Gallagher testified before the Grand Jury that he had paid
Rea nothing, because he had no confidence in Rea's judgment and
self-control. "I told Mr. Ruef," Gallagher testified, "I did not care
to, that I wouldn't take the responsibility of dealing with Mr. Rea.
I believe he was talking and had talked about matters dealing with
m.e and did not care to have any dealings with him. He (Ruef)
said, 'Very well, I'll attend to him,' or 'I will see to that myself,'
or some such expression as that."
180 The original plan was to have this road on Twentieth Avenue.
But to grade Twentieth Avenue would take time, and cost upwards
of $100,000. On the other hand, Nineteenth Avenue had been
graded, macadamized, and accepted as a boulevard. The Parkside
people asked a change in the purchased franchise, to give them the
boulevard. But the Charter prohibited grants of franchises over
declared boulevards. Ruef concluded this provision could be over-
come by ordinance. He feared criticism, but finally yielded to the
Parkside people's request. Then went v/ord to the Supervisors of
increase in compensation in this particular transaction.
181 Gallagher's testimony before the Grand Jury regarding the
promised bribes in the Parkside franchise undertaking was as
follows: I
"Q. Now, then, the Parkside trolley, was there an understand-
ing in regard to m.onev being paid on that? A. The Parkside
realty company's franchise for street railway on Twentieth Avenue,
that is what you refer to — on Nineteenth Avenue, that is correct;
it was originally intended for Twentieth, afterward changed to
Nineteenth: that is right there was nothing paid to any member of
the Board upon that that I know of. There were some rumors about
Confessions of the Supervisors 165
One by one, sixteen of Gallagher's associates went
before the District Attorney and made full confession.
In every detail they bore out Gallagher's statements.
When they had done, the District Attorney had state-
ments from seventeen ^^^ of the eighteen Supervisors,,
that they had received large sums of bribe money to in-
fluence their votes in matters in which public service
corporations were concerned; he knew the purposes for
which the bribe money had been paid ; he had a state-
ment from Gallagher, corroborated at many points by
the testimony of the other Supervisors, that the money,
had been furnished by Ruef. Ruef's testimony would
bring the bribery transactions directly to the doors of
it and Mr. Ruef spoke to me about it and said there ought to be a
payment of $750 to each member on it and afterward said that if
the thing- was changed from Twentieth Avenue to tlie Nineteentli
Avenue, that there ought to be $1,000 each paid.
"Q. About when did he say it ought or he would be able to pay
them? A. He said that he expected to, yes, sir. He did not sa^''
he was ready to do so, on the contrary, has always denied that
he had the money to pay it with.
"Q. He never said he had the money before on the other mat-
ters? A. No.
"Q. He would just say there will be this much coming? A.
Yes, sir.
"Q. And the same way in regard to this also? A. Yes, sir.
"Q. $1,000? A. Yes, sir.
"Q. And you passed it out in the sam.e way? A. Yes, sir.
"Q. And it was put through with that understanding? A.
Yes, sir.
"Q. The only definite, was it, it hasn't come? A. Not yet.
"Q. Do you know why the money hasn't been given to you yet
by Ruef? A. No, sir.
"Q. Has he given you any reason? A. Mr. Ruef said that the
amount has not been paid to him.
"Q. You heard complaints from the members that they had
been so long about coming through? A. Yes, indeed.
"Q, Did vou make complaint to Ruef about it? A. Yes, sir.
"Q. What did he say? A. He made that excuse consequently
that he didn't have it.
"Q. Never said that he did not expect it? A. Did not.
182 The anxiety on the part of the confessing Supervisors to tell
the truth was pathetic. When McGushin began his story he was
asked: "Of course this statement you make is free and voluntary."
"Yes," replied McGushin, simply, "Mr. Gallagher himself told me
to tell the truth."
i66 Confessions of the Supervisors
those who had bribed. This testimony could have been
had, had the prosecution agreed to give Ruef complete
immunitv.
Ruef was a prisoner in charge of an elisor. He
knew that the Supervisors had confessed. In an agony
of indecision he sent for Gallagher and Wilson to learn
from them all that had occurred. ^^^ They told him
that full statements had been made to the District At-
torney, Ruef complained that Gallagher should have
tried to get into touch with him before making state-
ments. To which Gallagher replied that such a course
would have been impossible. ^^* Both Gallagher and Wil-
son advised Ruef to make terms with the District Attor-
ney. Ruef replied that he would think it over. Little
came of the conference. The statements of the two Su-
pervisors, however, must have shown Ruef how thorough
the undoing of his organization had been, and how hope-
less was his own case. But Ruef, sparring for time, and
pleading for complete immunity, did not make immediate
confession and, as a matter of fact has not, up to the
183 "I want to learn from your own lips," he told Wilson, "if
what I have already heard is true regarding your making a state-
m^ent to the prosecution."
"I have been thoroughly informed." said Ruef in an interview
given out later, "of everything that the members of the Board of
Supervisors are reported to have told the Grand Jury, and I have
no comment to m.ake upon their alleged confessions at this time.
Later, however, I will issue a statement which will furnish more
sensations in connection with municipal graft than anything that
has been made public."
184 Gallagher left the conference first. Wilson testified at the
graft trials that after Gallagher had gone Ruef stated that "had he
been in Gallagher's place he wouldn't have made those statements
to the prosecution."
"You can never tell what one will do until he is placed in Mr.
Gallagher's position," replied Wilson, "we discussed the matter
fully for two or three days before he took that step."
Confessions of the Supervisors 167
present writing, told the full story of his connection with
the public service corporations.^^^
After the confessions of the Supervisors, the District
Attorney left Ruef to himself and hastened the Super-
visors before the Grand Jury, where they repeated their
miserable stories.^®^
And then the Grand Jury took up the task of tracing
the bribe money from those who had received it, to those
who had paid it.
KS5 The nearest Ruef has come to a statement of his connec-
tion with the public service corporations is contained in his story,
"The Road I Traveled," which appeared in the San Francisco Bul-
letin. The account is inaccvirate and incomplete. Nothing, for
example, is told by Mr. Ruef, of the proposed Bay Cities "Water
Company deal, which at one time he claimed to be the most im-
portant of all he had in view.
186 The Supervisors were all examined before the Grand Jury
on the same day. Heney in an affidavit, filed in the case of The
People vs. Calhoun et al., No. 823, states that "one of the reasons
which actuated me to examine all of said Supervisors on the same
day was that the newspapers had discovered that they had made
confessions on the preceding- Saturday, and I wanted to make sure
that no one of them was tampered with by anyone who might be
interested in changing his testimony before I succeeded in getting
his testimony recorded by a stenographer in the Grand Jury room."
CHAPTER XIV.
The Source of the Bribe Money.
After the confessions of the Supervisors, the Grand
Jurors had definite, detailed knowledge of the corruption
of the Union-Labor party administration. The Grand
Jurors knew :
(1) That bribes aggregating over $200,000 had been
paid the Supervisors.
(2) That of this large amount, $169,350 passed from
Ruef to Gallagher and by Gallagher had been divided
among members of the board. The balance, the evi-
dence showed, had been paid to the Supervisors direct by
T. V. Halsey of the Pacific States Telephone Company.
(3) The amount of each bribe; the circumstances un-
der which it was paid; even the character of the cur-
rency used in the transaction.
(4) The names of the corporations benefited by the
bribery transactions, as well as the character of the spe-
cial privileges which their money had bought.
With the exception of the Home Telephone Company,
the names of the directors of these benefiting corpora-
tions were readily obtainable. ^^^
187 The following- persons sat on the Boards of Directors of the
several corporations involved in the graft disclosures, either dur-
ing- 1906 when the briberies were committed, or during 1907 when-
the exposures came:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company — N. W. Halsey, E. J. de Sabia,
John Martin, Frank G. Drum, Wm. H. Crocker, N. D. Rideout,
Frank B. Anderson, John A. Britton, Henry E. Bothin, Louis F.
The Source of the Bribe Money 169
With this data before them, the Grand Jurors pro-
ceeded to trace the source of the bribe money.
Naturally, men who had long held places of respecta-
bility in the community were slow to admit having given
Ruef vast sums, even under the transparent subterfuge
of paying him attorney's fees.^^^ Some of them, when
haled before the Grand Jury, testified reluctantly, and
only under the closest questioning. Others frankly stood
upon their constitutional rights, and with pitiful attempt
to smooth out with studied phrases the harshness of the
only acceptable reason for their refusal, declined to tes-
tify on the ground that their testim.ony would tend to
incriminate them.
Monteagle, Jos. S. Tobin, G. H. McEnerney, Cyrus Pierce, Car)
Taylor, F. W. M. McCutcheon.
Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company — Henry T.
Scott, Louis Glass, F. W. Eaton, Timothy Hopkins, Homer S. King-,
F. G. Drum, E. S. Pillsbury, Percy T. Morgan, all of San Francisco;
J. C. Ainsworth, P. Bacon, J. H. Thatcher, C. H. Chambreau, E.
H. McCracken, C. B. McLeod, C. E. Hickman, J. P. McNichols, R.
W. Schmeer, all of Portland.
Parkside Company — W. H. Crocker, Wellington Gregg, Jr., C. E.
Green. J. J. Mahony, W. H. Cope, A. F. Morrison, Hugh Keenan,
Wm. Matson, J. M. O'Brien, Douglas S. Watson. J. E. Green.
United Railroads — Patrick Calhoun, G. F. Chapman, Geo. H.
Davis, Tirey L. Ford, Benj. S. Guiness, I. W. Hellman, Chas. Hol-
brook, A. C. Kains, J, Henry Meyer, Thornwell Mullally, Jos. S.
Tobin.
The names of the board of directors of the Home Telephone
Company, during the period of the bribery transactions, has not,
so far as the writer knows, been made public. A. C. Kains resigned
from the directorate of the United Railroads, and Jos. S. Tobin
from the directorates of the United Railroads and the Pacific Gas
and Electric Company, about the time of the disclosures.
188 The inconsistency of the "attorney fee plea" is well illus-
trated in the United Railroads transaction. Ruef received $200,000
from the United Railroads because of the trolley permit. General
Tirey L. Ford, head of the United Railroads law department, to
which he devoted all his time, was credited with receiving a sal-
ary of $10,000 a year. Thus Ruef's single "fee" was as much as
the United Railroads would have paid its head lawyer in twenty
years, almost a lifetime of professional service. And Ruef, It
must be remembered, in addition was getting $1,000 a month from
the United Railroads— more than the chief of that corporation's
legal department was receiving.
170 The Source of the Bribe Money
Nevertheless, the Grand Jury succeeded in wringing
from the officials of the several corporations involved,
damaging admissions ; admissions, in fact, quite as start-
ling as had been the confessions of the Supervisors.
The refusal of some of those not unreasonably under
suspicion, to testify was, too, quite as significant.
In the matter of the bribery of the Supervisors by T. V.
Halsey, agent of the Pacific States Telephone and Tele-
graph Company, the Grand Jury had information that
eleven Supervisors had been paid over $50,000 to oppose
the granting of a franchise to the Home Telephone
Company. A majority of the payments were made in
an unfurnished suite of three rooms in the Mills Build-
ing. Frank Drum, a director of the company, admitted
having engaged the rooms at Halsey's request. E. J.
Zimmer, auditor for the company, testified that Halsey
held the position of General Agent of the company.
Halsey's duties, the testimony showed, were assigned
him by Louis Glass, vice-president and general manager,
and for a time acting president of the company. Hal-
sey, under the company's organization, reported to Glass.
Zimmer testified that Halsey could not spend the com-
pany's money except on the proper approval of the ex-
ecutive officer of the company. From October, 1905,
when President Sabin of the company died, until Feb-
ruary, 1906, when Henry T. Scott, Sabin's successor, was
elected, Glass acted as president and as executive officer.
He had, according to Auditor Zimmer, authority to ap-
prove expenditures made by Halsey. After Scott's ele-
vation to the presidency, either Glass or Scott could
have approved such expenditures. Zimmer testified fur-
The Source of the Bribe Money 171
ther to giving Halsey, at Glass's order/^*^ as high as
$10,000 at a time. Halsey ^^^ gave no vouchers for these
large sums ; they did not appear on the books ; ^®^ they
were carried on tags.
Zimmer stated that he did not know for what the
funds were used ; had merely followed out Glass's in-
struction, and given Halsey the money.
The testimony of Thomas Sherwin threw some light
189 Zimmer insisted at first that the total of the amounts which
he turned over to Halsey would not exceed $20,000. Later he ad-
mitted that he had not kept track of the amounts, and the total
might have been $30,000. This he increased to $35,000, and finally
stated that it was "not over $40,000, if it was that." He ad-
mitted that it would have been possible for Executive Officer Glass
to have paid out $70,000 without his knowledge. "Checks," he
said, "could have been signed without going through me; could
have been carried just the sa,me as this tag account was."
William J. Kennedy, cashier and assistant treasurer of the com-
pany, who had charge of the "tags," stated that during February,
1906, considerable amounts were drawn out in this way, which
might have totalled as high as $70,000.
190 Regarding the manner in which money was furnished to
Halsey, Zimmer testified before the Grand Jury as follows:
"Q. This $10,000 that you gave him (Halsey) under direction
of Mr. Glass, in what shape did you hand it to him? A. Currency.
"Q. Did you have the currency on hand or send out and get it?
A. Sent out and got it. I went out and got it.
"Q. Where did you get it? A. I don't remember, I had to go
to several banks.
"Q. Did Mr. Glass tell you he wanted you to give it to him in
currency? A. Yes, sir."
191 These admissions led to close questioning of Mr. Zimmer.
The following is taken from his testimony given before the Grand
Jury:
"Q. Now, in what way did that money appear in the books?
A. Didn't appear in the books.
"Q. How was it taken care of? A, No voucher was ever made
for it.
"Q. How would your cash account for it? A. It wasn't taken
out of the cash a,ccount, so far as I know.
"Q. What was it taken from? A. By check issued on the
regular bank account.
"Q. Who was the check made payable to? A. Eaton, treas-
urer, the same as other coin checks are issued, coin or currency.
"Q. It would have appeared somewhere in the books, that check,
that amount would be deducted from the bank account? A. Yes,
sir; but carried in the expense account of the cash suspense.
"Q. Leave a tag with you? Leave a tag, would you? A.
Yes."
172 The Source of the Bribe Money
upon the bookkeeping methods followed. Sherwin had
been traveling auditor for the American Bell Telephone
Company, which concern owned 51 per cent, of the stock
of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company.
Later he took Zimmer's place as auditor of the Pacific
States Company.
Mr. Sherwin admitted that some of Mr. Halsey's
"special expenses," at least, were finally charged to the
company's legal department. ^^^
Passing from the investigation of the bribery transac-
tions of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph
Company to the activities of the Home Telephone Com-
pany, the Grand Jury examined prominent business men
of Los Angeles as well as of San Francisco.
The plan of operation followed by the capitalists be-
hind this enterprise was to organize a construction com-
pany, whose part was to establish the plants, put them
192 Before the Grand Jury, Sherwin was closely questioned as to
one of Mr. Halsey's "Special expense" claims. The following is
from his testimony:
"Q. Now, then, that shows that it was charged against what
fund? A. That got in the legal expense finally, we charged it to
Reser\^e for Contingent Liabilities, and each month we credit that
account, I have forgotten maybe $2,000, and charge it to legal to
make it run even in the expense each month.
"Q. Why does it ^o to legal? A. Because — instead — to what
else would it go?
"Q. Wliat makes it legal? A. Oh, that's just a subdivision of
our expense.
"Q. Was this $600 legal expenses? A. I don't know what it
was.
"Q. "Who told you to put it under legal expenses? A. You
mean who told us to put It in that account?
"Q. There is nothing on that paper that indicates that it goes
into legal expense? A. No.
"Q. Now. then, you say it was finally charged to the legal de-
partment. T^^hy? A. Simply because everything that is charged
to that reserve finally gets into legal expense.
"Q. Everything that is charged to that reserve fund? A. Tes,
that reserve fund is charged off for legal expense.
"Q. And what is the reason for that? A. For charging it to
legal?
"Q. Yes. A. For charging it to legal — because — I don't know
the reason — it is always done that way."
The Source of the Bribe Money 173
into operation and turn them over to the operating com-
panies, taking their pay in the securities of the local op-
erating company. Thus, at San Francisco, the Empire
Construction Company played an important part in the
Home Telephone Company enterprise.
As Heney put it, the Empire Construction Company
received the most benefit from the granting of the Home
Telephone franchise. The Empire Construction Com-
pany furnished at least part of the money that went into
the fusion campaign fund in 1905. Investigation showed
that 25 per cent, of the stock of the Empire Construction
Company belonged to men who were in the construction
solely, while 75 per cent, was in the hands of men who
were financing the enterprise. This last block of stock
at the time of the investigation vv^as divided among
James H. Adams and Thomas W. Phillips of the Adams-
Phillips Company, A. B. Cass, Gerald S. Torrance and
A. K. Detweiler. Detweiler could not be found. Adams,
Cass and Torrance, after answering some of the ques-
tions put to them, availed themselves of their constitu-
tional privilege, and refused to make further answers.
The books of the Adams-Phillips Company disappeared
and employees of that company undertook to evade an-
swering questions regarding the disappearance, on the
ground that they might incriminate themselves. But a
sharp order from the Superior Court brought out their
testimony. However, none of them gave testimony that
led to the discovery of the missing volumes.
But the general trend of the testimony went to show
that the responsible agent for the Empire Construction
Company and the Home Telephone Company in San
174 The Source of the Bribe Money
Francisco was A. K. Detweiler. The testimony showed
Detweiler to have been at Ruef's office in consultation
with Ruef and Supervisor Gallagher ; he was active in
every move that was made on behalf of the Empire Con-
struction Company and of the Home Telephone Com-
pany in San Francisco, and had the disbursing of the
funds.
Incidentally, through the testimony of Dr. Fred But-
terfield, a representative of Adolphus Busch, the brewer,
the Grand Jury learned that a third telephone company,
the United States Independent, seeking a franchise to do
business in San Francisco, would have bid for the fran-
chise which the Home Company received, had not the
franchise been so worded that only the telephone system
controlled by the Home people could be operated under
it. Butterfield stated that his company, made up of re-
sponsible capitalists, considered the franchise worth
something over a million dollars, and was prepared to
bid up to a million dollars, if necessary, to get it. The
Home Company paid San Francisco $25,000 for the
franchise. Butterfield testified that his company had in-
tended to invest $4,500,000 in the San Francisco enter-
prise, and that Ruef knew of the extent of the com-
pany's plans. With such testimony, the assertions of
Ruef's partisans that opposition to the Ruef-Schmitz ad-
ministration retarded development of the community
compare curiously.^®^
The Grand Jury could not secure the attendance of
Mr. Detweiler, for about the time of the investigation
Mr. Detweiler mysteriously disappeared. The investiga-
193 See Supervisors' letter to the Examiner, footnote 64, page 62.
The Source of the Bribe Money 175
tion into the affairs of the Home Company had, there-
fore, to be conchided without Mr. Detweiler's testimony.
Following the policy of the stockholders of the Em-
pire Construction Company, the officials of the United
Railroads refused to testify. President Patrick Cal-
houn ^^* and Thornwell Mullally, assistant to the presi-
dent, when given opportunity to state their side of the
case under oath, stood upon their constitutional rights,
and declined to give evidence that might incriminate
them.^^^ They were accordingly excused from the Grand
Jury room.
194 Calhoun returned to San Francisco April 10. In interviews
published in the San Francisco papers of April 12, Calhoun em-
phatically denied all knowledge of the bribery transactions. In his
interview in the Chronicle he said:
"T wish to go on record before the people of San Francisco as
stating that not one of the officers or legal counsel of the United
Railroads of San Francisco or the United Railroads Investment
Company of New Jersey ever paid, authorized to be paid, approved
of paying or knew that one dollar was paid to secure the passage
of the trolley franchise ordinance by the Board of Supervisors, and
if I had known that one dollar was paid for the purpose of secur-
ing this franchise I would not have accepted it."
195 The refusal of Calhoun and Mullally to testify created a sen-
sation, even in those sensational times. The Chronicle in its issue
of May 4, 1907, printed the following account of the incident:
"For the first time in the history of the examination of witnesses
before this Grand Jury, Heney was careful not to instruct the
prospective witnesses as to their legal rights. Instead he merely
asked them if they were already familiar with their rights under
the law.
" 'I am aware,' said Calhoun, who was the first to be called,
'that anything I might tell this body might be used against me.'
" 'With that understanding are you willing to become a witness
before this Grand Jury?' asked Heney.
" 'I am not,' was Calhoun's response.
"The jurymen who had leaned forward as the reply of the presi-
dent hung on his lips sank back in their seats.
" 'That is all, Mr. Calhoun,' said Heney to the president, and
then going to the door he said to the bailiff, 'Call Mr. Mullally.'
"Mullally's examination was identical with that of his superior's
and he was permitted to go. Neither President Calhoun nor As-
sistant Mullally will be called again to the jury room."
Calhoun issued the following statement of his refusal to testify:
"When called before the Grand Jury this afternoon and in-
formed that it had under investigation the alleged bribery of pub-
lic officials bv the United Railroads, we declined to be sworn and m
176 The Source of the Bribe Money
But the employees of the company did not escape so
easily. When, for example, George Francis, William
M. Abbott, George B. Willcutt and Celia McDermott
refused to answer questions put to them in the Grand
Jury room, they were haled before the Superior Court,
where they were informed that they must testify.
In spite of the hostility of these witnesses, the prose-
cution succeeded in securing a wealth of data regarding
$200,000 which passed into the hands of Tirey L. Ford
and, according to the theory of the prosecution, from
Ford to Ruef.
The prosecution established the fact that two days
before Mayor Schmitz signed the trolley permit, that is
to say, on May 22, 1906, Patrick Calhoun, as president
of the United Railroads, received by telegraphic trans-
fer from the East to the United States Mint at San
Francisco, $200,000.^^« Two days later, the day the
trolley permit was signed, President Calhoun took Ford
order that our action may not be misconstrued, I call your atten-
tion to these facts:
"For months past the public prints have been full of charges
traceable to certain persons connected with the prosecution that
they had positive evidence that the United Railroads had spent not
less than $450,000 in bribing- the officials of this city. I have re-
peatedly stated that neither I nor the United Railroads, nor any
official of the United Railroads, had bribed anyone, authorized any
bribery, knew of any bribery or approved of any bribery. This
statement I now fully reaffirm. It is not for us nor any officer of
our company to disprove these grave charges. It is for those
making them to prove them. We do not now care to discuss their
motives. We know that they cannot produce any truthful evidence
connecting us or any officer of the United Railroads with this al-
leged crime.
"We relied, in declining to be sworn, upon the broad Constitu-
tional right of every American citizen that a defendant cannot be
called as a witness, and upon the justice, fairness and common
sense of the Grand Jury, to whom we look for complete vindica-
tion without offering one word in our own behalf."
196 For several weeks after the great fire of April 18-19-20, 1906,
the banks were closed at San Francisco. Money could, however,
during this period, be transferred to San Francisco, through the
United States mint.
The Source of the Bribe Money 177
to the Mint and instructed Superintendent of the Mint
Leach to give Ford $50,000 of the $200,000. Ford
told Leach that he wanted currency. The currency was
finally secured by exchanging gold for bills at the Mint
headquarters of the relief work then being carried on
in San Francisco. These bills, it was shown, were all
in small denominations, having been sent to San Fran-
cisco from all parts of the country by individual sub-
scribers to the relief fund.
This money was taken away from the Mint, the tes-
timony showed, by Ford and William M. Abbott.
Soon after, Ruef loaned Supervisor Rea ^^'' $3500.
By a curious trick of fate Rea had leased a piece of
property from Rudolph Spreckels. In payment on this
lease he used the money that Ruef had loaned him.
This money was all in bills of small denominations.
Late in July Ruef gave Gallagher $45,000, all in bills
of small denominations, as partial settlement with the
Supervisors for granting the trolley permit. Gallagher
gave Wilson of this money $5000, and the other Super-
visors with the exception of Rea $2000 each. They all
understood that it was because of the trolley franchise
deal. The balance Gallagher retained for himself.
The confessing Supervisors, with the exception of
Wilson and Rea, testified that their first payment on
account of the trolley permit was $2000 each, in bills
of small denominations. Wilson testified to having re-
ceived $5000.
Later, Ford, making two trips to the Mint, drew out
197 Gallagher had notified Ruef that he would not deal with
Rea in the trolley transaction. Ruef, Gallagher alleged, had agreed
to attend to Rea's case himself. See Chapter XIII.
178 The Source of the Bribe Money
the $150,000 balance of the $200,000 that had been tele-
graphed to Calhoun's credit. As before, the Mint paid
him in gold, and as before, Ford exchanged the gold
for currency. But instead of getting bills of small de-
nomination, on the two trips which Ford made for that
$150,000, he secured fifty and one hundred-dollar bills.
On the day that Ford drew the last of that $200,000
from the Mint, an agent in the employ of the prosecu-
tion followed Ruef from his office to the car barns in
which Ford's office was then located. A few days later
Ruef gave Gallagher $40,000 in fifty and one hundred-
dollar bills, the greater part of which Gallagher dis-
tributed among the Supervisors as second and final pay-
ment on account of the granting of the trolley permit.
In the Parkside deal, the Grand Jury had little dif-
ficulty in tracing the money involved. William H.
Crocker,^^^ a capitalist of large affairs, who owned the
largest interest in the company, showed astonishing igno-
rance of the management. The Grand Jury learned
little from him.
But those interested in the enterprise with Crocker
not only told how half the money was paid Ruef, but
how the books had been manipulated to conceal the
payment.
198 Crocker testified before the Grand Jury, however, that he
had known Ruef for many years. "He (Ruef) and my brother-in-
law, Prince Poniatowski," said Crocker, "both being- French, and
both being- pretty clever men, struck up quite a friendship to-
gether and through that means I used to see more or less of Ruef
and that was one of those peculiar friendships that spring- up with
people who are not identified and not connected in any way what-
ever in any business enterprise, sprang up between Ruef and my-
self, and when he told me that in mv office it didn't surprise me
a bit."
Crocker had testified that Ruef had promised to do all he could
to g-et him his franchise, and wouldn't want a dollar from Crocker,
or from the institution with which Crocker was connected.
The Source of the Bribe Money 179
Ruef, according to the testimony of officials of the
company, had first demanded $50,000 as price for his
employment to put the franchise through, but had finally
agreed to take $30,000. This amount, officials of the
company testified, was provided by drawing two checks,
one in favor of H. P. Umbsen and the second in the
name of Douglass S. Watson, secretary of the Parkside
Company. Umbsen and Watson thereupon deeded to
the Parkside Company two parcels of land. The trans-
action was then charged to the purchase of property.^^^
199 Of this manipulation of the books, President J. E. Green, of
the Parkside Company, testified before the Grand Jury as follows:
"Q. How was the transaction to appear in the books? How
was the property account to be charged with it? It would have
to show some property. A. It was charged for a block that was
purchased from Watson and Umbsen, a block of land.
"Q. Did you tell Watson to do that? A. I believe I did.
"Q. How did they get paid for the land? A. They deeded
this block which they had to the company and the company in turn
executed a deed to them, returning the land to them, simply a
matter of bookkeeping.
"Q. Was the company's deed put on record? From them to the
company? A. I rather think so.
"Q. What was the purpose of that? A. To get a charge to the
property account for the expenditure of that amount of money.
"Q. What was the reason for charging it to property account?
A. Every expenditure that was made was charged to property
account with the idea the property had to pay it back.
"Q. Did you always go through the form with every expense
that wasn't actually a piece of property, did you go through a
form of deeding a piece of property and then deeding it back? A.
No. sir.
"Q. What was the reason of doing it in this instance? A.
Because — other things — there was a case — grading, sewering or
fencing the blocks when they spoke for itself.
"Q. I don't see how it helped you; it went to the property ac-
count and the property went right out; don't see how it helped you
any. A. It had to be charged to something, Mr. Heney.
"Q. Why couldn't it be charged to what it was, attorneys' fees?
A. Because attornevs' fees were charged against property account.
"Q. Were Morrison & Cope's fees charged up as a piece of
property and did tliey go through a rigmarole of deeding a piece
of property too? A. No; their fees or any other expense against
the property interests.
"Q. Didn't they go into the books as a fee for Morrison & Cope
and charged as expenses against property? A. Charged direct to
property. , ,
"Q. As expense? A. Don't know as expense; it was charged
to property, showing that we had that much money in property;
i8o The Source of the Bribe Money
The property was deeded back to Umbsen and Watson
at the same time, but these last deeds were not imme-
diately recorded.
Watson cashed the checks at the Crocker- Woolworth
Bank, of which William H. Crocker was president. He
testified that he received currency for them.
The $30,000 he took to G. H. Umbsen. Half the
$30,000 Umbsen paid Ruef.
At the tim.e of the exposure, Umbsen ^°° testified he
when we got through selling anything over, that was profit in our
favor.
"Q. It appeared on the books as having been paid to Morrison
& Cope for attorneys' fees? A. Can't say without seeing the
books.
"Q. Ordinary way of keeping books? A. Yes.
"Q. You didn't cover up anything you paid to Morrison & Cope
by putting through the hands of the secretary? A. No, sir.
"Q. Why did j'ou cover up this in connection with Ruef? A. I
don't Icnow; suppose the property account is probably the proper
one to charge it to.
"Q. Only explanation of it? A. Yes, sir."
200 Early in the graft investigation Detective William J. Burns,
with studied carelessness, dropped a remark in the presence of a
sale.sman of the Parkside Company, that he had heard money was
being used in the Parkside case. Soon after, Thomas L.. Hender-
son, secretary of the company, received word from William I. Bro-
beck, of the law firm of Morrison, Cope & Brobeck, attorney for the
Parkside Company, to call at that firm's law office. Of the inci-
dent, Plenderson testified before the Grand Jury as follows:
"Q. His first question to you was what? A. We went in
there. He said, Mr. Henderson, I am going to talk to you about
Parkside and he said, have you an a.ttorney? I said, no. I have
no attorney. He says, it might be well for you to get an attorney.
I said, all right. Mr. Brobeck, I will take you for an attorney. He
said, all right, I will take you for a client.
"Q. Then what was said? A. Then he spoke, he said, 3^ou
know about that remark made by Mr. Burns at Nineteenth and H.
I replied how I got the remark from Hooper who was the sales-
man out there and I had passed it off. saying I did not want to
talk about it. Then he said to me, I can't remember just the words,
but his advice to me was not to say anything about it. I told him
certainly, I would not. Then he spoke about Umbsen. Could I
comm.unicate with Gus? And I told him I could on the 4th of the
month, he v/as then between Havana and Plorida, and would ar-
rive in New York about the 4th. Do you think it would be advisable
to telegraph or write to him not to say anything? I said: Oh, no,
I don't see any necessity for doing that.
"O. What was the remark as you heard it that Burns made?
A. We were combing down on the Sutter street car, Mr. Kernan
and myself, when Ed Hooper, salesman, spoke to us and said:
The Source of the Bribe Money i8i
was withholding the second payment until the franchise
should be put through.^^^
In the gas-rate case, the Grand Jury found that the
corporation that would, in the final analysis, benefit by
the increase in gas rates, was the Pacific Gas and Elec-
tric Company. The four responsible men in this com-
pany were found to be N. W. Halsey, John Martin,
Eugene de Sabla and Frank G. Drum. Halsey was out
of the State for the greater part of the time and Cyrus
Bierce, acting as treasurer of the corporation, looked
after his interests. This narrowed the responsibility
down to de Sabla, Martin and Drum.
I had a distinguished visitor yesterday. I said, who; he said, Mr.
Burns, the detective. He said, I knew something about the tele-
phone cases. I say what he said, a little something. He asked
me about that and started for the automobile and when he got
there, he turned around and said, another thing, I want to ask you
about, I heard Ruef got $30,000 from Parkside. Who would be the
man to see. I am only out here selling land and don't know any-
thing about that. I had been here with Watson when he was agent
and when Umbsen took charge he kept me in the same job. He
was the salesman out there, that was at that time they had this
automobile race and I turned around and said: I see the Oldsmo-
bile won the race in Los Angeles, because I didn't want to continue
the conversation with him.
"Q. Did Brobeck, m his conversation, tell you where he got
the information that Burns had been out there? A. No sir^ he did
not.
"Q. Did he tell you that he knew what Burns had said? A. The
impression I got was that he knew. I don't remember his saying in
just so many words.
"Q. He referred to the statement made by Burns? A. He may
have made the remark that you know about what was said out
there.
"Q. At the time you talked about your having an attorney
did he tell you to send him some money? A. After we finished he
said, 'Mr. Henderson, you had better send me pay for this inter-
view.' I said what? and he said five or ten dollars and when I got
to the office, I mailed him a check for $10."
201 Ruef's version of the affair, as Ruef gave it before the
Grand Jury, was: "Mr. Umbsen stated to me that with a great
deal of difficulty, he had been able to persuade the people interested
to allow me this fee. I thereupon told Mr. Gallagher that T had
made arrangements to secure for myself an attorney's fee in the
matter and I would allow him something over $13,500 as his pro-
portion of the fee. Mr. Gallagher estimated what it would require
for his services in the matter and we had discussed would the
Supervisors accept that amount."
i82 The Source of the Bribe Money
De Sabla testified before the Grand Jury that Ruef
was not, to his knowledge, at any time on the pay roll
of the company. Martin swore that he knew of no
money that had been expended in connection with the
fixing of the gas rates, and expressed himself as being
as surprised as anyone at the confessions of the Super-
visors to having received money after the gas rates had
been fixed. Later, after Ruef had plead guilty to extor-
tion, both de Sabla and Martin refused to testify further
before the Grand Jury.^*^^
Mr. Frank G. Drum, when called before the Grand
Jury, stated that he had had no conversation with Ruef
in reference to the fixing of the gas rates. ^°^ But later
Ruef told the Grand Jury that the money which he had
turned over to Gallagher in the gas-rate transaction had
come from Drum.^^*
202 John Martin's statement, when he refused to testify, fur-
nishes fair example of the attitude of those who became involved
in the g'raft scandal. The Grand Jury record shows:
"John Martin recalled.
"Foreman (to witness). You have already been sworn, so you
can consider yourself under oath. Mr. Martin: I desire to stand
on my constitutional right and not to testify further.
"Mr. Heney: If you feel that your testimony might have a ten-
dency to subject you to prosecution — . A. (interrupting). No, not
that. I am not so advised that that is necessary. Mj^ constitutional
rights are broader than that, I am advised.
"Q. Then 3'ou don't desire to testify? A, No, sir.
"Mr. Heney: All right."
203 Mr. Frank G. Drum testified as follows:
"Q. Do you know Abraham Ruef? A. Met him.
"Q. Did you have any conversation with him about that time?
A. No, sir.
"Q. I mean a conversation "v^'^ith reference to the rates? A. No,
not that I know anything about."
204 Ruef on this point testified before the Grand Jury as fol-
lows:
"I received from Mr. Frank G. Drum, $20,000 as an attorney's
fee as spoken of between ourselves, about the time that the gas
rates were being fixed. Of that money, I gave to Mr. Gallagher
for the Board of Super\'isors about, as I remember it now, $14,000.
It may have been a few hundred dollars more or less, t think
about $14,000. Mr. Drum spoke to me about employing me in
the service of the company some month or two before, I believe,
The Source of the Bribe Money 183
The first to be indicted because of these transactions
was Ruef. Sixty-five indictments were on March 20
returned against him. Eighteen were based upon the
bribing of Supervisors in the so-called fight trust mat-
ter; seventeen upon the bribing of Supervisors in fixing
the gas rates; thirteen upon the bribing of Supervisors
in the matter of the sale of the Home Telephone Com-
pany franchise; seventeen in the matter of granting the
over-head trolley permit.
On the same day, ten indictments were returned
against Theodore V. Halsey, of the Pacific States Tele-
phone and Telegraph Company, for the bribery of Su-
pervisors to prevent the sale of a franchise to a compe-
ting telephone company. A number of indictments were
found against A. K. Detweiler, for bribing Supervisors
in the matter of the sale of the Home Telephone fran-
and engaged me as attorney to represent the interests, as I under-
stood it from him, which he represented in the company, at $1000
a month, of which I received, I believe, for two or three months.
At the time of the fixing of the gas rates some of the Supervisors,
as I was informed by Supervisor Gallagher, insisted upon fixing
an extremely low rate, such a rate as would have been ruinous to
the business of the company, a rate which neither I nor any one
who had looked up the question would have considered under any
circumstances to be reasonable, proper or maintainable, and said
they were determined absolutely to reduce those rates. The matter
was brought up at one of the Sunday evening caucuses and some
of the members of the Board of Supervisors insisted that the board
had been pledged by its platform to a rate of 75c. per thousand
feet; they thoiiglit that was even too much and made some strong
speeches and others maintained the 75c. rate and they contemplated
fixing the 75c. rate that evening, that is to say, agreeing tp do it
at the proper time which I suppose was a week thereafter. In the
meantime, the company sustained a heavy fire loss, not the fire
of April 18th, but the previous fire, which caused them a great deal
of damage, and I told Mr. Drum that it would be necessary for
me, in order to protect the interests of the company and the inter-
erts which he represented, to liave an additional attorney's fee and
I told him that I thought it would require $20,000. He considered
the matter and one day, a day or two afterward, he agreed to pay
me the additional attorney's fee of $20,000 which I thereafter
received.
"Q. Where did the conversation take place in which you told
him about the necessity of having the $20,000? A. At his offlce in
the Mills Building."
184 The Source of the Bribe Money
chise. The Detweiler indictments, thirteen in number,
were based upon payments of money by Ruef to Gal-
lagher, and by Gallagher to different members of the
board. On March 23, the Grand Jury returned nine
indictments against Louis Glass, vice-president of the
Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company, based
upon the bribing, through Halsey, of Supervisors to
prevent the granting of a competing telephone franchise.
During the two months that followed, the Grand
Jury continued at the steady grind of graft investigation.
Finally, on May 24, one additional indictment ^°^ was
brought against Halsey and two against Glass. On that
205 Although the Graft Prosecution was to be effectively opposed
by Union Labor party leaders, the San Francisco Labor Council,
made up of representatives of practically every San Francisco
labor union, on the night of March 23, 1907, adopted resolutions
declaring for the prosecution of bribe-givers as follows:
"Whereas, The indictments issued during the past few days by
the San Francisco Grand Jury against certain individuals Involve
specific charges of flagrant and widespread corruption on the part
of many members of the present city government; and whereas, said
government, having adopted the name of 'Union Labor' has pro-
fessed particular concern for the welfare of the working class, as
represented by organized labor, and has sought and secured elec-
tion upon pledges of loyalty to the principles, economic and political,
to which organized labor everywhere is committed; and whereas,
the alleged conduct of the city government is not only grossly
repugnant to the principles of organized labor, but violates eveir
rule of common honesty; and whereas, the conduct of the 'Union
Labor' government and the inevitable association thereof with the
character of the labor movement is calculated to lead to public
misconception of the latter and thus to injure it and lessen its
efflciency in its chosen field, therefore be it
"Resolved, By the San Francisco Labor Council, that we declare
that every corruptionist, briber and bribed, should be prosecuted
and punished according to law, and hereby pledge our co-op_eration
to that end; further
"Resolved, That we reassert the position of the San Francisco
Labor Council as a body organized and conducted for purely
economic purposes, having no connection, direct or implied, with
the I'nion Labor party or any other political party or organization,
and therefore being in no way responsible for the conduct or mis-
conduct of any such party or organization; further
"Resolved, That we also reafTirm our belief that the private
ov/nership of public utilities constitutes the chief source of public
corruption, and is in fact a premium thereon, and therefore ought
to be displaced by the systein of public ownership of public utili-
ties."
The Source of the Bribe Money 185
date, fourteen indictments were returned against Patrick
Calhoun, Thornwell Mullally, Tirey L. Ford, William
M. Abbott,206 Abraham Ruef and Mayor E. E. Schmitz,
indicted jointly, for the bribery in connection with the
granting of the over-head trolley permit.
The day following, May 25, G. H. Umbsen, J. E.
Green, W. I. Brobeck and Abraham Ruef were jointly
indicted fourteen times on charges of offering a bribe to
fourteen Supervisors in the Parkside franchise matter.
The same day, fourteen indictments were returned
against Frank G. Drum, Abraham Ruef, Eugene E.
Schmitz, Eugene de Sabla and John Martin on charges
of giving and offering bribes to fourteen Supervisors in
the matter of fixing the gas rates.
Still another series of graft indictments were to be
found. Three prize-fight promoters, W. Britt, "Eddie"
Graney and "Jimmie" Coffroth were, on nine counts,
indicted jointly with Schmitz and Ruef for bribery in
connection with the awarding to them of virtually a
monopoly of the promotion of prize fighting in San
Francisco.
206 At the time Patrick Calhoun held the office of President of
the United Railroads; Mullally was assistant to the President;
Ford general counsel for the corporation. Abbott was Ford's
assistant.
CHAPTER XV.
RuEF Pleads Guilty to Extortion. ^°^
While the Supervisors were making full confessions
of their participation in the bribery transactions, and the
Grand Jury was dragging from unwilling promoters,
capitalists and corporation employees information as to
the source of the corruption funds, Ruef's days and
nights were devoted to consideration of plans for his
own safety. Ruef, after his arrest and confinement un-
der Elisor Biggy, became one of the scramblers of his
broken organization to save himself.
But Ruef was more clever, more far-seeing than any
of the Supervisors. His course from the beginning in-
dicates that, in considering confession, he carefully
weighed against the power of the regularly constituted
authorities of San Francisco to protect him if he testified
for the State, the ability of organized corruptionists to
punish for betrayal. Ruef realized that although the
all-powerful State "machine," labeled Republican, of
which the San Francisco organization labeled Union
Labor, which he had built up, was but a part, had for
the moment lost control of the San Francisco District
Attorney's office, but the "machine" still dominated the
other departments of the municipal government, as well
207 The statements contained in this chapter are based on affida-
vits filed in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et al., No.
823. Many of the statements are qualified, and in many instances
denied, in affidavits filed by Ruef, his friends, associates and attor-
neys, in the same proceedings.
Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 187
as of the State government. -°^ Ruef realized that Lang-
don might die; that the State Attorney General might
set Langdon aside and himself conduct the graft prose-
cution. And he realized that some day a district attor-
ney other than Langdon would be prosecutor in San
Francisco. In any of these events, what would be the
lot of the man who had betrayed the scarcely-known
captains of the powerful machine?
On the other hand, the hour when the evidence which
the District Attorney had accumulated against him
would be presented before a trial jury, approached with
deadly certainty.
Such considerations led to Ruef devoting his days to
resistance of the proceeding against him in the trial
court, where a jury to try him on one of the five extor-
tion charges on which he had been indicted, was being
impaneled, while his nights were given to scheming to
wring from the District Attorney immunity from punish-
ment for the extortions and briberies which had been
brought to his door.
The period was one of activity for both District At-
torney and Ruef. On the whole, however, the District
Attorney had the liveliest time of it.
To be sure, Ruef had been brought before the trial
judge ; that is to say, the impaneling of a trial jury had
208 In this connection, in discussing the difficulties in the way
of bringing- criminals to trial, the San Francisco Chronicle,, in its
issue of March 14, 1907, said:
"The penal laws of California are admirable, and cover almost
every transaction deserving moral reprobation. The only reason
why all our people are not either virtuous or in jail is that the
same Legislatures which have so carefully defined crimes and pre-
scribed punishments have been still more careful to enact codes
of criminal procedure that nobody can be convicted of any crime
if he has the cash to pay for getting off.- And what the legislatures
have failed to do in this direction the courts have usually made
good."
1 88 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion
begun, but Ruef's technical fight had not been aban-
doned for a moment.
The appearance of Ruef under arrest was signal for
a fight to have him admitted to bail. But release under
bonds Judge Dunne denied him on the ground of the
immediate approach of his trial, and because he had at-
tempted to put himself beyond the process of the court.
Ruef's attorneys appealed to the United States District
Court for a writ of habeas corpus, but this, was denied
them. His attorneys filed affidavits alleging bists and
prejudice on the part of Judge Dunne against Ruef,
and demanding a change of venue. And with these
various motions, all of which the District Attorney was
called upon to meet, was the appeal from Judge Heb-
bard's order to the Federal Supreme Court, which was
considered in a previous chapter.
The actual work of drawing a jury to try Ruef began
on March 13,^^^ eight days later than the date originally
set for trial. The State was represented by District At-
torney Langdon, Francis J. Heney and Hiram W. John-
son. At the defense end of the table with Schmitz and
Ruef were Attorneys Joseph C. Campbell, Samuel M.
Shortridge, Henry Ach, Charles A. Fairall and J. J.
Barrett. But it developed that one of the four citizens
drawn for jury service was not in the courtroom. The
defense objected to proceeding during the absence of the
venireman. The hearing was accordingly postponed.
Because of one technical obstruction and another, the
work of impaneling the trial jury was delayed until
209 Four years later to a day, March 13, 1911, Ruef was taken
to the penitentiary at San Quentin to begin service of his fourteen-
year term for bribing a Supervisor.
Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 189
April 2. Even after that date there were interruptions,
but the work of securing the jury ^^^ went on until May
13, when the twelfth man to try Ruef was accepted.
But while Ruef was making this brave fight in public
to head off trial on the extortion charge, behind the
scenes he was imploring representatives of the Prosecu-
tion to grant him immunity from punishment in return
for such confession as he might see fit to make.
As early as March 20, Ruef sent word to Heney
through Burns ^^^ that he was willing to make confes-
sion, provided he were given immunity from punish-
210 As the impaneling' of the Ruef jury proceeded, that Ruef's
nerve was breaking- became apparent to all who saw him. The
Chronicle, in its issue of March 18, 1907, thus describes his condi-
tion:
"Ruef's nerve is breaking down. He is a prey to doubts and
fears which never troubled him in those days when he could see
his political henchmen every day and bolster up their confidence
in his ability to fig^ht off the prosecution. Reports reach his ears
of confessions of guilt on the part of some of his official puppets,
of the sinister activities of Burns and his agents and treachery on
the part of those v/hom he considered his most devoted adherents,
and fill him with alarm.
"It was different when he could hold his Sunday evening caucus
with the members of the Board of Supervisors, and reassure them
that all would be well. He knows the men he used in his political
schemes and their weaknesses."
211 Heney, in instructing Burns as to his policy regarding Ruef,
took occasion to state to the detective his attitude toward the
broken boss. In an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs.
Calhoun et al., No. 823, Heney sets forth that he told Burns:
"Ruef was not a mere accessory or tool in the commission of these
briberies. He is a man of extraordinary brain power, keen intelli-
gence, fine education, with the choice of good environment, great
power of persuasion over men, dominating personality, great shrewd-
ness and cunning, coupled with a greedy and avaricious disposition.
He has not been led into the commission of these crimes through
weakness, but on the contrary has aided in the initiation of them
and has joined hands with the most vicious and depraved elements
in the city to secure unlawful protection for them in conducting
their resorts of vice, and has joined hands with the special privi-
lege seeking classes to place improper burdens upon the people of
this city by granting franchises to public service corporations
which ought never to have been granted, and by fixing rates which
may be charged by them in excess of the amounts which such
rates ought to be, and thus indirectly robbing the poor people of
this city of a large part of their meagre earnings, and that to let
Ruef go free of all punishment under such circumstances would be
a crime against society."
190 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion
ment for all crimes which he had committed or in
which he had participated.
Heney refused absolutely to consider any arrange-
ment which involved complete immunity for Ruef.
Negotiations on the basis of partial immunity fol-
lowed.^^-
Heney, on the ground that he did not trust any of
Ruef's lawyers, refused to discuss the matter with
them, but stated that he would meet any lawyer in
whom he had confidence to negotiate terms of partial
immunity, provided that Ruef's representative were
permitted :
(1) To give the names of. Ruef's accomplices w^ho
would be involved by his testimony.
(2) To give the general nature of the offenses in
which the various accomplices were involved.
(3) To be prepared to assure Heney that Ruef's
evidence against his accomplices could be corrobo-
rated, and was sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Ruef at first appeared to be well satisfied with the
plan. He sent for a list of San Francisco attorneys,
and set himself enthusiastically to the work of select-
ing a list of the names of attorneys to be submitted
to Heney. But he failed to make a selection, urging
all the time to Burns that Heney accept Henry Ach.
Ruef's insistence that he deal with Ach convinced
Heney that Ruef was not acting in good faith, and he
212 Running- through the affidavits which resulted from the dif-
ferences between the forces of the prosecution and the defense con-
cerning these negotiations, is a threa.d of suggestion that individual '
members of the prosecution differed as to the policy that should be
followed toward Ruef. Burns, the detective, leaned toward granting
him complete immunity. Heney was unalterably opposed to this
course. Langdon, on the whole, sided with Heney.
Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 191
refused to yield to Burns's urging that he give way
to Ruef in this particular and accfept Ach as Ruef's
representative.-^^
Under Ruef's temporizing, negotiations dragged
until April 2, the day that, Ruef's technical obstruc-
tions in the main set aside, his trial was to be resumed
before Judge Dunne.
On that day, a new actor appeared in the person
of Dr. Jacob Nieto, a Jewish Rabbi of some promi-
nence in San Francisco.
Nieto, according to Burns's statement to Heney,
asked the detective if he had any objection to his
(Nieto's) calling upon Ruef. Nieto stated further
that he believed that he could get Ruef to confess, and
volunteered the theory that the ''higher-ups" were en-
deavoring to make RAief a scapegoat for all the
boodling that had been committed.
Burns reported to Heney that he not only replied
to Nieto that he had no objection to Nieto's visiting
Ruef, but would be glad to have the Rabbi endeavor
to get Ruef to tell the truth.
When Burns told Heney of this conversation,
Heney did not show himself so well pleased with the
arrangements as Burns might have expected. The
prosecutor took occasion to warn Burns against Nieto.
Heney had already had unpleasant experience with
Rabbi Nieto.^^* Nevertheless, Nieto visited Ruef.
213 See Heney's affidavit in the matter of The People vs. Patrick
Calhoun et al., No. 823.
214 Nieto, according to Heney, had endeavored to make it appear
that race prejudice entered into the prosecution of Ruef. Heney,
in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Calhoun et al., No.
823, tells of Nieto's interference even when the Oliver Grand Jury
was being impaneled. Heney says: "During the latter part of
192 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion
Members of Ruef's family were called into consulta-
tion. Conferences were held between Ach, Ruef and
Burns. Heney states in his affidavit that he did not
attend these meetings. Finally Burns brought Heney
word that Ach and Ruef wanted citations to show
that the District Attorney had authority to grant im-
munity. Heney sent back word that he was confident
that the District Attorney had no such power, but with
October or the first week in November, 1906, while said Grand Jury-
was being- impaneled. Dr. Jacob Nieto introduced himself to' me in
the court room of Department No. 10, where I had noticed that
he was a constant attendant and close observer of the proceedings
connected with the impaneling of the Grand Jury.
"Some days after he had introduced himself to me he stepped
up to me, just as court had adjourned and after I had been exam-
ining some of the grand jurors as to their qualifications, and said
in substance:
" 'Mr. Heney, it seems to me that you discriminate somewhat
against the Jews in examining jurors, and I think that in your
position you ought to be more careful not to exhibit any prejudice
against a man on account of his religion.'
"I asked what in particular I had done to cause him to criticise
my conduct in that way, and he referred to some question which
I had asked a grand juror, but which I cannot now recollect. I
then said to him in substance:
" 'WHiy, Doctor, you are supersensitive. Some of the best friends
I have in the world are Jews, and some of the best clients I ever
had in my life were Jews, and I have no prejudice against any
man merely on account of his religious belief. I am sorry that you
have so misapprehended the purpose and motives of my questions
to jurors.'
"On a subsequent day, during the time the Grand Jury was
being impaneled. Dr. Nieto again approached me after an adjourn-
ment of the court and again reproached me for having again shown
prejudice or discrimination against some grand juror of the .Jewish
faith by the questions which I asked him * * * and I said to him
in substance, in a very emphatic tone of voice: 'Dr. Nieto. I have
heretofore told you that I have no prejudice against any man what-
ever on account of his religion. All I am trying to do in this mat-
ter is to get fair grand jurors, and I am just as willing to trust
honest Jews as honest Christians, but I ■^\'ant to make sure that a
man is honest, whether a Jew or Christian, and it looks to m.e as
if you are trying to find some excuse to line up in opposition to this
prosecution. I do not see why you need to seek for excuses if that
is what you want to do. I am conscious of my own singleness of
purpose and purity of purpose in examining grand jurors, and it is
wholly immaterial to me, therefore, what you or anybodj' else may
think of my method of questioning them.' "
As a matter of fact Jev-J-s not only sat on the Oliver Grand Jury,
but -vvere among the most earnest and effective in sifting the graft
scandal to the bottom. But that the false cry that Ruef was perse-
cuted because he was a Jew influenced many of his fellow Jews in
his favor is unquestionably true.
Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 193
the further statement that if the terms of the im-
munity agreement were reasonable and in the interest
of justice, that the Court, provided it had confidence
in the District Attorney, would unquestionably follow
such recommendation as that official might make.
Burns brought back word to Heney that Ruef and
Ach continued to insist upon complete immunity.
Heney sent back an ultimatum to the effect that
Ruef must plead guilty to the extortion case then
on trial before Judge Dunne ^^^ and take his chances
with the sentence that would be given him ; that if
Ruef did this, Heney was willing to arrange for com-
plete immunity in all the other cases, provided Ruef
showed to Heney's satisfaction that his testimony could
be sufficiently corroborated and would sustain a con-
viction of his accomplices other than Supervisors, in
cases where members of the Board of Supervisors had
been bribed.
In the meantime, the work of selecting a jury to
try Ruef on the extortion charge was going on with
the deadly certainty of the slide of the knife of a
guillotine. The second week of the examination of
prospective jurors brought Dr. Nieto to Heney's office.
Burns accompanied the Rabbi.
Nieto ^^® described himself as no particular friend
215 This case was numbered from the indictment, 305. Schmitz
was indicted jointly with Ruef in this indictment, and later was
convicted under it and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary.
See Chapter XVI. The testimony at the Schmitz trial showed that
Ruef had taken the extortion money from the French-Restaurant
keepers, after Schmitz had acted with him to imperil the French-
Restaurant keepers' liquor licenses, and had given part of the pro-
ceeds of the enterprise to Schmitz.
216 In his affidavit, Heney quotes Rabbi Nieto as saying In
substance: "I do not care to get publicly mixed up in the Ruef
case, because among other things, I am not a particular friend of
Ruef's, and am not interested in the matter as an individual but
194 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion
of Ruef. He expressed the opinion that Ruef should
be punished; that he should restore his ill-gotten gains.
Heney stated to Nieto his attitude toward Ruef, as he
had expressed it many times before. From that time
on Dr. Nieto was a frequent caller at Heney's office,
always for the purpose of discussing the question of
Ruef's confession. During all these meetings Heney
did not depart a jot from his original position that
the extortion charge against Ruef should not be dis-
' missed.
Later on, a second Rabbi, Dr. Bernard M. Kaplan,
joined Nieto in these visits to Heney's office. Kaplan
continued active in the negotiations to secure immunity
for the fallen boss.^^^ Finally Nieto, Kaplan and Ach
sent word to Heney and Langdon by Burns that they
desired to meet the District Attorney and his assistant
only in the welfare of this community. I think that Ruef has
grievously sinned against this community and that he can do a
great deal to undo the wrongs which he has committed and to clear
up the situation, and I have told him that it is his duty to himself
and to his family and to the city of his birth to do so. I want you
to understand, Mr. Heney, that I have not come here to ask you to
let Ruef go free and without punishment. I think he ought to be
punished, and I think he ought to give a large part of the money
which he obtained from these corporations to the city to improve
Its streets. He ought to give $300,000 for that purpose, but Ruef
thinks more of money than he does of his family, or even of his
liberty, and I think he would rather go to the penitentiary than
give up any very large amount of it."
217 Heney, in his affidavit, makes the following statement of his
impression of Kaplan: "Dr. Kaplan appeared to be far more inter-
ested in finding out just what would be done to Ruef, provided he
plead guilty in the French Restaurant case than he was in the
moral issue which was involved in the discussion, or In the beneficial
effect which the testimony of Ruef might have upon the deplorable
situation then existing in San Francisco on account of its municipal
corruption.
"This was evidenced more from his manner and form of ques-
tioning than by anything which he said. I Immediately became
convinced that he was infiuenced by no motive or purpose other
than that of getting Ruef off without any punishment if possible:
but I also formed the opinion that he was honest and unsophisti-
cated." I
Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 195
at Heney's office to discuss the immunity question.
Heney and Langdon consented and the meeting was
held in the latter part of April.
Ach insisted upon complete immunity, but admitted
that he had advised Ruef to take the best he could
gg|. 218 Neither Langdon ^^^ nor Heney would consent
to complete immunity, nor to material change in the
stand which Heney had taken. Ach wanted assurance
that the Judges before whom the bribery cases were
pending would, on motion of the District Attorney,
dismiss them as to Ruef, and suggested to Heney that
he go to the judges and get them to consent to the
proposed agreement. To this Heney made emphatic
refusal, stating that the utmost he would do would be
to go with Ach to Judges Dunne and Lawlor and ask
each of them whether he had confidence in him
(Heney) and what the Judge's general practice was in
relation to matters of this kind, generally, when they
came before his court.
Other conferences ^^^ were held, at which Ach con-
tinued to urge complete immunity for Ruef, which
218 Heney, in his affidavit, states: "During the conversation Ach
stated, in substance: 'You can't convict Ruef in this French Res-
taurant case, but I realize that you are sure to convict him in some
of the bribery cases, and I think it is useless for him to stand out
and fight any longer, he had better take the best he can get, and
I have told him so. He insists, however, that he ought not to be
required to plead guilty in the French Restaurant case, or to submit
to any punishment.' "
219 In the course of the interviev/, T^angdon stated to Ach and
the two Rabbis that he had authorised Heney to conduct the nego-
tiations for him, but that he wanted it to be distinctly understood
by everybody th.qt he had the final say in the matter and would
exercise it, and that no agreement could be concluded without his
personal sanction.
220 Heney, in his affidavit describing these meetings, states that
Ach. Kaplan and Nieto habitually came in the back way so they
would not be seen by newspaper reporters who at the time fre-
quented the front halls of the private residence in which Heney,
196 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion
finally brought out emphatic statement from Heney
that he did not trust Ruef and would enter into no
agreement with him which did not leave it in the
power of the District Attorney to send him to the
penitentiary if at any time the District Attorney and
himself concluded that during the progress of the mat-
ters Ruef was acting in bad faith, or that the informa-
tion which he might give was not of sufficient im-
portance to the people of the city and the State equitably
to entitle him to go without punishment.
Heney takes pains all through his affidavit to make
it clear that he treated with Nieto and Kaplan at all
times upon the theory that they were Ruef's special
pleaders and special representatives, who believed that
Ruef was sure to be convicted upon as many of the
felony bribery charges as the District Attorney tried
him on, and that he would go to the penitentiary for a
term of years equivalent to life.
On the night of April 21,^^^ when the work of se-
after the fire, had his offices. Ach, Heney states, was desirous of
not being- known as party to the negotiations. Heney in his affi-
davit says: "In this same conversation fat the first conference) Ach
said in substance: 'I want everybody here to agree that the fact
that T participated in this conference, or had anything- to do with
advising Ruef to turn state's evidence, shall never be made known;
it would absolutelv ruin m.y business if it became known. A lot of
the people whom Ruef will involve as accomplices are close friends
of clients of mine. Of course T do not know just whom he will
involve, but I do have a general idea. For instance, while he has
never told me so in so many words. I understand that he will involve
"V^niliam F. Herrin. Now .iiist to illustrate to you how it would
affect me in business if it was known that T participated in urging
Ruef to do this I will tell you that I am attorney for one company,
an oil company, that pays me ten thonsand dollars a year as a
salary for attending to its business, and Herrin is one of tbe direc-
tors of the company and undoubtedlv has sufficient influence v/ith
the other directors to take this client avi'^ay from me. This is only
one instance, and there are many others.' "
221 See affidavits of Fr-annls .T. Henev and .Judge T\niliam P.
"Lawlor on file in the case of The Peonle a's. Patrick Calhoun et al.,
No. 823.
Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 197
lecting a jury to try Ruef was nearing completion,
Ach, Kaplan and Nieto visited Heney's office with
assurance that Ruef had about concluded to accept
Heney's terms. But, they explained, a new difficulty
had come up. Rabbi Nieto was to leave San Fran-
cisco the next morning for a trip to Europe. Neither
he nor Dr. Kaplan was familiar with the practices
of the courts, and while the judges would no doubt
consider favorably any recommendation which was
made by Mr. Langdon or by Mr. Heney, nevertheless,
the two Rabbis would like to hear from Judge Dunne
and Judge Lawlor statement as to what the practice
of each of these judges was in that respect before
they urged Ruef any further to accept the terms which
had been offered him. As Dr. Nieto was to leave for
Europe early in the morning, they wanted to see the
judges that night.
Heney assured his visitors that owing to the late-
ness of the hour, he was afraid it would be impossible
for them to see the judges before morning. But they
insisted. Burns was finally sent out to find the judges
if he could. He succeeded in locating Judge Lawlor
at the theater. Judge Lawlor at first refused to see
Nieto and Heney that night, stating that they could
appear at his chambers the next morning. But BLirns
explained that Nieto had to leave for Europe the next
morning, adding that he was sure that both Nieto and
Heney would consider it a great favor if the Judge
would see them that night, as the matter was very
important. Lawlor finally consented to see. them, but
stated that he would do so only at his chambers, if, as
he understood it, Heney and Nieto wanted to see him
198 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion
about his duties as judge. Burns took word back to
Heney's office that they could go to Judge Lawlor's
chambers, where the Judge would go as soon as the
theater was over.
Heney, Kaplan and Nieto met Lawlor at his cham-
bers. Heney went straight at the purpose of the
meeting.
"Judge," Heney sets forth in his affidavit he said
in substance, *Sve come up here tonight to ask you what
the practice of your court is in criminal cases in rela-
tion to recommendations which may be made by the
District Attorney?"
Judge Lawlor replied in effect that the District
Attorney represents the public in the prosecution of
crime, and that under the law it was the practice for
that official to submit to the court recommendations
concerning persons who turn state's evidence ; that the
law vests the authority in the Court to determine all
such recommendations and that it is proper for the
District Attorney to make them ; that such recommenda-
tions should be carefully considered by the Court; and
if they are in the interests of justice they should be
followed, otherwise not. Judge Lawlor stated further
that he would not consider or discuss any cause or
case of any individual except upon a full hearing in
open court, and that it would be determined alone upon
what was so presented. Final decision, he said, would
in every case rest with the Court, and if the application
was in the interest of justice, it would be granted, but
if not it would be denied.
Immediately after having made this statement
Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 199
Judge Lawlor excused himself and left the building.
Judge Dunne, when finally found by Burns, objected
as strongly as had Judge Lawlor to going to the court-
room that night, but finally yielded to the same repre-
sentations as had been made to Judge Lawlor.
All parties at the meeting with Judge Dunne at the
courtroom were agreed and the incident was quickly
over.
Heney asked the Judge, in effect, to state for the
benefit of Nieto and Kaplan the practice of his court
in criminal matters in relation to any recommendations
which may be made by the District Attorney's office in
the interest of justice when the defendant becomes a
witness on behalf of the State against his accomplices.
Heney stated further that the two Rabbis would also
like to know whether or not Judge Dunne had confi-
dence in District Attorney Langdon and himself.
Judge Dunne replied in substance : "I have con-
fidence in you, Mr. Heney, and in the District Attorney,
and while I have confidence in the District Attorney,
whenever a recommendation or suggestion is made by
him in a case pending in my department, it is my
practice to entertain and be guided by it, provided, of
course, it is in the interest or furtherance of justice."
Kaplan wanted to know what the course would be
should a man plead guilty and afterwards ask to
change his plea.
*'You have heard what I have said, gentlemen, as
to my practice," replied Judge Dunne. ''Of course, in
all cases of such recommendations, and which I insist
shall always be made in open court, whenever the Dis-
trict Attorney fails to convince me that he is well ad-
200 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion
vised, or that good and sufficient grounds exist for
his motions, it must be remembered that the final de-
termination must always rest with me. But, of course,
I would give great weight to any recommendation
either you, Mr. Heney, or Mr. Langdon might make."
From the courtroom Nieto, Kaplan and Burns went
to Ruef, but Ruef still insisted that he should not
plead guilty to the extortion charge, "backed and
filled," as Burns expressed it.
Ruef sent word to Heney by Burns, asking an inter-
view. But this Heney refused to grant, bluntly stating
that should he meet Ruef, Ruef would misrepresent
anything that he might say. Heney instructed Burns
to tell Ruef that he could accept the proposition that
he had made to him or let it alone as he pleased, that
no more time would be wasted on him ; that trial of
the extortion charge would be pressed to conclusion
and regardless of whether conviction were had or not,
Ruef would be tried immediately on one of the bribery
charges.
Nevertheless, the persistent Ruef got an interview
with Heney. He secured it in this way :
After Heney had retired on the night of May 1st,
Burns called him up on the telephone, to state that if
Heney would give Ruef a moment's interview that
Burns was confident that Ruef would accept Heney's
proposition. Heney granted the hearing.
Ruef plead for complete immunity. He argued that
for him to plead guilty to the extortion charge would
weaken his testimony in the bribery cases. He urged
that public opinion would approve his release. He
charged Heney with being prejudiced against him.
Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 201
Heney listened to him patiently, but refused to con-
sider any suggestion that he alter the original propo-
sition.
By this time ten jurors had been secured to try
Ruef. Ruef begged for an interview with Langdon.
It was granted, with Heney and others present. The
same ground was gone over again ; the same denials
made. And then Heney bluntly told Ruef in sub-
stance: ''You must plead guilty in case No. 305 and
take your chances on the sentence which will be im-
posed in that case. This is our ultimatum and you
must agree to this before the first witness is sworn in
case No. 305, or we will withdraw our proposition and
will never again renew it, or any other proposition
looking to any sort of leniency or immunity for you."-'^
The day following*, Burns brought word to Heney
that Ruef had concluded to accept the Prosecution's
proposition, and had begun his confession by reciting
the particulars of the United Railroad's bribery. Burns
recited what Ruef had told him. Burns's enthusiasm
suffered a shock from Heney's cool analysis of Ruef's
statement. ^^^
Heney pointed out that Ruef had made no revelation
which the Prosecution had not known before, and
222 See Heney's affidavit in the case of The People vs. Patrick
Calhoun et als., No. 823.
223 Ruef in this confession to Burns stated that he had received
$200,000 from General Tirey L. Ford, head of the United Railroads
law department. Of this amount, he said $50,000 he had given to
Schmitz and retained $50,000 for himself. Ruef, five years later, in
his story "The Road I Traveled," published in the San Francisco
Bulletin, again stated that he had received $200,000 from Ford, of
which he gave to Schmitz $50,000, to Gallagher his share for the
Supervisors, and retained $50,000 for himself. Gallagher received
$85,000. This leaves a balance of $15,000 which Mr. Ruef does not
account for.
202 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion
further that Ruef was certainly concealing part at
least of what had occurred between him and General
Ford. Heney was now convinced of Ruef's treachery.^^*
Ruef's future course tended to strengthen this convic-
tion.
Having agreed to make full statement of his con-
nection with the bribing of the Supervisors, Ruef hag-
gled over the form of immunity contract. He endeav-
ored to force upon the Prosecution a contract of his
own drawing. Failing In that he tried to persuade
Heney and Langdon to enter into a stipulation that he
might withdraw his plea of guilty in the extortion case.
In neither move was he successful. Heney refused
to depart a jot from his original proposition. Ruef
finally accepted the immunity contract which Heney had
submitted. -^^
Even after the immunity contract had been signed,
Ruef continued to urge Burns that he be not required
to plead guilty. The prosecution was not sure what
Ruef would do. The examination of jurors to try him
went on. The jury was completed on May 13,^-^ and
224 It is significant to note in this connection that Heney did
not call Ruef as a witness before the Grand Jury in the United
Railroads cases until after the Grand Jury had found indictments
ag-ainst the officials of that corporation. In the opinion of the
Grand Jurors, the testimony, exclusive of that of Ruef, justified
these indictments.
225 The immunity contract signed by Ruef and the District Attor-
ney will be found in full in the appendix.
226 At the completion of the Ruef Jury, the Chronicle, issue of
May 15, 1907, said:
"The Ruef jury is complete and we are now in a way to learn
all the truth about the particular crime for which Ruef is this time
on trial, but which, compared with most other crimes for which he
has been indicted, is a mere peccadillo. That Ruef got the money
is proved, for he has confessed. His defense, of course, will be
that the French-Restaurant proprietors voluntarily presented him
with it. The state will have to prove, in order to secure a convic-
tion, that they did not give the money voluntarily, but yielded it
Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 203
v/as sworn. But the actual taking of testimony was
delayed by Ruef demanding change of venue from Judge
Dunne's court. This motion after the filing of numer-
ous affidavits by both sides, was denied.
However, Ruef's last motion delayed the taking of
testimony for two days more.
Upon Judge Dunne's ruling the next move would
have been the placing of witnesses on the stand. But
before this could be done, Ruef whispered to his at-
torney, Ach. Ach arose and addressed the Court.
"I am requested by our client, your Honor," Ach
said in substance, ''that it is his desire to have a con-
ference with his counsel. I would like to draw your
Honor's attention to the fact that up to this time Mr.
Ruef has not had a single opportunity to confer with his
counsel alone. If the elisor, or the guards, were not in
the same room they were quite close by. I think, in
view of this fact, that we might be granted an adjourn-
ment until say two o'clock of this afternoon so that Mr.
Ruef may have this privilege of conferring with us."
Heney promptly denied Ach's statement. "What
Mr. Ach has stated is not a fact," said Heney. "Mr.
Ruef has always been granted privacy in his conference
with counsel."
On Langdon's suggestion, a half hour's recess was
up under threats which they believed it to be in his power to exe-
cute. If the state fails to prove that Ruef will stand before the
community merely as a moral leper, loathsome to be sure, and
despicable almost beyond human conception, but yet not proved
guilty of that for which the law prescribes punishment in. state's
prison. If proper proof cannot be made he must, of course, be
acquitted of this crime and at once put on trial for another. Noth-
ing is gained by society by the conviction even of the most unmiti-
gated scoundrel on insufficient testimony. But when the proof Is
sufficient the salvation of society demands punishment, and more
particularly of punishment of the rich criminal."
204 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion
granted to allow Ruef to confer with counsel. With
his attorneys, Henry Ach, Samuel M. Shortridge, Frank
J. Murphy and Judge Fairall, Ruef went into Judge
Dunne's chambers for conference.
On their return to the courtroom, Ach and Short-
ridge, with Ruef's consent, withdrew from the case on
the ground that they could not agree with Ruef as to
the manner in which the case should be conducted.
Fairall and Murphy remained by their client.
And then Ruef, the tears streaming down his face,
addressed the Court. He stated his intent to acknowl-
edge whatever there may have been of wrong or mis-
take in his record, and pledged himself, so far as it lay
in his power to make it right. --^
227 Ruef'r sta,tement was in full as follows:
"If your honor please, with the permission of the court, I desire
to make a statement. I do so after only a short consultation with
my attorneys, to whom I have only within the last half hour dis-
closed my determination, and against their express protest. ' I take
this occasion to thank them for their services, fidelity and friend-
ship. Notwithstanding the Court's finding yesterday that this trial
might safely be carried on without serious injury to my health,
physical or mental, I wish to assure you that my personal condition
is such that I am at the present time absolutely unable to bear for
two or three months daily the strain of an actual trial of this case,
the constant, continual, nightly preparations therefor, the necessary
consultation and conversation with my attorneys in regard thereto,
to say nothing oi other cares and responsibilities.
"Moreover, the strain of these proceedings upon those whom I
hold nearest and dearest of all on earth has been so grave and
severe that as a result of these prosecutions their health "has all
been undermined, they are on the verge of immediate collapse and
their lives are indeed now actually in the balance.
"I have occupied a somewhat prominent position in this city of
my birth, in which I have lived all my life, where are all my ties and
interests, whence, when the time shall come, I hope to pass into
the eternal sleep. I have borne an honored name. In my private
and in my professional life there has been no stain. In my public
affiliations, until after the municipal campaign of 1905 and the elec-
tion of the present Boai'd of Supervisors, the abhorrent charges of
the press to the contrary notwithstanding, no action of mine ever
gave just ground for adverse criticism or deserved censure; but
the assaults of the press and its failure to credit honesty of pur-
pose, a desire to hold together a political organization which had
been built up with much effort, the means of otherwise holding
them, did after the election of this Board of Supervisors in a meas-
Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 205
"I desire," concluded Ruef, ''to withdraw my plea
of not guilty heretofore entered, and to enter the con-
trary plea, and at the proper time submit to the Court
further suggestions for its consideration.^"^
ure influence me and the high ideals for which I had heretofore
striven.
"During the past few weeks I have thought deeply and often
of this situation, its causes and conditions. To offer excuses now
would be folly. To make an effort at some reparation for the public
good is, however, more than possible; to assist in making more
difficult, if not impossible, the system which dominates our public
men and corrupts our politics will be a welcome task.
"I have decided that whatever energy or abilities I possess for
the future shall be devoted even in the humblest capacity to restor-
ing the ideals which have been lowered; shall, as soon as oppor-
tunity be accorded, be re-enlisted on the side of good citizenship
and integrity. May it be allotted to me at some time hereafter to
have at least some small part in re-establishment on a clear, sane
basis, a plane of high civic morality, just reciprocal relations be-
tween the constantly struggling constituent element of our govern-
mental and industrial life.
"In the meantime I begin by earnestness of purpose, a purpose
to make the greatest sacrifice which can befall a human being of my
disposition to make, to acknowledge whatever there may have been
of wrong or mistake and so far as may be within my power to make
it right.
"I reached this final determination last night after careful reflec-
tion and deliberation. Where duty calls I intend to follow, whither
hereafter the path of my life may lead and however unpleasant and
painful may be the result. T make this statement so that the Court
and the whole world may know at least the motives which have
guided me in the step I am about to take.
"As an earnest I have determined to make a beginning, I am
not guilty of the offense charged in this indictment. I ask now,
however, that this jury be dismissed from further consideration of
this case. I desire to withdraw my plea of not guilty heretofore
entered and to enter the contrary plea, and at the proper time sub-
mit to the Court further suggestions for its consideration."
228 The Chronicle, in its issue of May 16, said of Ruef's confes-
sions:
"Abraham Ruef should have thought of his family before he
entered upon his career of crime. They are innocent and the public
need not, as indeed it cannot, withhold its sympathy for them. The
most terrible punishment which is inflicted on such criminals is the
distress which their crim.es brings upon the innocent persons who
have been accustomed to respect and honor them. But it is the
inexorable doom which crime brings upon itself.
"For Ruef himself the only sympathy possible is that which one
might feel for a wolf which, having devastated the sheep fold, has
been pursued, brought to bay and, after a long fight, finally disposed
of. It is not a case in which the safety of society permits leniency
to be shown. Ruef has corrupted ever> branch of the city govern-
ment which he could get hold of and brought the city almost to the
verge of ruin. Seldom has a man occupying an unofficial station
in life been able to achieve so much evil. It will be many a year
2o6 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion
"If the defendant wishes to change his plea of 'not
guilty' to 'guilty,' " said Heney, ''the prosecuting at-
torney will consent to the discharge of the jury, as he
requests, but we think the indictment should first be
re-read so that he may enter the plea as he wishes."
The indictment was read.
"What is your plea?" asked Judge Dunne of the
prisoner.
And Ruef replied, "Guilty."-'^^
before San Francisco can outlive the shame which the man Ruef
lias brought upon her.
"He has not been ingenuous even in his confession, for while
pleading guilty as charged, he professes to be not guilty of this
particular crime — meaning merely by that that he did not extort the
money by threats within the meaning of the law. Witnesses, how-
ever, would have sworn that he did so. It is unthinkable that such
sums should have been paid him voluntarily by the restaurant keep-
ers. All that Ruef can mean by his profession of 'innocence' while
pleading guilty, is a claim that he succeeded in terrifying the
restaurant men into submitting to blackmail without the use of
words which the law would construe as a threat. There is no moral
difference between what Ruef would claim that he did and the
crime to which he has pleaded guilty.
"Ruef also shows his disingenuousness by attributing his situa-
tion to 'the assaults of the press.' Doubtless he has been assaulted
by the press. But the press has accused him of nothing but what
he has confessed and intimated. What fault has he to find with
that? Shall the press remain silent while thieves plunder a dis-
tressed city and rob it of its good name? Ruef fought the forces of
decency until he could fight no longer. No man is strong enough to
stand up against the wrath of an outraged community. His physical
collapse was inevitable and the only mantle which charity can throw
over him is that his physical weakness broke down his mental fac-
ulties and caused the self-contradictions in what is a virtual confes-
sion of all that he has been charged with."
229 The position of the Prosecution was most difficult. Every
department of the municipal government, with the exception of the
District Attorney's ofRce, was controlled by the corrupt administra-
tion, of which Schmitz was the offlcial head. The necessity of deal-
ing with Ruef, and the question of immunity arose primarily and
almost entirely, from the fact that there was practically no evidence
against Schmitz, except in the French restaurant case, and that
there was no evidence in that case that Schmitz received any of
the money which was collected by Ruef. Consequently without
Ruef's testimony no conviction of Schmitz was possible at all^ except
in the French restaurant ca.se, and in that case his conviction was
not at all certain. Union Labor party adherents were naturally
unwilling to believe Schmitz guilty until he had been so proven.
The big public service corporations and Herrin of the Southern
Pacific were all still in sympathy with him and ready to back him
Ruef Pleads^ Guilty to Extortion 207
for re-election. An election was approaching: early in November.
The redemption of the city depended upon taking its control away
from Schmitz. The Police Commission and the Board of Public
Utilities were part of the corrupt and discredited administration.
During the rebuilding of San Francisco it was of vital importance
to have these two boards honest. Hence the Prosecution felt justi-
fied in going to unusual length to secure the additional testimony
against Schmitz, which ought to make his conviction certain in the
French restaurant case, and thus immediately depose him from office
and place the entire city government in the hands of honest men.
The new Mayor could appoint a new Board of Supervisors, new
Police Commission and new Board of Public Works, as well as
many other important officials; and such new Mayor and Supervisors
would be reasonably sure of re-election. Agents of the Public
Service corporations realized to the full extent the importance of
preventing the conviction of Schmitz, and of forcing the prosecution
to submit to the appointment of a new Board of Supervisors before
anv conviction of Schmitz could possibly be secure, so that the new
Board of Supervisors, so selected through Schmitz by themiselves,
would have the power of appointing the new Mayor in case Schmitz
were convicted. This new Mayor could appoint a new Police Com-
mission and it in turn a new Chief of Police, and the new officials
would be controlled by the same interests which controlled the old
ones.
CHAPTER XVI.
ScHMiTZ Convicted of Extortion.
One week after Ruef had plead guilty to the charge
of extortion, his co-defendant, Mayor Eugene E.
Schmitz, indicted jointly with Ruef, was brought to
trial, under indictment No. 305, to which Ruef had
entered his plea of guilty.
Hiram W. Johnson and J. J. Dwyer appeared with
Heney and Langdon for the Prosecution. The defense
was represented by the firm of Campbell, Metson &
Drew, assisted by John J. Barrett and Charles Fairall,
all prominent at the San Francisco bar.
The preliminaries were not unlike those of the
Ruef trial, which, at the point where testimony would
have been taken, w^as stopped by Ruef's plea of guilty.
There were the same allegations of bias, the same at-
tempts to secure change of venue, the same appeals to
the higher courts in habeas corpus proceedings. But
these moves availed Schmitz as little as thev had Ruef.
Point by point the upper courts found against the in-
dicted Mayor; step by step he was dragged to pro-
ceedings before a trial jury.
The selection of the jury occupied two weeks. But
with the swearing of the twelfth juror, Schmitz did not
stop proceedings with tearful confession and a plea of
guilty. Doggedly the troubled Mayor let the trial go
on. The Prosecution called its witnesses to the stand.
Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 209
One by one Schmitz's former associates as well as
the restaurant men from whom, through Ruef, he had
received money, took the stand and told the sordid story
of the corruption of the Schmitz-Ruef administration.
The specific charge under which Schmitz was tried
was that of extortion from Joseph Malfanti, Charles
Kelb and William Lafrenz, proprietors of Delmonico's
Restaurant, of $1,175. The sum was Delmonico's share of
the $5,000 paid to Ruef in 1905, by the French-restau-
rant keepers to prevent the liquor licenses, without
which their establishments could not be successfully con-
ducted, being taken from them.
The testimony showed:
(1) That Schmitz had used his power as Mayor
over the Police Commissioners to compel them in the
first instance, to withhold French-restaurant liquor li-
censes, and that later in the latter part of January,
1905, he had exerted himself as actively and effectively
to have the licenses granted, even removing from office
Police Commissioner Hutton, who was standing out
against the French restaurants.
(2) That attorneys, appearing before the Police
Commissioners, to present the claims of the French-
restaurant keepers for licenses, were unable to secure
a hearing. One of these testified to having advised his
client, and other French-restaurant keepers that "there
is only one man who can help you, and that is Mr.
Ruef."
(3) That a French-restaurant keeper who owed
Ruef money, and at whose establishment Ruef had his
headquarters, approached his fellow French-restaurant
2IO Schmitz Convicted of Extortion
keepers and told them that for $7,000 a year Ruef
would represent them and keep them secure in their
business for two years. The $7,000 demand was finally
rtduced to $5,000, $10,000 for the two years.
(4) That the French-restaurant keepers raised
$8,000 of the $10,000 demanded, and sent- it to Ruef,
$5,000 the first year and $3,000 the next.
(5) That Ruef refused to receive anything but cur-
rency, would give no receipt for the money, and would
deal with one man only.
(6) That Ruef claimed to receive the money as a
fee from the "French Restaurant Keepers' Association,"
but that no such association existed in San Francisco.
(7) That after the French-restaurant keepers had
satisfied Ruef, Ruef appeared for them before the Police
Commissioners and, after Commissioner Hutton had
been removed from office by Mayor Schmitz, secured
for them their licenses. ^^°
Having established its case thus far, the Prosecution
rested.
The move was unlooked for. Ruef was known to
have confessed ; it had been confidently expected that
he would be placed on the stand to answer the question,
in whatever form it could be forced into the record :
Did you divide the money which you received from
the French-restaurant keepers with Mayor Schmitz?
But Ruef was not put on the stand. The public
marveled, but those behind the scenes knew that Ruef
was not the willing witness for the Prosecution that the
public thought.
230 For fuller discussion of this testimony see Chapter "Ruef and
Schmitz Indicted."
Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 211
Ruef had confessed to Heney that he had given
half the $8,000 which he had received from the French-
restaurant keepers to Mayor Schmitz. But Heney,
having trapped Ruef in deception, had very good rea-
son for being distrustful of him.
Ruef, forever seeking to justify himself, had told
Heney that he had refused to appear before the Police
Commissioners on behalf of the French-restaurant keep-
ers, until the San Francisco Bulletin had challenged
him to dare represent them, and claim the money he
received from them was a fee. Ruef insisted that the
Bulletin's challenge led him to take the case.
In this Heney trapped Ruef in his trickery.
Ruef s purported contract with the mythical "French
Restaurant Keepers' Association," under which the
French restaurant keepers had paid him $8000, bore
date of January 6. Ruef insisted to Heney that January
6 was the true date upon which the contract was
signed. The oral agreement had been made January 5.
Heney then confronted Ruef with files of the Bulletin
which showed that the Bulletin had not mentioned Ruef
as appearing on behalf of the French-restaurant keepers
until January 7. This was one day after Ruef had
signed the purported contract with the mythical French
Restaurant Keepers' Association.
A stormy scene between Ruef and Heney followed
this exposure.^^^ Heney charged Ruef with falsehood
231 "You have not," said Heney to the trapped boss, "told us
all the truth in the United Railroads case. You have not told us
all the truth in the case of the gas rate matter. You have not told
us all the truth in the Bay Cities Water deal. You have not told
us all the truth about the deal with Herrin in relation to the dele-
gates from this city to the Santa Cruz convention. You have not
told us all the truth in the telephone franchise matter. You lied to
212 Schmitz Convicted of Extortion
and deception, and declared the immunity agreement
canceled. Heney then ordered Ruef from the room, and
did not, until long after the Schmitz trial had closed,
have conversation with him again.
When Schmitz's trial opened. District Attorney
Langdon, Hiram Johnson, all the rest of Heney's asso-
ciates, urged that Ruef be put on the stand, insisting
that the case would be greatly strengthened if it could
be proved by Ruef that Schmitz had received half the
extortion money.
Heney conceded the strength of this contention, but
held, on the other hand, that Ruef would lie so much
about other things that he would do more harm than
good to the case. Personally, Heney insisted, he wanted
nothing to do with him.
Thus, in making his opening statement to the jury
in the Schmitz case, Heney refrained from stating that
he expected to prove Schmitz received any part of the
money which had been paid to Ruef.
But of the break between Heney and Ruef, the pub-
us in the Parkside matter, and I caught you at it before the Grand
Jury. You tried to protect W^ill Crocker in that matter and told
Burns before you went into the Grand Jury room that you had never
spoken to him on the subject. You swore to the same thing in the
Grand Jury room until you cunningly guessed from my questions
that Will Crocker himself had told the truth to the Grand Jury, and
that I was getting you in a bad hole; you then suddenly pretended
to just remember that you had held one conversation with Will
Crocker on the trolley franchise matter at the Crocker National
Bank that lasted a half an hour, and that you had held another
conversation on the street with Will Crocker on the same subject at
the corner of California and Kearny streets, which lasted an hour.
You had not forgotten either of those talks, but you did not think
Will Crocker would testify to them and you wanted to curry favor
with him by thus making him think you wanted to protect him, and
you did it because he is rich and powerful. You wanted his influ-
ence hereafter to help keep you out of trouble, because you have no
idea of acting in good faith with the prosecution. I don't believe
you ever acted in good faith with anybody in your life, but you
have over-reached yourself this time." — See Affidavit of Francis J.
Heney, in The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als.. No. 823.
Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 213
lie knew nothing. San Francisco looked to see Ruef
put on the stand. When the Prosecution rested without
calling this supposedly star witness, even the Defense
was taken by surprise and had to ask continuance until
the following day before calling witnesses.
Schmitz took the stand in his own behalf. He denied
the statements which his former Police Commissioners
had made against him. The Mayor's story of denial
was soon told. Heney, on cross-examination asked :
''Did Ruef pay you any part of the $5,000 that has
been testified he received from the French restaurants?"
and Schmitz replied : 'T didn't know that Mr. Ruef got
any $5,000, nor did I receive any part of it."^^^
And then, in detail, Schmitz denied that he had
received any money from Ruef, or had had any conver-
sation with him regarding a ''fee" which Ruef had re-
ceived from the French-restaurant keeoers.
In rebuttal, Ruef was called to the stand. ^^^ "Did
you," questioned Heney, "in January or February, 1905,
in this City and County of San Francisco, at the house
of Eugene E. Schmitz, the defendant, at number 2849
Fillmore street, give to Eugene E. Schmitz any money,
and if so how much, and in what kind of money?"
"I did," answered Ruef, "$2500 in currency."
232 This answer came in the face of strong objection from
Schmitz's counsel. Mr. Campbell went so far as to direct Schmitz
not to answer. Mr. Barrett's objection was expressed in a way
that caused Judge Dunne to order him to his seat. The several
objections were overruled and the witness was directed to answer
the question.
233 Heney, in an affidavit filed in the case of The Peojple vs.
Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823, says of Ruef's appearance: "I did
not at any time see or speak to Ruef, except when he was on the
witness stand, and then only from a distance and in open court in
the regular course of the trial and in the performance of my duty as
a prosecuting- officer."
214 Schmitz Convicted of Extortion
"Did you, then and there, tell him," pursued Heney,
"that it was his share of the money you had received
from the five French-restaurant keepers?" "I didn't
say to him," replied Ruef, "that it was his share of the
money which I had received from the French restau-
rants. I did say to him that I had received from the
French restaurants the sum of $5,(XX), and that if he
would accept half of it I should be glad to give it to
him. Thereupon I gave it to him."
Ruef testified further to paying Schmitz $1500 early
in 1906, half of the second payment made to him by the
French-restaurant keepers.
The jurors before whom Mayor Schmitz was tried
took one ballot only. They found the defendant guilty
of extortion as charged in the indictment.
Following the verdict, Schmitz, who eighteen months
before had, for the third time been elected Mayor of
San Francisco, was, as a convicted felon, confined in
the county jail.^^*
234 Where Schmitz spent the night of Thursday, June 13, the
night of his conviction, is a matter of dispute. Sherift O'Neil insists
that he spent the niglit in jail. This has been denied. The state-
ment has been made, apparently on good authority, that all of
Friday following, Schmitz, accompanied by Dominic Beban, a deputy
sheriff and State Senator from San Francisco, was about town in an
automobile. But on Saturday, Judge Dunne warned the sheriff that
Schmitz was to be treated as any other prisoner. After that day,
pending his appeal to the higher courts, Schmitz was confined in
the county jail. Attorney J. C. Campbell made a hard fight to keep
his client out of jail. Among other things, Mr. Campbell held that
the Mayor had so much official business to attend to that it was
practically necessary for him to be in his office all the time for the
next month.
Schmitz, under this conviction, w^as sentenced to serve five years
in the penitentiary.
CHAPTER XVII.
ScHMiTz Ousted From Office.
The confession of the Supervisors to bribery had no
sooner become known than anghng for control of the
municipal government under its prospective reorganiza-
tion began. ^^^
The public-service corporation that had during the
1905 municipal campaign contributed to the campaign
funds of both the Union Labor party and the opposing
''Reform" fusion organization, had no care as to who
reorganized, or in what name the reorganization was
accomplished, so long as they continued in control.
These corporations had larger interest in public affairs
than ever; there was prospect of their officials being
indicted for felonies. But so long as Schmitz continued
to be Mayor, neither those who aimed to reorganize for
the best interests of San Francisco, nor those w^ho were
235 As early as March 20, 1907, two days after the Supervisors
gave their confession to the Grand Jury, The Chronicle touched
upon the growing resistance to the prosecution. It said:
"In the leading political clubs there is talk of Governor Gillett
removing Mayor Schmitz and appointing a successor. This is in the
line of gossip, however, for there is a legal question involved, the
framers of the municipal Charter having provided no means for the
removal of the head of the municipal government should he be found
criminally derelict. There is also some talk of Schmitz resigning
if Heney will vaccinate him and render him immune from punish-
ment for his offenses, as he is said to have done with the Super-
visors. Another angle of the gossip in this regard is that the Mayor
will appoint a Board of Supervisors picked by prominent merchants
and professional men who have organized for the purpose of redeem-
ing San Francisco from the toils of the grafters."
2i6 Schmitz Ousted from Office
plotting to continue the old order with new men, in
the interests of the corporations, could act. The old
order controlled Schmitz ; the opposition, having whipped
confessions out of the Supervisors, controlled the board.
Neither element could undertake reorganization until
in control of both Mayor's office and Supervisors.
This deadlock was brought about by charter pro-
visions empowering the Board of Supervisors to fill
vacancies occurring in the mayoralty office, and pro-
viding that the Mayor shall fill vacancies on the Board
of Supervisors.
Had Mayor Schmitz resigned, the Supervisors,
controlled by District Attorney Langdon, would have
elected his successor. This would have given the Prose-
cution the ]\Iayor as well as the Supervisors. On the
other hand, had the Supervisors resigned, then Mayor
Schmitz would have appointed as their successors men
in accord with him and with his policies. Schmitz could
then have resigned and the Supervisors of his appoint-
ment would have named his successor. This would
have permitted the corrupt element to continue the old
order in defiance of the Prosecution. Thus, so long as
Schmitz held the office of Mayor, the Prosecution, la-
boring for good government, could not permit the bribe-
taking Supervisors to resign. On the other hand, those
who had furnished the bribe money did not dare permit
Schmitz to give up his office.
In this astonishing situation, that bribe-givers might
not gain the upper hand, it v/as necessary that the six-
teen confessed bribe-taking Supervisors should continue
in the offices which they had betrayed, so long as
Schmitz Ousted from Oiiice 217
Schmitz's power to appoint their successors continued. ^^^
There were, too, further complications. The Prose-
cution could and did secure the discharge from munici-
pal positions of Ruef's satellites who held their places
under the Board of Supervisors. Thus, soon after the
Supervisors had confessed, Charles Keane,^^^ Clerk of
the Board, was forced from his position. On the other
hand, the old-time Schmitz-Ruef followers who owed
their appointments to the Mayor, continued secure in
236 The Chronicle, in its issue of April 3, in discussing this phase
of the situation, said:
"The spectacle of the entire legislative body of a city confessing
to the acceptance of great bribes is astonishing. Their continuance
in office and consultation with the good citizens as to the best
methods of restoring good government is unique. In many parts of
the country there is outspoken disapproval of the course which is
being taken, and loud declarations that if there were any good citi-
zenship in San Francisco the confessed rogues would be driven out
of office and hustled into the penitentiary. It is declared that in
granting 'immunity' to these Supervisors the city is again dis-
graced. Of course, all this is absurd. In the first place, there is no
evidence and little probability that immunity has been promised to
anybody. Secondly, if the present Supervisors should resign Schmitz
would promptly fill their places with men whom he can more im-
plicitly trust but who would not be subject to indictment or' in any
way amenable to decent influence. As for Schmitz, he will remain
Mayor until he is convicted of crime. The public does not know
how that conviction is to be got. It is supposed that some Super-
visor can give part of the necessary evidence, but no Supervisor can
be compelled to give any evidence at all, and they probably would
give none, if driven out. They are not obliged to criminate them-
selves. As for Schmitz, he is still defiant. He apparently does not
believe that under the legal rules of evidence he can be convicted of
what he evidently did. The journals which contrast our slow move-
ment with the swift punishment which befell briber and bribed when
the Broadway street railroad franchise was purchased doubtless ao
not understand that the laws and court procedure in California are
designed not to convict criminals, but to aid their escape from jus-
tice, and that when Jake Sharp bought the New York Aldermen he
did not also buy the authority which filled vacancies in the Board.
As the situation in this city is unique, so, also, must be our methods
of dealing with it. It may be that every Supervisor ought to be
promptly indicted but it is certain that that is the one thing most
ardently desired by the innumerable company of grafters outside
the board. And it may not be but to help them."
237 Keane had two champions on the board, however. Supervisors
J. J. O'Neil and O. A. Tveitmoe. They resisted Keane's discharge,
denouncing it as unwarranted and cowardly. Mayor Schmitz vetoed
the resolution removing Keane. The Supervisors, however, adopted
the resolution over the Mayor's veto.
21 8 Schmitz Ousted from Office
their jobs. Thus, former Supervisor Duffey, appointed
by Schmitz to head the Board of PubUc Works, con-
tinued in that position, although involved by Gallagher
in Gallagher's confession of the bribery transactions.
The Chief of Police held office under the appointment
of the Board of Police Commissioners. But Schmitz
controlled the commissioners. The chief had been in-
dicted with Schmitz and Ruef. The city was clamoring
for his removal. But in spite of protests, Schmitz's
influence kept the indicted chief in his place at the head
of the police department. ^^^
The situation could not but cause confusion. To
the average man on the street, the Supervisors had
238 The San Francisco Call, in its issue of June 10, 1907, said
of Schmitz's continued hold on the Police Department:
"The Call has never attached much importance to the well meant
efforts of the various citizens' committees to persuade Mayor
Schmitz to reorganize the police force and the governing commis-
sion of that body. It is easy to understand that Schmitz might
engage in some such transaction or bargain if he could be shown his
own advantage therein, but that he would surrender control of his
most valuable personal asset at this time or, indeed at any other
time, was scarcely conceivable in view of the character of the man.
This is said advisedly. It is notorious that Schmitz all through his
long session in office has treated his control of the police not as a
public trust for the common good, but as so much personal property
to be used to the limit for his private advantage. Therefore, when
Schmitz, in the first instance, gave a committee some sort of pledge
that ho would comply with its desire or requests, there was a very
natural suspicion that the terms of the bargain as a whole had not
been disclosed. There was the insistent inquiry, 'What does Schmitz
get by the bargain?'
"That question has never been answered from the inside and
probably will not be answered, but the committee very shortly quit
in disgust, realizing, doubtless, that Schmitz wanted something it
could not grant as a consideration for his abandonment of power.
"A second committee that took up the work now finds that
Schmitz is deaf to its requests for a reorganization of the police
force. The lack of discipline in that body has become a public
scandal. At its head is seen a man under indictment for felony, the
associate of criminals and accused of tampering with veniremen
called to try Schmitz — an accusation whose truth he admits.' Gov-
ernor Gillett has expressed the common knowledge that the Chief
of Police is incompetent. He might have used a harsher word.
But Dinan suits Schmitz. He is the ready and unscrupulous tool.
An honest man in the same place would be of no use to Schmitz!"
Schmitz Ousted from Office 219
confessed to bribery. Why, then, were they permitted
to remain an hour in office? Why were they not in-
dicted, placed on their defense and sent to the peniten-
tiary ?
The graft defense naturally took advantage of this
sentiment. "Government by the big stick," as the hold
of the District Attorney's office over the Supervisors
was called, was condemned and ridiculed. One heard,
however, little reference to the hold of the beneficiaries
of the Ruef administration upon the Mayor's office.
From all sides the Prosecution was importuned to oust
the "boodle Supervisors." But the fact that a "boodle
Mayor" would then appoint their successors was not
given such wide publicity.
In addition to the complications in the municipal
government, due to the Schmitz faction's dogged re-
sistance to the Prosecution, combined with the unquali-
fied yielding of the Supervisors and the partial con-
fession of Ruef, San Francisco was in a condition of
confusion and discord.
At the time Ruef entered his plea of guilty to ex-
tortion, a year had passed since the great fire of 1906.
Thousands were still living in shacks erected in the
ruins of the old city. The principal business streets
were littered with building materials. There had come
the depression following the activity of rehabilitation
and the pouring into San Francisco of millions of in-
surance money. Titles to real property were confused
if not in doubt, much of the records having been de-
stroyed in the fire. Thousands found themselves forced
into court to establish their titles. A little later, the
220 Schmitz Ousted from Office
community Avas to suffer a visitation of bubonic plague.
There were many authentic plague cases and some
deaths. For months the city was in dread of quaran-
tine.
There were labor disturbances which for weeks at a
time paralyzed industry. At one period between 7,000
and 10,000 iron-trades workers were out on strike.
At the time Schmitz was finally convicted of extortion
the telephone girls had been on strike since May 3rd.
This alone threw the complex organization of a modern
city into extraordinary confusion. The linemen struck.
On June 21, telegraph operators in San Francisco and
Oakland left their keys.
But by far the most serious labor disturbance was
the strike of the street-car conductors and motormen.
For weeks the entire street-car system was paralyzed.
The first attempt to move a car resulted in riot in
which one man was killed outright and twenty-six
wounded. A number of the wounded died.
President Calhoun of the United Railroads rejected
all offers to compromise, announcing his intention ta
break the Street Carmen's Union. He succeeded ; in
the end the union was broken and scattered, but at
frightful cost to Mr. Calhoun's company and to San
Francisco;
During the strike of the carmen the city was filled
V\^ith gunfighters and thugs admittedly in the employ
of the United Railroads. Indeed, there was no attempt
made to disguise the fact that the United Railroads
had brought them into the city. Clashes between the
two factions were of daily occurrence.
Schmitz Ousted from Office 221
Aside from horse-drawn vehicles which had been
pressed into service, street transportation was, for a
considerable period, practically at an end. The inability
of the people to go from place to place paralyzed in-
dustry and business. Merchants, hotel keepers, manu-
facturers, all suffered. There were many failures. Citi-
zens in all walks of life implored Mr. Calhoun to arbi-
trate his dift'erence with his men. He refused abso-
lutely.^^^ Henry T. Scott, president of the Pacific States
Telephone and Telegraph Company, as doggedly re-
fused to submit to arbitration the questions involved in
the telephone girls' strike.
239 When, through the good offices of a committee of citizens, the
difficulties of the iron trades were finally adjusted, The Call took
occasion to urge an ending of the stiff-necked policy which kept
other employers and employees apart.
"In the car strike," said The Call in its issue of June 1st, "in
the telenhone strike, in the laundry strike, there is nothing that
cannot be disposed of by the same method and through the same
agency as those that ended the iron trades controversy. There is
no reason why all those disputes cannot be settled reasonably. The
conciliation committee stands for public opinion. It voices the
demand of the public for peace. No employer can afford to refuse
its offices, nor can any representative of the employed afford to
decline its offers of mediation. And if this committee, standing as
it does for public opinion, could speak with convinction to the iron
masters and their striking workmen, it should be able to deal even
more effectively with the car strike and with the telephone strike.
Those disputes concern public utilities. Street-cars are run and
telephones are operated under and by virtue of grants and privileges
made by the people, wherefore the peonle have the right to inter-
vene when the s'rantees of those rtrivileees are at war with their
employes. The peoplf^ have the right, at least, to mediate for peace.
Mr. Corneliu=! and Mr. Calhoun. Mr. Scott and the leader of the
telephone strikers mav refuse to listen to the pacific overtures of th<^
conciliation committe'^. but if thev do they must imderstand that
the price of refusq] is thp loss of nubli"^ symnathv and sunport —
elements without which ultimate victorv is impossible.
"San Francisco has had about enouerh industrial warfare. The
city wants peace, lasting ve^re. No s^ne man w^ants a fight to a
finish between labor and capital, or if he dof^s he is S«n Francisco's
enemy. The adiustment of the iron-V'orkers' strike is a hopeful
sign. Tt points tbe way to an end of all bitterness and contention.
It augurs an early return to the harmonious relations of tbnse M'^ho
earn and those who nnv waeres, relations which are essential to the
progress and prosnpritv of any commimity. Tt is the best news of
this stormy, stressful month."
222 Schmitz Ousted from Office
The police seemed utterly unable to deal with the
situation. Governor Gillett threatened to call out the
militia, and companies at Los Angeles were actually
directed to be in readiness to enter San Francisco. But
this move was finally abandoned. And through it all,
President Calhoun refusing to arbitrate or to compro-
mise, issued numerous proclamations ^*° in which he
240 The following, issued on May 17, is a fair sample of the
statements which Mr. Calhoun gave out during the period of con-
fusion in San Francisco, in the spring and summer of 1907:
, "To the American People — The newspapers of this city published
yesterday afternoon and this morning contain sensational statements
purporting to give the testimony of Mr. Abraham Ruef before the
Grand Jury yesterday afternoon. It is alleged that he confessed that
the United Railroads, through some of its officials, bribed the Super-
visors to grant the permit for the overhead trolley over certain of
its roads. I do not know if Mr. Ruef made any such statements.
If he did, they are untrue. I repeat with renewed emphasis my
former declaration that no official of this company ever bribed any
one, authorized Mr. Ruef or any one else to bribe anybody, knew of
any bribery, or approved of any bribery.
"I charge the prosecution with having prostituted the great office
of the District Attorney to further the plans of private malice in
the interest of a man who organized the MumVipal Street Railways
of San Francisco on the 17th day of Anril. 1P06, the day before the
earthauake and fire, with a capital stock of $14,000,000, of which
$4,500,000 were subscribed for as follows: Claus Spreckels subscribed
$1.5^00,000, James D. Phelan subscribed ?1. 000. 000. Georee Wliittell
subscribed $500,000. Rudolr»h Spreckels subscribed $1,000,000, Charles
S. Wheeler subscribed $100,000. Tf^n per cent of the amount sub-
scribed, or $450,000, was paid in cash, as shown by the affidavit of
the treasurer of the company, James K. Moffitt, duly filed In the
County Clerk's office.
"I charge that, in furtherance of the plans of the private prose-
cutor to assure evidence that would involve the United Railroads,
the District Attorney has been willing to purchase testimony with
immunity contracts, purporting to grant immunity to self-confessed
criminals, which contracts I am informed were placed in escrow
with the private prosecutor, and through which he controls a major-
ity of the Board of Supervisors, who. as a member of the prosecution
has declared, are 'dogs' to do his bidding.
"I charge that the District Attorney was in consultation with the
members of the self-confessed criminals on the Board of Supervisors
in regard to the passage of the resolution holding up the Geary
street railroad company, and providing for the forfeiture of its
license, unless it yielded to the demands of its striking employes.
"I charge that while the "best element in this community was
seeking to preserve law and order, the District Attorney was in
secret conference with self-confessed criminals, giving aid and com-
fort to the strikers. Shall his great office be prostituted to the
support of lawlessness?
"The officials of this company are ready to meet their eneniies in
the open, and before they are through, they expect to show to the
Schmitz Ousted from Office 223
intimated that the Graft Prosecution had brought on
the trouble which confronted San Francisco. The
Prosecution's object, Mr. Calhoun held, was to injure
him and his railroad company. In this connection, it
may be said, that during the searching investigation of
the graft trials, not one word of testimony was pro-
duced to indicate basis for Mr. Calhoun's insinuations
and open charges that the carmen's strike was part of a
plot to injure him and his company.^*^ On the con-
whole country the infamy of the methods of the prosecution, the
baseness of the motives of the private prosecutor, his readiness to
grant immunity to self-confessed criminals, and the willingness of
the prosecution to aid the strikers, even if it involved this com-
munity in disorder and bloodshed, provided it furthered the private
prosecutor's personal ends.
"The organization of the Municipal Street Railways of San Fran-
cisco, the attacks upon the officials of the United Railroads, the
immunity granted to self-confessed criminals, the strike of the car-
men, the hold-up of the Geary-street Railroad Company, the for-
feiture of its license to operate, all seek one common end, the injury
of the United Railroads and its officials, and the advancement of the
personal schemes of the private prosecutor.
"I ask from the American people fair play, and a patient consid-
eration. I ask them to withhold their judgment, freed from the bias
naturally created by sensational charges. The contest In which I
am engaged is grave, and T cannot afford now to disclose the whole
strength of my hand, but before this contest is over, I confidently
expect to defeat alike the machinations of Rudolph Spreckels, the
private prosecutor, with his corps of hired detectives, and Mr. Cor-
nelius, president of the Carmen's Union, the leader of anarchy and
lawlessness, and to see firmly established in this community the
principles of American liberty, and the triumph of truth and jus-
tice." ..,,..,
On May 21 Calhoun issued a statement directly charging the
lawlessness in San Francisco to the Prosecution. He said:
"The drama is now unfolding itself and the citizens of this city
will have an opportunity to fix the responsibility for existing?, condi-
tions. The prosecution has said that the Supervisors would be 'good
dogs' and do its bidding. The resolutions concerning the Geary-
street line and the United Railroads are on a par with the neglect
of the board to see that order is preserved. The prosecution is now
responsible for the government of the city: therefore it is responsible
for existing conditions, including the failure to suppress violence
and to protect life and property."
241 Although representatives of the Defense had intimated re-
peatedly that the supporters of the Graft Prosecution had brought on
the strike for the purpose of injuring the United Railroads, when
the Prosecution attempted to introduce evidence to the contrary,
Calhoun's attorneys resisted.
224 Schmitz Ousted from Office
trary, the strike might have been averted had the
United Railroads adopted a more tactful policy in deal-
ing with its men. And, in addition to this, a more
conciliatory attitude on the part of President Calhoun
would, during the progress of the strike, have brought
it to a close at any time. The fact remains, too, that
during the 1907 municipal campaign, which opened
even while the United Railroads was crushing the car-
men's union, the support of the United Railroads went
to the Union Labor party candidate for District At-
torney. Heading the Union Labor party ticket was P.
H. McCarthy, one of the strongest opponents of the
Graft Prosecution, and at the same time ardent backer
of the striking carmen.
The efforts of the L'nited Railroads to crush the
carmen's union, while at the same time exerting itself
to elect the Union Labor party candidate for District
Attorney, indicates the confusion that existed in San
Francisco following the confessions of the Supervisors
and the revelations made by Ruef. And the efforts of
the various factions to seize the municipal government
increased this confusion materially.
The day following Ruef's confession, a committee
of businessmen, representing the ^Merchants' Associa-
tion, the Board of Trade, the Cham.ber of Commerce,
the Manufacturers' and Producers' Association and the
Merchants' Exchange waited upon Spreckels and Heney
to enlist the co-operation of the Prosecution in restoring
normal conditions. The committee — called the Com-
mittee of Seven because of its numbers — ^^" already
242 The seven members of the committee were: F. B. Anderson,
manager of the Bank of California; Percy T. Morgan, president of
Schmitz Ousted from Office 225
had the endorsement of Mayor Schmitz. The Chronicle,
which acted from the start in the capacity of special
pleader for this committee, announced in startling head-
lines in its issue of May 18, that "Mayor Schmitz prac-
tically turns reins of government over to citizens. Com-
mittee of Seven may run this city."^*^
''With the exception of the administration of merely
routine affairs," said the Chronicle of that date, "the
committee, by Mayor Schmitz's written agreement, is to
all intents and purposes, the Mayor of San Francisco."
Governor James N. Gillett ^** was reported to be
heartily in accord with the committee's purposes. Final-
ly, in an editorial article, the Chronicle announced that
'*the public looks to this committee to restore the good
the California Wine Association and a director in the Pacific States
Telephone and Telegraph Company; P. W. Van Sicklen, president
of Dodge Sweeney & Co.; F. W. Dohrmann, president of Nathan,
Dohrmann & Co.; Henry Rosenfeld, a shipping and commission mer-
chant; C. H. Bentley, president of the Chamber of Commerce, and
Judge Charles W. Slack, who, in 1909, was to be one of the principal
supporters of the opposition to the prosecution candidate for Dis-
trict Attorney. Illness compelled Mr. Dohrmann to sever his con-
nection with the committee. Mr. William A. Magee served, in his
stead,
243 The Chronicle, in its issue of May 19, printed the following as
the committee's declaration of principles:
"Declaration of principles by the Committee of Seven and what
it intends to do:
"We propose to carry out our duty, irrespective of who is affected.
"We have adopted the Constitution of the United States as the
fundamental basis for our final action.
"We intend to bring about a clean condition of affairs in this
community and make it safe for habitation by human beings and
for the investment of capital.
"We shall do nothing in the nature of class legislation and recog-
nize that every element in the community has a right to represen-
tation in the government."
244 In a published statement printed May 19, 1906, Governor Gil-
lett said: "The good citizens of San Francisco are for preservmg
order and the good name of this city, and protecting the constitu-
tional rights of its people. The Committee of Seven, as I understand
it, were appointed for this purpose, and every law-abiding citizen
and every loyal paper in this city, the Bulletin with the rest, are
expected to strengthen their hands and encourage them in tneir
work."
«
226 Schmitz Ousted from Office
name of the city, and to the prosecuting authorities to
stand soHdly behind them while they do it."
But in spite of the Chronicle's insistence, the public
gave no evidence of spontaneous outburst in favor of
the committee. Instead, there was a general turning to
the leaders of the Prosecution to note their attitude.
The Prosecution gave no evidence of enthusiastic sup-
port; quite the contrary. "The District Attorney," an-
nounced Langdon, "will not act with any committee that
is named by Mayor Schmitz to take charge of the
government of San Francisco."
After several conferences with the committee, Ru-
dolph Spreckels refused to join with it on the ground
that it had placed itself in a position "to directly or
indirectly accomplish results very much desired by Cal-
houn, Herrin and the coterie who are inimical to the
Prosecution." Mr. Spreckels also expressed his belief
that a majority of the committee were sincere men
who went on the committee with proper motives, but,
Spreckels suggested, "if this committee really has its
origin in an honest motive, I do not see why it cannot
act on its ov.m volition. I do not see the necessity of
this committee dem.anding that I co-operate with it. If
its members want to have a change in the municipal
offices and the members of the various municipal com-
missions, let them go ahead and outline their own
programme. I have no desire to dictate who shall con-
stitute the membership of the various city offices. I
started out in this graft prosecution to bring all guilty
municipal officials to the bar of justice and have them
punished. That is my single motive. I have no ulterior
Schmitz Ousted from Office 227
designs in this matter regardless of whatever anyone
may say to the contrary."^*^
In spite of the Chronicle's statement that the public
looked to the Prosecution to stand solidly behind the
committee, and the protestations of Governor Gillett,
the public was content to accept the judgment of Mr.
Langdon, Mr. Spreckels and Mr. Heney as final. With-
out popular demand for it, there was nothing for the
committee to do but resign. And it did resign. ^*^
The resignation of the Committee of Seven brought
from Governor Gillett a statement urging the appoint-
245 The failure to enlist Spreckels with the Committee of Seven
brought down upon him the condemnation of leaders of the State
machine. "My surprise at this attitude of Mr. Spreckels," said Gov-
ernor Gillett in an interview printed in The Examiner, May 21, 1907,
"is great. It means a bad moral effect on the local industrial dis-
turbance. If a banker like Mr. Spreckels will not act in harmony
with the committee from the leading commercial organizations of
this city, then I can readily account for the friction all down the
line in this city. There ought to be unity of action to get the city
out of its present plight, but evidently the leading business men of
the town, for reasons I certainly cannot understand, are not in a
mood to act in harmony."
246 "When the Committee of Seven retired. May 20, Committee-
man Slack issued the following statement:
"The Committee of Seven yesterday decided that nothing could
be accomplished by it, in view of the attitude of Mr. Spreckels and
Mr. Heney. We met those gentlemen for the fourth time yesterday
morning and were informed that they could not act with us. Mr.
Spreckels declared, in spite of assurances to the contrary from every
member of the committee, that he believed Herrin and Calhoun to
be behind us. We had agreed, in the first place, that nothing should
be done which would interfere in any way with the work of Mr.
Spreckels and Mr. Heney. When we went to them and asked their
co-operation they declined to co-operate. Under the circumstances
we felt that the committee could not be of any further value and
asked to be discharged.
"I think Mr. Spreckels was sincere in his belief that we repre-
sented interests opposed to him, and I have nothing but the kindest
feelings toward him, although I believe that he was mistaken. I
believe the other members of the committee are with me in this.
"My acquaintance with Mr. Herrin is only of the most casual
sort, and I should be more likely to act against rather than for him.
I do not know Mr. Calhoun at all.
"It is with great regret that the committee has abandoned the
work which it felt called upon to undertake, and only the belief that
without the assistance of Mr. Spreckels its work would be valueless
led it to take this step."
228 Schmitz Ousted from Office
ment of '^a strong governing body to take charge of
affairs. "^*^ Acting upon the Governor's suggested plan,
the five commercial bodies decided upon the appointment
of a committee of seventy-five, or, as the Chronicle,
mouthpiece for the advocates of this course, put it,
"Seventy-five prominent citizens are to be appointed to
247 Governor Gillett's suggestions were contained in a statement
published in the San Francisco papers on May 25th. It was as fol-
lows:
"Mr. Cornelius, as president of the Carmen's Union, and the
other labor leaders of San Francisco can bring an end to the acts of
violence that are committed daily in this city if they will, and in
the event that they don't they will be held morally responsible for
what happens in the future, if anything of a serious nature does
happen.
"San Francisco does not want to see the State troops enter the
city. It is better for the labor unions, the citizens, the city and the
State that they should not take charge of affairs, but I will say, if
this violence continues and increases the militia will be brought in
and will take charge of affairs. Nothing along that line has been
planned as yet and the State will wait a reasonable length of time
for conditions to be adjusted.
"Something must be done. There must be a strong governing
body to take charge of affairs, and along this line I have one sug-
gestion to make. Let the various civic bodies of San Francisco get
together and appoint a committee of twenty-five or fifty from their
members, a committee of strong-minded men who will not allow
politics to enter into the question, and who will fight for San
Francisco as plain citizens interested in the welfare of the city,
"Such a committee could accomplish much. The first step to be
taken would be to demand the appointment of a new police com-
mission, the removal of officers in charge of districts who are incom-
petent, and the substitution of competent, firm men.
"Mayor Schmitz would not dare to refuse to accede to the de-
mands of such a committee, and if the body acted with a firm
hand the citizens would soon see an improvement in conditions.
"The executive committee, which appointed the Committee of
Seven can bring about the organization of such a body as I suggest.
It was noticeable that when the Committee of Seven took hold of
affairs there was less violence for a couple of days, but as soon as
the body tendered its resignation there was an increase in these
acts of violence.
"Acts of violence must cease. No self-respecting community will
permit a reign of crime day after day, the throwing of bricks and
other missiles, the use of vile and abusive language, and the beat-
ing of men walking along the streets peaceably. Then, too, we have
our wives and daughters to think of. Conditions are certainly
deplorable when they cannot go upon the streets of a great city like
San Francisco without being compelled to hear obscene language
and witness acts of violence such as have been com^mitted within
the last three weeks.
"There are strong men here, and if they set about the matter in
the right way there will be no occasion for the entrance of the
State troops into the city."
Schmitz Ousted from Office 229
restore order." The Chronicle went on to say that
*Tt is understood that Mayor Schmitz is ready to
agree to act in accordance with the recommendations
of the new committee as he did when the Committee
of Seven was formed. He would be glad, it is believed,
to have the assistance of such a body of men in meet-
ing some of the conditions which he has to face."^*^
At the time (May 29) of the publication of the
Chronicle's belief that Mayor Schmitz would be glad to
have the assistance of such a body of men as had been
proposed, the Mayor's trial wa:s drawing to its close.
A fortnight later he was convicted of one of the gravest
felonies that can be charged against an executive.
Mayor Schmitz's conviction brought complete change
in the situation. It made possible the ousting of the
entire corrupt administration. In the ousting, the com-
mercial bodies, as well as the representative labor union
organizations, were given opportunity to co-operate.
The refusal of the majority of them to participate threw
the obligation upon the District Attorney's office.
When the Jury returned its verdict finding Mayor
Schmitz guilty of felony, District Attorney Langdon
found himself in an extraordinary position. Upon him,
as District Attorney, fell the responsibility of naming
the chief executive of San Francisco to succeed the dis-
credited Mayor.
There was no question about a vacancy existing in
the Mayor's office. Under the California laws, a va-
cancy in office exists upon conviction of the incumbent
248 See footnote 229, page 206.
230 Schmitz Ousted from Office
of felony. The courts had held repeatedly that a jury's
verdict of guilty in a felony case carries conviction.
A vacancy, therefore, existed in the Mayor's office.
Under the municipal charter the Supervisors alone were
empowered to fill it. But sixteen of the Supervisors,
having confessed to felonies, were taking no steps with-
out the approval of the District Attorney. They would
name for Mayor, him whom the District Attorney ap-
proved and no other. Naturally, Langdon consulted
those associated with him in the Graft Prosecution. No
better earnest of the sincerity and disinterestedness of
Langdon and those who were assisting him is furnished
than in this crisis. They had it within their power to
select first Mayor and then Supervisors who would be
utterly subservient to them. Instead, they proposed a
plan by which representative associations were given
opportunity to reorganize the municipal government by
naming Mayor Schmitz's successor.
Nor was there any hasty action. The office of
Mayor was not declared vacant until after Schmitz had
been sentenced to the penitentiary. But Schmitz was
in the county jail and incompetent to act. It was of
immediate necessity that a temporary successor be sub-
stituted. Until this were done, San Francisco would
be without a chief executive. To meet the emergency,
the Supervisors named Supervisor Gallagher to be
acting Mayor.
249
249 Of the eighteen Supervisors, two, O'Neil and Tveitmoe, had
been appointed by Maj'or Schmitz to fill vacancies after the bribery-
transactions. They were in no way involved in the briberies. They
were, therefore, independent of the District Attorney. O'Neil put
Tveitmoe in nomination against Gallagher. "What is the differ-
ence," demanded O'Neil, "between Eugene E. Schmitz and James
L. Gallagher?" Gallagher's face went red with rage, but there was
no way of silencing the critic.
Schmitz Ousted from Office 231
After the sentencing of Schmitz the rapidly devel-
oping situation made it necessary that the convicted
official's office be declared vacant and his successor
appointed. But the successor had not been named, nor
had plans for the change in administration been formu-
lated.^°° In this further emergency, it was decided to
name one of the Supervisors to be Mayor to serve until
a permanent successor of Mayor Schmitz could be
named. The unhappy Boxton ^^^ was decided upon.
250 This tardiness of appointment was not due to any lack of
candidates. Practically every faction in San Francisco had its
choice for Schmitz's successor.
251 The election of Boxton to be Mayor may be called the refine-
ment of cruelty. His elevation to high executive office but empha-
sized the shame of his position. From taking his oath of ofiice he
was rushed to the witness stand to testify against Louis Glass on
trial for participation in bribing him to oppose the granting of the
Home Telephone Company franchise. D. M. Delmas was conduct-
ing the case for the defense. Delmas suavely turned Bbxton's
elevation to account. He scrupulously addressed Boxton as the
"Mayor." And, in comparison, he wrung from the new Mayor's
lips: "I took bribes and was a spy for Halsey."
Nor did Delmas confine his refined ridicule to the unhappy
Mayor Boxton. Heney had, for example, asked the court to take
judicial notice of the fact that while Schmitz was in Europe, Gal-
lagher had served as acting Mayor.
"I don't think," interrupted Delmas, "your honor will extend
your judicial knowledge that far, because that would be to keep
track of the change of Mayors here, and it would keep you too
busy to discharge your duties."
A grim party surrounded Boxton while he took his oath of ofl[ice.
Boxton gave no evidence of pride of his new station.
"When I think," he said during a lull in the proceedings, "of
the things that have come into my life in the last ten years, I
realize how few of them were of my own planning. When we came
back from Manila, I had no idea of politics, but they insisted in
making heroes of us, and I had to run for Supervisor. . Now I wish
I had not done it."
Later on he gave out the following interview:
"This has come to me as a great surprise. I very much regret
the circumstances which have led up to this appointment. I hope
the people will bear with me for the few weeks that I am in oflSce.
As to my official policy. I cannot discuss that at present.
"You know, it is with a feeling of sadness I take the office. I
am glad it is a temporary appointment and will last only a short
time. I didn't know when I told you this morning that I was willing
to do whatever was thought best, either to remain in office or to
resign from the board, that this would be put upon me. I am sorry
they have asked me to take the oflfice, and will be glad when it is
232 Schmitz Ousted from Office
The Supervisors, by resolution, definitely declared the
office of Mayor vacant and elected Supervisor Boxton
to be Mayor.
On the day that Boxton was named Mayor of San
Francisco, District Attorney Langdon made public a
plan for a convention to select a Mayor to serve until
the successor of Mayor Schmitz could be elected and
qualified. Mr. Langdon proposed that the convention
should be made up of thirty members, fifteen to be
appointed by organized labor and fifteen by the or-
ganized commercial bodies. On the side of Labor were
apportioned eight delegates to the Labor Council and
seven to the Building Trades Council. The five com-
mercial bodies, the Chamber of Commerce, Merchants'
Association, Board of Trade, Real Estate Board and
Merchants' Exchange, were allowed three delegates
each. That the convention might proceed in its choice
unhampered, the District Attorney pledged that he and
his associates would wholly refrain from participation
after the convention had assembled. ^^"
But this did not suit the several factions at all.
Admittedly, the Prosecution could name the Mayor.
Each faction wanted its man named, and while there
remained a chance for its man to be named, did not
care to see the extraordinary power in the hands of
over. The only thing I can say is that I believe during the short
time I will hold the office the people will have no cause to "
Boxton halted for his words — "Again find fault with me."
The Examiner commenting upon Boxton's elevation, said "Hav-
ing put our brike-taking Mayor in jail, and having put in his place
a taker of smaller bribes, we have now substituted for Gallagher,
Boxton, who differs from Gallagher principally in having sold his
vote for still less of the bribing corporations' money."
252 The District Attorney's statement of his plan to the various
organizations concerned will be found in full on page xxii'of the
Appendix.
Schmitz Ousted from Office 233
the District Attorney delegated to the uncertainties of
a convention.
In the scramble for advantage, the self-control and
self-forgetting attitude of the members of the Prosecu-
tion, instead of exciting admiration, was condemned.
The Examiner, referring to Langdon's associates, for
example, announced: "Their failure to agree on any-
one has led to some alarm for fear their divergent
political ambitions are making each of them endeavor
to secure a place for his personal puppet." Had the
Prosecution named the Examiner's ''personal puppet,"
this particular source of criticism would undoubtedly
have been silenced and the Examiner's vilification and
abuse of the Prosecution during the years that fol-
lowed averted. What is true of the Examiner in this
regard is true of the other institutions and interests
which, in this crisis of the city's history, v/ere clam.or-
ing for "recognition. "^^^ District Attorney Langdon's
plan, on the v/hole, was not received in the spirit in
which it v/as offered.
The Building Trades Council, under the influence
of P. H. McCarthy and O. A. Tveitmoe, promptly re-
jected the District Attorney's proposal and refused to
name delegates. ^^* This action influenced the Labor
253 The Chronicle, however, endorsed Langdon's plan, and urged
the several labor and industrial bodies to participate. "As the
matter appears at present," said The Chronicle, "the prosecution
has resorted to the only safe and reasonable plan of restoring good
government, and fault-finding with the method adopted will be
confined to the hyper-critical and those who imagine that they
would find profit in a continuance of unsettled conditions."
254 The resolutions adopted by the Building Trades Council
rejecting Langdon's plan for reorganization of the municipal gov-
ernment, were as follows:
"Whereas, An invitation has been received by this council from
the District Attorney of this city and county, requesting this
234 Schmitz Ousted from Office
Council, which, on the ground that in the absence of
delegates from the Building Trades Council the Labor
Council representatives might be outvoted, refused to
participate.
Of the five commercial bodies, the Real Estate Board
alone promptly accepted the District Attorney's invita-
tion. The board named its three delegates and so
notified the District Attorney.
The Merchants' Exchange demanded that the num-
ber of delegates be increased from thirty to forty-five
hy the addition of fifteen professional men, and pro-
posed that the convention name a new Board of Super-
visors as well as Mayor.^^^
council appoint seven delegates to participate in a convention com-
posed of thirty delegates, made up of fifteen representatives from
the labor organizations of this city and fifteen representatives from
the civic organizations outside of the labor organization^; and
whereas, said convention is to be called for the purpose of select-
ing a person to be appointed Mayor of the City and County of San
Francisco; and whereas, at this time this council is not possessed of
sufficient information upon the subject to determine whether or not
the action proposed to be taken by the convention would be legal,
and whether or not such action, if taken, would not lead to a
multiplicity of suits by reason of the appointment to an offlce
where a doubt as to the vacancy in said office exists, and as a
result lead to endless litigation and regrettable confusion; and
whereas, those who have arrogated to themselves the duty of guid-
ing the destinies of the entire municipality of San Francisco only
last Tuesday, by the exercise of assumed power, through the Board
of Supervisors, placed in the Mayor's chair one who is to their own
knowledge legally disqualified, to the exclusion of one or the other
of two gentlemen who are members of that board in the personnel
of O. A. Tveitmoe and J. J. O'Neil, whose characters, both public
and private, are above reproach; and whereas, the Building Trades
Council was organized and is maintained for the purpose of direct-
ing, protecting and conducting the building industry from the
standpoint of the journeymen with justice alike to the owner, con-
tractor and artisan, and not for the purpose of making mayors
through the instrumentality of star chamber conventions, thereby
usurping the rights and prerogatives of the people; therefore, be it
"Resolved, That this Building Trades Council, in regular meeting
assembled, instruct its secretary to acknowledge the receipt of the
said invitation, and decline to act thereon for the reasons herein
stated."
255 Langdon's reply to the objections of the Merchants' Ex-
change was as follows:
"We cannot entertain any such proposition at this date. We
Schmitz Ousted from Office 235
The Board of Trade refused to co-operate unless
the delegates be increased in number by the addition of
"professional men and others."
The Chamber of Commerce and the Merchants'
Association finally accepted, but stipulated that a two-
thirds vote of the thirty delegates should be required
for a choice.
The failure of the several organizations to join in
the selection of a Mayor, made it necessary for Lang-
don himself to proceed with the reorganization. All
that Langdon and his associates required was that the
new executive should be independent of political con-
trol and free of the influence of those public-service
corporations that had been trapped in bribe-giving. It
was also the aim of the Prosecutor to name as Mavor
one whose standing was such that none could be so
unfair as to charge him with being in the slightest
degree under the influence of the Prosecution.
Langdon and his associates agreed that Dr. John
Gallwey was independent of corrupting influences and
have already had submitted to us, and have considered at least one
hundred plans for calling- an electoral convention, and after care-
fully deliberating on all these plans, decided upon the plan which
we have announced. This plan gives the opposing factions of labor
and capital each an equal representation in the electoral body.
The responsibility of deciding- who shall be the Mayor is distinctly
imposed on the two most important factions in the community, and
as far as giving a square deal to everybody, we do not see how our
announced plan can be improved upon. Certainly the addition of
fifteen delegates appointed by any special committee cannot Improve
the plan. In our announcement it has been clearly stated that all
the commercial and labor organizations called have until Saturday
to name their delegates, and these delegates will assemble next
Monday to nominate the new Mayor. The plan announced will not
be modified in any way. It places the issue squarely before the
people and if they do not wish to act upon it we cannot help it.
"In regard to the proposition to permit the electoral conyentlon
to name sixteen new Supervisors, I will say that while there is no
objection to it, we do not think it is wise to incorporate it in our
present plan."
236
Schmitz Ousted from Office
to Dr. Gallwey the appointment was offered. But Dr.
Gallwey declined to accept the responsibihties of the
Mayor's office on the ground that he could not afford
to devote his time to the duties of the office to the extent
that \vould be required in order to conduct it properly,
and on the further ground that he could be of more
service to humanity in the practice of medicine than
in the discharge of the duties of Mayor.
The place was then offered to Ralph Harrison, a
former member of the Supreme Bench. But Judge
Harrison declined on the ground that he thought the
duties of the office, under the conditions existing ^^®
256 Schmitz's resistance of the elevation of Gallagher no doubt
influenced the aged Justice in his refusal. From the county jail
Schmitz continued to insist that he was still the de facto Mayor of
San Francisco. The Chief of Police, himself under indictment,
sided with Schmitz. Gallagher during his eventful term blocked by
the police, was not pei-mitted to enter the Mayor's office. When
Boxton was made Mayor, Langdon went with him to the Mayor's
office and seized the furniture. Schmitz's partisans boasted that
the Mayor would be released on bail, march with his followers to
the meeting place of the Supervisors, and, with the aid of the
police, oust Gallagher by force. Schmitz's resistance made itself
felt in many ways. For example, an athletic club had arraijged for
a boxing match, for which a permit signed by the Mayor had to be
issued. Gallagher had signed the permit. Chief of Police Dinan,
however, refused to recognize it unless it were signed by Schmitz.
The manager of the affair was compelled to go to the county jail
for Schmitz's signature. Schmitz notified the bondsmen of City
Treasurer Charles A. Bantel that he would hold them responsible
for any moneys paid out by Bantel without his (Schmitz's)' signa-
ture. The bondsmen notified Bantel that as a matter of precaution
he must have the signature of Schmitz as well as that of Gallagher
as authorization for paying out funds. This precautionary course
was followed to its logical conclusion. On July 12, a contractor by
the name of J. J. Dowling cashed a municipal warrant which bore
the signatures of no less than three Mayors, Schmitz, Gallagher and
Boxton.
Late in June, Schmitz sent to the auditor warrants signed by
himself for June salaries for himself, his secretary, his stenographer
and his usher. The auditor decided to allow these warrants for
that part of the month up to the date of Schmitz's conviction. San
Francisco allows its Mayor $300 a month for contingent expenses.
Both Schmitz and Gallagher claimed this $300 for July. The auditor
decided to recognize neither claim. In answer to Schmitz's demand
that Gallagher be ignored as Mayor, the auditor sent the impris-
oned executive a soothing or grimly humorous letter, as one may
view it, in which he recognized Schmitz as the de jure Mayor, pos-
Schmitz Ousted from Office 237
would be too onerous for him to undertake at his time
of Hfe.
Dr. Edward R. Taylor,^^^ dean of the Hastings Col-
lege of Law, was then consulted. Dr. Taylor agreed to
accept the position. In tendering Dr. Taylor the
mayoralty, the Prosecution left him entirely free to con-
duct the office according to his own judgment. He
was assured that no one connected with the Prosecu-
tion would expect or ask him to be guided or controlled
or influenced in any way by all or any of them.
sessing "the honor and the title," and Gallagher "simply as a de
facto Mayor," possessing the office.
When the bribe-taking Supervisors resigned, Schmitz, from the
county jail, appointed their successors. Seven of these Schmitz
appointees actually took the oath of office. On the night of Taylor's
election to succeed Boxton as Mayor, one of Schmitz's appointees,
Samuel T. Sawyer, appeared before the board and demanded that
he be sworn in as Supervisor. Gallagher, who was presiding re-
fused to recognize Schmitz as Mayor and refused Sawyer a seat.
Even after Taylor had been elected. Chief of Police Dinan con-
tinued to recognize Schmitz as Mayor. Dinan, for example, placed
the automobile maintained by the city for the use of the Mayor,
under guard of a policeman and for several days prevented Mayor
Taylor securing it.
Mayor Taylor gave effective check to this harassing opposition
by refusing to sign warrants upon the treasury which bore Schmitz's
signature. Gradually Schmitz's resistance to the new order died
out.
Schmitz contented himself with issuing a statement through the
Associated Press that he would be a candidate for re-election. He
said :
"You may announce that I will be a candidate for re-election
this fall, and that I expect to win. I have already begun my cam-
paign in a preliminary way, and shall carry it forward steadily
from this time. I have no fear of the race. I am willing to make
it without the aid of the Ruef organization, whose support I had
in each of the three campaigns since 1901. Presumably that organ-
ization no longer exists, but its component parts, though scat-
tered, are as much in existence as ever. It is up to me to gather
them together and cement them into an organization of my own — a
task I am prepared to undertake."
257 Dr. Edward Robeson Taylor was born at Springfield, 111., Sept.
24, 1838. He came to California in 1862. In 1865 he graduated from
the Toland Medical College. In 1872, he was admitted to the Cali-
fornia bar. He served as dean of the Hastings College of Law.
For thirty years he was Vice-President and President of the Cooper
Medical College. He was one of the freeholders who framed the
present San Francisco municipal charter, and at the time of his
selection as Mayor, had served San Francisco and the State in many
important public capacities.
238
Schmitz Ousted from Office
Boxton, after Taylor had agreed to serve, resigned
his office. The Supervisors then elected Dr. Taylor to
fill the vacancy.^^^
The next step in the reorganization of the municipal
government was the resignation of the sixteen Super-
visors who had confessed to bribery and the appoint-
ment of their successors. When Mayor Taylor ^^^ had
258 Dr. Taylor's selection gave general satisfaction. "My belief
is," said Governor Gillett in a published interview, "that jie will
make an able and trustworthy executive. It is particularly for-
tunate that he is identified with no factional politics and can work
for a clean reorganized administration of the city government."
"The most important feature connected with the selection^" said
the Chronicle, "is the doctor's absolute freedom from alliances with
any particular interest. He is free from all entanglements, and his
ability and firmness of character give assurance that his efforts will
be wholly directed to bettering the condition and restoring the
confidence of the community. We repeat that San Francisco owes
the doctor a debt of gratitude for sinking considerations of per-
sonal comfort and devoting himself to the general welfare, and
that the prosecution has acted wisely in selecting and inducing him
to act."
On the other hand. The Examiner ridiculed the selection. Labor
Union party leaders of the type of P. H. McCarthy were loud in
expressions of their disapproval.
259 Mayor Taylor, the day of his election, issued the following
statement:
"I accepted this office with much reluctance, and only because I
believed that any man who was requested to serve the city in this
capacity in the hour of her need should heed the request, no
matter what the personal sacrifice might be.
"Had any pledges been exacted of me by those who tendered the
office, I would not have considered the tender for one-thousandth
part of a second.
"I would not submit to any dictation in the administration of
the office, nor do I believe that any one who knows me would
attempt to dictate to me.
"If I am called upon to appoint a Board of Supervisors, I will
select the very best men who can be induced to accept the oflices,
and I shall exercise my own judgment as to who are the best men,
"I am going to do the best I can for the city without regard to
partisan politics, and, so far as I am concerned, there will be no
partisan politics.
"As Mayor of this city, every man looks just as tall to me as
every other man.
"The first essential to good government is perfect order, and I
shall employ every arm of the law to the end that such order shall
prevail.
"I believe in autonomy in every department of the city govern-
ment, and I believe that commissioners should be permitted to
administer the affairs of their respective departments, free from
dictation, as long as they demonstrate by their acts that they are
honest and competent."
Schmitz Ousted from Office 239
found sixteen representative citizens willing^ to serve,
the change was made. One by one the discredited
officials resigned their positions. After each resignation
had been accepted Mayor Taylor named the resigning
member's successor.^^^
The scene was as painful as it was extraordinary.
When it was over, the Schmitz-Ruef administration, so
far as the legislative and executive branches were con-
cerned, had passed.
260 The citizens named by Dr. Taylor to act as Supervisors were:
Dr. A. A. D'Ancona, dean of the Medical Faculty of the Uni-
versity of California; Harry U. Brandenstein, attorney and former
Supervisor; Gustave Brenner, capitalist and retired merchant;
James P. Booth, newspaperman and former Supervisor; A. Comte,
Jr., attorney and former Supervisor; George L. Center, real estate;
Bernard Faymonville, vice-president Firemen's Fund Insurance
Company; E. J. Molera, civil engineer and president of the Academy
of Science; W. G. Stafford, president of the W. G. Stafford & Co.,
coal merchants; Henry Payot, retired merchant and former Super-
visor; Matt I. Sullivan, attorney; Thomas Magee, real estate; Lipp-
man Sachs, capitalist and retired merchant; L. P. Rixford,, archi-
tect; C. A. Murdock, printing and bookbinding; D. C. Murphy,
attorney.
A. Comte, Jr., successor of Supervisor McGushin, did not take
office until several days after his associates on the new board. This
was due to McGushin's hesitation about resigning. Mr. McGushin
finally resigned, however, and Comte was named in his stead.
Of the Taylor Board of Supervisors, The Chronicle, in its issue
of July 27th, said:
"Mayor Taylor's choice of men for the new Board of Supervisors
will fortunately not meet universal approval. It will satisfy all
honest men who regard public office as a public trust and not as a
private snap, but it will not satisfy those who are accustomed
either to actually corrupt public servants or to use a secret pull to
obtain private and undue advantage. It will not satisfy the crim-
inal element who thrive by the wide-open town, and who abhor a
Board of Supervisors who will back up an honest and capable
Mayor.
"The board which the Mayor has selected may be safely accepted
as the leaders of the people. All interests are recognized except
that of the boodlers. The city has many knotty problems to solve.
Somebody must work them out. Probably no two capable and
honest men would resolve the various doubts which will arise in
precisely the same way, and yet out of all the possible ways In
each case some particular way must be chosen. And it will be the
duty of the Mayor and Supervisors, in the light of much more
information than the majority of us can obtain, to select that way.
And when it has been determined all patriotic citizens must get
behind them."
CHAPTER XVIIL
The Real Fight Begins.
Nine months after Heney assumed his duties as As-
sistant District Attorney, Mayor Taylor named the suc-
cessors of the Ruef-Schmitz Board of Supervisors.
In those nine months much had been accomplished.
Ruef had plead guilty to extortion and had made partial
confession of his relations with the public-service corpo-
rations. The Schmitz-Ruef Supervisors had made full
and free confession, and had been removed from office.
Mayor Schmitz had been convicted of extortion, ousted
from office, and pending his appeal to the upper courts
was confined in the county jail. The back of the
Schmitz-Ruef political organization was broken, and
its forces scattered.
Had the Prosecution stopped here, the men whose
devotion and self-sacrifice had made the undoing of
the corrupt administration possible, would have retired
with nothing more serious confronting them than the
condemnation of the impotent puppets of large inter-
ests whom they had brought to grief. But those behind
the Prosecution were not content to leave their work
at a point where the regeneration of San Francisco
had scarcely begun. They proposed to go to the bot-
tom of the graft scandal. It was not sufficient, they
held, to punish poor men who were without friends or
influence, while their rich and powerful associates went
unpunished. The bribe-taking Supervisors might be put
The Real Fight Begins 241
in the penitentiary, but other bribe-taking Supervisors
would eventually take their places. Ruef, punished by
imprisonment, would serve as an example for political
bosses that would cause them to hesitate for long before
embarking in corrupt enterprises such as had brought
the discredited boss to grief. This would make it hard
for bribe-giving corporations to secure agents for bribe-
passing, and make bribe-giving correspondingly difficult.
But the conviction of high corporation officials, re-
sponsible for the bribe-giving of public-service corpo-
rations, was regarded as more important than all, for
this would demonstrate bribe-giving to be unsafe, and
check the practice at its very fountain-head. Such
conviction, the Prosecution held, would have greater
deterrent effect against bribery of public officials than
the confinement of 500 bribe-taking Supervisors in the
penitentiary.^^^
261 Heney's attitude toward the bribe-givers is expressed in an
affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Calhoun et als., No, 823.
Heney in setting: forth a statement made to Rabbi Nleto says:
"I consider that the greatest benefit which we will have done
this city and this country by these prosecutions will be the insight
which we will have given them into the causes of corruption in all
large cities, and into the methods by which this corruption is main-
tained. The testimony of the members of the Board of Supervisors
throws great light on this question, and Ruef could aid "consid-
erably in making it an object lesson to the world, if he would do so.
The only way we can stop this kind of corruption is by enlighten-
ing the people as to its causes and by thereafter endeavoring to
remove the temptation which causes evil by proper remedial legis-
lation, and in order to impress this object lesson on the people
strongly enough to accomplish much good we must punish the
principal men who have been involved in it. Do not imagine this
is a pleasant task to me. It is far from being so. It involves men
like Frank Drum, whom I liked and respected as a friend for
years, and who has quite recently paid me a good attorney's fee
for services performed for a company represented by him. I have
met Patrick Calhoun socially, and greatly admire his ability and
found him to be a man of very agreeable, attractive manners. I
wish there was some other way to secure a proper deterrent effect
without causing these men and their innocent families to suffer,
but unless the laws are enforced, Doctor, our republican form of
government cannot continue very long. It is not sufficient to pun-
ish the poor man who has no friends or influence. The people
242 The Real Fight Begins
"I would be willing," Rudolph Spreckels testified
at the Calhoun trial, ''to grant immunity to any man
who would bring to bar a man of great wealth who
would debauch a city government, and who would use
his wealth to corrupt individuals and tempt men of no
means to commit crime in order that he might make
more money."
Such was the stand taken by District Attorney
Langdon and his associates. The announced policy of
the Prosecution, therefore, included the prosecution of
the bribe-giver to the end. In pursuing this policy,
Mr. Langdon and his associates aroused the astonish-
ingly effective opposition of interests representing hun-
dreds of millions of capital. Every indictment of cap-
italist charged with bribe-giving was signal for a
new group of financial leaders, their satellites, bene-
ficiaries and dependents, to array themselves on the side
of the graft defense.^^^
will lose respect for the courts and for the law unless the rich and
powerful can be made to obey the laws. It has a greater deterrent
effect, in my opinion, to put one rich and influential man in prison
than to put a thousand poor ones there. It would do no good to
send a few miserable, ignorant Supervisors to the penitentiary.
Others of the same kind would soon take their places, and the
carnival of crime would continue as before. If we can put Ruef in
the penitentiary it will have a wholesome effect upon other political
bosses for the next decade at least. And if we can put a few
captains of industry there with him, and particularly a few of the
head ofllcials of public service corporations, it will have a greater
deterrent effect against bribery of public officials than putting five
hundred of such officials in the penitentiary."
262 "I subscribed to the Graft Prosecution fund," said one capi-
talist whose own skirts were clean of the graft scandal, "taut before
the investigation was over I had to exert myself to prevent my
ov.'n attorney going to jail."
The manner in which every indictment increased the circle of
opposition to the prosecution is well illustrated by the following
selection from the San Francisco Chronicle of March 25, 1907:
"The indictment of Louis Glass, former vice-president of the
Pacific States Telephone Company, for bribery, on testimony given
to the Grand Jury by E. J. Zimmer, who was the auditor of the
company under Glass, and is now vice-president of the reorganized
The Real Fight Begins 243
With every indictment came a new group of at-
torneys to raise technical objections to the proceedings,
all of which the attorneys for the Prosecution were
obliged to meet.
The first attack was upon the validity of the Grand
Jury. The attorneys for Ruef and Schmitz had ap-
parently exhausted every point that could be raised for
the disqualification of the Grand Jurors, but this did
not prevent the heads of corporations who found them-
selves under indictment making similar attacks. And
between them, in this new move to quash the indict-
ments, the defendants enlisted the ablest members of
the California bar.^®^
In this new opposition an astonishing number of
technical points were raised by one or the other of the
groups of defending lawyers. Nothing was overlooked.
corporation, has caused consternation in certain fashionable circles,
in which Glass was one of the most popular men.
"At the clubs of which the indicted telephone magnate was a
member, much sympathy is expressed for him. He was extremely
popular because of his affability and good-fellowship, and he has a
host of friends, who are loth to believe that he has committed a
crime which may put him behind the bars of San Quentln for four-
teen years.
"Attorney George Knight, who, it is expected, will be retained
as counsel for Glass, voiced the sentiment of many of his friends,
yesterday, when he said:
" 'Louis Glass is one of the best fellows in a social way that
ever lived. He is proud, high-spirited and in all his personal rela-
tions with others he has always been most particular. I cannot
imagme what has led him into doing what he is said to have done
in the telephone bribery, and I am sure that in spite of the indict-
ment, when the truth is known, he will not appear in such a dis-
creditable light.' "
263 Among those who challenged the validity of the Grand Jury
were: Patrick Calhoun, Thornwell Mullally, Tirey L. Ford and
William Abbott of the United Railroads, represented by A. A. Moore
and Stanley Moore; Louis Glass of the Pacific States Telephone
Company, represented by Delmas and Coogan; John Martin, Eugene
de Sabla and Frank Drum of the San Francisco Gas and Electric
Company, represented by Garret McEnerney; T. V. Halsey, repre-
sented by Bert Schlesinger, William P. Humphries and D. M. Del-
mas. The several attorneys represented the best legal ability ob-
tainable in San Francisco. No less than fifty-two attorneys, all
working to the same end, were employed by the several gratt
defendants.
244 The Real Fight Begins
Just before the principal indictments were brought,
for example, the San Francisco merchants had given
a banquet to celebrate the progress which San Fran-
cisco had made during the first year following the
fire.^^* Langdon and Heney were given places of honor.
They were the heroes of the occasion. Every reference
to their work was signal for tremendous demonstra-
tion. There was no suggestion then that the pursuit
of criminals would ''hurt business."
"A severe earthquake," observed Frank J. Symmes,
president of the Merchants' Association, *'is a serious
misfortune, and a great conflagration a great trial, and
each awake the sympathy of the Nation, but a corrupt
government is at once a crime and a disgrace and
brings no sympathy."
"We foresee," said Bishop William Ford Nichols,
another of the speakers of the evening, ''the greater
San Francisco. We mean to make it fairer to the eye.
But how about making it better? Size and sin may
go together. Rehabilitated buildings may house de-
bilitated character."
A month later, after indictments had been brought
against some of the most prominent business men of
the city, word went out that steps would be taken to
disqualify every member of the Grand Jury who had at-
tended that merchants' banquet.
The Grand Jurors were again called to the witness
stand and put through a grilling to determine whether
or not they were biased. Rudolph Spreckels was under
264 The Merchants' Association banquet, April 18, 1907, the first
anniversary of the great earthquake and fire.
The Real Fight Begins 245
examination for hours in efforts to show that his mo-
tives in backing the Prosecution were bad.^^^
Every step of the proceedings at the organization
of the Grand Jury was scrutinized. The question of
the method of employing the stenographer to the Grand
Jury was made subject of hours of argument. If she
were irregularly employed, it was held, she was an un-
authorized person in the Grand Jury room and her un-
warranted presence sufficient to invalidate the indict-
ments. Garret McEnerney, representing Eugene de
Sabla, Jr., Frank Drum and John Martin, whose indict-
ments grew out of the bribery of the Supervisors to fix
the gas rate at 85 cents per 1000 cubic feet instead of
75 cents, was the first to raise this question. But at-
torneys for other defendants took it up and seriously
considered it as valid objection to the sufficiency of the
indictments. A further point was raised by several of
the defendants that the stenographer had not been prop-
erly sworn. The question v/as seriously debated,
whether she had looked at Prosecutor Heney or Fore-
265 At one of the examinations of Spreckels, Attorney A. A.
Moore, representing the United Railroads, is reported as demand-
ing:
"Can it be that we have got to a point where a private prosecu-
tion, hiring a lawyer, hiring an attorney, hiring a detective — and
then when indictments are found that you cannot set them aside?
That is the line of testimony I intend to pursue."
"In addition," said Attorney Stanley Moore, A. A. Moore's asso-
ciate in the defense, "we expect to show that Mr. Spreckels is the
head and shoulders of a large street railroad company, organized
by himself for the purpose of putting the United Railroads out of
business.'
"I will say this again," went on Moore, "we will prove the state-
ment that we have made, to wit: that Mr. Heney was an unauthor-
ized person before the Grand Jury by reason of the fact that he
was during all that time privately employed by Rudolph Spreckels,
who was entertaining a plan to destroy the property of the United
Railroads, and to carry out that plan they gave Immunity to the
Board of Supervisors to carry out their bidding."
246 The Real Fight Begins
man Oliver at the moment* she was sworn to secrecy.
266
266 The Chronicle, in Its issue of June 7, 1907, in discussing the
delaying- tactics of the defendants, said:
"It cannot be too often repeated that in connection with the
boodle cases there are but two questions which are of importance,
and those are, first: Did the accused commit bribery within the
meaning- of the statute? and secondly, If not, did they commit
bribery in such a way that the law cannot reach them? Both
these questions will be settled by the evidence in the trials. If
the verdict is that the accused committed bribery within the mean-
ing of the statute, they will go to State's prison. If the evidence
shows that they committed bribery so skilfully that it cannot be
legally proved, they will not go to the penitentiary, but they will
stand disgraced men and unconvicted felons. In either case all that
an honest man prizes most highly is at stake, and as all claim to
be as innocent as unborn babes, one would expect the band to be
tumbling over each other in their eagerness to be first to face a
jury and rehabilitate their damaged reputations by a public demon-
stration of their untarnished character.
"Quite the contrary. So far from their taking this obvious
course to secure justification the aid of a shining and costly array
of legal talent is invoked to prevent, if it may be possible, any
show-down whatever of the evidence in any court. They object to
even coming into court and pleading whether they are guilty or not.
It is declared that it will be alleged that the purported Grand Jury,
which went through the form of indicting them, is an illegal body,
with no standing whatever in court, and that, therefore, there is no
indictment at all. It will not, apparently, be claimed that the mem-
bers of the alleged Grand Jury were not discreet citizens, legally
competent to serve as Grand Jurors; that they were not regularly
appointed as such according to law; that they were not duly sworn
into office, or that, having listened to sworn evidence delivered
under the forms of law, these reputable citizens, upon that evi-
dence, accuse them of felony. None of these things, it is supposed,
will be alleged. What is to be alleged, it is said, is that the number
of names from which the Grand Jury was drawn was 113, instead
of 125, which, by the way, is promptly denied. What earthly
bearing could that have, if it were true, on the guilt or innocence
of the men accused of felony? Can it be conceived as possible,
even if that were proved, that our laws are drawn so completely
in the interest of criminals as to enable men accused of felony to
escape trial?
"The personal character and qualifications of the Grand Jurors
were fully brought out in the Ruef case. For weeks they were sub-
jected to a. grilling which it v/as a disgrace to our laws to permit.
That was not repeated in the Schmitz case. In that the counsel
of the accused have seemed to be relying for overturning a convic-
tion on the alleged over-zealousness of the prosecuting officer.
Again, what has that to do with the guilt or innocence of the
accused, even if it has occurred? A District Attorney is in posses-
sion of all the evidence, and if that is such as to arouse his indig-
nation, shall the people thereby be deprived of all remedy? Obvious
misconduct of an attorney is more likely to injure the people than
the accused. It could hardly have any other influence on the ver-
dict of a jury. If no crimes are to be punished in which there is
energetic prosecution, which may occasionally involve expressions
which the law discountenances, we may about as well shut up our
criminal courts. Almost any attorney may be baited into making
uncourteous remarks. Happily the Supreme Court has recently
decided that no matter what the District Attorney does, a felon
duly convicted upon sufficient evidence shall not thereby be turned
loose. And that is as it should be."
The Real Fight Begins 247
Another point was brought up by the defendants in
the United Railroads bribery case, that inasmuch as the
defendants Calhoun, Mullally and Ford, had been called
to the Grand Jury room and compelled to fall back
upon their constitutional rights to avoid testifying, that
they had been placed in a prejudicial position before the
Grand Jury, which constituted reversible error.^^'' An-
other objection was that the Grand Jury box had been
267 Heney in court made caustic answer to this argument: "After
the Supervisors had confessed," he began, "and sixteen of them had
testified that they had been paid $4,000 apiece to vote for the
trolley franchise, these defendants thouglit in their own minds that
they were so connected with tlie crime that Patrick Calhoun,
Thornwell Mullally and Tirey L. Ford each made a public explana-
tion in the press, denying that they had bribed a city offlcial. A
crime had been committed, and the first question to be asked was,
Who had the motive? The Supervisors had testified that they
received the money from Gallagher, and Gallagher had testified
that he received it from Ruef. Did Abraham Ruef own the trolley
lines? The question arose as to who had the motive. Ford and
Mullally came to me personally and told me they had not bribed a
city official. W^asn't that an explanation? W^ill it not be an ex-
planation when these defendants are put on trial that they will say
it was an attorney's fee? If, under these circumstances, the Grand
Jury cannot call the officers of the company to learn who author-
ized the giving of the bribe money, what would an investigation
be worth? If we had not called them, then you would have heard
the other cry, that this was a conspiracy to destroy the good name
of Patrick Calhoun.
"If it had been a poor, ignorant man, or a helpless woman — if
the Grand Jury had dragged her from the jail and compelled her
to testify against herself, and she had not known what her consti-
tutional right was, it would have been a different picture. But
these four gentlemen are learned in the law. One of them had
been Attorney-General of this State, another had been his assistant
in that office for four years. Mullally is an attorney and Patrick
Calhoun is an attorney whose mind is equal to that of any man's
in California.
"Advised of their rights! Why, they came in there on a sub-
poena which General Ford has declared in his own affidavit was
faulty and ineffective. They came on a defective process, which
they knew to be defective. They refused to be sworn, and they
were not sworn, and they left the Grand Jury room without having
answered a question, for the purpose of coining solemnly here to
get these indictments set aside on the grounds that their constitu-
tional rights have been invaded. That's trifling with the law.
Laws weren't made to juggle with. Laws were made for the pro-
tection of the innocent.
"They knew they didn't have to go, but they went, and they
refused to testify; and now they want the indictments set aside
because their great constitutional rights have been tampered with.
"They say he could have waived the point and testified, but be-
cause he refused and walked out he has been deprived of his consti-
tutional right."
248 The Real Fight Begins
destroyed in the great fire of 1906, and that no order
had come from any department of the Superior Court
ordering its restoration. Again, it was asserted, that
Grand Juror James E. Gordan was a member of the
Grand Jury panel of 1906, while the other Grand Jurors
were chosen from the 1907 list. Indictments brought
by a Grand Jury thus constituted were claimed to be
without effect.
Had any one of these and many other similar ob-
jections been sustained, all indictments against the graft
defendants would have been invalidated. Every objec-
tion had to be met. Days and weeks were spent by
the District Attorney's office in meeting, or preparing
to meet objections which to the layman appear trifling
and ridiculous.
In the midst of this technical fight to have the in-
dictments against them set aside, the graft defendants
received aid from an unlooked-for source. Sympathizers
with the United Railroads conductors and motormen,
then on strike, whose union Patrick Calhoun was at the
time endeavoring to crush — and finally did crush —
started an independent attack upon the Grand Jury.
Four union sympathizers had been indicted in con-
nection with street riots. Their attorneys, before Su-
perior Judge Cook, raised the point that as the Oliver
Grand Jury had continued in service after a new panel
had been drawn in the office of the clerk and put on
file, the term of the Grand Jury's service had expired.
It was, therefore, no longer part of the machinery of
the Court and had no power as an inquisitorial body.
Under this interpretation, not only would the indict-
The Real Fight Begins 249
ments against the strikers be invalidated, but those
against the alleged bribe-givers also.^^^ Thus four of
Mr. Calhoun's striking carmen, in their efforts to evade
trial on charges growing out of opposition to the
United Railroads, were making stronger fight to release
Mr. Calhoun from indictment than Mr. Calhoun, al-
though enjoying the ablest legal counsel that money
could secure, had been able to make for himself.
Eventually, these technical objections were decided
adversely to the defense; the validity of the Oliver
Grand Jury was never successfully attacked. But the
technical objections raised caused delays which the de-
fense was able to put to good account. While the
prosecution was battling to force the graft cases to
trial on their merits, the graft defense was conducting
a publicity campaign to misrepresent and undermine
the prosecution. The astonishing success of these ef-
forts were to appear later. By 1909, for example, in
the city which when the graft prosecution opened, the
practically universal sentiment was for the crushing out
of corruption, there was strong opinion that the prose-
cution of influential offenders had gone too far, had
been injudiciously conducted, was ''hurting business,"
268 In commenting upon the point raised by the indicted carmen,
the Chronicle, in its issue of July 30, 1907, said:
"In attacking the legality of the Grand Jury the attorneys of the
carmen indicted for making assaults with deadly weapons and
throwing bricks at street cars may have played into the hands of
their arch enemy, the president of the United Railroads. If the
Supreme Court should hold that the Oliver Grand Jury passed out
of legal existence when the 144 new names were selected by the
twelve Superior Judges, the indictments against those connected
with the telephone, gas, trolley and Parkside briberies would be set
aside and all the work of the prosecution would have to be done
over. It would be a curious outcome to the efforts of an attorney
to free men charged with crimes which the unions condemn, but
it would not be the first instance of a miscarriage of the purposes
of organized labor."
250 The Real Fight Begins
and that for the good of the community the graft cases
should be dropped. ^^^
The evident poHcy of the defense was to undermine
the prosecution and create public opinion against it,
until both prosecution and community should be worn
out, and made to quit.
The principal attack was through the newspapers.
The prosecution had not been long at work before the
weekly papers, with few exceptions, were devoting the
bulk of their space to ridiculing and vilifying all v/ho
were in any way responsible for the graft exposures and
impuning their motives.
What these publications received for their work is
indicated by the subsidies paid one of the least of San
Francisco weekly papers — a publication since suspended
— the Mission Times.
In January, 1907, a man by the name of Williams
purchased the Times for seventy-five dollars, giving his
unsecured note for that amount. In less than a month
the new proprietor had received $500 from an agent of
the United Railroads. Later on, he received a regular
subsidy of $250 a week, something more than $1,000 a
month, which continued for thirteen weeks. The sub-
sidy was later reduced to fifty dollars a week. But
during the interim between the weekly subsidy contracts,
lump sums were paid. It is estimated that in little
over a year, Williams received from agents of the
United Railroads upwards of $7,000. The Times at
first covertly, and later openly, opposed the prosecution.
If the unimportant Mission Times, which at the open-
269 Some went so far when examined for jury service at the
later graft trials as to say they would not vote to convict.
The Real Fight Begins 251
ing of the year 1907 had changed hands for seventy-
five dollars, received upwards of $7,000 from agents
of the defense, the not unreasonable question may be
asked, what did more important weekly papers, whose
graft prosecution policy was practically the same as
that of the Times, receive? In this connection it is
pertinent to say that the majority of these publications
gave evidence during 1907, of a prosperity that was
quite as mysterious, if not as suggestive, as had been
the prosperity of the Schmitz-Ruef Supervisors during
1906.
As has been seen, the entire daily press of San Fran-
cisco was, in the beginning, heartily in accord with the
prosecution. Gradually, however. The Examiner and
The Chronicle ^^^ shifted their poHcy. Even while The
Chronicle was backing the prosecution in its editorial
columns, its reports of the proceedings at the various
270 The graft investigation uncovered something of the curious
ethics governing this sort of publicity. For example, Mark L.
Gerstle of the law firm of Thomas, Gerstle and Frick, who acted as
attorneys for the Home Telephone Company, testified before the
Grand Jury that the company paid the San Francisco Chronicle
$10,000 to educate the people to the idea of a competing telephone
system. The testimony was as follows:
"Q. During that time in 1905, were any newspapers paid to
help the good cause? A. Yes.
"Q. What papers? A. Only one.
"Q. What paper was that? A. Chronicle.
"Q. How much was paid to it? A. $10,000.
"Q, What were the terms of that employment? A. The object
of paying that money was to educate the people to the idea of a
competitive telephone system. There seemed to be a prejudice among
everybody, or a great many people, as to the value or necessity of
another telephone system, and we could not obtain the assistance of
any newspaper in that work without paying for it. Some required
it in the shape of advertising which we did not need — don't do any
good — others wouldn't take it in that way; the Chronicle wouldn't
take it that way and we were forced in order to have some news-
paper assist us in that work, to pay the price which was $10,000.
"Q. Did they give editorial work for that? A. No. They were
supposed when the matters came up before the Board of Super-
visors to write it up favorably, that is to say, talk about the advan-
tage of a competitive telephone system in the way of keeping out a
monopoly, and doing away with the poor system of the Pacific
States."
252 The Real Fight Begins
hearings were colored in a way well-calculated to under-
mine Langdon and his associates. ^^^ Gradually the
covert opposition of its news columns became the open
editorial policy of the paper.
But the most effective opposition came from The
Examiner. The Examiner supported the prosecution
until the conviction of Schmitz and the change in the
municipal administration. Failure to dictate the selec-
tion of Mayor and Supervisors may have had more or
less influence in the change of policy. At any rate, the
invention of The Examiner's writers and artists was
tortured to make the prosecution appear to disadvan-
tage.
The most tawdrily clever of The Examiner's efforts
were the so-called "Mutt cartoons." The cartoons ap-
peared from day to day, a continuous burlesque of the
work of the prosecutors, and of the graft trials.
Heney was pictured as "Beaney;" Detective Burns,
as Detective ''Tobasco ;" James D. Phelan as "J. Tired
Feeling;" Rudolph Spreckels, as "Pickles;" Superior
Judges Dunne and Lawlor, before whom the graft
cases were heard, as Judge "Finished" and Judge
"Crawler," respectively. In these "Mutt cartoons" every
271 The Chronicle's reports of the work of the Graft Prosecution
are models of the journalism which strikes In the dark. When, for
example, the defense called Rudolph Spreckels to the stand in Its
efforts to disqualify the Grand Jury, The Chronicle, while in its
editorial columns condemning such proceedings, reported the inci-
dent in its news columns as follows:
"Spreckels, who had been keeping in the background, came for-
ward, glancing furtively at Heney, whose lips were moving nerv-
ously." In the column from which this quotation is taken, Heney
is represented as replying "nervously" to charges made by attor-
neys for the defense, and Spreckels, when a question was put to
him as looking "appealingly" to the attorney representing the pros-
ecution. But observers of the proceedings recall no perceptible
nervousness on Heney's part, nor "furtive" nor "appealing" glances
from Spreckels.
The Real Fight Begins 253
phase of the prosecution was ridiculed. For example,
when the excitement over the graft trials was at its
height, there were rumors that the assassination of
Heney or Langdon would be attempted. In ridiculing
this, The Examiner pictured "Beaney" with a cross on
his neck where the bullet was to strike. A few weeks
later, during the progress of one of the graft trials,
Heney was shot down in open court, the bullet taking
practically the same course which in the "Mutt" car-
toon The Examiner had pictured. After the shooting
of Heney, The Examiner discontinued the anti-prosecu-
tion "Mutt cartoons."
Mr. William Randolph Hearst's San Francisco Ex-
aminer did effective service in discrediting the graft
prosecution. But Mr. Hearst, with curious inconsist-
ency, outside California, gave the prosecution his per-
sonal endorsement.
In his Labor Day address at the Jamestown Exposi-
tion, September 3, 1907, for example, Mr. Hearst
among other pleasing observations on the work of the
San Francisco Graft Prosecution, said : "You hear
much today of how a Mayor of San Francisco has
fallen, but you hear little of how powerful public service
corporations tempted a wretched human being with great
wealth and brought a once respected man to ruin and
disgrace. You hear much of how a Mayor elected on
a Union Labor ticket is in jail, but little of the fact that
it was an honest District Attorney, elected on the same
Union Labor ticket, who put him there, an honest Dis-
trict Attorney, who is doing his best to put beside the
Mayor the men really responsible for all this debauch-
ery and dishonor. While it is the fashion to criticise
254 ^^^ ^^^^ Fight Begins
San Francisco just now, I venture to assert that the
only difference between San Francisco and some othei
cities is that San Francisco is punishing her corrup-
tionists. There is many an official elsewhere who has
stolen office or dealt in public properties who would fare
like Schmitz if there were more honest and fearless
District Attorneys like Union Labor Langdon."
Later on, after Ruef had been sent to the peniten-
tiary, an article on the San Francisco Graft Prosecu-
tion appeared in one of Mr. Hearst's magazines. ^^^ The
article was printed under the signature of Mr. Edward
H. Hamilton, one of the ablest of Mr. Hearst's em-
ployees. Mr. Hamilton gave the credit for the work
of the graft prosecution to Mr. Hearst and The Exam-
iner. The men whose steadfastness of purposes and
high integrity had made even approach to the prosecu-
tion of influential offenders possible, upon whom Mr.
Hearst's Examiner had poured ridicule and abuse, were
more or less favorably mentioned in the article, but Mr.
Hearst was given the bulk of the credit for what the
prosecution had accomplished. In California, where
The Examiner's treatment of the prosecution was wxll
known, Mr. Hamilton's article was received with some
amusement and not a little resentment. ^^^
272 The Cosmopolitan, issue o'f July, 1911.
273 The Sacramento Eee, in an editorial article, "Laureling the
Brow of a Harlequin 'Reformer'," said of Mr. Hamilton's claims for
Hearst:
"The San Francisco Examiner is advertising an article by Ed-
ward H. Hamilton in the July Cosmopolitan — an article which is a
tissue of the most shameless misrepresentations from beginning to
end — an article which falsely and most mendaciously credits the
conviction and imprisonment of Abraham Ruef to William Randolph
Hearst.
"The Cosmopolitan is a Hearst magazine; Hamilton, a Hearst
writer. Undoubtedly in New York many will believe Hamilton has
written the truth. Every man in California knows otherwise.
"It is strange that a writer with the ability and the reputation
The Real Fight Begins 255
Although, with few exceptions, the policy of the San
Francisco press was adverse to the prosecution, the
principal interior papers gave Langdon and his asso-
ciates loyal support. But eventually a chain of papers
covering the greater part of the interior of northern and
central California was enlisted on the side of the de-
of Edward H. Hamilton would for any consideration write an
article so brazenly false that one marvels at the audacity alike of
the eulogist and the laureled.
"For Hearst had no more to do with the fate of Ruef than Ruef's
own lawyers. He labored on the same side — to make the graft
prosecution so unpopular that no conviction of the guilty could
result. Day in and day out the Examiner reeked with slanders
aimed at the men who were endeavoring to place Ruef behind the
bars.
"Day in and day out, the most malicious cartoons were pub-
lished against Spreckels, Heney, Phelan, Burns and all who were
battling for the punishment of public and semi-public scoundrels.
Day in and day out in the Examiner Judge W^m. P. Lawlor was
referred to as 'Crawler.'
"Day in and day out the reports of the trials were so colored,
so exaggerated in favor of the defense and so emasculated when
the prosecution scored a point, that the Examiner was ranked with
the gutter weeklies as a friend, champion and defender of the
indicted, and a most venomous traitor to good government and to
public honor.
"The Examiner knew the feeling against it in San Francisco.
For, when Heney was shot and there was danger of mob violence,
the editorial rooms of the Examiner were barricaded and the Exam-
iner men were supplied with rifles.
"And their fears were to a certain extent justified. One of the
vilest cartoons against Heney pictured 'Beany' in danger of his
life from imaginary assassins. On 'Beany's' neck was a mark to
show where the bullet was to strike. By an extraordinary coinci-
dence, the bullet that struck Heney down at the Ruef trial found
almost the identical spot that a few days before had been marked
on 'Beany's' neck in Hearst's humorous cartoon.
"On the night of the day that Heney was shot, indignant San
Francisco in an immense mass meeting thundered its denunciation
of Hearst and the Examiner. And graft-prosecution leaders found
it necessary to plead with an inflamed populace to attempt no
violence.
"No more 'Beany' cartoons made their appearance. The Exam-
iner wrote of all connected with the graft prosecution in terms of
respect. But this repentance born of fear did not prevent Cali-
fornians by the thousands stopping the Examiner.
"The Cosmopolitan eulogy of Hearst in the graft-prosecution
matter is a long line of known misstatements from beginning to
end.
"It is humiliating to have to record that a man of Ned Hamil-
ton's talents could so debase them as to present in the light of a
militant Paul of the graft prosecution one who was its most con-
temptible Judas Iscariot.
"Regrettable indeed is it that
"Poor Ned 'must torture his invention
To flatter rogues or lose his pension.' "
256 The Real Fight Begins
fense. The papers were started or purchased by a news-
paper publishing company known as the Calkins Syn-
dicate.
The Calkins people had for several years been iden-
tified with a number of unimportant papers, printed in
the interior. Suddenly, from publishing obscure weeklies
and dailies, the Calkins Syndicate became one of the
most important, if not the most important, publishing
concern in California. A modern printing plant, one of
the finest on the Pacific Coast, was installed at San
Francisco. The establishment took over much of the
printing of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, in-
cluding the printing of the railroad corporation's month-
ly, The Sunset Magazine. The Sacramento Union, the
most important California morning newspaper printed
north of San Francisco, and the Fresno Herald, an aft-
ernoon daily, were purchased outright. A bid was made
for the San Francisco Post,^^* but term.s could not
be made. The Calkins people accordingly started the
San Francisco Globe, an afternoon daily newspaper.
Less important papers were established at various points.
In an increditably short period, the Calkins Syndicate
had a chain of newspapers covering the greater part of
northern and central California.
The distinctive feature of these publications was their
opposition to the San Francisco graft prosecution. But
the abuse of the Calkins newspapers was not so cleverly
presented as in the Examiner, nor so adroitly handled
as in the Chronicle. So violent were the Calkins papers'
274 After the failure of the Calkins syndicate its successors to
the ownership of "The Globe," purchased the Post and combined the
two in one publication under the name of Post-Globe. The policy of
the paper was not changed.
The Real Fight Begins 257
attacks, in fact, that they injured rather than assisted
the defendants' cause. This was generally recognized.
The Calkins Syndicate, after losing whatever effective-
ness it may have had, eventually went into bankruptcy.^^^
275 The astonishing- business conditions under which the Calkins
Syndicate was conducted were brought out during- the proceedings
in banl^ruptcy. For example: The Union Trust Company, closely
connected financially with the Southern Pacific Company, and the
United Railroads, advanced the syndicate $175,000.
To secure this loan, the Syndicate gave the Union Trust Com-
pany as collateral 1251 shares of the 2500 shares of the capital stock
of the Sacramento Publishing- Company, 150,100 shares of the 300,000
shares of tne capital stock of the Calkins Publishing House, the
majority of the capital stock of the Fresno Publishing- Company,
which published the Fresno "Herald" and bonds of the company
publishing the San Francisco "Globe," valued at $30,000.
This loan remained unpaid at the time of the Syndicate's failure.
The stock of the Fresno Publishing Company sold under the hammer
for $4,850. The 1251 shares of the Sacramento Publishing- Company
were estimated to be worth $51,000. The stock of the Calkins Pub-
lishing House was of doubtful value. The Union Trust Company,
before the failure, released the Globe bonds without payment of the
note or consideration of other security. This left the stock of the
Sacramento Publishing- Company, valued at perhaps $51,000, as sure
security for the $175,000 loan.
But this stock was curiousl3'- involved. The entire stock of the
company consisted of 2500 shares of a par value of $100 a share.
The corporation's property consisted of the Sacramento Union news-
paper and the real property where the paper was published.
Soon after purchasing the Sacramento stock, the Calkins Syndi-
cate organized a second Sacramento Publishing Company. The first
company — that of the 2500 shares — was organized as The Sacra-
mento Publishing Company. The Calkins people in organizing- the
second company dropped the "The," calling it "Sacramento Pub-
lishing Company." The second company was organized with a
capital stock of 300,000 shares, — 175,000 shares common stock and
125,000 shares preferred.
The Syndicate took 100,000 shares of this preferred stock to the
London, Paris and American Bank, and used it with certain stock
of the Nevada County Publishing Company, another Calkins con-
cern, as collateral to secure a loan of $30,000. Of the 25,000 (pre-
ferred) shares remaining, the Calkins people sold 10,000 shares for
money. The 15,000 shares remaining, Mr. Willard P. Calkins, head
of the Calkins Syndicate, took to compensate him for his peculiar
labors in the transaction. This disposed of the 125,000 shares of
preferred stock in the second company.
The 175,000 shares of common stock still remained to be disposed
of. Mr. Calkins, as president of the Calkins Syndicate, wanting
more money, took the 175,000 shares to the London, Paris and
American Bank, and pledged them as part collateral for a second
loan. He did more — he pledged the "Union's" Associated Press
franchise as further security for this second loan.
Eventually, the second loan was paid off, but the London, Paris
and American Bank continued to hold the 175,000 shares of common
stock and the Associated Press franchise, under an alleged col-
lateral agreement, as further security for the first loan of $30,000.
The first loan was eventually reduced to $16,085.02. When the
9
258 The Real Fight Begins
Almost as effective as the newspaper publicity against
the prosecution, was the opposition of fashionable social
circles and of the clubs. The graft defendants became
much in evidence at the best clubs in the city. To be
sure, their persistent appearance all but disrupted some
of the clubs, members in sympathy with the enforce-
ment of the law openly objecting to their presence. ^^^
crash came, two Sacramento Publishing Companies, one with a
"The" and one without a "The," claimed ownership of the Sacra-
mento "Union." A majority of the stock of the first company was
pledged to the Union Trust Company as part collateral for a loan
of ?175.000; 175,000 shares of the common stock of the second com-
pany and 100,000 shares of its preferred stock, together with the
paper's Associated Press franchise, were in the hands of the suc-
cessor of the London, Paris and American Bank, the Anglo & Lon-
don, Paris National Bank, to secure a balance of $16,085.02 due on
an original loan of $30,000.
But there were further complications. The first Sacramento
Publishing Company, the directors and officers of which were the
directors and officers of the second company, transferred the cor-
poration's office building to the second corporation. The second cor-
poration thereupon mortgaged this real estate to the People's Bank
of Sacramento to secure a second loan of $20,000.
"When Mr. I. W. Hellman, Jr., manager of the Union Trust Com-
pany— also one of the prominent managers of the Hellman move-
ment in local politics — was on the witness stand, at the time of the
Calkins investigation, he was asked to whom he looked for the pay-
ment of the $175,000.
"To the Calkins Syndicate," replied Mr. Hellman.
276 The presence of President Calhoun at an Olympic Club din-
ner in July, 1907, met with strong objection. Calhoun was not a
member of the club. He had, it was charged, been brought there
by one of the employees of the Southern Pacific Company, who
was a member. His appearance led to open protest. It was finally
arranged that objection should not be mxade to him, on condition
that he would not attempt to make an address. But the defense
claque had evidently planned otherwise. A demonstration was
started for Calhoun. He began a speech which brought members
to their feet in protest.
"I object," said Dr. Charles A. Clinton, one of the oldest mem-
bers of the club, "to the presence here of Mr. Calhoun and I pro-
test against his making a speech on the ground that the gentleman
has been indicted by the Grand Jury for a most heinous offense;
that he has been charged with bribing and debauching public offi-
cials, and should not be a guest of the club until he can come with
clean hands. I do not pass upon this man's innocence or guilt,
but feel that until his hands are clean he should not come to the
club."
The outcome was that, by action of the Board of Directors, Dr.
Clinton was expelled from the club. The course was generally de-
nounced. "The Olympic Club of San Francisco," said the Sacra-
mento Bee. "has shamed itself in the eyes of every decent, honest,
manly, self-respecting citizen in this State by its recent act,
through its Board of Directors, in expelling Dr. Charles A. Clinton
The Real Fight Begins 259
But in the end, the defendants prevailed and were loudly
apparent at the principal clubs of the city even while
under the inconvenience of indictment.
San Francisco's so-called fashionable society was,
during the graft trials, practically organized as an ad-
junct of the defense. Those in accord with the prosecu-
tion were cut off visiting lists. Some of the non-resident
indicted ones brought their families to San Francisco.
Their wives and daughters at once became prominent
in social matters. It was the refinement of the custom
of bringing in "the wife and innocent children" of the
defendant at a criminal trial.
This character of defense was most effective. The
from membership. The offense of Dr. Clinton was merely that he
protested, as every other honorable member of the Olympic Club
should have protested, not so much ag'ainst the plotted appearance
in that club at a banquet, of Patrick Calhoun, indicted for high
crimes, as against the subsequent effort on the part of some mem-
bers of the Olympic Club to force Calhoun to make a speech and
become the hero of the affair."
When the American battleship fleet visited San Francisco in
1908, much opposition developed over the efforts of upholders of
the defense to have Calhoun invited to the banquet given in honor
of the visitors. Calhoun's representatives finally overcame the
resistance, and Calhoun was invited.
Calhoun's social and other activities during this period resulted
in much newspaper discussion. "The action of Patrick Calhoun,"
said the Examiner, "in ar)pointing himself, Thornwell Mullally and
"William Abbott, all under indictment on bribery charges, as dele-
gates to the Industrial Peace Conference caused such indignation
and protest on the part of the other delegates that a committee on
arrangements last evening demanded that Calhoun withdraw the
na.mes of himself and his two subordinates and substitute others."
Mrs. Eleanor Martin gave a dinner in honor of Congressman and
Mrs. Nicholas Longw^orth on the occasion of the visit of President
Roosevelt's daughter to San Francisco. Mrs. Martin ranked as
highest of San Francisco's so-called social leaders. The alleged
fact that neither Calhoun nor Mullally was present on that im-
portant occasion was made subject of much curious newspaper
comment. The "social side" of the graft defense not infrequently
furnished saving comedy for an overstrained situation. It was,
however, most effective in breaking down the prosecution. "So-
cially" the defense had decidedly the better of the situation. Cal-
houn, for example, became a member of the Olympic Club. There
was a deal of newspaper protest at the club's action in admitting
him and defense of the club and other comedy. But Calhoun wore
the '"winged O" emblem of the Olympic Club on his automobile,
nevertheless.
26o The Real Fight Begins
charming entertainment of those wives and daughters of
indicted magnates who engaged in the social publicity
campaign in the interests of their troubled male relations,
went far toward building up public opinion against their
prosecutors. The supporters of the prosecutors were
treated with scant ceremony. To be a supporter of the
prosecution was not regarded as ''good form." All in
all, the social side was one of the cleverest and most
effective features of the publicity campaign carried on
by the graft defense.^^^
The boycott of those in sympathy with the prosecu-
tion extended to the larger business world as well as to
exclusive social circles. When, for example, the Amer-
ican battleship fleet visited San Francisco on its tour
around the world in 1908, the committee appointed by
the Mayor to arrange fitting reception and entertain-
ment of its visitors, organized by making James D.
Phelan, prominently associated with Mr. Spreckels in
the Graft Prosecution, chairman.
That Mr. Phelan should be made head of the com-
mittee, or even identified with it, gave serious offense to
the large business and financial interests that did not
approve the prosecution.^^® The large interests thus
277 One of the most amusing experiences which the writer had
during- this period was in listening to a woman, prominent in
Episcopalian Church affairs, as she voiced her indignation because
of a slight put upon her at an important social event of her church,
at which daughters of one of the graft defendants had place in the
receiving line.
278 Some of the letters of refusal to contribute are of curious
interest. For example. Timothy Hopkins, a capitalist of large af-
fairs, wrote curtly: "Yours of the 4th in reference to contributions
for the entertainment of the United States Fleet has been received.
I am not contributing. Yours truly, TIMOTHY HOPKINS."
E. E. Calvin, for the Southern Pacific, wrote "that under present
conditions we cannot afford to' contribute money to any purpose
other than charity or a pressing public necessity."
A. H. Payson, for the Santa Fe, wrote that under his instruc-
tions he "was not able to make a subscription for this purpose in
behalf of the Atchison Company."
The Real Fight Begins 261
offended refused to contribute to the reception fund.
William C. Ralston, United States Sub-Treasurer at San
Francisco, and treasurer of the Fleet Reception Commit-
tee, reported to the committee that several large banks
and public service corporations would not contribute to
the reception of the fleet unless Mr. Phelan left the
reception committee.^^^
The committee, refusing to submit to this arrogant
dictation, accordingly proceeded to the entertainment of
the fleet without assistance from the anti-prosecution
financiers and institutions. The smaller merchants, as-
sisted by those banks and enterprises which had not been
offended by the proceedings against the corrupters of the
municipal government, contributed upwards of $75,000.
The reception to the fleet was thus carried to successful
conclusion without the assistance of the graft defense
element.
279 Mr. Ralston, in an interview printed in the San Francisco
Examiner, September 26, 1908, said of this incident:
"The true facts of the case are that when P. N. Lilienthal and
myself called on many of the banks and all of the public utility
corporations they came out boldly and stated that they would not
give one dollar while Phelan was Chairman of the Executive Com-
mittee, or connected with the reception of the fleet.
"Some of the banks that refused are the Crocker National Bank
and the "Wells-Fargo National. Some of the other banks only gave
$100 when they would have given much larger amounts. They dis-
liked Phelan. Among the corporations were the Telephone Com-
pany, the Spring Valley Water Company, and the Gas and Electric
Light Company. The Southern Pacific and Santa Fe refused to
subscribe and it is presumed their reasons were the same as the
other corporations.
"When I learned the true situation," Mr. Ralston went on, as he
widened the mouth of the bag for the certain escape of the cat, "I
went before the Executive Committee, at a meeting at which Mr.
Phelan was present, and guaranteed the sum of $25,000 more if
Mr. Phelan resign or step out. I even went further and said that
besides guaranteeing $25,000, I felt assured that the sum of $50,000
could be easily collected if Mr. Phelan would drop out. This Mr.
Phelan refused to do. These matters all came up In executive
meetings."
In this connection it is interesting to note that at the 1914 elec-
tion in California, Mr. Phelan was elected to represent the State in
the United States Senate, while Mr. Ralston was defeated at the
Republican primaries for nomination for Governor.
262 The Real Fight Begins
In the work of undermining the prosecution, the hum-
bler circles of municipal life were not neglected. The
claquer in labor union, and wherever groups of laboring
men and women met, was quite as active as his prototype
at club and exclusive function. In labor circles the pros-
ecution was described as a movement to discredit labor
and to disrupt the unions. Here, Rudolph Spreckels was
described as the unrelenting foe of labor organizations.
At club and function, on the other hand, the prosecu-
tion was condemned as agent of "labor organization and
anarchy," and Mr. Spreckels denounced as a man who
had ''gone back on his class." In all quarters stories
were circulated, questioning Spreckels' motives. The
most persistent charge against him was that he had
started a street-car system of his ovvn, and had insti-
tuted the graft prosecution to drive the United Rail-
roads out of business. This story was told and retold,
although the purposes for which Mr. Spreckels had con-
templated engaging in the street-car business were well
known. ^^° It was quite as well knov.^n, too, that the
briberies alleged against officials of the United Railroads
were committed long after the graft prosecution had
been inaugurated.
Heney ^^^ Vv^as also made target for criticisms. His
280 See Chapter m.
281 President Calhoun's denunciation of Heney was scarcely con-
sistent with the high regard in which Heney was at the opening of
the prosecution, held bj^ the United Railroads' executives So well
did they think of Heney that they selected him to sit on the Board
of Arbitration v/hich met late in 1906 to adjust differences between
the United Railroads and its employees. This fact was given by
Acting Mayor Gallagher as one of the reasons for removing Lang-
don from office, in October, 1906, when the Graft Prosecution opened.
Speciiica.tion 7 of Gallagher's order removing Langdon because of
the appointment of Heney reads: "Specification 7, That said Fran-
cis J. Heney at and prior to the time of his appointment as assist-
ant district attorney was the representative of the corporation con-
trolling the street-car system of said city and county (The United
The Real Fight Begins 263
whole life was gone over in the search for flaws. It was
discovered that in self-defense he had, years before, shot
a man in Arizona. ^^^ This was made basis of a charge
that Heney had committed murder. The new version of
the Arizona incident was fairly shouted from San Fran-
cisco housetops.
Heney was denounced as a "special prosecutor, a
human bloodhound, engaged in hounding of men to the
penitentiary." It was charged against him that he had
received excessive fees from corporations ; that he had
accepted fees from the Federal government while acting
as deputy to the San Francisco District Attorney, and
that therefore his San Francisco employment was ille-
gal ;^*^ that he had been a drunkard.
Railroads), in a certain dispute between said corporation and its
employees. That the appointment of said Heney to said office will,
in regard to the enforcement of law against said corporation, be
prejudicial and detrimental to the interests of said city and
county."
Heney resigned his position as arbitrator in the United Rail-
roads controversy soon after the prosecution opened.
282 The graft defendants sent men to Arizona to have Heney
indicted, charging murder of a Dr. Handy. Years before, Heney
had taken the case of Handy's wife in divorce proceedings, after
other attorneys had declined it because of fear of Handy. 'Handy
had boasted that he would kill the man who took his wife's case.
After Heney had agreed to represent Mrs. Handy, Handy an-
nounced that he would kill Heney with Heney's own gun. He
actually attempted this, and Heney, in self-defense, shot him.
Heney was exonerated at the time. "When the graft trials opened,
first representatives of Ruef, and then representatives of the United
Railroads went to Arizona for the purpose of working up this case
against Heney, and if possible secure his indictment for murder.
Ruef's representatives even went so far as to attempt to secure the
services of Handy's son to get Heney indicted. Young Handy went
to Heney, told him what was going on, and offered to go to Arizona
to protect Heney. But Heney declined to permit this sacrifice.
Young Handy expressed gratitude for what Heney had done for his
mother. Heney's brother, Ben Heney, with full knowledge of what
was going on, watched the efforts of those who were endeavoring
to make this case, long since disposed of, a matter of embarrass-
m.ent to the prosecutor. As the graft defense investigators found
nothing upon which to base a charge, this move against the graft
prosecution failed.
283 Dean John H. Wigmore of the Northwestern School of Law
at Chicago, author of Wigmore on Evidence, made sharp reply to
264 The Real Fight Begins
A most effective attack consisted in charging connec-
tion of the graft prosecution with the CaHfornIa Safe
Deposit and Trust Company.
This institution closed its doors during the 1907
panic. It had carried an enormous vohime of deposits.
Thousands of homes were affected. The Cahfomia
Safe Deposit and Trust Company was, as a result, very
unpopular. Stories were circulated that the company
had backed the prosecution, and had contributed funds
for its work. J. Dalzell Brown, one of the leading
spirits of the company, was also described as one of
this contention. In a letter to President Calhoun, dated August 10,
1909. Dean V^^'igmore said:
"Chicago, 87 Lake Street, 10 August, 1909.
"Mr. Patrick Calhoun, San Francisco.
"Sir: — Recently there arrived in my hands by mail, with no
sender's address, a pamphlet of ninety pages, entitled 'Some Facts
Regarding Francis J. Heney.' On page 12 your name appears as
a printed signature. I am assuming that you caused the contents
to be prepared and mailed.
"The pamphlet conta.ins assertions reflecting on the conduct of
Francis J. Heney and the Federal Department of Justice, in taking
part in the prosecution of a criininal charge of bribery in the State
Court of California against yourself. The pamphlet contains no
defense of yourself; it does not even mention j^our name, except
as its signer and in the title of exhibits; much less does it allege
or attempt to show your innocence. It merely asks an answer to
'three important constitutional and moral questions' affecting Mr.
Heney and the Department of Justice.
"Before answering those questions, let me say that this does
not appear to be the method of an innocent man. The public press
has made notorious the charge against you and its prosecution by
Mr. Heney. Thoughtful citizens everywhere have discussed it.
Many (not including myself) had assumed that you were guilty.
You now appear to have spent a large sum to print and circulate
widely a pamphlet concerning the case. Anyone would expect to
find the pamphlet devoted to showing your innocence; and thus to
removing unfavorable opinions based on casual press dispatches.
An honest man, desiring to stand well with honest fellovz-citizens,
and possessing means to print, would naturally take that course.
You do not. Your pamphlet merely attacks the technical authority
of one of the attorneys for the prosecution, incidentally abusing
two judges. This is not the course of an innocent man. It is the
course of a guilty man who desires to divert the attention of the
tribunal of public opinion. The tradition is here fulfilled of the
attorney's instructions to the barrister acting for his guilty client,
'No case; abuse the opposing counsel.' I am compelled now to
assume that you have no case, because all that your expensive
The Real Fight Begins 265
the prosecution's backers. It was shown at the Cal-
pamphlet does is to abuse one of the counsel for the prosecution.
Until now I have supposed it proper to suspend judgment. I do
so no longer.
"And what are your three 'constitutional and moral' questions,
— since you have sent me a pamphlet asking an answer to them?
I will answer them frankly.
"1. Was Mr. Heney's payment by the Department of Justice
covertly for the California prosecution but nominally for other and
Federal services?
"Answer: I do not know. But I and other honest citizens will
presume in favor of the honesty, in this act, of a President, an
Attorney-General, and an Assistant Attorney-General who proved
in all other public acts that they were honest and courageous be-
yond example, especially as against a man like yourself who pub-
lishes a pamphlet based throughout on anonymous assertions.
"2. Can a Federal Assistant Attorney-General, under Federal
salary, lawfully act at the same time as State Assistant District
Attorney?
"Answer: As to this 'constitutional' question, I leave this to
the courts, as you should. As to this 'moral' question, I say that
it is moral for any Federal officer to help any State officer in the
pursuit of crime, and that only guilty lawbreakers could be im-
agined to desire the contrary.
"3. Can a private citizen contribute money to help the State's
prosecuting officers in the investigation and trial of a criminal
charge ?
"Answer: He can; and it is stupid even to put the question.
Under the original English jury-system (of which you received
the benefit) and until the last century, the private citizen was
usually obliged to pay the prosecuting expenses; for the State did
not, and crime v/ent unpunished otherwise. If nowadays, in any
community, crime is again likely to go unpunished without the
help of private citizens, there is no reason why we should not
revert to the old system. As for Mr. Spreckels (the private citizen
here named by you), his name should be held in honor, and will
ever be, as against anything your pamphlet can say. As for Mr.
Heney and his receipt of $47,500 officially and 'large sums of money
additionally' from Mr. Spreckels, it may be presumed that he
spent most of it on trial expenses, and did not keep it as a per-
sonal reward. But even if he did so keep it, let me register the
view that he is welcome to all this — and to more — if anybody will
give it; that no money compensation is too high for such i-are
courage; that the moral courage displayed by him is as much
entitled to high money compensation as the unprincipled com-
mercial skill displayed by yourself — and this solely by the economic
test of money value, — viz., demand and supply.
"Apart from this, the high sums said to have been paid by you
to Abraham Ruef solely for his legal skill estop you from ques-
tioning the propriety of lesser sums said to have been paid to
Francis J. Heney for his legal skill.
"Just twenty-five years ago I sat in an upper room on Kearny
street, with five other young men, and helped to organize a Munici-
pal Reform League. Two or three others, still living, will recall
the occasion. Abraham Ruef was one of them.
"Fate separated all of us within a short time. Ruef went his
own way, — the way we all know. It is the memory of those earlier
days, in contrast with the recent course of events in my old home,
that has interested me to give you these answers to the questions
asked in the pamphlet you purport to have sent me.
"JOHN H. WIGMORE."
265 The Real Fight Begins
houn -^* trial that neither Brown nor his company had
contributed a dollar toward the prosecution fund.
Nevertheless, persistent reports that the prosecution had
had this support, unquestionably had its effect upon the
losing depositors. Hiram W. Johnson had acted as
Brown's attorney. Johnson had appeared as assistant
to the District Attorney at a number of the graft trials.
Johnson was condemned for taking the case of a crim-
inal guilty of the offenses charged against Brown.
Mr. Johnson's critics did not, however, condemn the
attorneys who had taken the cases of the alleged bribe-
givers.
Another charge was that the prosecution was hurt-
ing business ; that the material prosperity of California
demanded that the proceedings be stopped ; that capital
Vv^ould not seek investment in California until the dis-
turbance caused by the prosecution had subsided.
Every move of the prosecution was made subject
of criticism. A.nnouncement, for example, that im-
munity had been given the Supervisors was received by
the anti-prosecution press with a storm of protest, and
used by the pro-defense claque most effectively.
The treatment accorded Ruef was subject of con-
stant objection and criticism. During the period of
Ruef's apparent co-operation with the prosecution, Vvhen
he was in custody of the elisor, the pro-defense press
harped on the uselessness of the expense of keeping
Ruef in the luxury of a private jail.^^^ The Chronicle
284 See Rudolph Spreckels' testimony in The People, etc., vs.
Patrick Calhoun.
285 As early as April 20, 1907, the Chronicle began its objection
to Ruef's confinement. The Chronicle on that date said, In an edito-
rial article:
"It appears That it is costing the city about $70 a day to keep
/
The Real Fight Begins 267
even went so far as to say it would be well if Ruef
forfeited his bail, provided the bail were set high enough.
Ruef was, at the time, thought to be a willing witness
for the prosecution. That the case of The People
would be weakened were he to leave the State did not
seem to appeal to the Chronicle. Later on, when it
became evident that Ruef was not assisting the prose-
cution, there were outcries against the alleged cruel
treatment that had been imposed upon him during his
confinement in the custody of the elisor.
But this potent and far-reaching opposition did not
cause a moment's hesitation on the part of the prose-
cution. The work of bringing influential offenders be-
fore trial juries went steadily on. As soon as the
Ruef in jail. That expense should be shut oft and shut off now.
There is no reason why Ruef should be treated differently from
any other criminal who jumped his bail. Incidentally the public Is
getting impatient to hear that the .$50,000 bail already forfeited has
been collected. If that were in the treasury we should be more
willing to incur this large expense. The public will very sharply
criticise authorities who incur such expense for the care of Ruef
without promptly collecting the forfeited bail or beginning suit for
it. Perhaps it has already been collected and the public lias not
heard of it.
"The city has provided a jail and a jailer. Let him have Ruef.
Of course, he will 'connubiate' with him, but what of it? The
Sheriff will be under the direction of the Court and if, when other-
wise ordered, he grants Ruef privileges not proper, he can himself
be put in jail, we suppose. We trust the trial judges will not be
discouraged in their efforts to enforce respect to their courts. They
will find the people behind them who are already sitting in critical
judgment on the legal refinements of the higher courts.
"We suppose that a criminal who has once jumped his bail may
be kept in jail when caught. But we see no use of it. By once
running awav he has warranted the Court in fixing new bail at such
a rate that the public would gladly have it forfeited. We could
afford to pay something handsome to clear Ruef entirely out of the
country and into Honduras, and if we could extort from him a few
hundred thousand dollars for the privilege it would be the best trade
we ever made. But we do not believe he would run away If the bail
were made right. But if he is not to be bailed, let him go to jail,
where the total cost of his keep will not exceed 25 or 30 cents a day
or whatever it is. And if the Sheriff is not trustworthy— as, of
course, he is not — let Elisor Biggy have a key to a separate lock on
his dungeon. But there is no sense in spending $70 a day for the
keep of only one of our municipal reprobates."
268 The Real Fight Begins
Schmitz extortion case had been disposed of, Louis
Glass of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph
Company, the first of the indicted capitalists to face a
jury, was brought to trial.
CHAPTER XIX.
The Glass Trials and Conviction.
On the day that Mayor Schmitz was sentenced to
serve five years in the penitentiary for extortion, six
jurors were secured to try Louis Glass, for bribery.
Mr. Glass had been indicted with T. V. Halsey for
alleged bribery transactions growing out of the opposi-
tion of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Com-
pany to competition in the San Francisco field. Mr.
Halsey's business was to watch, and, so far as lay in his
power, to block, such opposition telephone companies as
might seek entrance into San Francisco.
Mr. Glass was Mr. Halsey's superior. To Glass,
Halsey reported, and from Glass, Halsey took his orders.
Eleven Supervisors had confessed that Halsey had paid
them large sums to oppose the granting of a franchise
to the Home Telephone Company. Testimony given
before the Grand Jury had brought the source of the
bribe money close to Halsey's superior, Glass.
Glass was indicted. The specific charge on which he
was brought to trial was that he had given Supervisor
Charles Boxton a bribe of $5000.
As in all the graft cases, there had been in Mr.
Glass's defense technical attack upon the validity of
the Grand Jury, demurrers, and other delaying moves.
But point by point the prosecution had beaten down
opposition, and by the time the Schmitz extortion case
had been disposed of, District Attorney Langdon and
270 The Glass Trials and Conviction
his associates were able to proceed with the trial of
Glass.^^^
The District Attorney's office was represented by
Heney. D. M. Delmas and T. C. Coogan appeared for
Mr. Glass.
There were none of the difficulties in securing the
jury, as were experienced in the later graft trials. The
Glass jury was sworn two days after the trial opened.
Dr. Boxton took the stand and testified, with a minu-
tia of detail, how the bribe had been paid to him. Dr.
Boxton was the first of the Supervisors to testify be-
fore trial jury and public, of his corruption. During
the next year and a half San Francisco was to hear the
story repeated time after tim.e from the lips of sixteen
men who had occupied the supervisorial offi.ce. But
Boxton was the first. The spectacle of a man testifying
that he had taken bribes and betrayed the city was
new ; it was astonishing, thrilling with sensation.
Boxton's position was emphasized by his elevation, on
the day of the beginning of his testim^ony, to the may-
oralty office. He was spared by neither prosecution nor
defense. He was kept on the witness stand for hours.
The prosecution treated him with coldness, making no
attempt to palliate or excuse his conduct. The defense
harassed him with subtle ridicule.
During the greater part of Boxton's examination.
286 Glass's attorneys contended to the last moment that the
trial judge had no jurisdiction to hear the case. After the Dis-
trict Attorney's opening statement had been made, but before
the taking of testimony had begun, Mr. Delmas for the defense,
stated that in the opinion of the counsel for the defendant the
court had no jurisdiction to try the case on the ground that the
Grand Jury which returned the purported indictment was an
illegal body, having no power to sit as a grand jury at the time
it returned the indictment.
The Glass Trials and Conviction 271
the Board of Supervisors was in session. As Mayor of
San Francisco, Boxton was supposed to preside over
the Board. He was repeatedly dragged from presiding
desk to witness stand, and hustled back from witness
stand to presiding desk, the whole city watching every
move.
"You were elected Mayor of this city?" inquired
Delmas after one of the witness' shameful admissions.
"Through no fault of mine," replied Boxton wearily.
But in spite of the ridicule and the hammering, Box-
ton testified positively to receiving money from Halsey
to influence him against casting his supervisorial vote
to give the Home Telephone Company a franchise.
That Halsey paid the money v/as not seriously dis-
puted. The question raised by the defense was, did
the bribe money necessarily come through Halsey's
superior, Glass?
This question the prosecution attempted to meet.
Halsey, it was shown, was employed under Glass in an
inferior position and had neither authority nor power
to use the corporation's funds without authorization.
Mr. Glass's position in the company was an impor-
tant one. He had long been vice-president and general
manager. After the death of John I. Sabin, president
of the company, in October, 1905, Glass became acting
president, a position which he held until Henry T. Scott
assumed the duties of that office late in February, or
early in March, 1906. The evidence went to shov/ that
at the time of the alleged bribery transactions. Glass
was serving as general manager and acting president.
Officials of the company testified that during Sabin 's
administration checks had been signed by "John I.
272 The Glass Trials and Conviction
Sabin by Zimmer," or "E. J. Zimmer for the president,"
and countersigned by the treasurer. Zimmer was
Sabin's confidential clerk.
During Mr. Glass's administration, after ]\Ir. Sabin's
death, up to the time that Mr. Scott took hold, the
checks were signed by Mr. Glass, or Mr. Zimmer for
Mr. Glass, bearing as well the treasurer's signature.
Zimmer had testified before the Grand Jury that at
the direction of Mr. Glass, he had drawn large sums
in currency from the banks, and given the money to
Halsey. Halsey ^^^ gave no vouchers for this money
which he received from Zimmer. The amounts were
accounted for at the company's office by tags in the
cash drawer.
The testimony which Zimmer had given before the
Grand Jury connected Glass directly with the large
amounts which Halsey, without giving vouchers, had
received from the telephone company's treasury at the
time of the bribery transactions. The prosecution de-
pended upon Zimmer's testimony to solidify their case.
But when Zimmer was called to the stand, he refused
to testify.
Zimmer based his refusal upon the ground that in
his opinion the Grand Jury had indicted a number of
gentlemen upon evidence -which Mr. Zimmer regarded
as insufficient, and that he would not, to protect his
own interests, testify.^^^
287 See Chapter XIV and footnotes 189 and 190, page 171.
288 Mr. Zimmer's statement to the court was as follows: "As
previously stated, the Grand Jury has heretofore charged and
indicted a number of gentlemen on evidence which I have read,
and which seems to be insufficient, for which reason I have taken
this stand to protect my own interests; the stand I refer to is not
to testify in the case which I had intended and not knowing my
The Glass Trials and Conviction 273
The court instructed Mr. Zimmer that his position
was untenable. The witness continued obdurate. The
court sentenced him to serve five days in the county
jail for contempt.
After his five-days' term had expired, Zimmer was
again called to the stand, and again did he refuse to
testify; again was he sentenced to serve in the county
jail, this time for one day. Upon the expiration of
this second sentence, Zimmer was for the third time
called to the stand, for the third time refused to testify.
For the third time was he adjudged guilty of contempt.
His third sentence was to serve five days in the county
jail and pay a fine of $500. Before he had served his
time, the Glass trial had been concluded. Zimmer,
therefore, escaped testifying against his associate, Glass.
But for his refusal, he served eleven days in the county
jail and paid a fine of $500. The maximum penalty for
the crime of bribery alleged against Glass was fourteen
years penal servitude. Mr. Zimmer thus served fewer
days than Mr. Glass might have been sentenced to
serve years had he been convicted. The testimony
which Zimmer ^^^ gave before the Grand Jury, was not
presented to the trial jury.
Nevertheless, the prosecution considered that it had
made out a strong case, but Mr. Heney and his asso-
cates had reckoned without D. M. Delmas, Glass's
chief counsel. The defense introduced no evidence, but
rig-hts in the matter. I was sworn, though my intention was not
to be sworn." Zimmer positively refused to place his declination
on the ground that his testimony might tend to subject him to
prosecution.
289 Zimmer was later tried before a Justice of Peace for con-
tempt, found guilty and sentenced to three months in the county
jail. He appealed to the higher courts.
274 The Glass Trials and Conviction
Delmas, in a masterful argument, raised the question
of reasonable doubt. He insisted that Glass had not
necessarily given the money to Halsey. He argued
that several others of the officials of the company could
have authorized the transaction. By an elaborate chain
of reasoning, for example, Delmas insisted that if the
money had been given Halsey at all. President Henry
T. Scott ^^° could have provided for it.
290 Scott had been elected President before the alleged bribery
transactions, but had left soon after for the East. The Prosecu-
tion held that Scott did not assume his duties as president until
after his return from the East, when the alleged briberies had been
completed. Delmas concluded his argument on Scott's possible
responsibility as follows:
"And then you are called again further on in this same process
of elimination. 'We expect to prove to you that Halsey had no
power to expend moneys without a voucher, and that no person
at that time in the Telephone Company had any power to expend
money without the approval of the executive Board of Directors,
except Glass, and Scott, who was away.' Scott had gone, we were
told, on the 18th or 19th. These transactions took place on the
22d, 2.3d and 24th. Scott could not have authorized them from the
simple fact that Scott was then in the East, and he was not here
in San Francisco to direct or authorize the management of the
affairs of this corporation. A true elimination, gentlemen, if the
facts v/ere true, but the facts are not true. Mr. Scott did not
leave for the East — bear this in mind — Mr. Scott did not leave for
the East until all these transactions were closed; he did not leave
until the 27th of February when the last of these checks had been
paid. V^n-io drew it? Scott himself. I challenge contradiction.
The Assistant District Attorney told you on the first day that he
addressed you that Scott left on the 18th or 19th. Did he know
that Scott did not leave until the 27th? Did he? If he did, then
there are no words that would apply to the deception that was
sought to be practiced upon you, and I do not charge any such
deception. Had Mr. Scott informed the District Attorney that he
left on the 18th or 19th? I do not know. There is no evidence
before you that he had. How, then, did he get the idea which he
made to you under the oath of his ofiice as District Attorney that
Scott left on the 18th or 19th, vrhen in point of fact Scott did not
leave until the 27th? He came back from Portland on Monday or
Tuesday of the preceding week. He was here during the whole of
these transactions; he remained until the last check had been paid.
He remained until the ordinance had been passed on the 26th of
Februar3\ and left the defeated camp on the next day. How, then,
upon that evidence, is Scott eliminated from this transaction?
And I do not want you to understand that I am charging Mr. Scott
with crime. That is no part of my business. It is no part of my
office. I am assuming, upon the theory of this prosecution, that
a crime was committed, and I say you, yourselves, Mr. District
Attorney and your attendants, have undertaken by the process of
elimination v.'hich you have selected, to show us that Mr. Scott
could not have committed this crime. It is sufficient for us to
show you that he could without charging that he did."
The Glass Trials and Conviction 275
The jury, after being out forty-seven hours, failed
to agree. At the final ballot it stood seven for con-
viction and five for acquittal. That Delmas's argu-
ment had strong influence upon those who voted for
acquittal was indicated by their published interviews.
If these statements are to be credited, Glass escaped
conviction because a number of the jurors held to the
opinion that some telephone company official other
than Glass could have authorized the passing of the
bribe money.^®^
As soon as the prosecution could bring Glass to sec-
ond trial, impaneling of the jury began. ^^^ Glass, at
this second trial, was tried for the alleged bribery of
291 The following are taken from interviews with the several
jurors which appeared in the Examiner of July 29, 1907:
Juror Jacob Wertheimer — "I voted as I did (for acquittal) be-
cause there was a reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether or
not Glass had authorized the giving- of the money. There were too
many others that might have been the ones."
Juror Charles P. Fonda — "I voted not guilty. It was simply a
question of whether Glass paid over this money as charged. Five
of us did not believe that the Prosecution produced sufficiently
convincing evidence to find the defendant guilty."
Juror Michael C. Samuels — "The evidence did not link Glass up.
So far as the bribery went, it might have been done by another
official of the company than Glass."
Juror Hugo Schnessel — "There was always something lacking In
the evidence to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt of the
defendant's guilt. It seemed to me that possibly some one else
other than Glass might have paid over the money."
292 Of the delaying tactics in the Glass case, The San Francisco
Call in its issue of August 14, 1907, said:
"Anything to delay trial and judgment is the policy of the
accused bribe givers. Every day's proceedings in the retrial of
Glass provides ample proof to convince the most skeptical citizen
that the last thing desired by the men charged with debauching
the boodle Board of Supervisors is prompt determination of the
issues on their merits, and every pettifogging move for delay, every
cunning attempt to betray the court into technical error is confes-
sion of a case too weak to be given to a fair jury on a plain show-
ing of the facts. The attitude of the lawyers for Glass is sufficient
to indicate that he needs lawyers of their peculiar expertness —
'distinguished attorneys,' Heney calls them — 'distinguished for their
ability to defeat justice.'
"Judge Lawlor's unhesitating denial of a motion to permit the
276 The Glass Trials and Conviction
Supervisor Lonergan. The trial was in many particu-
lars a repetition of the first. Again, there was no seri-
out attempt to dispute that Halsey had paid Lonergan
the bribe money. Zimmer again refused to testify
against his superior, and was again committed for con-
tempt. But the prosecution was careful at the second
trial to show beyond the possibility of the question of
a doubt that neither President Henry T. Scott, nor any
other official of the Pacific States Telephone Company,
other than Glass, could have authorized the payment of
the bribe money.
By the minute books of the corporation, the prosecu-
tion showed that checks drawn by the corporation on
San Francisco banks were to be signed *'by the assist-
ant treasurer or his deputy, and by the president, or
his private secretary, E. J. Zimmer, for him, or by the
general manager." As for Mr. Scott, the prosecution
lawyers for Glass to shift their ground in the midst of the impanel-
ing of the jury and hark back to an attack on the validity of the
indictments, and his sharp reprimand to Attorney Coogan for his
method of misleading talesmen by adroitly framed questions, ought
to expedite this trial. Lawlor has a reputation for dealing sternly
with legal tricksters and for compelling counsel in the cases that he
hears to get down to business and keep at it. At the same time
his record on the bench is that of a just judge and always im-
partial. It is because he is impartial and stern that crooked law-
yers, with crooked clients, deem it 'hard luck' when .their cases
are assigned to Lawlor.
"Now Judge Lawlor has a rare opportunity to prove anew his
worth as a jurist. He will please a patient and long suffering
public and will satisfy the ends of the justice which he administers
when he makes the lawyers quit trifling and forces them to let
the trial go on. We may expect to see the trial made as tedious
and as costly in time and money as high priced counselors can
arrange. It is all part of the game — tire out the public, the jury
and the prosecution; delay is the safest course for the man accused
against whom the people's case is strong. But we may also expect
to see Judge Lawlor trimming the matter of technicalities and
pressing it to a conclusion. It was because the people had come to
expect such things from Judge Lawlor that they re-elected him,
when all the machines of municipal corruption were grinding
against him."
The Glass Trials and Conviction 277
showed by the testimony of Assistant Treasurer Ea-
ton ^^^ of the telephone company that the corporation
did not notify the banks to honor President Scott's sig-
nature until February 27, which was after the alleged
bribery of Supervisor Lonergan had been consum-
mated.
The jury, after being out less than a half hour,
brought in a verdict of guilty.
Pending his appeal to the Appellate Court, Glass
was confined in the county jail.
Of the Pacific States Telephone bribing charges,
those against T. V. Halsey remained to be disposed of.
Even while the second Glass trial was under way,
Halsey's trial for the bribery of Supervisor Lonergan
was begun. There had been the same delaying tactics
to ward off appearance before a jury which had char-
acterized the other graft cases. The impaneling of the
trial jury was, however, finally undertaken. But the
proceedings were suddenly brought to a close. Halsey,
after eight jurors had been secured to try him, was
stricken with appendicitis.
On this showing, his trial was postponed. Later
on, Mr. Halsey was threatened with tuberculosis, which
293 Eaton testified at the second Glass trial as follows: "Mr.
Scott did not sign any checks between February 8, 1906, and the
latter part of March, 1906, for the company; not to my knowledge.
Notices were sent out by me to the different banks in regard to the
signatures that could be accepted upon checks after Mr. Scott was
elected president. They were sent on the 27th of February, 1906, to
all the San Francisco banks that we had an account with."
Eaton testified further that the day the banks were notified,
Mr. Scott went East. Mr. Scott could, Eaton said, previous to that
date, have signed checks, but up to that time they would not have
been honored at the banks. Halsey, in the Mills Building, gave the
Supervisors, of whom Lonergan was one, their bribe money not
later than February 26. Supervisor Lonergan testified that to the
best of his recollection he had been paid by Halsey some time
between February 14 and February 20.
278 The Glass Trials and Conviction
further delayed proceedings against him. Until after
the defeat of the Graft Prosecution in 1909, Mr. Hal-
sey's health did not permit of his being tried. His
trials under the new administration of the District At-
torney's office, resulted in acquittals.
Mr. Halsey, in August, 1913, still survives both the
appendicitis attack and the threatened tuberculosis.
CHAPTER XX.
The Ford Trials and Acquittals.
The conviction of Glass, following immediately upon
the overthrow of the Schmitz-Ruef municipal adminis-
tration, and coupled with the pitiful position in which,
all recognized, Halsey would find himself before a jury,
stirred the graft defense to astonishing activity. Al-
though it developed later that the defendants had had
their agents at work even before the bringing of indict-
ments,^^"^ little was suspected of the extent of their
labors until after the Glass trials. During the trials
of General Tirey L. Ford, who followed Glass before
trial jurors, however, the work of the defendants'
agents and their methods became notorious. From the
opening of the Ford trials, the representatives of the
various graft defendants who congregated in the court-
room ranged in social and professional standing from
the highest priced lawyers of the character of Alexan-
der King, President Calhoun's law partner, down
294 John Helms, a detective, testified at the trial of Patrick Cal-
houn that he had been employed by the United Railroads as early
as May 3, 1907; that his duties consisted of "mostly shadow work,
watching out for things being done by the prosecution"; that
Patrick Calhoun had himself authorized him (Helms) to employ
men to follow Burns on motorcycles. Later on automobiles were
substituted for the motorcycles.
If Helms's employment began on May 3, as he testified, the
United Railroads was preparing for its defense at least three weeks
before indictments were brought against its officials. The extent
of that corporation's defense, or the details of it, are not known to
those outside the corporation. At the Calhoun trial the Prosecu-
tion accounted for every dollar spent in the operations against the
Schmitz-Ruef regime. The attorneys representing the United Rail-
roads were invited to make as frank statement of the expendi-
tures made by the defense, but they declined.
280 The Ford Trials and Acquittals
through layers of the typical, criminal lawyer of the
Earl Rogers-Porter Ashe ~^^ grade, to characters of
the type of Harry Lorenstzen,^^^ notoriously known
throughout Central California as the "Banjo-Eyed Kid,"
and Dave Nagle, the gun-fighter, who numbered among
his accomplishments the slaying of Judge Terry. Nor
were the defending corporations alone represented.
The Southern Pacific, although none of its officials
were under indictment, had men at work in the inter-
est of the defense.^^^
With such motley array of attorneys, detectives, gun-
fighters and agents. District Attorney Langdon and his
associates contended until, what was practically the end-
ing of the graft prosecution, the defeat of Heney for
District Attorney at the municipal election of 1909.
Ford had been indicted for his alleged part in the
295 Ashe participated in the first Ford trials. At the time of the
later trials he was involved in the scandal of the alleged kidnaping
of Fremont Older.
296 In referring to the men and women employed by the graft
defense, The Call, in an editorial article, in its issue of September
26, said:
"The retinue of the trolley magnates, as exhibited in the Ford
case, makes a remarkable picture. Behind the expert lawyers of
last resort troops a motley train of gun fighters, professional plug-
uglies, decoys, disreputable 'detectives,' thugs, women of the half
world and the wolfish pack of gutter journalism. It must be, indeed,
a hard case that needs such bolstering.
"How will Mr. Calhoun square with his protestations of high-
mihdedness the presence and the efforts in his behalf of such
creatures of the slums and stews as 'Bogie' O'Donnell and 'The
Banjo Eyed Kid' ? Are these and the others of their kidney labor-
ing in the same behalf as friends and sympathizers of Mr. Calhoun
or merely as his hired men?"
297 At the Ford trial, Supervisor Lonergan had testified that he
had been followed during a recess of the court. The following tes-
timony followed:
"Q. Was that Mr. Melrose, a detective of the Southern Pacific,
who is sitting there? A. I don't know Mr. Melrose.
"Q. Is he the gentleman sitting immediately back of Mr. Ford?
A. That is the gentleman; that is him.
"Q. He was following you around during the noon hour? A.
Yes, sir.
"Q. Don't you know he is a detective of the Southern Pacific?
A. I don't know anything about the gentleman."
The Ford Trials and Acquittals 281
bribery of the Supervisors by the United Railroads to
secure its over-head trolley permit. At his first trial,
Ford answered to the charge of bribing former Super-
visor Lonergan. Lonergan had not been long on the
stand before the defense demonstrated the astonishing
effectiveness of the work of its agents.
Earl Rogers, for the defendant, on cross-examina-
tion, presented a paper signed by Lonergan within the
month, in which Lonergan set forth that when he voted
for the trolley permit he had not been promised, nor
did he understand, there would be any monetary con-
sideration allowed him — nor any other member of the
board — for voting in favor of the measure.
Lonergan had testified on direct examination that
some time prior to the granting of the permit. Super-
visor Wilson had brought word to him there would be
$8000 for him in the passing of the trolley ordinance.
Later Wilson had told him that the amount would be
$4000 only. This amount, Lonergan testified, Galla-
gher had paid him. Lonergan's statement, signed a
few days before the opening of the trial, to the effect
that when he voted to grant the United Railroads its
trolley permit no monetary consideration had been
promised him, came as a surprise to the prosecution.
The story of the manner in which the paper came to
be in Rogers's possession, however, was quite as sensa-
tional as the statement itself. Lonergan, the driver of
a bakery wagon, confronted by the keenest practition-
ers at the California bar, harassed and confused, stam-
mered out explanation of the manner in which he had
been induced to sign the paper in Rogers's hands.
282 The Ford Trials and Acauittals
Long before he had signed it, one Borland had se-
cured introduction to him. Borland had represented
himself to be a magazine writer, who held that the
ousted Supervisors had been misused. Borland stated
that his purpose was to set the Supervisors right in
the East. He represented that he was to prepare an
article on the San Francisco graft situation from an
independent, unbiased standpoint. Borland made him-
self very agreeable to Lonergan. He took the unhappy
fellow to lunch. He gave him and m.embers of his
family automobile trips and expensive dinners. Loner-
gan finally signed the statement which the agreeable
"magazine writer" v/as to use in his behalf, and with
which the graft defense ~^^ confronted him on the v^'it-
ness stand.
The statement which Lonergan had signed was a
rambling account of conditions in San Francisco, the
one pertinent paragraph touching upon the United
Railroads graft being buried in a multitude of words.
"And you intended to say to all the readers of the
magazine what you set forth over your signature
there?"' demanded General Ford's attorney.
"Yes," replied Lonergan, weakly, "but when I made
that statement I was not under oath."
29S The Call, in its issue of September 26, 1907, stated in explan-
ation of how the graft defense had come by the statement Lonergan
had made to Borland that: "After court adjourned (September 25)
Attorney Rogers offered an explanation for W^alter Borland, the man
who was charged by the prosecution with having attempted to kid-
nap Lonergan. Rogers's story differed from that told by Borland.
Rogers stated that Borland was not a detective, but was in charge
of a hospital in Chicago. He came to San Francisco, where he met
Luther Brown, an associate of Rogers. Brown and Borland were
old friends and the former induced Borland to get statements from
the Supervisors for him. Borland did this. Rogers says he has
statements from all the Supervisors with the exception of Galla-
gher."
The Ford Trials and Acquittals 283
Then Lonergan was confronted with the affidavit
which he had signed at the opening of the Graft Pros-
ecution when Langdon was fighting against Ruef,
Acting Mayor Gallagher and the Schmitz-Ruef Super-
visors to keep himself in the office of District Attorney
and Ruef out. In that affidavit Lonergan set forth
that he had ''never committed a felony of any kind
or character," and had "never been a party thereto."^^^
"I didn't read that paper at the time I signed it,"
faltered the miserable witness. "I did not consider I
was committing a crime when I signed that document."
"If it be a crime to have me sign that," he continued
in answer to General Ford's attorney's merciless ham-
mering, "then I must have (committed a felony)."
Then on re-direct examination Lonergan testified as
to how he had come to sign the affidavit. George B.
Keane, clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Ruef's right-
hand man, secretary of the Sunday-night caucuses, had,
Lonergan testified, said to him, "Tom, there is a docu-
ment across the street there for you to go over and
sign. All the boys are signing it." Lonergan testified
that he had gone over and signed it. "I am almost
sure," Lonergan continued, "that some of them said to
299 Heney states in an affidavit filed in the case of The People
vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., No. 823, that he had been Informed
that the reason given by Ruef for securing the signatures of
the Supervisors to this affidavit was to find out which, if any
of them, had confessed, upon the theory that any one of them
who had confessed would refuse to sign an affidavit, and upon
the further theory that if such a confessing member did sign the
affidavit, he would thus be making a contradictory statement
under oath, which could thus be further used against him by
Ruef or Gallagher, upon the trial of either of them.
But whatever Ruef's far-seeing motive, this affidavit which
he, through Keane, induced the Supervisors to sign, was used
by the attorneys for the defense at the graft trials to show con-
tradictory statements of the confessing Supervisors.
284 The Ford Trials and Acquittals
me that it was a matter of form, merely eulogizing
the board."
"When proper inducements or circumstances occur,"
sneered General Ford's attorney, ''you will testify false-
ly concerning your offenses."
"1 will not testify falsely on this stand," replied the
unhappy witness, "to whatever has happened during
my term as Supervisor."
But complicated as the position in which the prose-
cution found its principal witness, it might have been
more complicated had all the plans of the agents for
the defense been carried out.
On the night before Lonergan was to take the stand
against Ford, Borland, the alleged magazine writer,
called him up by telephone and invited him "to make
a night of it." Borland stated two women would
accompany them. Before accepting the invitation, Lon-
ergan notified Betective Burns. Burns instructed him
not to go on the trip, but to meet Borland and to take
]\Irs. Lonergan v.ith him. Lonergan, with his wife,
accordingly met Borland and the two women at the
appointed place. Borland expressed his chagrin w^hen
he found Lonergan not alone.
"He said," Lonergan testified, "he was sorry I was
not alone ; two nice young ladies were there."
Lonergan 's testimony of Borland's dismay when the
detective found that Mrs. Lonergan accompanied her
husband, was received with amusement. The one-time
Supervisor went on no automobile ride that evening.
Thus tamely ended what the prosecution insisted v.^as
a plot to kidnap, or at least compromise, Lonergan on
The Ford Trials and Acquittals 285
the eve of his appearance as a witness against General
Ford.3°«
Out of this attempt to involve Lonergan, grew the
scarcely less astonishing kidnaping of Fremont Older,
managing editor of the San Francisco Bulletin.
Among those alleged to have participated in the
Lonergan affair was an employe of the graft defense by
the name of Brown. The defense had at the time two
employes of that name, ''Luther" and '']. C," the lat-
ter of whom is alleged to have been the one who co-
operated with Borland in his attempt upon Lonergan.
The Bulletin, in its account of the affair, confounded
Luther with J. C. Brown. Based on the Bulletin's
allegations against Luther Brown, warrants were sworn
out at Los Angeles, charging Managing Editor Older
with criminal libel. The manner of serving these Los
Angeles warrants was characteristic of the times.
Late in the afternoon of September 27, Older, while
at Heney's office, received a telephone message that he
was wanted at a prominent hotel. As he approached
the hotel in response to the message, he was stopped
by a number of men who claimed to be peace officers
from Los Angeles. These displayed the warrant, and
300 The San Francisco Call, in its issue of September 25, 1907,
in commenting' on Lonergan's testimony, says: "While Lonergan's
narrative tells a. portion of the story, it is not all. Tn another
automobile were Detective Luther Brown and the 'Banjo-Eyed
Kid' of the United Railroads. They followed close on the heels
of the auto occupied by Detective Dorland. Both machines sped
to a resort near the park, where a meeting place had been
arranged and where Lonergan was to be turned over to the
custody of the 'Banjo-Eyed Kid.' The rest was to be left to
the Kid. If the plan had carried there would have been no
Lonergan at the trial yesterday, the defense would have flashed
the statement secured by Dorland and set up the cry that the
entire prosecution of the United Railroads was a plot set on foot
by Rudolph Spreckels."
286 The Ford Trials and Acquittals
hustled Older into an automobile. Older demanded
that he be taken before a local court. His captors
promised him he should be. But instead they headed
the machine for Redwood City, a town some twenty
miles south of San Francisco on the line of the South-
ern Pacific. When Older protested a revolver was
pressed against his side, and he was ordered to keep
silent.
At Redwood City, Older was put on board a Los
Angeles train. On the train were R. Porter Ashe and
Luther Brown. Older was not permitted to communi-
cate with his friends nor with the passengers, but was
confined in a stateroom which his captors had secured.^^^
In the meantime, the entire police force of San
Francisco was scouring the city for the missing man.
There had been rumors that those prominent in the
prosecution. Older among them, were to be made away
with. Older's unaccountable disappearance tended to
confirm these rumors. His alarmed friends were pre-
pared to act promptly when word finally reached them
that Older was on the southbound train.
The train was due to reach Santa Barbara early the
following morning. Arrangements were accordingly
made to rescue Older at that point. When the train
arrived there, deputy sheriffs were awaiting its arrival.
Older was taken into court under habeas corpus pro-
ceedings. His release followed,^^^ another sensation of
the graft defense thereby coming to sorry ending.^*^-
301 Several who participated in this affair were later indicted for
kidnaping. There were no convictions.
302 Burns in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs.
Patrick Calhoun et als., 832, refers to a plot hatched about the time
of the Ford trials to kidnap Ruef. Burns charges that Ruef was to
The Ford Trials and Acquittals 287
There were other surprises for the representatives
of the prosecution at the Ford trials well calculated to
confuse them. Alex. Latham, chauffeur for Ruef,
whose testimony connected Ruef and Ford, during the
period of the alleged bribery transactions was, when
his name was called as a witness, found to be missing.
He was alleged to be in Colorado.
George Starr, treasurer of the United Railroads,
whose testimony was needed in the tracing of the ex-
act amount of the bribe money paid Ruef in the over-
head trolley deal, $200,000, that had been placed in
Ford's hands under somewhat peculiar circumstances,
went East about the date the trial opened. The United
Railroads' cash book was sent East about the same
time, and could not be produced at the trial.^°^
have been taken into a mountain county and held there until the
United Railroads cases had been disposed of. He states his belief
tha.t Ruef was party to the plot.
303 The disinclination of the United Ra.ilroads to produce its
books continues to cause that corporation inconvenience and trou-
ble. In 1913, for example, the corporation applied to the California
State Board of Railroad Commissioners for permission to issue
promissory notes to the amount of $2,350,000. That the Commis-
sion might determine the necessity of such an issue, request was
made for the corporation's books. This request was denied. The
Commission withheld authorization of the note issue. In comment-
ing upon its refusal, the Commission said:
"It should be understood th.at the conclusions hereinbefore set
out have been reached on the partial information which has been
submitted to the Commission, and that if an examination of the
original books which the company has refused to supply should
reveal a different condition, the responsibility for these conclusions,
which we contend inevitably must be drawn from what evidence is
before us, lies with the applicant because of its failure to submit
its books for examination by the Commission.
"It is an axiom that evidence suppressed is deemed to be ad-
verse, and having in mind this axiom certainly the Commission is
justified in concluding that the books which the applicant refuses
to produce at least would not better its showing."
Following the defeat of the graft prosecution in November, 1909,
peculiar transactions are recorded against the United Railroads.
For example, the Railroad Commission found, and has so reported,
that "in the minutes (of the United Railroads) of May 25, 1910. it
appears that four yea/rs' 'back salary' was voted to Patrick Cal-
houn, president of the United Railroads of San Francisco, in the
288 The Ford Trials and Acquittals
Then again, witnesses who had testified freely before
the Grand Jury became forgetful. Supervisor Wilson,
who had conveyed word to Lonergan from Gallagher
that there would be $4000 in the trolley deal for Lon-
ergan, could, when brought to the witness stand, re-
member nothing of the incident. Supervisor Coffey
also proved equally forgetful. ^^^
In the midst of these extraordinary happenings, Gen-
eral Ford's trial went on, marked by repeated attacks
by attorneys for the defense upon those who had been
instrumental in bringing about the Graft Prosecution.
Rudolph Spreckels in particular, was made object of
vicious denunciation. It was recognized from the be-
ginning that the defense was battling not for General
Ford alone, but for President Calhoun, and the other
officials of the United P.ailroads under indictment.
The State's attorneys, target for constant abuse and
ridicule at the hands of the defense, proceeded, how-
ever, to present the case of The People, In spite of
sensations, the disappearance of witnesses and the for-
getfulness of witnesses, the prosecution brought out
testimony to show that the Supervisors had received
$85,000 for their votes granting the trolley permit. By
sum of $75,000 a year, or a total of $300,000. No explanation is
made of this item, but it at once suggests the necessity of a thor-
ough investigation in order to determine the items claimed by ap-
plicant as operating expenses of the United Railroads over a series
of j'ears." See Decision No. 439, Railroad Commission of Califor-
nia, in the matter of the application of the United Railroads, etc.,
February 4, 1913.
304 Both Wilson and Coffey were indicted for bribe-taking. Wil-
son later on found his memory. At other graft trials he explained
that his testimony at the first Ford trial had been given after he
had undergone an operation that had involved the use of large
quantities of cocaine. He insisted that he did not know to Vv'hat he
was testifying. Coffey was tried for bribe-taking and convicted.
The Supreme Court, hovrever, set aside the verdict on technicali-
ties.
The Ford Trials and Acquittals 289
the testimony of officials of the United States Mint it
was shown that Patrick Calhoun had, after the fire, but
before the opening of the San Francisco banks, created
a fund of $200,000 at the Mint.
None of the directors of the United Railroads who
could be dragged to the stand knew anything about
this $200,000. Other amounts, which the United Rail-
roads, during the days of stress following the fire, had
received at the Mint from the East, could be accounted
for by the books and vouchers, but not this $200,000.^°^
United Railroads employes who could be made to testi-
fy could throw no light upon its final disposition.
But the prosecution did show by the Mint officials
that President Calhoun had ordered the $200,000 paid
to General Ford and that it was paid to General Ford.
The following dates, brought out by the testimony,
showed the receipt and suggested the disposition of
the money:
May 21 — Overhead trolley franchise granted by the
Board of Supervisors.
305 It was shown at the Ford trial that about $175,000 in addition
to the unaccounted-for $200,000 was received by the United Rail-
roads through the United States mint. Every dollar of this $175-,-
000 except $3,000 loaned to Ruef by Mullally, was taken out by the
treasurer of the company, and carried to the United Railroads'
office and there put in its safe and used as needed, that it was
taken in gold and was paid out to its employees in gold. It was
further shown that not one dollar of currency was ever put in any
of the safes at the United Railroads' office by any person during
that period of time covered by Ford's withdrawal of money from
the mint, and that no currency was deposited to the credit of the
company in any of its bank accounts nor to the credit of Ford or
Mullally or Abbott, and that no currency was turned over to the
treasurer of the company during that time. Thus by a process of
exclusion this $200,000 was left in the hands of Ford absolutely
unaccounted for upon any theory consistent with an honest use of
it. Add these facts to the further facts that Ruef was traced to
Ford's office on two of the days on which Ford got the money, and
that Ruef on each occasion, within a day or two, paid the same
kind of money to Gallagher, that currency was not generally in
circulation at all in San Francisco.
10
290 The Ford Trials and Acquittals
May 22— $200,000 placed in the Mint to the credit
of Patrick Calhoun.
May 25— General Ford drew $50,000 from the Mint
which he exchanged for currency of small denomina-
tions.
July 31— General Ford drew $50,000 from the Mint,
which he exchanged for currency.
August 1 — The Supervisors received from Gallagher
their first payment for voting to grant the overhead
trolley permit. Gallagher testified that he had received
the money from Ruef. The payments were in cur-
rency, the bills being of small denominations.
August 23— General Ford drew $100,000 from the
Mint, which he exchanged for currency, receiving bills
of large denominations.
August 24-30 — The Supervisors received their final
payments from Gallagher for their votes on the trolley
permit. These last payments were made in bills of
large denominations. Gallagher testified that he had
received the money from Ruef.
The withdrawals from the Mint had been made by
General Ford, on Mr. Calhoun's instructions to the
Mint officials that the payments should be made to the
General.
The testimony of the Mint officials and employes was
to the point and at times sensational. Nathan Selig, a
clerk at the Mint, for example, assisted Eugene D.
Hawkins as assistant cashier,^*^^ in making up a pack-
306 The two men were at the time detailed to liandle the money
of the relief fund. The mint officials could not accommodate Ford
with the currency he wanted. They gave him gold. The gold which
Ford secured at the mint was trucked across the hall to relief head-
quarters, where it was exchanged for the currency. Selig and
Hawkins counted out the bills.
The Ford Trials and Acquittals 291
age of $50,000 in bills which were turned over to Ford.
Selig fixed the time of the occurrence at ''shortly after
the Mayor signed the franchise bill for the overhead
wire."
"What impressed that upon your mind?" was asked
him. ''Because I made the remark to Mr. Hawkins,
as he was going out," replied Selig, "that that was — I
though it was, the Supervisors' 'bit'."
Having traced this $200,000 from Calhoun to the
Mint and from the Mint to Ford, the prosecution proved
by Charles Hagerty, Ruef's office boy, that during the
weeks after the fire General Ford and Mr. Mullally of
the United Railroads, had had conference with Ruef at
Ruef's office. Ruef was traced to Ford's office. Ford's
stenographer testified, rehictantly, to Ruef's presence
there. Ford was shown to have sent warning, through
his assistant Abbott, to Ruef, at the opening of the
graft investigation, that the Grand Jury was taking up
the matter of the United Railroads trolley privilege,
that the prosecution had not made any headway, that
it was thought the next step would be to lay some trap
for the Supervisors.^^^ That Ruef and Ford had more
or less intimate relations during this period was fully
estabHshed.^°^ The question raised was : Did the $85,-
000 in currency which Ruef gave Gallagher to be paid
to the Supervisors for their votes on the overhead
trolley permit pass from Ford to Ruef? Did the money
paid the Supervisors come out of the unaccounted-for
307 See transcript of testimony, trial of The People vs. Tirey
L. Ford, No. 817, taken September 25, 1907, page 270.
308 Mr. Mullally, assistant to Mr. Calhoun, and also Mr. Cal-
houn were known to have enjoyed friendly relations with Mr. Ruef
during this period.
292 The Ford Trials and Acquittals
$200,000 which had disappeared into General Ford's
possession ? ^°®
A word from Abe Ruef would have lifted the case
out of the plane of circumstantial to that of positive
evidence.
A word from General Ford would have shown the
manner in which the money had been disposed.
Those who took seriously Ruef's protestations at
the time of his plea of guilty to extortion, that his life
would thereafter be devoted to undoing the wrong he
had wrought, looked to see the prosecution put Ruef
on the stand.
The many supporters of General Ford — he was one
of the most likable and popular men in the State —
who still held belief in his innocence, looked to see him
take the stand to clear his name by accounting for the
disposition of that $200,000 which he had received, at
the order of President Calhoun, from the Mint officials.
But neither Ruef nor Ford took the stand.
Later developments in the graft cases showed why
the prosecution did not call upon Ruef to testify.
But no satisfactory showing has been made why
General Ford did not take the stand to tell, under oath,
of the disposition of that $200,000 last seen in his pos-
session.
309 The facts brought out at General Ford's trial are interesting
in connection with General Ford's interview in the San Francisco
Examiner of October 28, 1906, soon after the Graft Prosecution
opened. See Footnote 92.
Ruef, in "The Road I Traveled," printed in the San Francisco
Bulletin, states that he gave Schmitz $50,000 and kept $50,000 for
himself out of the $200,000 which was given to him by Tirey L.
Ford from Patrick Calhoun to pay for the granting of the trolley
permit.
The Ford Trials and Acquittals 293
Heney, in an affidavit ^^° acknowledged March 10,
1908, tells why Ruef was not called upon to testify.
Some ten days before the taking of testimony in the
first Ford trial began, according to this affidavit, Heney
had Gallagher and Ruef at his office. The two men
had told stories of the passage of the ordinance grant-
ing the trolley permit, which conflicted slightly. Heney's
purpose in confronting them, he tells us in the affidavit,
was that he might determine in his own mind which
was right. Heney had not seen Ruef, except as he had
passed him in court or corridor, since he had proved
that Ruef had made misrepresentations to him in the
French Restaurant cases.^^^ The conversation between
Ruef and Gallagher did not tend to change Heney's
opinion of the broken boss. Indeed, Heney became
more firmly convinced than ever that Ruef v/as not
acting in good faith, that he was not telling the whole
truth. A few days after this meeting, Burns brought
Heney word that Ruef would not testify at the Ford
trial at all, unless the prosecution allowed him to with-
draw his plea of guilty in the extortion case, and dis-
missed all the indictments against him. Heney refused
to be coerced. He sent word back to Ruef that the
prosecution had had sufficient evidence to convict Ford
before Ruef had told anything; that if Ruef were called
to the witness-stand it would be without further talk
with him ; that none of the cases against him would be
dismissed, and that if called to the stand he could tes-
tify or not testify, as he saw fit.
310 This affidavit deals with the Graft Prosecution from its be-
ginniniT down to the spring of 1S08. This document was filed in the
case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., No. 823.
311 See Chapter XVI, page 211, and footnote 119, page 111.
294 ^^^ Ford Trials and Acquittals
That night, according to Heney, Rabbis Nieto and
Kaplan, with Ruef's attorney, Henry Ach,^^- appeared
at Heney's office. Ach announced in substance, accord-
ing to Heney's affidavit, that inasmuch as Heney and
Langdon had promised to permit Ruef to withdraw his
plea of guilty to the extortion charge, and then dismiss
the case, as a condition upon which Ruef signed the
immunity contract,^^^ the time had arrived when, in
justice to Ruef, this ought to be done.^^*
Heney let Ach finish.
''We might as well understand each other," Heney
then announced. "You know perfectly well that I did
not at any time make any such promise to Ruef or to
you, or to any one present, or to any one else on earth."
Heney then recited the exact terms of his promise. ^^^
312 This is the same Ach who dramatically left the Ruef de-
fense at the time of Ruef's plea of guilty to extortion. See
Chapter XV, page 204.
313 For immunity contract see page xix of the Appendix. For
the negotiations upon which Ach's claim was based see Chapter
XV.
314 Heney sets forth in his affidavit that Ach's claim did not
surprise him. He says of Ach's statement: "I was not very much
surprised by its substance as I had long before commenced to sus-
pect that Ruef, Ach, Dr. Kaplan and Dr. Nieto would claim eventu-
ally that such agreement existed in regard to case number 305
(the extortion case) if it became necessary to do so in order to
keep Ruef out of the penitentiary. In fact I would not have been
greatly surprised by anything that Ach might have claimed, as I
have learned to know' him pretty well and am sometimes at a loss to
decide whether he or Ruef is entitled to first place as an artistic
and imaginative 'equivocator,' to use Ruef's language."
315 See Chapter XV, pages 190-7. Heney states in his affidavit
that both Nieto and Kaplan agreed that Heney's statement of the
arrangement was correct. "Yes, you are right, Mr. Heney," the
affidavit sets forth Nieto said. "I understand it that way, and
consequently I never told Ruef anything about that. He never
got that from me." The affidavit sets forth that Kaplan said in
substance: "Yes, that is what you said, Mr. Heney, but I always
understood that Mr. Ruef would be allowed to withdraw his plea of
guilty in the French Restaurant cases and would not receive any
punishment."
Heney replied in substance: "You may have so understood.
Doctor, but you had no right so to understand from anything which
I said."
The Ford Trials and Acquittals 295
Both Kaplan and Nieto agreed with him that his state-
ment was correct, but Kaplan insisted that he had un-
derstood that Ruef was to be allowed to withdraw his
plea, arguing that he had told the truth and that his
evidence was very important.
"Ruef lied to us," answered Heney emphatically, "in
the French Restaurant case, and I proved it to him in
this very room, and he simply laughed in my face. He
also lied to us in all the other cases. He is not entitled
to immunity in any case, and I not only will not permit
him to withdraw his plea of guilty in case number 305,
but on the contrary it is my present intention to ask the
court in that case to give him no leniency whatever,
but to sentence him for the maximum term which is
prescribed by law."
Heney suggested that Ruef's representatives take
this word back to their principal.
"Ruef," Heney concluded, "tried to job the prosecu-
tion and he has only succeeded in jobbing himself into
the penitentiary."
Ten days later, when Heney made his opening state-
ment before the first Ford jury, he carefully refrained
from stating that the prosecution expected to prove
any fact that necessarily depended in whole or
in part upon Ruef's testimony. And with all San
Francisco on tiptoe of expectancy,-"^^^ Heney closed the
316 Heney, in his closing argument, told the .iury that Ruef
had not been put on the stand because the prosecution did not trust
him. Heney said: "Nobody except Mr. Ford and Mr. Ruef could
tell about it (the passing of the $200,000). They did not complain
about my asking why they did not put Mr. Ruef on the stand.
They asked why we didn't put him on the stand and vouch for his
veracity and enable them to put words in his mouth, and I will
answer now, because we DID NOT TRUST HIM."
296 The Ford Trials and Acquittals
case of The People without putting Ruef on the stand.^^^
The defense offered no evidence. The case went to
the jury on the evidence which the prosecution had
presented. The jury failed to agree, eight standing for
acquittal, and four for conviction.
General Ford was immediately brought to trial for
the second time. The case selected was for the bribery
of Supervisor Jennings Phillips.
Heney, in his opening statement, announced that he
did not intend to put Ruef on the stand. The second
case presented was, if anything, stronger than the first,
317 Heney, in his affidavit, describes the disappointment of Ruef,
Ach and Nieto when the case was closed without Ruef being called.
Heney says: "I rested the case on behalf of the prosecution in the
first Ford trial in this department of this Court on the 2nd day of
October, 1907, and the attorneys for the defendant asked for time
to consider what they would do about putting in evidence, and
Court adjourned for the purpose of giving them such time. I had
noticed Henry Ach and Ruef sitting together next to the aisle,
which was directly in front of where I sat, and could see that up
to the time I closed the case they were anxiously waiting for me
to call Ruef as a witness. When Court adjourned they remained
sitting and as I passed them Ach stopped me and said in sub-
stance, 'Why didn't you put Ruef on the stand as a witness? Are
you not going to dismiss these cases against him?' I replied in
substance, 'There are a lot more cases to be tried. There will be
plenty of opportunities to dismiss these cases if I want to do it.'
Ruef said, with one of his most winning smiles, in substance, 'I
guess he is going to put me on in rebuttal just as he did in the
Schmitz case.' I replied in substance, 'Oh, I don't know about that,
Ruef. I don't like to try all my cases the same way.' I started to
leave and Ach stopped me as I had taken only a couple of steps,
and said in substance, 'There isn't any change in the situation, is
there in regard to Ruef?' I smilingly and meaningly replied, in
substance, 'Not a particle, Henry, since our last talk,' meaning
thereby the talk which Ach and myself had on or about the 19th
or 20th day of September, 1S07, at night in my ofRce in the presence
of Dr. Nieto, Dr. Kaplan, William J. Burns and Charles W. Cobb,
as hereinbefore set forth. As I made this statement I walked on
out of the courtroom and someone stopped me somev/here betv/een
there and the entrance door of the building and Er. Nieto came up
to me, all smiles, and said in substance, 'You didn't put Ruef on
the stand, did you?' I replied, 'No, I did not, Doctor.' Dr. Nieto
then said in substance, 'There isn't any change in the situation, is
there?' And I replied with a smile in substance, 'None whatever
since our last talk, Doctor,' imeaning the talk at my office just
hereinbefore referred to, at which Dr. Nieto, Dr. Kaplan and Ach
were present. The manner of Ach and the manner of Dr. Nieto
when I made this reply to each of them indicated plainly that
each understood exactly what I meant."
The Ford Trials and Acquittals 297
but the jury brought in a verdict of "not guilty." Gen-
eral Ford was tried on a third of the indictments
against him, and again was the verdict of the jury
"not guilty."
Long after, the prosecution discovered that agents
for the United Railroads had systematically corrupted
members of its detective force. On the evidence in the
hands of the prosecution, a search warrant was secured,
and the offices of the United Railroads raided in a
search for stolen documents. Copies of over 2400 doc-
uments belonging to the prosecution were found. It
developed that men in the employ of the prosecution
were receiving regular monthly salaries from agents of
the United Railroads to turn these reports over to
agents of the defense for copying. The defense was
in this way kept informed of all that had been reported
to the prosecution regarding jurors, etc., by Burns's
own agents. ^^^
318 Calhoun protested vigorously against the raiding of his offices.
Concerning the raid and Mr. Calhoun's protests, the interior press
expressed general approval of the first and condemnation of the
latter.
"It is not a question," said the Oroville Register, "alone of graft
in San Francisco now. It is rather a question as to whether in
America, where 'all men are free and equal,' there is a law for
the rich and another lav/ for the poor, and whether a little money
can put our whole penal system at naught and make monkeys of
judicial officers. Unluckily in the Calhoun case we can not in
America resort to the czar-like methods which should be resorted
to, but must fight it out by the long and slow process of law.
Luckily for the honor of America Mr. Heney and his associates
are gifted with the courage, ability and tenacity to fight it out
on this line even if it takes this summer and the whole of the next
so to do."
"The 'private sanctity' of Calhoun's offices," said the Santa
Barbara Independent, "was violated, his defenders say, when the
police entered to search for stolen goods. The fact that the goods
were concealed in the offices — that the police unearthed there a
'fence' for the reception of stolen goods — doesn't seem to have de-
stroyed the sanctity of the place.
"Recently the police in Los Angeles raided a cigar store, where
they found concealed some of the money that three months ago had
been stolen from the Monrovia bank. The cigar dealer's lawyeis
298 The Ford Trials and Acquittals
At the time of the third Ford trial, for example,
Heney was engaged with Riief's trial in the Parkside
case. The Ford trial was conducted for the State by
John O'Gara. One of Burns's men, Piatt by name, was
appointed to assist O'Gara by advising him of the char-
acter of the men drawn for jury service. O'Gara
repeatedly discovered Piatt's advice and suggestions to
be unreliable. Long after it was discovered that Piatt
was at the time in the employ of agents for the United
Railroads. The reason for the character of his advice
and suggestions was then apparent.
At none of the Ford trials did the defense attempt
to meet the evidence which the prosecution presented.
At the third trial, the prosecution called President Cal-
houn and Abe Ruef ^^^ to the stand. But both declined
to answer. The disposition of the $50,000 in currency
in small bills, and of the $150,000 in currency in large
bills, which passed into General Ford's hands, at the
time that currency of this exact amount and descrip-
tion passed into the hands of Abe Ruef, $85,000 of
which Ruef distributed among the Supervisors for vot-
ing for the United Railroads trolley permit, continues
as great a mystery as it was on the day that the first
Ford trial opened. Ruef at the time of his plea of
should go into court and protest against violation of the 'private
sanctity' of the thief's hiding place.
"It is beyond understanding how men can view a similar cir-
cumstance in different lights. To an unprejudiced mind a thief is a
thief, whether he has stolen an old pair of shoes or robbed the pub-
lic through a municipal or other government. And the honest man
rejoices in his capture, the recovery of the stolen goods and appre-
hension and punishment of persons who receive and conceal the
fruits of theft."
319 Calhoun and Ruef were placed on the stand April 29, 1908.
Their refusal to answer will be found in the transcript of testi-
mony taken that day. Complete records of all the graft cases
were in 1912, when this review was written, in the possession of
A. A. Moore, prominently connected with the graft defense.
The Ford Trials and Acquittals 299
guilty to the extortion charge, and five years later in
the story of his career published in the San Francisco
Bulletin, admitted that the $200,000 that on Calhoun's
order was turned over to Ford was soon after paid to
him (Ruef) because of the granting of the trolley per-
mit. The $85,000 that Gallagher divided among the
Supervisors on account of their granting this permit,
Ruef has stated in his several confessions, came out of
this Calhoun-to-Ford, Ford-to-Ruef $200,000.
And in California there are many who hold that in
this instance, at least, Ruef is telling the truth.
CHAPTER XXI.
The San Francisco Election of 1907.
Scarcely had the prosecution overcome the delaying
tactics of the defense, and forced graft cases to trial,
than District Attorney Langdon had to defend title to
his office at the polls.
Langdon had taken office in January, 1906. His
term was to expire in January, 1908. The municipal
election, at which Mr. Langdon's successor was to be
elected, was to be held in November.
At that time was to be elected besides the District
Attorney, the Mayor, Supervisors and practically all
the other municipal officials.
The old convention system of naming candidates for
office still prevailed in San Francisco. However, Cali-
fornia had even then entered upon the struggle of
throwing off the yoke of machine domination through
the convention system of naming candidates. The dele-
gates to the several conventions had, under primary
law provisions, to be elected at the polls.
San Francisco was divided upon one issue — that of
the Graft Prosecution. The opposition which years of
adverse publicity was to develop, did not then confront
those who were standing for vigorous prosecution of
the corrupters of the municipality. But under the ham-
mering of an adverse press, and the claquer's systematic
belittling, the graft defense had made gains sufficient
to give it at least a fighting chance at the polls.
The San Francisco Election of 1907 301
On the side of the defense, too, was the solid sup-
port of the powerful Southern Pacific Company, and of
the various pubhc service corporations, as well as the
purchasable press. On the side of the prosecution
stood the people of San Francisco, not yet worn out,
nor misled, nor yet alienated from the policy of vigor-
ous prosecution of the corrupters of the municipality.
The people recognized that effective continuance of the
prosecution required that Mr. Langdon be re-elected.
That the action of the prosecution in making Taylor
Mayor, might be endorsed at the polls — thus receiving
the stamp of public approval — Mr. Taylor's election
became quite as important as that of Mr. Langdon.
The same was true of those of the Taylor-appointed
Supervisors who became candidates for election. But
the contest waged about the election of Taylor and
Langdon.
Such was the issue which confronted San Francisco
at the 1907 election.
There was but one issue. There v/ere, however,
three prominent political parties. Union Labor, Repub-
lican and Democratic. None of the three could be
called the prosecution party, nor for that matter, the
defense party; nor had any faction of any of the par-
ties the temerity to declare against the prosecution of
those trapped in corruption, however vigorously op-
posed to the prosecution this or that faction might be.
But each of the three parties did divide on the ques-
tion of the election of Langdon and Taylor.
Broadly speaking, the supporters of the prosecution
in all parties demanded that Taylor and Langdon be
nominated. The opponents of the prosecution, while
302 The San Francisco Election of 1907
declaring loudly for the prosecution of all offenders
against the law, labored for their defeat. On this
issue, not always clearly defined, the intraparty factions
met at the primary polls. The prosecution, therefore,
had three independent political fights on its hands.
Langdon had been elected by the Union Labor
party. Taylor was a Democrat. But in the confusion
of the times the principal primary fight was within the
Republican party.
The Republican opposition to those roughly described
as "pro-prosecution," found expression in the remnants
of the old-time machine — generally called Herrin — ele-
ment. At its head were many of the experienced ma-
chine leaders. The Republican pro-prosecution forces
were at first without definite leadership. But in this
emergency most effective leadership developed.
Daniel A. Ryan, a young 'Trish-American," came to
the fore as captain of the reform forces within the
Republican party.
Ryan is of the highest type of his race, as developed
under the advantageous conditions to which the immi-
grant and his descendants have, in these United States,
been admitted. Well educated, forceful, a brilliant
speaker, eft'ective as an organizer, a lover of the politi-
cal game, Ryan was soon the recognized leader of the
new movement.
He was trusted implicitly. The selection of candi-
dates for convention places was left largely in his
hands. Under Mr. Ryan's leadership the fight for
effective continuation of the Graft Prosecution was car-
ried on within the Republican party.
The division in the Union Labor party was scarcely
The San Francisco Election of 1907 303
less pronounced. The party, roughly speaking, divided
with P. H. McCarthy heading the anti-prosecution side,
and men of the type of Walter Macarthur, one of the
founders of the party, leading the forces supporting
Langdon and his associates.
But here again there was most confusing division.
Thomas F. Eagan, chairman of the Union Labor Party
County Committee, for example, was quoted within a
week of the primaries, as announcing: "Schmitz is an
ideal candidate (for Mayor). If available, he would be
nominated by the delegates that will be elected on the
regular Union Labor ticket." Nevertheless, Mr. Eagan
was unalterably opposed to Mr. McCarthy heading the
ticket.
The Democratic division was less pronounced than
in either the Republican or Union Labor party. The
side favoring Taylor, without much reference to Lang-
don, went to the primary polls under the regular Dem-
ocratic leadership, with Thomas W. Hickey, chairman
of the Democratic County Central Committee, at its
head. Prominent in the opposition was Lewis F. Bying-
ton, who had preceded Mr. Langdon as District Attor-
ney. Mr. Byington was brother-in-law of General Tirey
L. Ford, even then under trial for bribery, and one of
General Ford's attorneys.
In the confusion of these many-sided contests, the
defense had its best opportunity for success. But the
result, so far as the Democratic and Republican parties
were concerned, was overwhelmingly successful for the
prosecution.^^^
320 The outcome of the Republican primaries was looked upon
as a victory for good government. Said the Call, in discussing the
304 The San Francisco Election of 1907
Of the delegates to the RepubHcan convention the
Ryan (pro-prosecution) forces elected 142, the ''Her-
rin" (anti-prosecution) forces 7 only. Of the 164 del-
egates to the Democratic convention, 161 were elected
by the regular (pro-prosecution) element, and 3 by the
Byington (anti-prosecution) side. The popular vote
within these parties was scarcely less pronounced.^^^ On
the other hand, within the Union Labor party the anti-
prosecution forces were overwhelmingly successful, the
McCarthy faction electing 185 delegates and the forces
led by Walter Macarthur and his associates 13 only.
Under the alignment, it was expected that the Re-
publicans and Democrats would unite without hesita-
tion upon Taylor and Langdon, leaving the cause of
returns: "Two things stand out prominently in the returns of the
primary elections yesterday. One is that the Republicans of San
Francisco have had enough of Herrin. The other is that they have
not had enough of the graft prosecution. The victory for decency
and for the independence of the party from the thralldom in which
Herrin has so long held it for the use and benefit of the Southern
Pacific w^as complete, with a vote large enough to make it plain
to Herrin and to the interests exposed and to be exposed in the
debauchery of public servants that they must look elsewhere than
to the Republicans of San Francisco for the old corrupt conditions.
The Call takes to itself credit for some share in the accomplish-
ment of this good work. It was this paper that spoiled Herrin's
Infamous apportionment scheme by which he planned to fill the
burned district with his dummies and thus control the municipal
convention. It was this paper that began and carried on to the
last moment a vigorous campaign in behalf of the decent element
of the Republican party, whose leadership was in the capable and
clean hands of Daniel A. Rj-an. The Call has no candidates. It
wants only honest, capable independent men. It made this winning
fight because it wanted a clean government for San Francisco and
because it wanted the graft prosecution carried out to the end."
321 The primary vote was the largest up to that time cast in
San Francisco. It was as follows:
Anti-Herrin (Ryan) Republican 8,116
Herrin Republicans 3,207
Irregular Republicans 1,549
Regular Democratic 2,438
Byington, Democratic 1,081
McCarthy, Union Labor 3,655
Macarthur, Union Labor 2,197
The San Francisco Election of 1907 305
the indicted corporation managers to find expression
in the Union Labor party platform and candidates.^^^
But scarcely had the primary returns been made
public than the San Francisco Call, generally regarded
as stanchly on the side of the prosecution, brought
confusion upon the pro-prosecution element, by suggest-
ing the candidacy of Mr. Ryan for Mayor and belit-
tling the candidacy of Mayor Taylor.
*'Ryan," said The Call through its political repre-
sentative, Mr. George Van Smith, "has not sought and
is not seeking the Republican nomination for Mayor.
He may have it forced upon him and find himself the
recipient of similar endorsement of his powers as a
boss-buster, from the Democratic organization."
The Call, in the same issue, hinted that the Demo-
crats might not nominate Taylor. Without a Demo-
cratic nomination, Taylor could not expect nomination
at the hands of the Republicans.
"That the Democrats will nominate Mayor Taylor,"
said The Call, "is more than doubtful. Mayor Taylor
was drafted into the city's service. He has not given
any indication of a desire to serve the city as the head
of its government after the time when a popularly
selected successor could be qualified, li the Democrats
322 On the eve of the primary election, P. H. McCarthy, leader
of the anti-Prosecution faction of the Union Labor party, issued
a warning to union men in which he said: "Too much caution
cannot be exercised by you, nor too much diligence displayed in
order to protect your rights at the polls today. One of the most
cunning, deceptive and vicious attacks ever made on organized labor
in this city is now being launched in order that your wages may
be cut and your workmg hours increased to suit the millionaires in
this city. To do so, those millionaires have drawn to their side
by what force we are unable to say, certain labor men (Walter
Macarthur and his associates) with a view to shuffling, confusing
and thoroughly misleading the labor union voters and their sympa-
thizers in this city."
3o6 The San Francisco Election of 1907
do not nominate Dr. Taylor, the Republicans would
scarcely be expected to do so. The fact that the men
who will make up an almost exclusive majority of the
Republican convention seem to be committed to the
idea of nominating- Ryan appears to preclude the nomi-
nation of Taylor by either party."
The source of The Call's information is not appar-
ent. Up to the time of the publication of its article,
August 15, there was no sentiment in San Francisco for
the election of Mr. Ryan to the jMayoralty. On the
contrary, the understanding was that !Mr. Ryan had
entered the contest from motives of good citizenship
only, and that he was in no sense a seeker of office for
himself.^'^ Such had been the understanding during
the primary campaign ; such was the sense of the com-
munity after the primary vote had been cast.
All recognized, however, that Mr. Ryan was in a
position of great power. He had been trusted implicitly.
The selection of anti-Herrin candidates for delegates
had been left largely in his hands. Few thought, how-
ever, that he had selected delegates for the purpose of
giving himself the Republican nomination for the ]\Iay-
oralty. Then, again, aside from the confusion his can-
didacy would work in the ranks of the anti-Herrin, pro-
323 Many Ryan Republican district tickets contained the fol-
lowing printed statement:
"The candidates on tiiis ticket are pledged to use all their in-
fluence in the convention to secure the nomination of a ticket of
capable men and hope that they will be indorsed by the conven-
tions of all parties. They do not care who these men may be, but
will vote for no man who can be suspected of peddling offices or
jobs in return for support. They do not desire nor expect for them-
selves or for their friends any offices or jobs. No candidate on
this ticket has ever sought or held a political office or job. The
candidates on this ticket have all accepted the pledge of the
Regular Republican League. Daniel A. Ryan, chairman; Perry
H. Newberry, secretary."
The San Francisco Election of 1907 307
prosecution element, Mr. Ryan, while a pleasing young
man and clever politician, it was generally recognized
had few qualities usually looked for in the Mayor of a
community of half a million people.
To add to the confusion. The Examiner, which was
now in active opposition to the prosecution, came out
strongly against Mr. Ryan's candidacy, denouncing it
as "a grotesque piece of effrontery." "For the primary
leader," said The Examiner, "to appropriate the office
to himself, is like the agent of a charity fund determin-
ing that he is the most worthy object of the charity, and
putting ^^* the money in his own pocket."
324 The Examiner, in its issue of September 19, 1907, in discuss-
ing- Mr. Ryan's proposed candidacy said: "It is generally under-
stood that Mr. Dan Ryan proposes to nominate himself as the
Republican candidate for Mayor of San Francisco. That he has
the power to do this thing is one of the curiosities of our political
system.
"The theory is that the delegates to a convention represent that
part of the public which marches under the political banner of a
political party. But Mr. Ryan evidently considers that the dele-
gates to the Republican convention were chosen to advance his
personal political ambitions.
"The people do not mean that the acfddental leaders of a pri-
mary fight should put the offices in their own pockets.
"They elect delegates as agents to select candidates from
among the people. The delegates are the bearers of a trust and
neither they nor the man who happens to captain them in the
scramble between factions has a right to appropriate the nomi-
nations.
"The trust is not fulfilled if the primary leader assumes that
because the people elected his primary ticket they want him in
office. They don't want him, for they don't want primary poli-
ticians in the Mayor's chair.
"The theory of any convention is that it is assembled to
choose the best man in the party for its candidate. The spectacle
of Mr. Dan Ryan holding a caucus with himself, and deciding that
he is better qualified to be Mayor of San Francisco than any other
man in the Republican party, is a grotesque ijiece of effrontery.
"All sorts of men rise to the top in primary fights, but most of
them have a sufficient sense of modesty, if not of the fitness of
things, to abstain from making themselves the recipients of what
the delegates have to give.
"For the primary leader to appropriate the office to himself
is like the agent of a charity fund determining that he is the most
worthy object of the charity and putting the money in his own
pocket."
3o8 The San Francisco Election of 1907
But Ryan's candidacy was not to be defeated by
adverse criticism. Mr. Ryan had been largely instru-
mental in selecting the Republican delegates who were
to name the candidates. Besides, he had the clever sup-
port, in its local columns at least, of the San Francisco
Call. He had about him a number of enthusiastic
young men who were ambitiously active in urging his
candidacy.
''Every time the Taylor boomers gain a man they
lose one," announced Perry Newberry, Secretary of Mr.
Ryan's organization, and Ryan's right-hand man. "As
far as the Republicans are concerned Daniel A. Ryan
is as good as named. It will be Ryan, not Taylor, who
will sweep the city."
With the advocacy of Ryan's candidacy, came quiet,
systematic opposition to the nomination of Langdon.
With Mr. Ryan and his associates in control of the
convention that was to nominate, it began to look as
though the victory which the pro-prosecution Republi-
cans, under Mr. Ryan's leadership, had won at the
primaries, was barren indeed.
Among the Democrats, the opposition to Langdon
and Taylor was even more discouraging. Langdon had
been candidate for Governor two years before on the
Independence League ticket. Theodore A. Bell had had
the Democratic and Union Labor nominations. Bell had
been defeated by a plurality. Bell ascribed his defeat to
Langdon. The so-called Bell Democrats accordingly
made this an excuse for objecting to Langdon. ^^^ As
325 It was anything- to defeat Langdon, even though a pro-
prosecution attorney be employed against him. Hiram W. Johnson,
for example, was suggested as his opponent. But Johnson let it
be understood, and with characteristic positiveness, that under no
considerations would he be a candidate against Langdon.
The San Francisco Election of 1907 309
to Taylor, with, the abiHty of the forces at work to
defeat the prosecution considered, opinion gained daily
that the failure of the RepubHcan convention to nomi-
inate Taylor, would be followed by a refusal of the
Deniocrats to give him nomination.
Thus with the supporters of the prosecution over-
whelmingly successful at the Republican and Demo-
cratic primaries, there was grave danger that their pur-
poses would be set aside by political manipulation.
But at this crisis a new element was injected into
the situation.
Citizens who stood for enforcement of the law hasti-
ly formed a non-partisan organization to uphold the
hands of the prosecution. ^^^ They called their organiza-
tion the Good Government League. Taking for their
motto "CITIZENSHIP ABOVE PARTISANSHIP,"
they boldly announced their support of Langdon for
District Attorney, and of Taylor for Mayor.
The attitude of San Francisco toward the Graft
Prosecution was shown by the reception given the new
organization. Citizens by the thousands sent in their
application for membership. Funds for the purposes of
the campaign were forwarded by men in all walks of
life.
The Democratic leaders were the first to appreciate
the significance of the reception given the new move-
ment. What was practically a combination between the
two forces resulted. This insured the nomination of
326 The members of the Good Government League Executive
Committee were: E. L. Baldwin, J. E. Cutten, George Renner,
Gen. Samuel W. Backus, George R. Fletcher, Sigmund Bauer, B.
H. Gurnette, Frank W. Marvin, Frank W. Gale, L. C. McAfee.
George Uhl, Rev. Chas. N. Lathrop, Isidor Jacobs, Rudolph Spreck-
els, Edgar A. Mathews.
3IO The San Francisco Election of 1907
Langdon and Taylor by the Democrats. It also assured
the nomination of Langdon by the Republicans, for
after the stand taken by the Good Government League,
for either Republican or Democratic party to have
rejected Langdon would have been an exhibition of
"poor politics." But Ryan still controlled the Republi-
can convention. The Republican convention nominated
Mr. Ryan for Mayor.
Mr. Ryan's nomination was not accomplished with-
out protest. The citizens who attended the convention
as spectators were overwhelmingly for Taylor. Taylor
received 53 out of the 148 convention votes, 95 being
cast for Mr. Ryan. The minority charged that in the
nomination of Mr. Ryan, the Republicans of San Fran-
cisco had been betrayed, and that they would not be
bound by the nomination nor support the nominee.^^^
The Union Labor party, following out its policy of
opposition to the prosecution, nominated P. H. McCar-
thy ^^^ for Mayor, and Frank McGowan for District
Attorney.
The planks of the several parties dealing with the
prosecution were characteristic of the conventions from
which they issued.
The Union Labor plank definitely pledged its candi-
date for District Attorney to prosecution of the Super-
327 The minority which voted for Taylor, in a memorial to the
convention, charged "that the majority of the delegates to this
convention have betrayed the confidence reposed in them by their
constituents" and gave notice that it would not be bound by the
nomination of the convention for Mayor and would not support
the nominee, but would do all in its power to further the election
of Dr. Edward R. Taylor.
328 The Union Labor party convention also had its sensations.
Thomas F. Eagan, for example, and his followers bolted the con-
vention because of McCarthy's nomination. The Carmen's Union
refused to accept the Union Labor party ticket because Langdon
had not been nominated for District Attorney.
The San Francisco Election of 1907 311
visors who had confessed to bribe-taking although it
had been clearly pointed out that such prosecution
would bar effective prosecution of those responsible for
the bribe-giving.^^^
329 Heney, on the eve of election, in reply to McGowan's argu-
ment that the bribe-takers should be prosecuted, effectively an-
swered this contention. Heney's communication read: "To Frank
McGowan, Esq. Sir: You are reported by the newspapers as
having stated that you will prosecute the boodling Supervisors
and that you will also prosecute Patrick Calhoun and the other
rich bribers, and that you will grant immunity to no one. I invite
you to answer specifically the following questions either in the
newspapers or the next time you make a public speech:
"1. If you prosecute Supervisor Lonergan (or any other Super-
visor) for accepting a bribe to influence his vote in the matter of
the trolley franchise, what witness, or witnesses, will you call to
prove that he accepted the bribe?
"2, Every child in town now knows that if Lonergan received
the money at all it was from Supervisor Gallagher. Will you prove
the fact by Gallagher? If you call Gallagher as a witness, how
do you expect to induce him to testify without granting him
immunity?
"3. When you prosecute James L. Gallagher for giving a
bribe to Tom Lonergan or to any other Supervisor to influence his
vote on the trolley franchise matter, by what witness or witnesses,
will you prove that Gallagher paid the money to Lonergan or to
any other Supervisor? Will you call Lonergan or any other Super-
visor as a witness, and when you call him, how will you induce
him to testify without granting him immunity?
"4. By what witness do you expect to convict Gallagher of
giving a bribe, or Tom Lonergan, or any other Supervisor of ac-
cepting a bribe in the matter of fixing the gas rate, or in the
Home Telephone Company franchise matter?
"5. If you prosecute Ruef for giving money to Gallagher to
distribute to the Supervisors to influence their vote on the trolley
franchise, by what witness, or v/itnesses, will you prove that Ruef
gave the money to Gallagher? Will 3'ou put Gallagher on the stand
to prove it, and if so, how will you induce him to testify without
granting him immunity? Will you put Fprd on the stand to prove
that he gave the money to Ruef, and if so. how will you get him
to testify without giving him immunity? Will you put Pat Cal-
houn on the stand to prove that he gave the money to Ford to
give Ruef to give to the Supervisors, and if so, how will you
induce Pat to testify without giving him iminunity?
"6. You say that you will prosecute Patrick Calhoun for
bribing the Supervisors to influence their votes in the matter of
the trolley franchise. By what witnesses will you prove that the
money was given to Gallagher or to any of the other Supervisors
to influence their votes in this matter? Will you prove by Ford
that he gave the monej^ to Ruef, and if so, how will you induce
Ford to testify without giving him immunity? Will you prove by
Ruef that he gave the money to Gallagher to distribute to the
other Supervisors, and if so, how will you prove it by Gallagher
without giving him immunity? "Will you prove by the other
Supervisors that thej- received money from Gallagher, and if so,
how will you induce each of them to testify without giving each of
them immunity?
"7. Will you prosecute Frank G. Drum and the other officials
312 The San Francisco Election of 1907
The Republican plank left the reader in doubt as to
whether or not the delinquent Supervisors were to be
prosecuted. The Democratic plank alone pledged un-
qualified support to the prosecution "in any effort it may
make to convict any guilty person." ^^^
of the gas company for bribing the Supervisors for fixing the gas
rates, and if so, how will you prove that the money was paid
without granting immunity to Ruef and to some or all of the
Supervisors?
"8. Will you prosecute A. K. Detweiler for bribing the Super-
visors in the Home Telephone franchise matter, and if so, how
will you prove your case against him without granting immunity
to Ruef and to some or all of the members of the Board of
Supervisors?
"9. Can jurisdiction be conferred on a court by consent, and if
so, how could you proceed with the Ford trial on a legal holiday?
"10. If you found it necessary to grant immunity to either the
bribe-taker or the bribe-giver in the trolley franchise matter to
prevent an utter failure of justice and the escape of both the
bribe-takers and the bribe-givers, to which side will you recom-
mend the granting of immunity by the court? Will you prosecute
the friendless, insignificant Supervisors and grant immunity to ex-
Attorney-General Tirey L. Ford and his employer, Patrick Cal-
houn, president of the United Railroads of San Francisco, or will
you recommend that the court shall grant immunity to the friend-
less and insignificant Supervisors in order to convict the rich,
powerful and influential Patrick Calhoun and his general counsel,
Tirey L. Ford?
"Yours, etc., FRANCIS J. HENEY."
330 The Republican convention "pledged its party and its nomi-
nees to assist and continue the vigorous prosecution of all persons
guilty of crime, in whatever walk of life, high or low, in San
Francisco," and "to incessant and energetic war on graft in every
form, to the end that this plague may be exterminated from the
body politic."
The Union Labor plank on the Graft Prosecution was as fol-
lows: "We demand the punishment of all offenders against the
law, and we pledge our nominee for District Attorney to prosecute
vigorously all bribers, boodlers and grafters without distinction,
and particularly do we pledge him to prosecute those public of-
ficials, confessed criminals, who have been guilty of the greatest
crime in the city's history, but who have been permitted to go
unwhipped of justice, and to remain outside the walls of the
penitentiary behind which they should now be imprisoned. We
further pledge our nominee for District Attorney to abolish private
prisons, wholesale 'immunity baths,' and all other Institutions
created for the benefit and protection of criminals."
The Democratic Graft Prosecution plank read: "We commend
the work of the prosecution, which has removed from public office
criminals who have dishonored and debauched our city and has
secured convictions that must be forever a warning to official
wrongdoers and those who participate with them in crime; and we
pledge our support to the prosecution in any effort it may make
to convict any guilty person."
The San Francisco Election of 1907 313
The new alignment which followed the clearing of
the atmosphere by the nomination of candidates, and
the adoption of platforms, involved some astonishing
changes.
The Examiner, which, on September 19, preceding
the nominations, had described Mr. Ryan's candidacy
as "a grotesque piece of effrontery," and compared him
to the custodian of a trust fund who puts the money
in his own pocket, announced its support of Mr. Ryan
for Mayor. On October 20, a month and a day after
publication of the custodian-of-a-trust-fund editorial
article, The Examiner "unhesitatingly recommended to
all the voters of San Francisco," Mr. Ryan, *'as the man
best qualified to be the next Mayor of the city."
On the other hand, The Call, which was the first to
suggest Mr. Ryan's candidacy, describing him a heroic
young "boss buster," to whom the Democrats could log-
ically turn for a mayoralty candidate, after his nomina-
tion, described him as "a cheap politician itching for
office," ^^^ whose candidacy was the one element which
threw a doubt upon the election of Alayor Taylor. Fol-
lowing the conventions, The Call supported Taylor as
against the field.
331 "There never would have been doubt anywhere about Tay-
lor's successor," said the Call In its issue of November 5, "if it
had not been for the grossly selfish and unpatriotic course of
Daniel A. Ryan. The one possibility of McCarthy's election was
opened to him by Ryan. Failing of other support, Ryan turned
renegade to all his party professions and went into an infamous
alliance with that arch enemy of Republicanism, Hearst. For four
weeks he has been scrambling for votes. . . . Ryan has fully
revealed himself as a cheap politician itching for office. He lias
boasted of his youth, and yet he was the first of the candidates
to break down and go to bed. He has declaimed about his own
honesty, until his voice is in tatters and has filled the air with
promises of what he would do if elected. Never has he explained
or attempted to explain the nature of those 'certain concessions'
that led him to nominate himself, although he knew that in so
doing he was jeopardizing the future of his city."
314 The San Francisco Election of 1907
The Chronicle tactfully refrained from taking sides
until after the nominations were announced.^^^ Then
The Chronicle gave support to Taylor. If the shifting
policy of the newspapers had raised a doubt as to where
the people of San Francisco stood on the issue, that
doubt was dispelled by the opening meeting of the
Taylor-Langdon campaign. The largest auditorium in
San Francisco was packed to the doors,^^^ with citizens
332 Said the Chronicle of Mr. Ryan's candidacy in its issue of
October 3, 1907: "The Chronicle has neither apologies nor regrets
for urging its readers to support the Regular Republican League
movement headed by Daniel A. Ryan. We believed at the time, as
others believed, that Mr. Ryan's sole desire was good government
for San Francisco and that such desire was unsmirched by personal
ambition. General confidence in the sincerity of Mr. Ryan and his
associates led to the triumphant election of the delegates to the
Republican convention named and approved by Mr. Ryan, which
was accepted throughout the country as evidence that the people
of San Francisco were sound at heart.
"When we urged the public to support the Ryan primary tickets,
we did so, not in the interest of Mr. Ryan, but in the interest of
good government. We considered Mr. Ryan in the light of a useful
and public-spirited citizen, upon whom, in due time, the people
would delight to confer official honors should he be willing to accept
them. Those who voted the Ryan ticket at the primaries did not
vote for Mr. Ryan, but for the cause which he championed. As
for considering him a candidate for Mayor, nobody thought of it.
It is no disparagement to a young man like Mr. Ryan to say that as
yet he has no such standing in the community as justifies him in
aspiring to such an honor."
In its issue of October 5 the Chronicle said: "The moral col-
lapse of Daniel A. Ryan is deeply regretted by every lover of San
Francisco. It is not a matter of the rise or fall of one man. It is
a question of whether the people will ever again trust any man
who appears as a leader of reform. Few men ever get such an
opportunity as Mr. Ryan has thrown away. Doubtless the lesson
is for the people never again to trust an unknown man. It is
not too much to ask of any aspirant to leadership on an im-
portant scale that he shall have some record of honorable achieve-
ment of some kind as an earnest of what to expect of him should
the confidence reposed in him place him in a position of power."
333 The Call, in speaking of the Taylor-Langdon meeting said:
"Young Mr. Ryan ought to have been at that meeting. We have
nothing against Mr. Ryan except that he is not the man of the
hour. We shall not even reproach him with his youth. That is not
his fault and he will get over that. But he is not the man of the
hour. The people have said it. Mr. Ryan embodies no principle.
To the people of San Francisco he means nothing in particular at
this critical time. He might have read that message in the mighty
roar that went up from the meeting in welcome of Dr. Taylor.
Mayor Taylor stands for something, stands for much. Mr. Ryan
has only his own ambition and a certain command of language."
The San Francisco Election of 1907 315
whose one purpose, expressed by approving cheers
every time the subject was mentioned, was support of
the prosecution which had broken up the Schmitz-Ruef
organization, and which bade fair to bring to book the
corrupters of the municipal government.
The meeting was thoroughly representative. Labor-
touched elbows with capital. Among the speakers were
representative Labor Union leaders, who had definitely
broken with the Union Labor party.
"It is inconceivable to me," said Walter Macarthur,
one of the organizers of the Union Labor party, in a
ringing address, ''that any honest thinking labor man
would stand for the proposition that those men who
have debauched the officials of our city should go scot
free while the victims of their cupidity be sent behind
the prison bars alone. I believe that labor will join
with all honest people in declaring that if the corrupt
bribe-taker is punished the man who is at the head of
this corruption must be punished also. That is the
issue of this campaign and I believe that election day
will prove the virtue of my faith."
That the contest for the District Attorney's office
overshadowed in importance the mayoralty fight was
fully recognized. The Union Labor party, which had
nominated and elected Langdon in 1905, had repudi-
ated him, and named Frank McGowan as Langdon's
only serious opponent. The Republicans and Democrats,
who had under a fusion arrangement in 1905 opposed
Langdon's election ; united, in 1907, to fight for his
continuance in office. The public service corporations,
especially those whose officials were under indictment,
generally opposed Mr. Langdon's election, and sup-
3i6 The San Francisco Election of 1907
ported the candidacy of his Union Labor party opponent.
This was particularly astonishing in the case of the
United Railroads, whose president, Mr. Patrick Cal-
houn, was even then posing as a 'labor union buster,"
while the United Railroads was very effectively grind-
ing to pieces the San Francisco Carmen's Union. ^^*
Nevertheless, there was certain consistency in the
political course taken by the United Railroads. What-
ever the differences President Calhoun, in his role as
a "union buster," may have had with the labor union,
there was much in common between him and the San
Francisco Union Labor party as headed by Mr. Mc-
Carthy.^^^ President Calhoun and his company opposed
the prosecution vigorously. Mr. McCarthy and his
party went quite as far in this opposition. President
Calhoun was most emphatic in his denunciation of those
who had made the graft prosecution possible. Mr.
McCarthy was scarcely less emphatic in his denuncia-
tion. Indeed, Mr. McCarthy opened his campaign with
an attack upon the graft prosecution. Inasmuch as
the one issue before the people was the continuance o£
the graft prosecution along the lines that had proved
so distasteful to Mr. Calhoun and those in the same
predicament as himself, the support of the Union Labor
334 The San Francisco Call, in its issue of November 5, charged
that orders had gone out from the United Railroads to "vote for
McCarthy and the Union Labor ticket — straight." In the cars
of the United Railroads appeared dodgers which read: "Working-
men. Workingmen — Are you going to put a bigr stick into Spreckels'
hands to club you over the head with?"
335 The same is true of the Los Angeles Times, which has a
national reputation as an opponent of organized labor. The Times,
while at issue with Mr. McCarthy on the question of the desirability
of unions, was scarcely less vehement than he in denunciation of
the San Francisco graft prosecution.
The San Francisco Election of 1907 317
party candidate for District Attorney by a union-labor-
busting corporation was not entirely inconsistent.
And yet, Mr. McGowan, the Union Labor party
candidate, definitely pledged himself to continue the
prosecution, but he promised that the prosecution which
he would carry on should not ''disturb business," that
Heney ^^^ should no longer be retained as special pros-
ecutor, that the Supervisors who had confessed to
bribe-giving should be prosecuted ^^^ as well as those
who had given bribes.
This last was one of the chief arguments advanced
in support of Mr. McGowan's candidacy. On the
ground that a mistake had been made, if a wrong had
not been done, when the Supervisors were granted im-
munity,^^^ it was urged that Mr. Langdon should not
be continued in the District Attorney's office.
336 One of the allegations made against Heney was that he
would not prosecute Patrick Calhoun, because Heney's brother-in-
law was employed by Calhoun as a detective. This argument was
intended to weaken Heney and the prosecution with the union ele-
ment that Calhoun was endeavoring to crush.
337 In a political advertisement which appeared in the San Fran-
cisco Call November 3, 1907, Mr. McGowan said: "If elected Dis-
trict Attorney I will prosecute every n:ian accused of crime, regard-
less of his position in life. I will continue the present graft prose-
cution with more vigor, and the District Attorney's office will net
be used for politics, nor to disturb business. I will be the District
Attorney in law and in fact, and I will never allow any man or
set of men to control the office for any purpose. I will honorably
enforce the law without the aid of any millionaire's money."
338 Langdon, at the opening of the Republican campaign, took
up the question of the prosecution's policy in granting immunity
to the Supervisors. He said:
"In this prosecution we have tried to be practical, to be
effective. What would you have said if we had made a scapegoat
of a petty criminal and let the giants go? What would you have
said if in all this gi'aft and corruption we had arrested and jailed
two or three obscure Supervisors you had never heard of before
they came to office, and will never hear of them again now that
they are retired to private life, and had let escape the giants in
crime?
"There have been graft exposures before in the history of
American municipalities and the graft has gone on. And it was
bound to go on so long as the prosecutions failed to stop the sources
3i8 The San Francisco Election of 1907
The election returns ^^^ were conclusive of San
Francisco's attitude on the several issues raised. Taylor
was elected Mayor, with a clear majority of 415 over
all his competitors. Langdon's majority over all com-
petitors, including the Socialist candidate, was 13,510,
his plurality over McGowan being 14,808. And with
of evil, to gather into the fold of the penitentiary the corrupt
men of business and the corrupt political leaders who have dared
to use weak men for their own ends. These giants in crime are
perfectly willing that the physical life of the weak men they use
shall be fed into the jails of the State to appease public wrath
exactly as they have been willing to use up the moral life of these
men to satisfy their own greedy needs in the Board of Supervisors.
Profiting by the mistakes of previous prosecutions, this office has
struck straight at the very roots of public graft; at the crooked
public service corporations; but which of the criminals were to be
allowed to give evidence for the State and enjoy its alluring pro-
tection; the giants of crime who have always been most responsible
and who have always escaped or the petty, miserable fellows who
have entered upon these things through ignorance and w^eakness?
"Immunity had to be given in order that crime might be punished
and it was given to the Supervisors that the very tap roots of
political corruption might be torn from the soil in which they
thrived. We did it because this prosecution has a moral as well
as a legal significance. It is time to stop the cynicism of common
men when they view democracy and say it is for the powerful and
the rich; that the poor must go to jail for the theft of bread and
the rich escape for the theft of privilege, the purchase of men's
souls and the degradation of government. It is time to stop the
brazen and confident effrontery of the irresponsible criminal rich,
who commit crimes and rest back, thinking they can buy judges
as they bought legislators and executives, and knowing they can
buy legal talent to interpose every technicality in every courtroom
until justice is a human travesty tangled in its own web.
"We are after the 'men higher up' because they are the severest
menace to our institutions, the enduring factors that program and
bribe each Board of Supervisors as they come and go. We are
after the 'men higher up' so as to make criminal acquisition un-
profitable in terms of human desire. We are after the 'men
higher up' so that young men and women growing up in this and
other communities will once more believe with ardent fervor not
only that dishonesty does not pay, but that of all the goods on
this earth the greatest treasure is a straightforward life."
339 The vote for Mayor and for District Attorney was as fol-
lows:
For Mayor —
Taylor 28,766
Ryan 9,255
McCarthy 17,583
Reguin (Soc.) 1,503
For District Attorney —
Langdon 34,923
McGowan 20,115
Kirk (Soc.) 1,298
The San Francisco Election of 1907 319
the election of Taylor and Langdon ^*° were elected all
the Good Government League candidates for Super-
visors.
The Graft Prosecution had successfully passed an-
other crisis. It had, too, received overwhelming en-
dorsement of The People at the polls.
340 In commenting upon the outcome of the election, the Ex-
aminer, in its issue of November 6, said: "And this revolt of union
labor against misrepresentation in office began long ago. Before
the primaries, when most of the registering was done, it was ob-
served that the number of Republicans recorded was far in excess
of the adherents of union labor. The story was told then. Dis-
gusted with the dishonesty of the men they had placed in office,
finding the local Democratic party a mere memory, they registered
as Republicans because they were determined to vote against the
representatives of Ruef and Schmitz who had captured their or-
ganization.
"Langdon's majority will surprise no one. His election was a
matter of course, for union labor, like all other decent elements in
the community, was determined to sustain the prosecution of the
grafters.
"The swing of union labor to Taylor will surprise the gentlemen
who have been so fond of assuming that the working people would
vote as a class regardless of principle. The fact that they set aside
all class feeling, all personal preference, and rolled up a big ma-
jority in favor of the man considered most likely to defeat the
zebra-striped bandits who had captured their organization proves
that government in America is safe in the hands of the plain people.
"It is union labor, and union labor chiefly, which has saved San
Francisco from McCarthy and McGowan."
"Yesterday," said the Chronicle the morning after the election,
"was a great day for San Francisco. It was the turn of the tide.
It was the beginning of the ascent to nobler ideals and better
days. The passions of the conflict will soon die away. With an
honest government assured, capital will not shun us but seek
us. And we can look back on the events of the last six years as
we remember a nightmare from which we awake to find ourselves
in security and peace."
"The indicted bribe-givers," said the Call, "may as well make
up their minds that there is no way of escape for them except
through trial and by the verdicts of the juries. The people have
spoken and they have said that the clean-up must be thorough.
The sweeping success of Dangdon means that the prosecution of
the grafters will be pressed to its fitting conclusion upon the facts
and under the law. There need be no delay now. Soon all the
cases should be settled and another chapter added to the history
of San Francisco — a chapter in which will have been written the
means, the manner and tlie fullness of our atonement for Schmitz-
Ruef chapter just before it, the vindication of the city's good name."
CHAPTER XXII.
Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef.
On January 8, 1908, the municipal officials elected
with Mayor Taylor assumed the duties of their office.
That day, Ruef was taken from the custody of the
elisor and locked up in the county jail. In the jail with
him were Schmitz, convicted of the extortion charge
to which Ruef had pleaded guilty, and Glass, who had
been convicted of bribery.
The following day, January 9, the Appellate Court,
for the First District, handed down a decision in the
Schmitz extortion case, which, later sustained by the
Supreme Court, unlocked the prison doors not only for
Schmitz, but for Ruef also.^*^
The decision was the first serious setback in the
graft cases that District Attorney Langdon's office had
received.
The prosecution had prevented Ruef seizing the
District Attorney's office ; had defeated the efforts of
the defense to have the indicting Grand Jury declared
an invalid body ; had overcome the resistance of the
defendants to facing trial jurors; had, after meeting
341 The opinion was written by Justice Cooper and concurred
in by Justices Hall and Kerrigan. This is the same Kerrigan who
appears in the Santa Cruz banquet scene picture, in which Ruef
occupies the position of honor with the Republican nominee for
Governor, J. M. Gillett, standing at his back with hand resting on
Ruef's shoulder. (See Chapter IV.)
Supreme Justice Henshaw, whose sensational action in Ruef's
favor will appear in another chapter, is also one of the Santa Cruz
banquet group.
Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 321
the clever opposition of the best legal talent obtainable
for money, forced trials before juries and secured con-
victions; and finally, the prosecution had met the de-
fense before the larger jury of The People, and, at
the polls, had won again. But, with a stroke of the
pen, the Appellate Court swept aside the greater part
of the accomplishment of fifteen-months struggle
against corruption. The court found the indictment
under which Schmitz had been convicted of extortion
to be insufficient and ordered the defendant to be dis-
charged as to the indictment.
In as much as Ruef, Schmitz's co-defendant, in-
dicted jointly with him for extortion, had plead guilty
to the same indictment as that under which Schmitz
had been convicted, the effect of the decision was to
free Ruef as well as Schmitz.
Before passing upon the sufficiency of the indict-
ment, the court took occasion to deal with the points
of error as raised by the defense. On five principal
points the court found that error had been commit-
ted.^*^ On this showing, the case could have been sent
back to the Superior Court for re-trial. In that event,
Ruef's status would not have been affected. But the
342 The Appellate Court enumerated the following errors at the
trial:
(1) That the trial court erred in allowing the peremptory chal-
lenge of a juror after he had been sworn to try the case; and the
removal, after he had been sworn, of a second juror without cause.
(2) That error was committed in the appointment of the elisor
that had charge of the jury.
(3) That the court erred in admitting hearsay evidence of wit-
nesses, Loupe, Blanco, Malfanti, Debret and Rosenthal.
(4) That error was committed when Schmitz was required, under
cross-examination, to answer question as to w-hether he had re-
ceived from Ruef part of the money extorted from the French
restaurant keepers.
(5) That Ruef's testimony that he had divided the money with
Schmitz was not proper rebuttal evidence.
11
322 Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef
court went back of the trial to the indictment, on points
raised in the defendant's demurrer, found for the de-
fendant, and held the indictment to be insufficient.
In the discussion of the decision which followed,
criticism was confined almost exclusively to the court's
rulings on the sufficiency of the indictment. The point
raised was that the indictment did not state facts suffi-
cient to show that any public offense had been com-
mitted.
The court held in effect that the facts presented
did not, under the definitions of the California codes,
constitute the crime of extortion.
In the California Penal Code ^^^ extortion is defined
as "the obtaining of property from another, with his
consent, induced by a wrongful use of force, or fear
or under color of official right." The section follow-
ing ^^^ defines *'Fear such as will constitute extortion
may be induced by a threat either: (1) to do an unlaw-
ful injury to the person or property of the individual
threatened, or to any relative of his, or member of his
family."
The court found that the threat which induced the
fear in the Schmitz-Ruef extortion cases, was a threat
to" prevent the parties from obtaining a liquor license,
and thus to prevent them from carrying on the busi-
ness of selling wines and liquors at retail. A license
to sell liquor, the court showed, is not property in the
ordinary sense of the word,^^^ but a mere permission,
343 California Penal Code, Sec. 518.
344 California Penal Code, Sec. 519.
. 345 The general feeling regarding the Schmitz decision was well
expressed by Attorney J.. C. Hutchinson, in a letter to Justice
Cooper. The letter follows:
"Hon. James A. Cooper, Presiding Justice of the District Court
Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 323
and the license is but the evidence that the permission
has been given by the proper authorities. "There is
grave doubt," ^^^ the court held, "as to whether a threat
to prevent a party from obtaining a permission or
license by one who has no authority in the premises, is
a threat to injure property within the meaning of the
sections quoted."
But the court found it unnecessary to decide this
question, for the reason it held the indictment insuffi-
cient "because it does not allege nor show that the
specific injury threatened was an unlawful injury."
347
of Appeals, First District, 1420 Sutter street, city. Dear Sir: Yours
of the 15th inst. received. I did not expect you to reply to mine of
the 13th inst., which was more in the nature of an ejaculatory pro-
test than a letter. Nevertheless, I think you are right to reply, espe-
cially as I know you have replied to letters complimenting you on
the same decision,
"I have never before written a letter to a judge commenting upon
a decision in which he had taken part, and I ordinarily would con-
sider such a course highly unprofessional. During twenty-five years*
practice, I have always remained silent in the face of decisions,
however adverse, even in some cases where I was perfectly well
aware that improper influences behind the scenes had prevented me
from obtaining justice. But in this case the situation is different
from anything I have ever experienced. The very air seems to be
full of revolutionary feeling. At the universities, clubs, in the
trains, on the streets and in the home, I find no one (except the
friends, connections and lawyers of the grafters) speak with any-
thing but emphatic protest against this decision so far as it re-
lates to the validity of the indictment.
"I have cast no personal reflection upon yourself. The attack
is upon the atmospheric environment of a statement which could
lead a man of your integrity and intelligence honestly to believe
that such a decision could be correct; and if the Supreme Court
should unanimously hold the same, that would, according to my
view, only make the matter so much the worse.
"Very respectfully yours, J. C. HUTCHINSON."
346 See 7 Cal. App. Reports, page 3.30.
347 The Court, in discussing this point, said: "The indictment
does use the words 'unlawful injury' in the first part of it; but
when the facts are specifically set forth as to what the defend-
ants threatened to do we find that the threat was that defendants
'would prevent the said Joseph Malfanti. Charles Kelb and William
Lafrenz from receiving said license or obtaining the same.' There
is no allegation that any unlawful act was threatened, and the
attorneys for the prosecution frankly admit that they rely upon
the fact that the defendants obtained the money by threatening
to do an injury, which they claim was unlawful solely for the
324 Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef
To the man on the street, the reading of the opinion
conveyed the impression at least, that according to the
Appellate Court, when Schmitz had shown his power
to prevent the French Restaurants getting their licenses,
thus endangering investments valued as high as $400,-
000, and Ruef because of the fear engendered by this
showing, acting w4th Schmitz, had secured large sums
of money from the enterprises thus threatened, the
crime of extortion had not been committed.
reason that the threats were made with intent to extort money.
In other words, it is claimed that even though the French-restau-
rant proprietors were violating the law, and conducting immoral
places used as resorts by lewd women, and thus not legally entitled
to a license to sell liquor, a threat to prevent the issuance of
licenses to such places by laying the facts before the Board of
Police Commissioners in a legal manner, constitutes a crime if such
threat w^as made with the intent to extort money. Such, in our
opinion, is not the law. The statute uses the words that the threat
must be to do 'an unlawful injury'; and in order to charge a crime
the indictment must aver in some way that the threat was to
do an unlawful injury. It is apparent from the language of the
statute which we have hereinbefore quoted, that it is not every
kind of fear that will support a charge of extortion because of
property obtained thereby. The fear must be induced by one of
the threats enumerated in the statute. The Legislature has seen
fit to provide that the threatened injury to property upon which
a charge of extortion may be predicated must be an unlawful in-
jury to property. That is, the injury threatened must be, in itself,
unlawful, irrespective of the purpose with which the threat is
made. As the word 'unlawful' is used in the statute it qualifies the
'injury' and not the 'threat.' Unlawful means contrary to law.
It is true that from a high standard of ethics it could not be
claimed that one could extort money by a threat to do a lawful
act, if the intent was to get money by the use of the threat, but
every wrong is not made a crime. There are many wrongs done
every day that are not enumerated in the category of crimes
contained in the Penal Code that are of much more serious conse-
quence in their nature than others which are defined therein; but
we must look to the statute to find whether or not an act is a
public offense for which a prosecution will lie. To procure prop-
erty from others by a mere threat to do a lawful act is not a
crime. The object of the statute — or at least one of its objects —
is to protect the party from whom the property is extorted;
and if such party pays the money in order to secure protection in
violating the law himself he cannot be heard to complain. He in
such case would be a party to the violation of the law. In this
case, if the parties as a fact paid the money in order to prevent
the evidence as to the character of places they kept from being
exposed to the Board of Police Commissioners, they are not in a
position to complain."
Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 325
The decision was received with protest ^*® and de-
nunciation. The Call dubbed it "bad law, bad logic
and bad morals." ''Any ordinary intelligence," said The
Examiner, "would construe the threat to take away a
license to sell liquor from a restaurant unless a certain
sum of money was paid as the plainest kind of extor*
tion."
*'When," said Dr. William Rader of Calvary Pres-
byterian church, in a sermon preached on the evening
of the Sunday after the decision was made public, Jan-
uary 12, 1908, ''extortion is not a crime, when bribery
is not even a wrong, when a confessed felon can learn
that he is really righteous, and that his trial, confession
and conviction have all been nothing but a mistake —
348 The Examiner, in its issue of January 11, 1908, said of tlie
decision:
"The District Court of Appeal has overturned the conviction
of Mayor Schmitz on the ground that threatening to prevent t);e
French-restaurant keepers from getting a license to sell liquor
does not constitute the crime of extortion, with which he is
charged. This is one of the decisions that will aggravate the dis-
satisfaction of the public with the courts.
"Abe Ruef, once political boss of San Francisco, testified that
he had divided with the Mayor the 'fees' for getting the licenses
which Schmitz had held up until the money was paid. 'A license
to sell liquor is not property in the ordinary sense of the word,'
declares the court, making the point that the indictment 'does not
allege any threat to injure property.'
"Any ordinary intelligence would construe the threat to take
away a license to sell liquor from a restaurant unless a certain
sum of money was paid as the plainest kind of extortion, par-
ticularly when the Mayor was shown to have shared in the money
thus exacted, and the fact that the contrary ruling of a court acts
as a release of a man whose guilt was clearly established,, will not
change that view."
"Even the lay mind," said the Call, "is competent to reach
the conclusion that this decision is bad law, bad logic and bad
morals."
The decision was generally condemned by the interior press.
The Sacramento Bee denounced it as a "palpable evasion of jus-
tice." The Oakland Enquirer stated that it came as a "shock and
a surprise to the law-respecting people of California and of the
entire country." "San Francisco in particular," said the Los
Angeles Evening News, "California in general and the republic at
large have suffered great wrong by reason of this reprehensible
decision."
326 Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef
a slight mistake — I repeat that however correct this
may be legally and ethically, it has the effect of making
us stand amazed at the rapid revolutions of the legal
wheels. Perhaps tomorrow we shall learn that this last
decision has been a mistake, too. I hope so; I believe
so.
"We of this city," said Rev. Dr. Evans at Grace
Episcopal Cathedral, ''are dumfounded by a judicial
pronouncement which enables the high officials of our
city to rob and plunder without any technical breaking
of the law. It is enough — such an audacious mockery
of the first principles of common sense — to justify the
appointment of a lunacy commission to inquire into the
sanity of men who could formulate such a judgment
and it ought to provoke an explosion of righteous
indignation from one end of the State to the other.
We need not hesitate to declare that such an opinion
as this has its inspiration in that place where public
sentiment without a single dissenting note would give
it its unanimous approval."
The decision did not immediately release Ruef and
Schmitz. The prosecution had still an appeal to the
Supreme Court for a re-hearing and, pending such an
appeal, the defendants remained behind the bars. This
delay annoyed those interested in seeing the graft
defendants go free. Stories were circulated that the
prosecution would not appeal. But the prosecution did
appeal. Three months later, the Supreme Court ren-
dered its decision. ^^^
The decision was against the prosecution.
349 See California Appellate Reports, in which the Supreme
Court decision is printed, Vol. No. 7, Page 369.
Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 327
*'The (Supreme) court is unanimous in the opin-
ion," the decision read, "that the District Court of Ap-
peal was correct in its conclusion that the indictment
was insufficient, in that it did not show that the specific
injury to the property of the restaurant-keepers threat-
ened by the defendant was an 'unlawful injury/ "
The Supreme Court went a step further than the
Appellate Court had done and attacked the indictment
on the ground that it had not set forth that Schmitz
was Mayor at the time of the alleged extortion, nor
that Ruef was a political boss practically in control of
the municipal government.
The prosecution in its application for a rehearing
had set forth that "it will be found and decided by this
court that levying blackmail upon licensed businesses
by the Mayor and the political boss of a metropolitan
community is a crime under the law of California and
should not go unwhipped of justice."
This observation was denounced in the Supreme
Court's decision as "a gross misstatement of the case
and of the question to be decided as presented by the
indictment."
"We again emphasize the fact," reads the opinion,
"that the indictment does not aver that Schmitz was
Mayor, or that Ruef was a political boss, or that either
of them had any power, or influence, or control over
the Police Commissioners, or that they threatened to
use such power, influence or control in preventing the
issuance of a license."
The storm of protest with which this opinion was
received was even greater than that which followed the
Appellate Court decision. Once more did press, pulpit
328 Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef
and public, from one end of the State to the other,
join in expression of indignation.
The court in return insisted that it was misrepre-
sented and misunderstood. Chief Justice W. H. Beatty
essayed the task of writing an explanation of the
ruling, that ''the man on the street" might understand.
The Chief Justice's article appeared in the Sacra-
mento Bee of April 29, 1908.^^*^ Again was the omis-
sion from the indictment of the fact that Schmitz was
Mayor and Ruef a boss, emphasized. "^^ And again, it
350 The Bee prefaced the Chief Justice's article with the fol-
lowing statenient: "The decision of the Supreme Court of Cali-
fornia in the case of Eugene Schmitz is one not only of State but
even of national importance. It has been the fruitful topic of varied
comment throughout the Union. And yet, after all tiie discussion,
there remains a prevailing ignorance as to WHAT WAS DE-
CIDED; and even among those laymen who had a fair idea upon
that point, there is certainly little if any knowledge as to WHY
IT WAS SO DECIDED.
"Having a very high idea of the granitic probity of Chief Jus-
tice Beatty of the Supreme Court, and believing it to be the duty
of that Court to answer when citizens respectfully ask for light,
the editor of this paper on March 31st last wrote to Chief Justice
Beatty and asked him to publicly explain just what the Court had
decided and just why it had so decided; to explain it so that the
man in the street might easily understand. In that quite lengthy
letter to the Chief Justice, the editor of The Bee wrote:
" 'The ignorance of the general public as to what was decided
and exactly why it was decided has undoubtedly given rise to
considerable of a public suspicion that all is not as it should be —
that injustice has triumphed where justice should have prevailed —
that the good work of almost two years has been practically wiped
out by a judicial obeisance to technicalities — that the guilty have
been saved by the interposition of a judicial hand that could with
more propriety and equally as much regard for the law have
turned the scales to record the verdict of the highest tribunal on
the side of good government.'
"Justice Beatty answers the questions at length, but with such
clearness that the 'man in the street' can understand. His ex-
planation should be read by everybody, so that hereafter those
who discuss the matter can do so witii a full and thorough under-
standing of exactly what the Supreme Court decided in the Schmitz
case, and exactly why it considered it had so to decide."
351 "I repeat," said the Chief Justice in his Bee article, "that
the only question presented for decision was the question of
statutory construction here stated, for it was never seriously con-
tended before the Supreme Court by the Attorney General, or by
the District Attorney of San Francisco, or by any of his assistants
or deputies, or by the learned counsel, whose names are signed
to the petition for a rehearing, that the indictment did allege a
Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 329
may be added, did the stupid man on the street fail to
understand. In fact, disapproval of the decision con-
tinued. Heney attacked it respectfully in tone, but
with sharp criticism.*"^^^
James M. Kerr,^^^ in his Cyclopedia Penal Code of
threat to do an unlawful injury of the character indicated. What
it did allege on this point, and all that it alleged, was that one
E. E. Schmitz (without showing that he was Mayor of the city,
or that he liad any ofRcial or other influence over the Board of
Police Commissioners greater than, or different from, that of the
haimblest private citizen), and one Abraham Ruef (without show-
ing that he had any such power or influence) had told certain
keepers of a restaurant that they could, and had threatened that
they would, prevent them from obtaining a renewal of their
license to sell liquors, etc. The indictment, in other words, had
no more force in legal contemplation than if it had been directed
against Jack Stiles and Richard Noakes, for though the facts that
Schmitz was Mayor and Ruef the political boss of the city may
have been as notorious in San Francisco as the fire or earthquake,
no lawyer would contend for a moment that they were facts of
which a court could take judicial notice in passing upon the suffi-
ciency of the indictment."
352 Heney's reply to Chief .Justice Beatty was published in The
Sacramento Bee. Section 961 of the California Penal Code ex-
pressly provides that no fact of which a court may take judi-
cial notice, need be alleged in any indictment. The Codes enu-
merate certain matters of which the courts are required to take
judicial notice. Among the matters are "State offices and their
incumbents." The Political Code defines who are "State officers,"
and among them are included "Mayors of Cities." Heney, in his
reply, held Chief Justice Beatty and the court to be wrong, even
on the face of the statute. No lawyer in the State attempted to
answer Heney's reply, although many of them would have been
glad to have earned recognition from the Supreme Court by
doing so.
353 James M. Kerr is author of Kerr's California Cyclopedic
Codes. These works are accepted as standards throughout the
country.
"It is thought," says Kerr in California Cyclopedic Codes for
1908, "that . . . the [Schmitz] case cannot be safely relied upon
as an authority outside of California. It is a flagrant violation of
the spirit if not the letter of Section 4 ante, and the old rule thit
it is the duty of the court, where it is possible, so to construe the
statute as to uphold the indictment and promote justice, instead
of effecting a miscarriage of justice. Several things occur in con-
nection with a consideration of the foregoing quotation from the
Supreme Court.
"1. If an indictment can lawfully be upheld, the court, as the
judicial voice of the State, is bound so to uphold it. It is not the
province of the court to seek some strained view of the law by
which an indictment of one accused of crime can be quashed.
"2. The construction of the code provision on extortion is to
be made, not technically, but according to the fair import of its
terms, with a view to its object and to promote justice.
"3. It is not charged, and the statute does not require It to be
330 Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef
California, published in 1908, declared in effect that in
the Schmitz decision the Supreme Court of California
formulated bad law and advocated bad pleading.
As for Ruef's position as a political boss, Kerr con-
tended, it was merely a matter of evidence, and not a
matter to be pleaded. ''The Supreme Court," concludes
the law writer, ''seems to lose sight of the fact that the
crime of extortion in this State is not confined to per-
>j
sons in office and exercising official influence
Dean John H. Wigmore of the Northwestern Uni-
versity School of Law, and author of the standard
work, Wigmore on Evidence, in a crushing criticism of
charged, that the threat was made by Schmitz, acting in his offi-
cial capacity. The crime of extortion, under our statute, is not
the old common-law crime of extortion, which could be committed
only by an official acting in his official capacity. Under our statute
it is immaterial whether Schmitz held any official position, or
whether Schmitz and Ruef had any power or inffuence to carry out
the threat; the only thing to be considered is, Did the accused
extort money by means of a threat? Official position or power to
carry out the threat is neither material nor proper.
"4. It is entirely immaterial by what means Schmitz and Ruef
intended to accomplish their threat to have the liquor license with-
held; whether by fair persuasion of the Board of Supervisors, or
by menace, duress, fraud, or undue influence. The crime charged
did not consist in the dealings with the Board of Supervisors, but
in the threat made to the French restaurateurs, by means of which
the fears of the latter were aroused, and were forced to pay to
Schmitz and Ruef money to which the latter were not entitled, as
a means of preventing Schmitz and Ruef from carrying out the
threat. To require the indictment to contain an allegation of the
means intended to be used by Schmitz and Ruef to accomplish their
unlawful purpose — the means to be used with, or to influence, or
to menace, or duress, or fraud in dealing with, the Board of Super-
visors— is indubitably bad law and bad pleading.
"5. The declaration that the case 'is not one which is sufficient
to charge an offense in the language of the statute defining it,'
made by the court, needs some reason and good authorities to make
it good law outside of this State, and also in this State under the
system of criminal pleading provided for by the code — which should
be the law by which criminal pleading is to be measured.
"6. It does not seem to have been suggested to the court, and
it does not seem to have occurred to the learned judges thereof,
that the trial court was required to take judicial notice of the head
of department of a co-ordinate department of the government of
the City and County of San Francisco, and to take judicial notice
of the fact that Schmitz was at least de facto Mayor. See Kerr's
Cyc. Code Civ. Proc, Sec. 1875, Subd. 5.
"7. The position and practical control of Ruef, as the 'political
Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 331
the decision and the various documents in the case,
charged the Chief Justice with being "plainly incon-
sistent."
''The truth is," said Dean Wigmore, ''that the
learned Chief Justice in endeavoring to support his
decision weaves a logical web and then entangles him-
self in it." ^^* The moral of the Schmitz decision is,
boss' of San Francisco (a position unrecognized by law), and his
undue influence over the Board of Supervisors (the exercise of
which is contrary to public policy), was merely matter of evidence,
and not a matter to be pleaded; the only thing that is important
is. Was the threat made? and did the defendants, Schmitz and
Ruef, through such threat, extort money, and by means of the fear
raised thereby? If they did, it is utterly immaterial whether
Schmitz was Mayor, or Ruef was a 'political boss,' and had or had
not any influence with the Board of Supervisors. The Supreme
Court seems to lose sight of the fact that the crime of extortion
in this State is not confined to persons in oflSce, and exercising-
ofRcial influence.
"8. A threat to do a lawful act, if made for the purpose of
putting a person in fear, and thereby securing money or property
which the person was not in law entitled to have and receive, ren-
ders such person guilty of extortion, under the weight of decision
and the better doctrine; and taking the case in that view, the in-
dictment is amply sufficient, and should have been upheld by the
court. The case of Boyson vs. Thorn, 98 Cal., 578; 33 Pac. Rep., 492,
has no application, and its citation by the court only tends to befog
the issue."
354 Dean Wigmore's criticism of the decisions in the Schmitz
case, and of the articles written in defense of them was as fol-
lows: "I have read the letter of Mr. Heney, and the letter of the
Chief Justice, and have re-read the opinion of the Court in People
vs. Schmitz, 94 Pac. Rep. 419. The Chief Justice's letter and Mr.
Heney's reply turn largely on the legal rule of judicial notice.
The learned Chief Justice finds himself iron-bound by the rules
of that subject. But the whole spirit of the rules is misconceived
by him. Their essential and sole purpose is to relieve the party
from proof, — that is, from proof of facts which are so notorious
as not to need proof. When a party has not averred or evidenced
a fact which later turns out, in the Supreme Court's opinion, to
be vital, the rule of judicial notice helps out the judge by permit-
ting him to take the fact as true, where it is one so notorious that
evidence of it would have been superfluous. Now these helping
rules are not intended to bind him, but the contrary, i. e., to
make him free to take the fact as proved where he knows the
proof was not needed. Moreover, it follows that, since these rules
cannot foresee every case that new times and new conditions
will create, they can always receive new applications. The prece-
dents of former judges, in noticing specific facts, do not restrict
present judges from noticing new facts, provided only that the new
fact is notorious to all the community. For example, the unques-
tioned election of William H. Taft as President of the United
332 Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef
Dean Wigmore concludes, ''that our profession must
be educated out of such vicious habits of thought."
The extravagance of the criticism of the decision
was more than equaled by the claims made by the oppo-
sition to the prosecution, of its effect upon the status
of Schmitz and Ruef.
''Schmitz," said a writer in The Chronicle, "is now
states is notorious; but no man named William H. Taft has ever
been elected President, and no judicial precedent has noticed the
fact. But no court would hesitate to notice this new notorious
fact.
"If, then, a man named Schmitz was notoriously Mayor of San
Francisco and a man named Ruef was notoriously its political
boss, at the time in question, that is all that any court needs;
and the doctrine of judicial notice gives it all the liberty it needs.
It is conceivable that a trial judge might sometimes hesitate in
applying this doctrine of notoriety, because the trial court might
fear that the Supreme Court would not perceive the notoriety.
But there never need be any such hesitation in a Supreme Court,
if that court does see the notoriety.
"And this is just where the learned Chief Justice is to be
criticised. He does not for a moment ask or answer the question,
'Did we actually, as men and officers, believe these facts to be
notoriously so?' but refers to certain mechanical rules, external to
his mind. What that Supreme Court should have done was to
decide whether they under the circumstances did actually believe
the facts about the status of Schmitz and Ruef to be notorious.
in not so doing, they erred against the whole spirit and principle
of judicial notice.
"And Mr. Heney's demonstration that there is nothing in the
codes to forbid them is complete; for, of course, the Code of Pro-
cedure, in telling- them (Section 1875) that 'the courts take judi-
cial notice of the following facts,' simply gave them a liberty of
belief as to those specified facts, and did not take away their lib-
erty as to other unspecified facts.
"But there is a deeper error than this in the learned Chief
Justice's letter, and in the court's opinion. The letter says: 'If
by means of these allegations or otherwise it had been made to
appear that the defendants had caused the applicants to believe
that they could and would influence the Police Commissioners to
reject their application regardless of its merits I have never
doubted that the indictment would have been sufficient.' He stakes
his decision on this point. The point is that, in determining the
fear caused by the threat, which constituted extortion, the belief
of the restaurant-keeper as to Schmitz's and Ruefs power, and
not their actual power, was the essential thing. If that is so, then
of what consequence was it whether one or the other was Mayor
or boss? And of what consequence was it whether those facts
were averred or judicially noticed. None at all. The indictment
alleged that the threats were made to use influence or power over
the Commissioners, and that their purpose was to obtain money
by means of (i. e., through fear of) such threats. Obviously, then,
the actual power or influence was immaterial; and the belief of
Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 333
thoroughly exonerated of the charge of having squeezed
money from Malfanti, the French-restaurant man."
However this may have been, the practical result
of the decision was that both Schmitz and Ruef, with
the restaurant-keeper, the only material fact, was a question of
the evidence on the trial, and not of the legal sufficiency of the
indictment. All the lucubrations about judicial notice were there-
fore beside the point.
"The inconsistency of the learned Chief Justice, in thus taking
as essential the actual status of Schmitz and Ruef, is further seen
in his next paragraph. There he declares 'it could not be assumed
that such private persons could prevent the issuance of the license
otherwise than by adducing good reasons.' But why does he
assume that, on the contrary, a threat by a Mayor or a boss
could prevent the issuance of the license otherwise than by ad-
ducing good reasons? He says that if it had appeared that the
threats were made by a Mayor and a boss, then this would have
sufficed, because, in his own words, their influence, to reject the
application would have been used 'regardless of its merits.' See
what this means. Suppose that two persons, a Mayor and a pri-
vate citizen, tell a restaurant-keeper that they will do all they
can to induce a Commissioner to revoke the license unless money
is paid; for one of these persons, the learned Chief Justice immedi-
ately assumes that he can and will do this 'regardless of its
merits'; for the other he says 'it cannot be assumed.' Why not
for one as much or as little as the other? He does not say
that the private person could not possibly succeed in influencing
the Commissioner corruptly — he merely says that 'it cannot be
assumed.' On the other hand, why assume it for the Mayor?
Surely a Mayor might fail in trying to influence an honest Com-
missioner by a corrupt threat to remove him. In short, either
assume that on the facts of the trial a private person might have
power to influence corruptly the license; in which case an allega-
tion of his Mayoralty would be superfluous. Or else refuse to
assume that a Mayor, merely as such, could and would inevitably
influence a Commissioner corruptly; in which case the mere alle-
gation of his being Mayor would not be enough, and judicial notice
would not cure. But the Chief Justice says it would be enough!
He is plainly inconsistent.
"The truth is that the learned Chief Justice, in endeavoring to
support his decision, weaves a logical web, and then entangles
himself in it.
"Such disputations were the life of scholarship and of the law
six hundrd years ago. They are out of place today. There are
enough rules of law to sustain them, if the court wants to do so.
And there are enough rules of law to brush them away, if the
court wants to do that.
"All the rules in the world will not get us substantial justice
if the judges have not the correct living moral attitude toward
s lib st3,nt 13,1 iusticG.
"We do not doubt that there are dozens of other Supreme Jus-
tices who would decide, and are today deciding, in obscure cases,
just such points in just the same way as the California case. And
we do not doubt there are hundreds of lawyers whose professional
habit of mind would make them decide just that way if they were
elevated to the bench tomorrow in place of those other anachro-
nistic jurists who are now there. The moral is that our profession
334 Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef
no convictions against them, by furnishing bonds in the
bribery cases, were able to walk out of prison.
Schmitz did not return as a prisoner. Ruef enjoyed
his liberty until November, 1908.
must be educated out of such vicious liabits of thought. One way
to do this is to let the newer ideas be dinned into their professional
consciousness by public criticism and private conversation.
"The Schmitz-Ruef case will at least have been an ill-wind
blowing good to somebody if it helps to achieve that result.
"December 7, 1908. JOHN H. WIGMORE."
CHAPTER XXIII.
The Defense Becomes Arrogant.
The prosecution's reverses in the Appellate and the
Supreme Courts were followed by startling changes of
policy on the part of the defendants.
The officials of public service corporations, who by
every technical device within the ingenuity of the best
legal talent that could be purchased, had for months
resisted trial, suddenly became clamorous for their
trials to begin. Abe Ruef, who had been counted, by
the public at least, as friendly to the prosecution, openly
broke with the District Attorney and his associates.
President Calhoun of the United Railroads, who
had been in the East, returned to San Francisco de-
manding trial. The San Francisco Examiner, now
openly opposing the prosecution, announced this new
move to be a bomb-shell thrown in the prosecution's
camp. Nevertheless, The Examiner could not entirely
conceal the astonishment caused by the defense's new
policy.
"Just what has brought about this change in Cal-
houn's attitude," said the Examiner in its issue of
January 28, 1908, "was not explained yesterday. Tac-
tics of evasion, motions of obstruction, and every other
artifice known to legal legerdemain to stay proceed-
ings have heretofore been the accepted etiquette of the
graft defendants, and conspicuously that of Patrick
Calhoun."
22^^ The Defense Becomes Arrogant
The Call, supporting the prosecution, boldly charged
that the graft defendants were in treaty with Ruef.^^®
And this view the District Attorney's office was finally
forced to accept.
No sooner had the decision of the Appellate Court
been made public than Ruef clamored for dismissal of
the extortion charge to which he had plead guilty, but
which the higher court had decided in the Schmitz case
did not constitute a public offense. In this Ruef was
backed by Rabbis Nieto and Kaplan.
Ruef, after the Schmitz-Ruef officials had been
swept out of office, had been confined in the county
jail. From the day of his jail imprisonment the two
356 When Calhoun returned to San Francisco demanding imme-
diate trial, the Examiner announced that he "threw a bombshell
into the camp of the prosecution." The Call, however, dealt with
the incident as follows:
"Patrick Calhoun has come back in a hurry, shouting for an
immediate trial. He is certain that he has the prosecution on the
hip. His men are in treaty with Ruef. His organs in the press,
the Examiner, the Chronicle and the gutter weeklies, begin to see
Ruef in a wholly new light. Three weeks ago Ruef was the vilest
criminal. No immunity for him. Indeed, immunity, in the lexicon
of the Calhoun press, was then a worse crime than bribery or
graft. It is very different now that the new alliance between Ruef
and the bribe givers is in process of negotiation. Ruef has at once
become the persecuted sufferer, the victim of a heartless cabal,
pushing one more unfortunate to his ruin and positively 'rushing'
him to trial with indecent haste, with no lawyers but Henry Ach
to hire. It is too bad.
"Why this astonishing and sudden change of front? It is sim-
ply that Calhoun has made up his mind that this is the time for
grafters and boodlers and bribe givers to stand together. He has
persuaded himself that the prosecution is dnzed by the extraordi-
nary decision of the Court of Appeals, and that the same has put
Ruef in a receptive mood for a treaty of alliance, offensive and
defensive, among all varieties of boodlers, franchise grabbers, bribe
givers and bribe takers. Calhoun knows that Ruef on trial or
before trial is a very different person from Ruef after conviction.
He wants to keep Ruef in his present state of mind. Of course,
he knows that he can not trust Ruef. No man who has had deal-
ings with the shifty boss knovv-s on what side he will turn up next.
At present Ruef lends a responsive ear to Calhoun's overtures.
Consultations are held without disguise between Calhoun's lawyers
and Ruef. It is time for Ruef and Calhoun to stand together.
The association is suggestive but natural."
The Defense Becomes Arrogant 3.37
Rabbis besought the District Attorney day and night ^^^
not to force the broken boss to remain behind the
bars.^^^
Langdon, not having decided at the time to appeal
from the Appellate Court decision to the Supreme Court,
finally yielded to the importunities of the two clergy-
men and stated to Judge Dunne that Ruef wanted to
make a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty in the
extortion case. Judge Dunne replied that he would not
consider such motion.^^^
This closed the incident so far as dismissal of the
case before the Supreme Court could pass upon it, was
concerned. But it did not stop Ruef's insistence that
not only should he be allowed to withdraw his plea
of guilty, but that he be given complete immunity from
prosecution of all the charges against him.
Langdon, even before he had spoken to Judge
Dunne about permitting Ruef to withdraw his plea, had
become convinced, as Heney had become convinced long
before, that Ruef was not playing fair with the prose-
cution. Ruef, when confronted with charges of holding
357 The graft prisoners unquestionably suffered greatly from
their confinement.
"No matter," said Ruef, in an interview printed in The Exam-
iner January 11, 1908, "how much effort is made, the place cannot
be kept clean. Filth accumulates and no running water has been
provided. The gases from the drain pipes permeate the cells and
are always present. No prisoner can keep himself clean, and it is
no wonder that clothing and everything is uncleanly."
Schmitz, long of body, complained that he needed a long cell.
"I would like a longer' cell," he is reported as saying. "My legs
are too long and I cannot stretch them out. The hole is beastly
and no place for a clean man."
Louis Glass declared that he would be dead in a few days if not
permitted to remain outside his cell.
358 See affidavit filed by District Attorney Langdon in The
People vs. Patrick Calhoun et al., No, 823.
359 See affidavits filed by District Attorney Langdon, and by
Judge Dunne, in the case of Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823.
338 The Defense Becomes Arrogant
back evidence, shifted and evaded, until Langdon, los-
ing patience, charged him with falsehood.
About the middle of January, evidence came into
Langdon's possession ^^° which convinced him beyond a
shadow of a doubt that Ruef, instead of observing the
immunity contract, was, as a matter of fact, dealing
with and assisting his co-defendants, advising them of
every move.
Langdon ^^^ at once called Ruef before him and
notified him that the immunity contract was canceled. ^^^
The abrogation of the immunity contract brought
open break between Ruef and the prosecution. Ruef
360 Lang-don does not state in his affidavit what this evidence
was. But at the trial of Ruef for offerng bribes to Jennings Phil-
lips to grant the Parkside Railroad franchise, former Supervisor
Wilson testified that at the first Ford trial Ruef had asked him to
bury his memory of the money transactions and discussions with
Ruef. Ruef at the time was pretending to be assisting the Prose-
cution in conformity with the terms of his immunity contract.
361 District Attorney Langdon, in an affidavit filed in the case
of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823, states his atti-
tude toward Ruef. Mr. Langdon says:
"Affiant further avers and declares that if affiant believed that
the defendant Ruef had fully and fairly performed his part of the
agreement, and had honestly rendered such service to the State
as would have entitled him to the consideration set forth in the
immunity contract, this affiant would have moved in open court
to dismiss the indictments against defendant Ruef, and if said
motion were denied and affiant was directed by the Court or any
other official to proceed with the trial of said defendant, this affiant
would have declined to do so, and after exhausting every resource
at his command to carry out the terms and conditions of said im-
munity agreement, would have re.signed his official position of Dis-
trict AttornȤy of the City and County of San Francisco, rather
than prosecute the defendant Ruef.
"This affiant avers that it was only when he became convinced
that the defendant Ruef was still traitorous to the State he had
debauched, and whose laws he had defied, and that instead of
trying to make reparation for the wrong he had done, was endeav-
oring not only to save himself from the punishment he so richly
deserved, but also was endeavoring to make certain the escape
from punishment of his co-defendants, that affiant determined the
immunity contract to have been broken by Ruef, and no longer in
force and effect."
362 The Examiner in its issue of January 19, 1908, stated that
the abrogation of the immunity contract, "means among other
things that Ruef will now have aligned in his defense, the massed
influence of interests represented by the prosecution to command
$600,000,000 in wealth."
The Defense Becomes Arrogant 339
set up claim that under his immunity contract all the
graft cases were to be dismissed against him, including
that under which he had plead guilty to extortion. He
insisted that he had lived up to his part of the agree-
ment and charged that the prosecution was breaking
faith.
In this position, Ruef was backed up by Rabbis
Kaplan and Nieto, who for months had been clamor-
ously active in his behalf. Indeed, long before the open
breach had come, so persistent had the Rabbis become
in their insistence that Ruef be released, that Heney
had found it necessary to request Kaplan to remain
away from his office.^^^ When Ruef finally broke with
the prosecution, the two Rabbis were to the fore back-
ing up his contention that the prosecution was not
keeping faith with him.^^*
Kaplan soon after filed an affidavit setting forth that
under the agreement with the prosecution, Ruef was to
363 Heney, in an affidavit filed in the case of Tlie People vs.
Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823, states that he finally said to Kap-
lan, "You only annoy and irritate me by coming- here, Doctor, and
I wish you would stay away. I don't want to get mad at you,
because I respect you and am satisfied that you are sincere, but
Ruef is making a fool of you, and I have wasted more time than
I can spare in talking with you about these things. You will do
me a great favor if you will stay away from my office."
In spite of this suggestion, Kaplan, a few days later, called
Heney up on the telephone. Of the incident, Heney says in his
affidavit: "A few days later, however, he called me on the tele-
phone. I was at my office at the time, and do not know where he
was. He said over the telephone in substance, 'Mr. Heney, I don't
like to trouble you any more, but I had a talk with Mr. Burns and
I have since had another talk with Mr. Ruef, and I am sure that
Mr. Ruef's testimony will now satisfy you. He says that when he
is on the witness stand and you ask him' — I interrupted him at
about this point and said in a very severe tone of voice, 'Dr. Kap-
lan, I don't want you talking such stuff to me over the phone, or
anywhere else. I have asked you not to talk to me about this
matter any more and not to come to my office, and I will now have
to ask you not to call me any more on the telephone. I don't want
to hear anything more about Ruef's testimony."
364 See affidavits filed by Rabbis Nieto and Kaplan in the case
of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et al.
340 The Defense Becomes Arrogant
have had complete immunity, and be allowed to with-
draw his plea of guilty in the extortion case. Later
on, Nieto, "Ruef's diplomatic middle man," as he was
called, filed an affidavit to the same effect. Ruef, on his
part, filed a voluminous affidavit, purporting to cover
all his transactions with the prosecution, in which he
not only set up the claim that he was to have been
given complete immunity but alleged that Langdon,
Heney and Burns, were guilty of subornation of per-
jury in having endeavored to get him to swear falsely
against Schmitz and Ford.
Rabbis Kaplan and Nieto, in their affidavits gave
versions of the meetings with Judges Dunne and Law-
lor, when the Judges stated their confidence in the Dis-
trict Attorney and his assistants, which differed from
the accounts contained in the affidavit of Heney and
the judges. ^^^ This brought the trial judges as well
as the assistant prosecuting attorney into the contro-
versy.
The members of the Grand Jury that had indicted
the graft defendants had already had their trials in
open court ;^^^ petit jurors and witnesses had, in effect,
been on trial also. And now District Attorney and trial
judges were placed on their defense. ^*^^
Other graft defendants joined in the upholding of
3C5 See Chapter XV.
366 See Chapter XV.
367 A letter from W. H. Payson, a leader of the San Francisco
bar, to Rabbi Nieto fairly expressed the public attitude on the
Rabbi's stand. Mr. Payson's letter read: "Rabbi Jacob Nieto.
Dear Sir: — As you have written a letter to the public explaining
your connection with the Ruef case, it may not be out of place
for one of the public to reply.
"When Mr. Ruef made his apparently frank statement admit-
ting that he had betrayed his city into the hands of the spoilers,
The Defense Becomes Arrogant 341
Ruef and the denunciation of the prosecution. Adverse
newspapers joined in the cry of unfairness and hinted
but promised to do all in his power to right the wrong, whatever
the consequences might be to himself, the public believed him and
believed that he was going to do right iDecause it was right and
for his own self-respect, and not at the price of saving his own
skin. Acting on this assumption many of us congratulated Mr.
Paief and assured him that he had gone far toward recovering his
position in the public esteem. It now turns out from your letter
of explanation that Mr. Ruef's public statement of his high and
noble purpose was a mockery and hollow sham; that he had
rejected any proposition to act the man, but like his contemptible
associates, sought only to escape his just deserts.
"We recognize the unfortunate necessity the prosecution was
under of granting immunity in order to secure the evidence to
convict the greater felons, but surely the officers of the law were
fully qualified to attend to that miserable business. If you could
have influenced Mr. Ruef 'to stand on the higher plane of honor
and decency of which you are the advocate and representative,
you would indeed have done a great public service and you might
have saved him for better things, but it would seem that your
services were directed chiefly to saving him from the just penalty
of his crimes and that the arrangement with him was, on the same
sordid level as the immunity contracts with the Supervisors, for
which no ministerial services were necessary. From your position
and religious heritage we had a right to expect that your dis-
tinguished services would have been put to a better use. I am
still sufficiently credulous as to believe that with pi'oper influence
Mr. Ruef might have been induced to take the course we were
led to believe he had taken.
"Your letter even leaves it to be inferred that Mr. Ruef is jus-
tified in his present attitude, and that the judges, who, from your
statement, were ready to go to the extreme of mercy and consider-
ation, are now to be censured for not carrying out an immunity
contract which has been flagrantly broken by the other party to it.
"The serious features of this unfortunate situation are not that
officials should receive bribes, or that men of wealth and standing
should bribe them, or that attorn-sys of reputation should engineer
the filthy operation, but that not one of the army of bribed and
bribers has been found of sufficient manliness or moral stamina
to make a frank statement of the facts and give aid in the cause
of justice, and that so many people are willing to shield the influ-
ential criminals for commercial motives, and that there is so low
a state of public morals as to make these things possible.
"The great body of the public is heart and soul back of this
prosecution, because we believe it is an honest attempt, not merely
to convict certain criminals, but to elevate the standard of public
morality, and whatever may be the outcome and even though,
through successive miscarriages of justice, every guilty man escape
his legal punishment, the graft prosecution has, nevertheless, suc-
ceeded beyond our fondest hopes; nine-tenths of its work has been
accomplished, and in the teeth of the most determined and des-
perate opposition perhaps ever known.
"Be assured that every guilty man will be convicted at the bar
of public opinion, and from that conviction there will be no appeal
and no escape; they will be known and branded for life, each and
every one. The public is not a party to the immunity contracts.
"Very truly yours,
"W. H. PATSON.
"San Francisco, January 30, 1908."
342 The Defense Becomes Arrogant
at worse. The story became current that no appeal
would be made from the Appellate Court's decision in
the Schmitz case to the Supreme Court. Another story
had it that the prosecution was breaking down, that the
situation had become so complicated that no other trials
could be had.^^^
On the other hand, the outcry did not in the least
shake the faith of the citizens who were insisting upon
the crushing out of corruption at the State's metropolis.
Colonel Harris Weinstock, one of the largest merchants
of the State, in a ringing address condemned the efforts
made to discredit the prosecution. ^^^ The same position
368 District Attorney Langdon's statement in I'eply to these
criticisms was as follows: "I have no answer at this time to make
to the statements given out by Patrick Calhoun and made in be-
half of other defendants in the graft cases with the intention of
discrediting the prosecution and attempting to lead the public to
believe that v/e have acted unfairly in the conduct of these cases.
The time will come when such charges will be answered, but they
will be answered only as events shall dirct.
"Nothing that has occurred within the past few weeks has in
any way complicated the situa.tion as far as the prosecution is con-
cerned or has tended to weaken our position. The original plans
of the prosecution are to be carried out Just as we have always
intended to carrj^ them out. The Ruef case will be tried immedi-
ately, and every other defendant under indictment will be brought
to trial .lust as quickly as the courts are able to dispose of the
cases. "We shall not falter in our duty. I can promise that while
the present District Attorney is in office this battle will be fought
out to the end of the last case.
"The fact is that at the present time we have the tactical
advantage over all the defendants, who have allied their interests
for mutual protection. They know we have this advantage and
that is why they are shouting so loudly from the housetops. We
do not answer the attacks that are made because we are trying
law cases and our every energy is bent to the prosecution of those
cases. 'We are entirely satisfied, however, with the position in
which we stand at this time and are prepared to fight our battles
in the courts to a finish."
369 The following are extracts taken from Mr. Weinstock's
address:
"After all, the saddest thing is to fi.nd men who are rated as
decent, law-abiding, intelligent, presumably high minded and moral,
condoning the sins of the bribe givers and deploring their indict-
ment and prosecution.
"Both the commercial and political bribe givers com.mitted seri-
ous crimes, but by far the m.ore serious was the crime of corrupt-
ing public officials, because the tendency of this crime is to under-
The Defense Becomes Arrogant 343
was taken in pulpit, club room and street discussion.
From all parts of the State resolutions and memorials
were sent the prosecution approving and upholding its
work.^'*^ And doggedly the prosecution proceeded to
justify the expressions of confidence in its singleness
of purpose and in its ability to cope with the tremen-
dous odds brought against it.
The immediate indictments about which the contro-
versy raised by Ruef's claim for immunity centered
were those in the United Railroad cases. The prose-
cution accordingly went before the Grand Jury then
sitting — the Oliver Grand Jury which had brought the
original indictments had long since adjourned — and
secured three indictments against Ruef, Calhoun and
Ford for the bribery of three Supervisors, Furey, Nich-
olas and Coleman.
In these indictments every technical error which
the ingenuity of the defense had brought out was
mine the very foundation of tlie State, thus leading to the ulti-
mate destruction of democracy.
"If the spirit of the respectables, fighting and condemning the
graft prosecution, is to becoine the common spirit, then m.ust we
bid farewell to civic virtue, forevv^ell to public morality, farewell
to good government and in time farev/ell to our republican institu-
tions and to civic liberty."
370 A very good example of this is shown in a memorial from
Sonoma. The memorial read as follows:
"Sonoma, Cal., March 18, 1908. To William H. Langdon, Fran-
cis J. Heney, Rudolph Spreckels and others engaged in the graft
prosecution in San Francisco. Gentlemen: It appearing that a
portion of the press of this State is engaged in belittling the efforts
of those engaged in the prosecution of the graft cases in San
Francisco, and is endeavoring to impute improper and unjust mo-
tives to all who have such prosecution in charge; and we realizing
that it is the duty of all honest people everywhere to uphold the
hands of the prosecution, and to encourage them to proceed in all
lawful ways to continue in their efforts to bring all law breakers
to justice,
"We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Sonoma and
vicinity, mindful of the good work you are all doing, wish to show
our appreciation of your efforts, and encourage you in continuing
to pursue the course you have marked out, to the end that all
law breakers shall be punished and the majesty of the law vindi-
cated."
344 The Defense Becomes Arrogant
eliminated. The new indictments were not secured
because the prosecution regarded the objections as hav-
ing merit, but that the District Attorney's office might
be prepared to meet any emergency which might arise. ^^^
The next step was to bring Ruef to trial. The
prosecution selected the indictment under which Ruef
had been brought to bar for offering a bribe to Super-
visor Jennings Phillips to vote for the Parkside street
railroad franchise. ^^^
371 Heney, in a published statement regarding these indict-
ments, said: "We do not consider for a minute that there is a
particle of merit to any of the claims made by the defendants that
the former indictments were defectively drawn in any detail. It
is wise, however, to be prepared for anything that might happen
at any subsequent time, and so the present true bills have been
found. These indictments are so drawn as to eliminate every
technical objection that has been made by any of the defendants
to the former indictments, and the action has been at this time so
that the statute of limitations would not run against the crime
charged. There is absolutely no significance to the fact that the
name of Abbott and Mullally were omitted, except that we feel
that the cases against the three defendants named are of far
greater importance. Our sole purpose has been to throw an
anchor to windward to avoid possible trouble in the future."
372 James D. Phelan, at the mass meeting called after the
attempted assassination of Heney, summed up the Parkside case
tersely: "Take the Parkside case," he said. "There were some
men who wanted a franchise which we were all willing to concede,
but the boss said it would be advisable to pay for it. Instead_ of
making a demand upon the Supervisors and an appeal to the citi-
zens on the justice of their cause and the desirability of giving
them the franchise, they continued their dickering with Ruef, and
for so much money, thirty thousand dollars. I believe, he said he
would give it to them. Then they 'doctored' their books and went
down to the Crocker National Bank and got the money in green-
backs, handed out to them by the teller of that institution, whose
managers were stockholders in the Parkside, among them a gen-
tleman who told you the other day to vote against the Hetch-
Hetchy proposition, Mr. William H. Crocker.
"Now, finding that they could get so easily a privilege by pay-
ing for it. what did they do? They asked Mr. Ruef to give them
the franchise, not on Twentieth avenue, an ungraded street, which
they first wanted, but in Nineteenth avenue, which had been dedi-
cated as a boulevard for the use of the people, which was sub-
stantially paved, and which was the only avenue we had to cross
from the park to Ingleside. He said to them that that would take
fifteen thousand dollars more, and they said 'It's a bargain.' And
these gentlemen who sought the least objectionable franchise, tell
you nov/ that they were victims, tell you now that they could not
get their francliise any other way. They were glad because they
were a nart of the system, a part of the 'other fellows' of the
affiliated interests. They were glad to pay their money, which was
The Defense Becomes Arrogant 345
Prospect of immediate trial made a different man of
Ruef. He was at once seized with the panic which had
come upon him when the jury had been completed to
try him on the extortion charge. He begged for time.
He insisted that he was without counsel. He asked for
three weeks, a week, even two days.^^^
Then came an entirely new technical defense based
upon the immunity contract. Ruef alleged that he had
been deprived of his constitutional rights as a defend-
ant, by following the set program outlined in the
contract. But here Ruef had over-reached himself.
He had on January 31 entered a plea of not guilty in
the Parkside case, the case on trial. The District At-
torney had abrogated the immunity contract thirteen
days before, on January 18. Whatever technical advan-
tage Ruef may have had because of the immunity con-
a paltry sum to them, in order to perpetuate the rule of Ruef;
that they could go to him on any other occasion to get an exten-
sion, or a privilege or a franchise, or anything that they wanted,
by simply paying for it. It would be the simplest form of govern-
ment, my friends, to have somebody sitting in a place of power
and pass out to you what you want. It would save you the expense
of a campaign, it would save you the advertising in the news-
papers, it would save you the cost of mailing a circular to every
voter. It is indeed, a most economical and direct method of get-
ting what you want from the government."
373 The Oakland Tribune, in support of Ruef's plea for delay,
said; "Now the question arises: Is Ruef now being prosecuted
in good faith for the offenses alleged against him or is he being
forced to trial without adequate preparation merely to coerce him
into giving testimony he has repeatedly told Heney, Langdon and
Burns would be false? Is not the summary process of law being
invoked to compel Ruef to tell to a trial jury a different story from
the one he related under oath to the Oliver Grand Jury? In other
words, is not the prosecution now trying either to punish Ruef for
refusing to commit or convict himself of perjury or intimidate him
into assisting, as a witness under duress, Heney and Langdon to
make good the threat they reiterated on the stump last fall that
they would send Patrick Calhoun to State prison?
"Admitting Ruef to be guilty of all the crimes of which he
stands accused, is he not now being proceeded against in a crim-
inal spirit and with a criminal intent? Having failed to get what
they want by compounding the felonies of Ruef and his followers,
are not the prosecution resorting to compulsion under the forms
of law to compel the commission of perjury?"
346 The Defense Becomes Arrogant
tract was forfeited by his plea of not guilty after its
annulment.
His attorney gravely contended, however, that Ruef
— one of the shrewdest practitioners at the San Fran-
cisco bar — was without legal counsel when he had
entered his plea, and that he had therefore innocently
foregone his constitutional rights. This contention pro-
voked a smile even from Ruef's partisans. The point
was not urged further.
Seeing that trial could not be warded off on techni-
calities, Ruef endeavored to disqualify Judge Dunne,
the trial judge. But this move proved premature.
Judge Dunne was about to go on his vacation and Judge
Dooling,"'''* a Superior Court Judge from the interior,
was called to sit in Judge Dunne's stead. Ruef there-
upon proceeded to disqualify Judge Dooling. He alleged
that Judge Dooling, as Grand President of the Native
Sons of the Golden West, had signed an order expelling
him (Ruef) from the order; he alleged further that
Judge Dooling had attacked him in a speech at a ban-
quet.
Judge Dooling, placed on trial as Judges Lawlor
and Dunne had been, was forced to make defense. He
denied in affidavits that he had ever specially men-
tioned Ruef's name in any speech, but admitted that
he might have said that any man guilty of crime should
be expelled from the Native Sons order.
Ruef went to the Appellate Court for a writ of pro-
374 Judge M. T. Dooling- was at the time Superior Judge of San
Benito, one of the smaller of the interior counties. He had, how-
ever, already a State-wide reputation for integrity and ability. He
left the San Benito County bench to accept the appointment of
President Wilson as United States District Judge.
The Defense Becomes Arrogant 347
hibition to prevent Judge Dooling trying the case. The
Appellate Court denied his petition. Then Ruef went
to the Supreme Court. Here again his prayer was
denied. Thus, protesting as vigorously as a cat pulled
over a carpet by the tail, was Ruef for a second time
dragged to trial. The work of securing a jury to try
him began.
Gradually, the jury box filled. But before it was
completed there occurred an incident of the prosecution
even more startling than the sending of cash books out
of the State, the trailing of members of the prosecu-
tion by agents of the defense,^^^ the disappearance of
witnesses, the larceny of the prosecution's records, or
the attempted kidnaping of Witness Lonergan and
Editor Older.
On the eve of taking testimony in the Ruef case an
attempt was made to murder James L. Gallagher by
dynamiting his residence. Gallagher was the pivotal
witness against Ruef, as well as against Ford, then on
trial.
In the Ruef case, Gallagher had taken word from
Ruef to the Supervisors that there would be $750 —
later increased to $1000 — for each of them if they
granted the Parkside franchise. Without Gallagher's
testimony the case against Ruef would fall flat.
General Ford's third trial was then in progress and
well advanced. Here again, Gallagher was the pivotal
witness. He had taken the trolley bribe money from
3T5 Some of these trailers were arrested and forced into court.
On one day four men, Frank Shaw, alias Harry Nelson, Harry
Smith, alias Harry Zobler, J. R. Johnson, alias J. R. Hayes, and
Cliff Middlemiss were placed under arrest for following Detective
Burns.
348 The Defense Becomes Arrogant
Ruef to the Supervisors. He supplied the hnk between
those who had been bribed, and Ruef. His testimony
was indispensable if Ruef and Ford — then on trial —
were to be convicted. His testimony was equally neces-
sary in the cases against Calhoun, Drum, in fact all
the graft defendants, except those who had dealt directly
with the Supervisors.
The evening of the day following Gallagher's tes-
timony in the Ford case, but before he appeared at the
Ruef trial, dynamite was exploded at the front doors
of the house in which he was residing. The dynamite
had been placed next to the dining room. Gallagher
was at the time living at the home of W. H. H. Schenck
at Oakland.
So violent was the explosion that the house, a frame
building, was split in twain. A pillar from the porch
was thrown 150 feet. In the building on the adjoining
premises, every window was broken. The family had
just completed the evening meal and a number of them
were still seated around the table. The table was split
from end to end. At the moment of the explosion, one
of those in the house was showing a curious watch
guard and had the watch in his hand. The watch
stopped, thus fixing the exact time of the explosion,
7:30 P. M.
There were in the house at the time of the explo-
sion, W. H. H. Schenck and wife, and three children,
the youngest seven years old ; Lieutenant Guy Brown
of the National Guard; and Gallagher and his wife.
Every one in the building was thrown down by the
force of the explosion, but extraordinary to say, none
of them was seriously injured. Gallagher and his wife
The Defense Becomes Arrogant 349
were in an upper room of the building. The stairway
was demolished, and Gallagher was obliged to lower
his wife to the ground, getting down himself the best
way he could.
A month later three buildings in Oakland belonging
to Gallagher were destroyed by dynamite. Soon after
this second explosion a young Greek, John Claudianes,
was arrested and charged with the outrage.
Claudianes made full confession, involving his
brother Peter as principal. Peter Claudianes was finally
captured at Chicago. On his return to San Francisco
he confessed,^^^ stating that he had been employed by
376 According- to Peter Claudianes' confession to Burns, he had
been summoned from Chico to San Francisco by Felix Pauduveris
early in March. Pauduveris told him he had a hard piece of work
for Claudianes to do, namely, kill Gallagher, the chief witness in the
graft prosecution. Pauduveris had told him there was $1000 apiece
and three dollars a day for expenses in the job for them. The
first proposition, according to Claudianes' confession, was for
Claudianes to shoot poisoned glass into Gallagher's face by means
of an ordinary sling-shot. But this plan was abandoned on the
ground that Claudianes' capture would be sure to follow. A plan
to poison Gallagher was also abandoned. Destruction by means of
dynamite was finally decided upon. Pauduveris had taken Claudi-
anes over to Oakland and showed him where Gallagher resided.
After the failure of the dynamite plot, Claudianes had arranged to
secure apartments in the same building with Gallagher and put
poison into Gallagher's milk. Before this plot could be carried out,
John Claudianes had confessed and Peter had become a fugitive
from justice.
In his confession to Burns, Peter Claudianes stated: "Paudu-
vei'is said the prosecution with Heney, Langdon. Burns and Spreck-
els had put about 50,000 men out of work. We must get rid of
Gallagher as he is their principal witness. If he is put out of the
way the Prosecution will end. There is about $2000 in it for us
and about $1000 in it for your brother John. Felix Pauduveris was
very angry because no one was killed in the explosion at the
Schenck house. He said it was not a clean job."
In his confession, Claudianes stated further:
"I thought I was working for Ruef, as I knew Felix was a very
intimate friend of his. When Felix told me I had got to shadow
Gallagher I knew the word came from Ruef. Felix said that Ruef
would never go across the bay, as he had them all buffaloed. Ruef
was too smart for those fellows, Felix said, and the gang was all
behind Ruef. The prosecution had no grudge against Gallagher, but
it had a grudge against Ruef."
350 The Defense Becomes Arrogant
a Greek, one Felix Pauduveris,^" to murder Gallagher.
Felix Pauduveris fled the city and the police of the
world have been unable to locate him. Peter Claudianes
was convicted of the attempt upon Gallagher's life, was
sentenced to prison for life, and at present writing is
confined in San Quentin prison. ^^*
Quite as extraordinary as the attempted assassina-
tion of Gallagher was the indifference with which the
outrage was received by the press that was supporting
the graft defense. ^"^ The Chronicle condemned the
outrage, but took occasion to denounce Gallagher. ^^°
377 Pauduveris had been employed by the United Railroads as
a "spotter." At the time of the explosion he was still in that cor-
poration's employ. He was at the same time a political follower
of Ruef.
378 The attempt upon Gallagher's life led the prosecution to
take steps to secure his testimony in a form in which it could be
used before a trial jury in the event of Gallagher's death. Under
the California law, testimony taken at a preliminary hearing can,
in the event of the death or disability of a witness, be used at
the trial of the case. After the Parkside case trial, Ruef was
arrested on a charge of bribery and given a preliminary examina-
tion at which Gallagher testified against him. Gallaglier's testi-
mony was thus made secure against poison or dynamite.
379 The Examiner following the explosion printed a series of
ridiculing cartoons picturing the dynamiting of a bird cage and
describing at length the escape of the parrot that had occupied it.
380 The Chronicle took advantage of the dynamite outrage to
voice its condemnation of Gallagher. "There is," said that paper
in its issue of April 24, "no more undesirable citizen on earth than
the contemptible boodler James L. Gallagher, who is living on the
profits of the shame which he brazenly flaunts in the face of man-
kind, but the effort to discover the miscreant who dynamited the
house where he was living should be pushed as vigorously as if
the intended victim was the most estimable citizen of California.
Society despises such boodlers as Gallagher, but it does not seek
their destruction by dynamite. The dynamiter is a coward who is
even more contemptible than a boodler. He sneaks up in the dark,
fires his explosive and runs, because in his craven soul he dare
not stand up and meet his enemy. The punishment of the dyna-
miter— successful or unsuccessful — should be severe, but it should be
solemnly inflicted after due process of law.
"It is, of course, possible that some of the wretches with whom
he was associated during his career of crime have taken that
method of getting rid of his testimony, but it is not probable.
Among those against whom he has not yet given the testimony
which he will give are the only persons who can be conceived of
as having a motive to get Gallagher out of the way, but no one that
The Defense Becomes Arrogant 351
The weekly press, however, treated the affair as some-
thing of a joke on the confessed bribe-taker.^^^
In the face of the ridicule of the graft-defense
press, the dynamiting of witnesses, and the continent-
wide hunt for the dynamiters, the Ruef trial went
steadily on.
One incident of the beginning of the trial, because
of the event that grew out of it, eventually proved even
more important than the trial itself.
During the examination of jurors, an ex-convict,
one Morris Haas, was discovered to have been sworn
to try the case. Heney exposed him and he was ex-
we hear of suspects any of them of having resorted to that atro-
cious method of defense, in which six persons besides Gallagher
himself came near being murdered. In the absence of any conceiva-
ble sufficient motive the dastardly act must be assumed the work of
a wicked man gone crazy."
381 The following from the San Francisco Argonaut of May 2,
1908, is fairly expressive of the attitude of the San Francisco weekly
press on the attempt on Gallagher's life: "Mr. Heney in so far as
it lay in him to do it, 'placed' the 'crime' upon the 'minions' of
Calhoun. The other independent and all-seeing minds of the prose-
cution's staff fell in with this theory of the case. So far as the so-
called gi-aft prosecutors are concerned there is no mystery about
the matter — the explosion in Gallagher's house was nothing less
than an attempt to assassinate that eminent worthy for the sake
of 'getting him out of the way.' This theory has to face several
embarrassing considerations. In the first place, Gallagher's testi-
mony has been given again and again, and stands as an official
record in a half-dozen instances. Getting Gallagher out of the
way would not, therefore, do away with his testimony. Further-
more, there are other witnesses competent to testify to every vital
fact in the Gallagher story. So far as the immediate case is con-
cerned, Gallagher has already given his testimony and the effect
of 'getting him out of the way' would be only to emphasize his
statements. Furthermore, if there had been any wish to get Galla-
gher out of the way there has been plenty of chances to do it any
time this year and a half past. If assassination has been part of
the scheme of the defense, there have been ten thousand opportuni-
ties since the striking of that famous bargain between Spreckels
and Gallagher inside the Presidio gate. The thing might have been
done, too, without hazarding the lives of half a dozen women and
children." . ^, ^,
In view of the inability of Mr. Langdon's successor m the Dis-
trict Attorney's office to make effective prosecution of the graft
cases, on the ground that Gallagher, who had left California, was
absent from the State, and that his testimony was necessary to
secure convictions, the Argonaut article makes interesting reading.
352 The Defense Becomes Arrogant
cused from service. ^^^ The incident, compared with
the other tremendous happenings of the time, was of
small importance, but it was destined to lead to the
greatest outrage of all the history of the prosecution,
the shooting down of Assistant District Attorney Heney
in open court. But for the time, Haas passed out of
the graft cases and was forgotten.
The Ruef trial was not unlike the Ford trials. The
courtroom was packed with detectives, agents and
thugs employed by the various graft defendants.^*^
There was the same hesitancy on the part of witnesses.
At one stage of the proceedings Ach, Ruef's chief of
counsel, sneered that the State was having trouble with
its own witness.
''Yes," repHed Heney, "The People have no wit-
ness— no volunteer witnesses. We merely produce
them."
When J. E. Green, president of the Parkside Com-
pany, who had authorized the payments to Ruef, re-
fused to testify on the ground that he might incrim-
inate himself, it looked as though the case was going
against the prosecution. But Heney met this objection.
He promptly moved the dismissal of the fourteen in-
dictments pending against Green. ^^^ Ach objected, but
the motion was granted. Green was left free to testify.
382 Heney's exposure of Haas was unquestionably warranted and
necessary. The incident, however, has been made subject of much
misrepresentation and attacks upon Heney.
383 Heney in a speech made before Mayor and Supervisors
showed how the prosecution was harassed by thugs.
384 See transcript in The People vs. Ruef (Parkside case) for
dismissal of these indictments and of other indictments against
Parkside officials.
The Defense Becomes Arrogant 353
Green testified how he had sent his attorney/''^^
Judge Walter C. Cope, to Riief to find out what Ruef
was after. Ruef wanted $50,000 to put the franchise
through. Green testified that Ruef finally agreed to
take $30,000, and was actually paid $15,000 on account.
G. H. Umbsen testified to having received $30,000
from the Parkside Company for Ruef and had paid
Ruef $15,000, the balance being held until the deal
should be consummated. In addition to this, the sorry
manner ^^^ in which the company's books had been
juggled to cover up the transaction was shown by wit-
nesses connected with the Parkside Company.
Ruef's intimation through his attorney that the
money had been paid as a fee was ofi^set by testimony
that the books had been juggled to cover up the pay-
ment to Ruef because Ruef was the political boss of
the city, and it v/as believed that it would do the com-
pany no good if the fact of his employment were known.
Gallagher testified that he had been Ruef's repre-
sentative on the board ; that R.uef had told him that
the Parkside franchise was to be held up and delayed;
that later Ruef had stated that each Supervisor would
receive $750 because of the Parkside deal ; that finally,
after the fire, Ruef had told witness that the Parkside
people wanted the franchise in a new form, and that
the $750 to each Supervisor v/ould be increased to
$1,000; that he (Gallagher) had conveyed this informa-
tion to the Supervisors. Supervisors testified to having
been given the information by Gallagher.
385 For additional data regarding this case, see Cliapter XIV,
footnotes 180, 181, 198, 199, 200, 201.
386 See footnote 199.
12
354 '^^"^^ Defense Becomes Arrogant
Ruef offered no testimony. The jury was out forty-
three hours. By a vote of 6 to 6 the jury failed to
agree. Again a graft trial had ended in discouraging
failure for the prosecution.'^^
After the disagreement of the jury in the Ruef
Parkside case, to judge from most of the San Fran-
cisco public prints of the time, the prosecution was
utterly discredited in San Francisco. But there is a
surer means of estimating public opinion — namely, by
the votes of the people.
Much of the graft defense's abuse and vilification
was heaped upon Judges Lawlor and Dunne, who had
stood firmly for enforcement of the law regardless of
who might be affected. Judge Dunne's term as Supe-
rior Judge was to expire in 1909. He was, at the
November election of 1908, a candidate for re-election.
Judge Dunne was frankly fought by the graft de-
fense, and supported by those who approved the work
of the prosecution. The Republican county convention
refused to nominate him, and hissed his name. The
Union Labor party convention received his name with
a turmoil of hoots and jeers. A letter to the last-named
convention from the Good Government League urging
his nomination was thrown into the waste-paper basket.
387 Months after, when men had been indicted for endeavoring
to influence jurors to vote for Ruef's acquittal in the United Rail-
roads case, Isaac Penny, who had acted as foreman of the jury
that failed to agree in the Parkside case, in a public statement
denounced that jury as not honest. "Had I known then," said
Penny in an interview printed in the San Francisco Call, Septem-
ber 30, 1908, "what I have since learned about jury tampering, I
would have sprung a sensation in Judge Dooling's court that would
have resulted in the haling of numerous men before the court.
* * * I have been turning this over again and again in my mind,
and there is but on? answer — that jury was not an honest one."
Later, Penny cave sensational testimony along this line in
Judge Lawlor's court.
The Defense Becomes Arrogant 355
On the other hand, when given opportunity for
expression The People gave Judge Dunne encouraging
endorsement. The Good Government League proceeded
to have his name put on the ballot by petition. For
the petition 1,765 signatures were required. Over 3,000
persons signed it the first day. The press — outside San
Francisco — following the graft trials closely, was prac-
tically a unit in urging Judge Dunne's return to the
bench.^^^ And in spite of the costly contest of his
election. The People of San Francisco re-elected Judge
Dunne.
Thus again were the contentions of the graft de-
fense repudiated at the polls.
Another important endorsement of the prosecution
came from the Board of Supervisors. The Supervisors
provided in their annual budget $70,000 to meet the
extraordinary expenditures because of the graft cases.
Burns and the men who had theretofore been paid out
of the fund controlled by Rudolph Spreckels, became
regular municipal employees operating under the Dis-
trict Attorney.
388 Prom one end of the State to the other, Judge Dunne was
warmly commended as a jurist and a man. "The name of Judge
Dunne," said the Pasadena News, "stands in California honored
among honest men because of the enemies he has made. Every
politician and every newspaper that has defended bribery and
sought to embarrass the graft prosecution is against Judge Dunne.
They stocked a political convention against him. Judge Dunne's
defeat in San Francisco would be a disgrace to that city and a
reflection on the honor and intelligence of the people of California."
"The corrupt corporation organs," said the Sacramento Bee,
"and the servile journalistic tools of the predatory rich — such as
the Argonaut, for instance — are barking in unison at the heels of
Judge Dunne in San Francisco and declaring he is unfit to sit on
the bench. Dunne's crime in their eyes is that he did his simple,
plain duty in the graft prosecution cases. If he had neglected that
duty, to tip the scales of Justice over to favor tlie 'higher ups,'
the same gang, with the Argonaut In the lead, would be praising
him to the skies as a most just judge, a righteous judge, and would
be clamoring for his re-election."
356 The Defense Becomes Arrogant
The criticism of the defense had been that it was
shameful that a privately-financed prosecution should
be tolerated. Their cry now was at the shame of
wasting the public funds on Burns and his staff. Ac-
tion was instituted, through William H. Metson, to
prevent the municipal officials paying Burns and his
associates out of this fund. For months the salaries
of those affected were held up. Although eventually
the opposition to the prosecution lost in the contest,
and the men were paid the amounts due them, the suit
was an annoyance and a handicap.
But in spite of the tremendous opposition which the
graft defense was working up, the prosecution went
steadily on with its work. Ruef was put to trial for
offering a bribe to Supervisor Furey to vote for the
permit giving the United Railroads its overhead trolley
franchise.
CHAPTER XXIV.
Jury-Fixing Uncovered.
From the beginning of the graft trials rumors of
efforts to tamper with the trial jurors had been current.
The failures of juries to agree in the face of what to
the man on the street appeared to be conclusive evi-
dence, lent more or less color to these reports. But
it was not until Ruef 's trial ^^^ for offering a bribe in
the over-head trolley transaction opened, that the jury-
fixing scandal took definite shape. Then, came sensa-
tional exposures, involving indictments and trials for
jury-fixing which for a time over-shadowed in interest
the graft trials themselves.
Ruef's trial for offering a bribe to Supervisor Furey
to vote for the over-head trolley franchise, began Au-
389 Of the "fixing of juries," The Chronicle in its issue of Sep-
tember 19, 1908, said: "Every move made in the Ruef trials gives
moral evidence that systematic bribery of juries is being prac-
ticed which is as convincing to the public as were the signs of
corruption during the entire Schmitz regime, but before the ex-
plosion. Nobody doubted then that the Mayor, tlie Supervisors
and all officials appointed by Schmitz were thieves. Nobody
doubts now that all through these graft trials there has been sys-
tematic corruption of juries. In private conversation it is treated
as a matter of course. Nobody, of course, could 'prove' it. Nobody
needs legal proof to be convinced."
Of the incident, The Call said in its Issue of September 19,
1908: "For a long time there has been every reason to believe
that veniremen summoned to try Ruef were being bribed or
promised bribes to vote for acquittal. The dubious character of
Ruef's attorneys, or some of them, and their known affiliations
were wholly consistent with this theory. Circumstances not
amounting to absolute proof, but giving cause for strong suspicion,
came to the surface from time to time. The jury fixers grew
bolder with impunity, and, in fine, the pitcher went to the well
once too often."
358 Jury-Fixing Uncovered
gust 27, 1908.^^° But nearly a month before, on July
31, District Attorney Langdon had been given definite
information that an attempt had been made to bribe
on^e of the talesmen who had been called for jury serv-
ice at the Ruef trial. The talesman in question was
John Martin Kelly, a real estate salesman.
The list of prospective jurors had been made public
in July. Late on the afternoon of July 31, Mr. Lang-
don received a telephone message from Kelly requesting
an interview, which was granted immediately.
Kelly told Langdon ^^^ that that afternoon he had
390 The trial had been delayed by Ruef s preliminary hearing.
The hearing was held in order that Gallagher's testimony might
become of record in a way that would permit of its being used at
Ruef's trial, in the event of Gallagher's assassination.
Ruef's attorneys by lengthy cross-examinations and other de-
laying tactics, succeeded in dragging the case along for sixty-nine
days. Further delays were caused by the usual efforts made to
disqualify Judge Lawlor as trial judge. In this way, the defense
managed to keep the attorneys for the State engaged until late
in August. Then Ruef was made to face another jury.
391 Kelly claimed to have telephoned Langdon within a few
minutes after Blake had left him. In this he was borne out by
his employer, Samuel M. Snyder. Snyder testified that on his re-
turn to his office on the afternoon of July 31, he met Blake leav-
ing. Kelly had followed him into his private office. Of the inter-
view which followed Snyder testified at the hearing of the case
as follows:
"I said (to Kelly) 'Well, what is the matter now?' And he
said that Mr. Blake was just in and wanted to give him $500. I said,
'What for?' 'W^ell,' he said, 'to do the right thing on the jury.'
He had been called on a jury case, the Ruef case. He said, 'I had
a notion to punch his head.' That is just the remark Mr. Kelly
used. I said, 'Oh, I would not get excited like that; that is fool-
ishness.' He said, 'What do you advise doing? If I go out and
do anything rash I am liable to get into trouble, ain't I?' I said,
'Yes, you better not do that.' I said, 'If I were you' — this is the
language I used to Mr. Kelly, I said. 'I would telephone to Mr.
Langdon and tell him.' He said, 'Well, that might hurt your
business.' I said, 'Well, I don't believe that would hurt my busi-
ness any. I firmlj' believe that jurors should not be tampered
with by anyone to try any case, no matter what it is.' And from
there he did telephone to Mr. Langdon.
The Court: "When was this, Mr. Snyder?"
"A. That was on the 31st of July, pretty close to 5 o'clock in
the afternoon.
"Q. Did Mr. Kelly call up a telephone number from the office
at that time?
"A, He called up Mr. Langdon from the office at that time.
I was sitting right by the side of him."
Jury-Fixing Uncovered 359
been approached by a building contractor, E. A. S.
Blake, and offered $500 if he would qualify on the
Ruef jury and vote for acquittal.^^^
Langdon called in Burns. Burns advised Kelly to
pretend to listen to Blake's overtures, to insist that
$500 was too little, and to demand $1000, to the end
that Blake might be trapped and the jury-fixing, which
all believed to be going on, be uncovered.
Kelly, co-operating with Burns, followed these in-
structions. In his dealings with Blake, Kelly insisted
upon $1000 as the price of his services in Ruef's behalf,
which Blake finally consented should be paid him.. The
negotiations were carried on during August. Finally
on September 3, Burns directed Kelly to step up to the
bar of Judge Lawlor's court where Ruef's trial was
proceeding, and tell his story.
As Kelly on that day approached the bar, during a
lull in the proceedings, Ach, it is alleged, was heard to
ejaculate to the little group about Ruef, "There she
goes."
392 Of Blake's negotiations Kelly testified: "Mr. Blake began
about this way: Ke said, 'Now, John, I have got a proposition to
make to you, and I don't know how you will take it. If you like
it, all right, if you don't, just keep it quiet.' He says, 'There is
a chance for you to make a little money.' He said, 'You are
drawn to serve on the Ruef jury.' I was surprised to hear that.
I told him, 'I know I am on some panel in Judge Lawlor's Court,
but didn't know it was the Ruef jury.' I said, 'How did you find
out?' 'Oh,' he said — I think he said a friend of his told him, or
something like that; but anyhow he said, 'Now, it is this way;
there is $500 in it for you if you will get on that jury and vote
to acquit Mr. Ruef.' I says, 'Well, Mr. Blake, I have never done
anything like that, and it is a pretty big chance to take. I don't
want anythingr like that"; and he began to urs^e it on me. I said,
'Now, give me a chance to think it over.' "
Kelly testified that his first impulse was to denounce Blake.
But i?;stantly he reflected that the denunciation would do no good.
Besides, he reflected, It was possible that Blake might be trapped.
As soon as Blake left the office. Kelly told vrhat had occurred
to his employer. Snyder, and within an hour was in consultation
with District Attorney Langdon and Burns.
360 Jury-Fixing Uncovered
Frank J. Murphy, one of Ruef's attorneys, imme-
diately jumped to his feet, and claimed the court's at-
tention.
*'If your honor please," said Murphy, "if that com-
pletes the examination of this panel and it is necessary
to draw further from the box, there is a statement I
desire to make to this Court which is based upon some
reflection and upon the advice of the Presiding Judge
of this court. Some several weeks ago, or about two
weeks ago I should say, one of the jurors upon this
panel sent to me indirectly and offered to accept money
for his vote. Charges of bribery, of course, have been
numerous in connection with this case, but this is the
first instance that I have ever heard of in connection
with this case or in connection with any other case that
any juror has solicited a bribe, or has been offered a
bribe. I consulted with Judge Sturtevant ^^^ about the
matter on the 1st of Septemiber. I stated to him the
facts in the case and he advised me that whenever the
time became ripe for the juror to be called into the box
that it was my duty to present it to this court. Now,
the juror's name is John Martin Kelly, and I was in-
formed indirectly that Mr. Kelly solicited $1000 for his
vote in this case, and the matter is of so much impor-
tance, your Honor, that I think an investigation should
393 Judge Sturtevant, at the investigation wliich followed, showed
himself not at all clear as to details. Finally Mui'phy asked him:
"Q. Judge, do you remember that I said to you that I had
information that one of the jurors was willing to sell his vote for
$1,000 and someone had come to me with that?
"A. I remember, Mr. Murphy, you mentioned the amount of
$1,000 regarding one of his statements, but I would not go further
than that; I don't remember v.^hat this man had agreed to do for
the thousand dollars. That is my general recollection that that is
about the substance of the statement you made to me."
Jury-Fixing Uncovered 361
be had by this court before this case proceeds further,
and if necessary the Grand Jury should look into this
matter and give it a thorough and exhaustive examina-
tion. Now, if your Honor please, I don't want to do
Mr. Kelly an injustice. I vv^ould hesitate, if the Court
please, to make a charge of that kind, but my informant
is a man whom I have known but a very short time,
and after a thorough examination by me of him, after
eliciting from him every fact I could in connection with
the case, I am induced to believe that he came with
authority from Mr. Kelly to make this proposition to
myself and one of the attorneys who was connected
with one of the other cases. Now, if the Court please,
under the advice of Judge Sturtevant, whom I consulted
on the subject tv/ice, I deem it my duty to call that to
the attention of your Honor and if it is necessary to
file any affidavit to set the machinery of this court in
motion I am willing- and ready to procure an affidavit
to file so that a complete investigation may be had of
this matter."
Murphy's statement created a sensation, which v/as
more than duplicated by the statement made by Heney
the moment after.
"If the Court please," said Hcney, ''before Mr. Mur-
phy takes the stand I have a statement to make. Mr.
Murphy says that he discussed this subject on the 1st.
I have in my pocket a statement dictated by Mr. Kelly
— this is one of the most audacious pieces of business I
have yet met with — I have a statement made by this
juror on August 28, 1908, that is before Mr. Murphy
bethought him to go and see Judge Sturtevant, in which
this juror sets forth fully the fact that a man was sent
362 Jury-Fixing Uncovered
to him to bribe him in this case, and this juror not only
made that statement on August 28th, but this juror
went to the District Attorney's office, to T\Ir. Langdon,
the other day, on July 31st, the day it was made, it is a
long time now and he has been acting under the Dis-
trict Attorney's advice ever since, and Mr. Murphy
never saw fit to call your Honor's attention to it until
he saw Mr. Kelly come in the door there and antici-
pated from the fact that Mr. Blake was traced to Mr.
Ach's office yesterday that Mr. Kelly was about to state
to your Honor that he wanted this matter investigated,
and that an attempt had been made to bribe him, and
that under the District Attorney's advice he was going
on to permit them to pay the money, if necessary, so
that v/e might catch them in this act, and it is only
because they have had occasion to suspect we knew it,
that Mr. IMurphy has the audacity to come in here and
ask for an investigation. Now, we ask that Mr. Kelly
take the stand and make the statement to your Honor
that he came here for the purpose of making, and that
Mr. Murphy didn't say anything about until he saw him
standing there ready to make it to your Honor. He
jumped up as soon as he saw Mr. Kelly walk in here."
After Heney had made his statement, Murphy took
the stand and swore that Kelly, through Blake, had
solicited a bribe of v$1000 from Murphy to vote for
Ruef's acquittal. Nevertheless, Mr. Murphy, as well as
Mr. A. S. Nev/burgh, another of Ruef's attorneys, ad-
mitted under oath that they had suggested to Blake
that he interview Kellv.'**
394 Murphy's testimony on this point was as follows: "On a
day between the 20th. of July and the let day of August, I went
Jury-Fixing Uncovered 363
Kelly took the stand and testified in a straightfor-
ward manner that he had been approached by Blake,
that he had consulted with the District Attorney, and
that a trap had been set to catch the alleged jury-fixer.
Detectives were sent out to notify Blake that he
was wanted in court. But Blake could not be found.
Later he was arrested as he was about to board an
outgoing train.
Blake was found to be a poor man on the brink of
bankruptcy. He had neither money, nor property. Nev-
ertheless, attorneys ^^^ came forward to defend him ;
to the office of Mr. Newburgh. Mr. Newburgh was then engaged in
defending Mr. Ruef on a preliminary examination had in one of
the Parkside cases. We were discussing generally the Ruef cases
and the graft prosecution, and a man came into the office who
was introduced to me by Mr. Newburgh as E. A. S. Blake. This
present jury panel had been drawn, and we were discussing the
Ruef cases generally, and finally I made a remark that the trial
of Mr. Ruef in one of these cases — referring to 1436, 1437 and 1438,
would proceed as soon as the Police Court examination was fin-
ished, and I stated that a jury had been impaneled, or a jury had
beenj drawn, I had a list of the jury in my pocket, and I pulled
it out and said to both Mr. Newburgh and to Mr. Blake: 'Perhaps
you might know some of these people.' Mr. Blake glanced at the
list, and he came down to the name of Mr. Kelly, and he said, 'I
know Mr. Kelly; I have known him for a number of years; I used
to work at Shreve's jewelry store with him; and he is an intimate
acquaintance of mine.' Then I said, having in mind the decision
of your Honor in the contempt case of W. J. Burns and others — "
The Court: (interruption): "Did this occur after that de-
cision?"
"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 tran-
script, part and volume, pages 943 and 944.
395 In this there was remarkable similarity to the legal assist-
ance given thugs who were from time to time arrested for Inter-
fering with the work of the Prosecution.
364 Jury-Fixing Uncovered
bonds were furnished him. The most powerful and
wealthy defendant in the graft cases was not better
served. But the best of legal service could not save
Blake from indictment. Later, both Newburgh and
Murphy,^^^ Mr. Ruef's attorneys, were indicted also,
charged with corruptly attempting to influence a juror.^^''
Kelly, at Blake's trial, told the same straightforward
story which he had given at the original investigation.
He was corroborated by his employer, and others. His
testimony was most sensational. He stated, for exam-
ple, that Blake had told him that it would be easy for
him to qualify as a juror; that Ruef's attorneys would
try to make it appear that they did not want him, and
that their examination would be so thorough that the
prosecution would not ask a question. Blake had also
told him, Kelly testified, that he need not worry ; that
some jurors had taken money for their votes in the
former Ruef trial and had not been caught.
396 Murphy had figured in the Ruef trials, somewhat sensa-
tionally, 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 Chroni-^le. 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 v/itness 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.
"A compromise v.-as effected on an answer by the witness that
he had not communicated directly or indirectly with Ruef during
the past fortj^-eight hours."
397 About the same time. Captain John J. West became in-
volved in a charge of being connected with an alleged attempt to
corruptly influence a talesman named John R. Foley to vote to
acquit Ruef. But the West case was so overshadowed in impor-
tance by the Blake-Murphy-Newburgh proceedings that the pub-
lic paid comparatively little attention to it.
Jury-Fixing Uncovered 365
Blake was convicted. He was later sentenced to
serve four years in the penitentiary. After Blake's con-
viction, but before sentence was passed upon him, he
sought out Attorney Matt I. Sullivan, one of the few
prominent San Francisco attorneys who had kept free
from entangling alliances with the graft defense. To
Sullivan, Blake made confession ^^^ of his participa-
tion in the jury-fixing transaction. In his confession
he involved Attorneys Murphy and Newburgh. Later,
in open court, he made public statement of his partici-
pation,^^^
Blake in his statement in court set forth that he had
become acquainted with Newburgh through having
398 "Confessing his crimes," said The Call in its issue of October
30, 1908, "Blake, the jury briber, lays bare the ulcer that eats away
the vitals of popular government. He explains why the San Fran-
cisco Graft Prosecution has not yet put anybody in the penitentiary.
He makes it clear why Ruef is not in stripes. He shows why it
is next to impossible to convict a rich man. He answers the famil-
iar question, 'What's the matter with San Francisco?'
"On his way to prison Blake pauses for a moment and gives the
people of San Francisco the most convincing argument in favor of
the Graft Prosecution that they have had since the boodled Super-
visors told their story of shame, and Ruef, in tears, delivered his
confession, since recanted. Blake's revelation is of inestimable
value to the cause of decency. Opportunely he tears away curtain
and scenery and lets the people see what goes on behind the showy
pretense of the graft defense. In the nick of time he exposes
some of the actors in that satirical comedy which might very well
be called 'To Hell with the Law — Money is Above It.' "
399 Members of the faculty of Stanford University sent the fol-
lowing communication to Rudolph Spreckels, William H. Langdon,
Francis J. Heney, William J. Burns and their associates:
"We, the undersigned citizens of the State of California, realiz-
ing the far reaching significance of the sworn confession, as a jury
briber, of E. A. S. Blake, extend to you our earnest and sincere
congratulations on having successfully demonstrated the nature of
some of the obstacles blocking the way of the conviction of powerful
criminals in our commonwealth.
"Believing that no stability of social relations, including normal
business conditions, can be established on a less firm basis than
incorruptible courts and honest juries, leading to the prompt and
sure administration of justice, we wish to assure you of our con-
tinued confidence and moral support in the great work upon which
you are engaged."
The letter was signed by President David Starr Jordan and
practically all the members of the faculty.
366 Jury-Fixing Uncovered
offices in the same building with him. He had, he said,
met Murphy in Newburgh's office. Newburgh had in-
troduced them. Murphy, he stated, had shown him a
Hst of prospective jurors, and had asked him if he knew
any of them. He had told the lawyers that he knew
John Martin Kelly. They had, Blake stated, got him
to make an offer to Kelly, which he did. He had offered
Kelly $500 and finally $1000. Kelly (acting under in-
structions from District Attorney Langdon and Burns)
had finally agreed to take $1000. Blake testified that
he had reported back to Murphy that Kelly would ac-
cept the money.
Following his arrest, Blake testified, his lawyers had
come to him without his solicitation,^^^ with the state-
ment in explanation that they had come from a mutual
friend. Blake stated that he had heard afterward that
the "mutual friend" was Murphy and Newburgh. His
bonds had been furnished without his stir, through his
attorneys. IMurphy and Newburgh, he claimed, had as-
sured him they would do everything they could for him ;
that he need not worry ; that they would provide for
him and provide for his wife in case he were con-
victed.-^^i
Continuing, Blake stated that after his conviction he
had had a talk with Murphy. The general nature of
the interview was that he had good ground for a new
trial. "They said," Blake testified, " Svhen we get up
400 Similar testimony was given at Murphy's trial.
401 It developed later that the Blakes had been living together
under a contract marriage. Later they went through the marriage
ceremony. This phase of the case was made much of by the
defense. Mrs. Blake, however, stood devotedly by her husband
through all the trying events that followed his arrest and impris-
onment.
Jury-Fixing Uncovered 367
to the hig^her court, it will be thrown out,' ©r something;
of that kind."
According to Blake's statement, a fund of $10,000
was promised him and an agreement was made that his
wife should be paid $100 a month during his imprison-
ment. Murphy, he said, showed him what purported to
be promissory notes ^^^ aggregating $7500. The notes,
he alleged, were m.ade to Murphy and signed with
402 Of these promissory notes Blake, in his statement to the
court as published at the time, testified as follows:
"Q. How much money were you to get? A. I was to get
$10,000.
"Q. For what? What were you to get that $10,000 for? A.
Well, I was to say nothing about this matter, and that my wife
would —
"Q. In other words — . A. She was to be provided for. Sh«
was to get $100 a month. The Court. How? A. To be taken car«
of when I was convicted, you know.
"Q. During your incarceration? A. Yes, and I was to hav« th»
$10,000.
Mr. Langdon: "Q. Who told you he would give you $10,000? A.
Mr. Murphy.
"Q. What did he say? Just tell us what he said about that.
A. The money was to be placed in the hands of a third party, who
I would select, provided the one I selected would be satisfactory to
them and they felt they could always have confidence in, or some-
thing of that kind. That $10,000 was to be turned over to me im-
mediately upon my sentence — just as soon as my sentence was
passed the money was to be turned over.
"Q. As soon as the court sentenced you you would receive th«
$10,000 that Murphy put into the hands of this third person? A.
Yes.
"Q. Did he tell you what kind of money it was, or what repre-
sentative value it was. Did he show you any of that? Did Murphy
show you anything? A. Yes, he showed me $7,500, but he did not
show me the $10,000 that was put into the hands of the party that
I selected. He told me that he had It.
"Q. What was this $7,500 that Murphy showed you? In what
form or shape? A. In notes.
"Q. Promissory notes? A. Yes.
"Q. Signed by who? A. Signed by Mr. Ruef.
"Q. Abraham Ruef? A. Yes.
"Q. Who else signed them, if any one? A. They were indorsed
by his father and sistei'.
"Q. His father?
"The Court — promissory notes to you from Abraham Ruef. and
indorsed? A. The promissory notes, your honor, were mtide out to
Mr. Murphy, and he was to turn these over to the third party,
indorsed, I presume, to the third party, who I might select. The
notes read, "One year after date I promise to pay to Frank J. Mur-
phy,' that Is the way the notes read.
"Q. And signed? A. And signed by Mr. Ruef, and then they
were countersigned or indorsed by his father and sister."
368 Jury-Fixing Uncovered
Ruef's name with the endorsement of Ruef's sister and
father. Blake was requested to select a representative
to hold the notes. It was alleged that Blake named
Martin Stevens, an attorney, as such representative.'*^^
After Blake's confession came the trials of Murphy
and Newburgh. They did not differ to any great extent
from the principal graft trials. There were the delaying
tactics that had been characteristic of the graft cases ;
failure of jurors to agree ; acquittals.
Murphy's trial came first. There was against him
the testimony of Blake and Kelly, corroborated at many
points by other witnesses. Murphy made denial. In
his defense, too, many witnesses took the stand to testify
to his good character. *°* Murphy was acquitted.
Newburgh's trial followed. The first jury failed to
agree. It was stated at the time that the jury stood six
403 Stevens denied this. Stevens was called before the Grand
Jury and questioned. He declined to answer on the ground that
the relations of attorney toward client cannot be violated. Blake
exonerated Stevens from this obligation. But Stevens held that he
acted for Murphy as well as Blake. The court held, however, that
the communications were not privileged. Stevens in his testimony
which followed, denied everything that tended to implicate himself
and Murphy in any way with the attempted jury fixing, or with
the alleged $10,000 fund.
404 Among those who testified to Murphy's good character was
Rev. H. H. Wyman, at that time the head of the Paulist Order at
San Francisco. Another Paulist priest. Rev. Stark, showed great
interest in Murphy's welfare.
After Murphy's acquittal a story was current in San Francisco
to the effect that at a dinner given soon after Murphy's acquittal,
Murphy had promised a present to the Paulist Church, St. Mary's,
and that Father Stark had announced that a plate bearing Mur-
phy's name and the date of his acquittal should be placed upon the
gift.
However unjustified the story may have been. Murphy did give
St. Mary's a present — a pulpit. On the pulpit was put a plate
bearing Murphy's name and a date. The incident so incensed
priests of the Paulist order who were not in sympathy with the
course of Fathers Wyman and Stark at Murphy's trial, that they
entered the church with a screw-driver, removed the plate, and
threw it into San Francisco bay. Later a second plate was put
upon the pulpit. So far as the writer knows, the second plate is
still in its place.
Jury-Fixing Uncovered 369
for conviction and six for acquittal. At his second trial,
Newburgh was acquitted.
But Blake was in jail under a four years' sentence
to the penitentiary. Astonishing as the revelations in
the Blake jury-fixing case had been, they were to be
overshadowed by the events of Ruef s trial. Even as
the city stood aghast at the evidence of jury tampering,
Assistant District Attorney Heney was, during the prog-
ress of the trial, shot down in open court.
CHAPTER XXV.
The Shooting of Heney.
In spite of the sensational events following the trap-
ping of Blake, the work of impaneling a jury to try
Ruef went steadily on. After months of effort,*"^ a
jury was finally sworn to try the case.
Again the telling of the sordid story of the city's
betrayal commenced.
Gallagher, the pivotal witness, had begun his sorry
recital. In the midst of it occurred what those who had
followed the methods of the graft defense had long
predicted.
Assistant District Attorney Heney was shot down.*"*
The shooting occurred in open court during a brief
recess.
Heney was seated at his place at the attorneys' table
405 Seventy-two days were required to impanel tiie jury before
which Ruef was tried, fifty days being devoted to actual court work.
There were summoned 1,450 talesmen, of whom 446 were examined.
Six jurors were denied their freedom for forty-two days before the
jury was completed. Blake, arrested for jury-fixing, was trapped,
tried and convicted before the jury was completed. Two of Ruef's
attorneys were, during the impaneling of the jury, indicted for
alleged connection with Blake's attempt to influence the jury in
Ruef's favor.
406 There is, so far as the writer can find, no evidence that the
Graft Defense or its agents employed Haas to kill Heney any more
than there is evidence that the Graft Defense or its agents em-
ployed Pauduveris to murder the pivotal witness, Gallagher. But
that Haas was urged to kill Heney because of the exposure of
Haas's previous record at the first Ruef trial is well established.
"I was urged frequently," said Haas in a confession made to
Langdon and Burns, "to kill Heney by certain persons whose names
I will not tell you, and I also talked to other people about killing
Heney and was advised by them not to do it. In addition to that,
certain persons approached me several times and referred to the
The Shooting of Heney 371
talking with an assistant. The jury had left the court-
room. Gallagher had for the moment left the witness
box and was standing a few feet from Heney waiting
opportunity to speak with him. A few feet further away
was Heney's body guard. In the room were something
more than 200 citizens waiting for the trial to be re-
sumed. There was the usual confusion which attends
a five-minute court recess. Court attaches, ofificials, at-
torneys, citizens were passing to and fro without hin-
drance.
The man who shot Heney had no difficulty in gain-
ing access to the courtroom. He walked deliberately to
the attorneys' table, and before he was even noticed,
time I was thrown off the Ruef jury, saying: 'I'd never stand that
sort of a roast,' and 'I'd kill a man who did that to me,' and sim-
ilar things."
Who urged Haas to do this thing, and what was their motive?
Haas alone could have answered the first question. But the bullet
that ended his life sealed his lips forever.
Of Haas's purpose in getting on the first Ruef jury we have
some testimony. Joseph Brachman, a close associate of Ruef, who
had known Haas for nearly a quarter of a century, said in an inter-
view published in the San Francisco Call, November 15, 1908:
"When Ruef was on trial in the Parkside case, on the bribery
charge, I heard that Haas had been called on the jury panel. At
that time I was frequently in consultation with Ruef, every day, in
fact. But I was afraid to go to Ruef with what I knew of Haas,
so I went to one of his lawyers — I won't say which one — and told
him of the record of Haas. I told him that Haas was a bad man
and an ex- convict. I said that Ruef should challenge him.
"I was in court the day that Haas qualified and passed Into
the jui-y- Again I told his attorney that Haas was a bad man, to
get rid of him, but nothing was done. When Heney produced the
evidence showing that Haas was an ex-convict I was in court, also.
I met Haas after he had been disqualified. Haas told me the rea-
son why he stayed on the jury and why his record was not made
public by the defense of Ruef. He told me that he expected $4,000
from Ruef for his services on the Parkside case jury. He said
that he was hard up, that he was in debt, that he owed money on
his saloon and that if he had been permitted to stay on the jury
he would have been able, with the $4,000 to be paid him by Ruef,
to clear himself of debt.
"He also told me, Haas did, on the day that he was disquali-
fied, that he was going to 'kill one of the prosecutors.' He did not
say which one, but he frequently repeated to me, that he was
'going to get one of the prosecutors.' I met him many times and
often, frequently he told me that he was 'going to get one of the
prosecutors.' "
372 The Shooting of Heney
had fired deliberately at the Assistant Prosecutor. The
gun was held not more than six inches from Heney's
head. In an instant, Heney's bodyguard was upon the
assassin. But the bodyguard's efforts came late. Heney,
apparently mortally wounded, was lying unconscious on
the floor, the blood gushing from a ragged hole in front
of the right ear, just under the temple. *^^
Heney's assailant was found to be one Morris Haas,
an ex-convict, who had succeeded in securing a place
on the jury at the former Ruef trial. Heney had ex-
posed him.^*^^ When it was demanded of him why he
had attempted to kill Heney, he murmured incoherently,
that it was ''for humanity's sake." Although closely
questioned Haas would tell little of value to those who
were seeking to get at the real motive behind the as-
sault. He w^as thoroughly searched both by Detective
Burns and Captain of Police Thomas Duke, and then
taken to the county jail where he was closely guarded.
A short time before the shooting of Heney, Judge
Lawlor had had attorneys of both sides before him to
state that in his judgment, he should remand Ruef, w^ho
w^as out of jail under heavy bonds, to the custody of
the Sheriff" for the remainder of the trial. Shortly
after this conference Heney had been shot down.
When the court had re-convened, and the jury had
been dismissed- for the day. Judge Lawlor carried out
his intention and ordered the Sheriff to take charge of
Ruef. The shooting had occurred on Friday afternoon.
407 Physicians state that Heney's escape from death was by a
hair's breadth. Had the bullet, striking as it did, taken any other
course death would have been inevitable.
408 See Chapter XXIII.
The Shooting of Heney 373
November 13. The court adjourned until the following
Monday.*"^^
Heney in the meantime had been taken to a hospital.
There it was found that the wound was not necessarily
fatal. The rumors current that Heney had been killed
were denied. This tended to calm the excitement.
Nevertheless, San Francisco and all California were
aroused as never before in the State's history. In a
twinkling, the results of months of misrepresentation,
ridicule and abuse of the Prosecution were swept away.
Haas' bullet had not killed Heney,*^^ but it had awakened
the community to tardy realization of its responsibil-
ity.*^^ Men who had laughed at the Examiner's ''Mutt
409 "Will they," demanded The Call the morning after Heney
had been shot down, "stop at nothing? Are not stealing, perjury,
bribery, dynamiting, murder, enough? Must the course of justice
in this community run the gamut of violence, as well as of slander
and pettifogging obstruction?
"Apparently it must. But there is at least no longer any rea-
son to doubt where the responsibility lies. A bare chance, the mo-
mentary tremor of an assassin's hand, may have saved the life of
Francis J. Heney to this community. There will be no tremor in
the finger of scorn that points past the miserable wretch that did
the shooting to the men that inspired it. A worthless crank, of
course. It always is. Dirty hands for dirty work. But softer
hands and keener brains plan it. And the community will waste
no wrath on the miserable tool, now cov/ering in jail. It was not
he who has dogged the steps of Francis J. Heney these two years
with hired thugs. It was not he who has filled the courtrooms
with professional ruffians. It was not he who dynamited Galla-
gher— or hired it done. Least of all was it he who made a joke of
that crime and sought to make a joke and a byword of the hei-oic
Heney — 'poor Beany.' "
410 While Heney lay wounded at San Francisco, and Haas lay
dead, another tragedy growing out of the Graft Prosecution was
being enacted on the other side of the globe. John Krause, who
had been T. V. Halsey's assistant at the time of the Pacific States
Telephone briberies, killed himself on the steamer Adriatic as it
plied from Cherbourg, France, to Queenstown, Ireland. Krause
had disappeared from San Francisco in December, 1907. It was
never charged that Krause was a. principal to the bribery transac-
tions, or that he ho.d even guilty knowledge of them. His only
possible connection with the graft cases was as a witness against
the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company ofl^icials.
411 "A great work," said Hiram W. Johnson, in an interview
printed in the San Francisco Call, November 14, 190S. "undertaken
and accomplished, though not yet wholly completed, has been
374 The Shooting of Heney
cartoons" ridiculing the Prosecution, now threatened to
mob The Examiner office. Patrons of the defense-
supporting Chronicle now voiced their utter condemna-
tion of that paper. Thousands withdrew their subscrip-
tions from the two publications. The time was ripe for
the demagogue. An unpolitic word from the defense
just then, an incendiary speech from some unwise par-
tisan of the Prosecution, would have been sufficient to
have sent a mob marching upon the jail in which Haas
and Ruef were confined, or upon the residences of the
indicted bribe-givers, or against the newspaper offices
which for months had labored to make the Graft Prose-
cution unpopular.
There was a feeling that the criminal element was
too powerfully intrenched to be reached through the
ordinary legal channels. The feeling, which had sub-
sided when the Graft Prosecution opened,*^^ that the
retarded for a day by an assassin's bullet. When Frank Heney
fell today while in the performance of his duty, decency and the
right were stricken. For two years this one man has persevered
in the right, for right's sake alone. Without compensation, sacri-
ficing a great legal practice, giving without complaint the best
years of his life, Francis .J. Heney. facing all the combined forces
of evil in this community and State, has stood unflinchingly at his
post, making the fight that is the fight of all of us. Daily abuse
and vilification have been his portion and reward. In spite of it,
where a weaker man would have faltered, Heney has persevered.
He has done in seeking to make equality before the law an assur-
ance in this State, all that a strong and a brave man could do.
Were he to pass away tonight he'd need no other monument than
the work he has done. For generations his expose of rottenness
in San Francisco, his prosecutions of the criminal rich will live and
make this city and State better. He has been shot simply because
he was fighting for the right. Not alone has he been wounded;
but the community and the commonvv'ealth have suffered the in-
jury.
"We who were with him in the early days of the struggle, and
knev.- his every mood; who saw him at his work day and night,
and loved the qualities that made it possible for him to accomplish
what he has, can not express our horror and indignation and
anger at his attemnted ar-"asf^ination. May God speed his recov-
ery."
412 See Chapter IV.
The Shooting of Heney 375
graft evil could not be corrected except by extra-legal
means, was to some degree revived.
In this emergency, the leaders of the Graft Prosecu-
tion, by counseling moderation and observance of the
law, did yeoman service in the keeping of good order in
San Francisco.
The Citizens' League of Justice ^^^ called a mass
meeting for the Saturday evening following the shoot-
ing. Even in the call, the League urged there be no
breach of the peace.
''Francis J. Heney," the League's call read, ''has
fallen by the hand of an assassin, shot from behind
while fighting at his post in the cause of justice for the
people of this city. He would be the first man to appeal
to the calm reason of the citizens to preserve order and
proceed only by the processes of law ; to look not for
vengeance, but to demand swift justice through the
courts. We make the same appeal."
Mayor Taylor presided at the meeting. Long before
the hour set for the opening, the auditorium was packed
to the doors, with thousands on the outside clamoring
413 The Citizens' League of Justice was organized immediately
after the attempted assassination of W^itness Gallagher by means
of dynamite. Those immediately connected with the prosecution,
it had been ainply demonstrated, v/ere risking their lives. In the
Citizens' League of Justice was proposed an organization, entirely
separate and apart from the graft prosecution, to back the prosecu-
tion. The idea originated with Bruce Porter, the artist. Rev.
Charles N. Lathrop, of the Church of the Advent, became inter-
ested. The initial meeting was held at Father Lathrop's house.
While the League had no connection with the prosecution, it be-
came most effective in support of the prosecution group. Professor
George H. Boke, of the University of California Law School, ac-
cepted the hazardous position of the League's executive officer. In
spite of the fact that he was jeopardizing his position at the State
University by his course. Professor Boke did much effective work
in bringing the conditions which confronted San Francisco squarely
before the public. Matt I. Sullivan, who afterwards became Chief
Justice of the State Supreme Court, served as the League's pres-
ident.
376 The Shooting of Heney
for entrance. Those in charge of the meeting were
compelled to call it to order several minutes before they
had intended.
Professor George H. Boke of the University of Cali-
fornia Law School, and manager of the Citizens' League
of Justice, was to introduce Mayor Taylor. Several
minutes before the time set for the meeting, the crowd
started a cheer for Heney. The demonstration lasted for
fully five minutes. Then some one started the cry,
"Throw the Examiner out." Hundreds half rose from
their seats, their eyes bent upon the press table where
representatives of The Examiner were seated.
Professor Boke at once grasped the significance of the
movement, and acted on the instant. Stepping to the
fore, he made a brief address introducing Mayor Taylor,
thereby checking the threatened demonstration.
Mayor Taylor was quick to sound the keynote of the
meeting. ''Let us," he said in introducing the first
speaker, ''see to it that no matter who else breaks the
law, that we shall not break it." *^*
414 Dr. Taylor's observations on this point were as follows: "Let
us see to it that no matter v/ho else breaks the law, that we shall
not break it. In this crisis, we must, above all things, keep our
heads. We must, above all things, while resolute and determined,
be self-restrained.
"San Francisco has had many afflictions. She now has this addi-
tional affliction of the assassination of one who stood for the peo-
ple's rights; of one who was fearlessly engaged in the important
and priceless business of civic regeneration, and who, while in the
act of performing the greatest of all duties as a citizen, was laid
low by the bullets of an assassin.
"But let us not add to the affliction the affliction of breaking
the peace. Let us, above all things, as I have said, keep ourselves
restrained. Let us not add to the afflictions that are upon us the
affliction of mob law. Let us go about our business, whatever we
may do in this matter, in a peaceful v/ay, but in a resolute way,
in a determined Vi'^ay. I am satisfied that the officers of the law
will do their duty. I am satisfied that the judges will do their
duty, and that our juries will do their duty. And if they, each
one of them, perform faithfully the functions upon his part, we
have nothing to fear, and we shall see that those wlio are guilty
are punished and are rightfully punished."
The Shooting of Heney 377
Every speaker who followed the Mayor emphasized
this. *'Let us," said the Rev. William Rader, "have
heads which are cool and minds which are rational."
*'We stand in this fight," said District Attorney Lang-
don, "for law and order. And I want to say to you
and ask you to pass it on to your neighbors, that, as
crimes have been committed, those crimes must be pun-
ished, but punished within the law. And I want to say
further, that as the law officers of this city and county,
we shall consider any man who expresses an opinion or
sentiment that we ought to resort to measures extra-
judicial, as an enemy of good government."
"Why," demanded James D. Phelan, "should we take
violent steps? Is not San Francisco a great, civilized
community? Are not our American institutions still
intact? They are. And although in the early days of
San Francisco the Vigilance Committee, an extra-legal
tribunal, was resorted to for the purpose of correcting
such abuses, we must remember that at that time we
were a border State, at that time we were a mining
camp. Only such a strenuous method would then have
succeeded, because judges who were on the bench were
elected by ballot-box stufifers, a council was elected in
the same way. Crime was rampant, nobody was pun-
ished. Then the men of San Francisco organized a
tribunal and gave an orderly trial to every offender
whom they apprehended, and as a result this city was
cleansed of crime and remained a model community for
twenty years.
"But conditions now are different. It is true that
within the last year there has been a feeling in this
community that the criminal law had broken down, and
378 The Shooting of Heney
that we could not, under the law, punish the offenders ;
and that the courts, the highest courts, abetted and aided
criminals by the rankest interpretations, technical inter-
pretations of the statutes. They refused to lean on the
side of order and justice, and they have brought dis-
grace upon the judiciary of California, all over the
world.
"But our civilization and our institutions are safe.
That vote the other day, and the election of Judge
Dunne, the election two years ago of Judge Coffey and
Judge Lawlor, give us courage and confidence to believe
that, under the constitution and the laws, we can win
our battle if you only give us time, without any resort
to violence ; and we are willing, though one hundred days
have passed, to pursue that work, because that is the
only way we can do it under the constitution and the
laws."
When Rudolph Spreckels entered the building he was
greeted with demonstration. He, too, w^hile expressing
great sympathy for his friend who had been stricken
down, joined in counseling that nothing be done outside
the law.
With the urging that no exhibition of mob-violence
be added to the burden of the afflicted community, was
given assurance that the Graft Prosecution should go
on ; that the laws should be upheld : that those responsi-
ble for the conditions w^hich had been forced upon San
Francisco should be brought to justice. Whatever dan-
ger there was of violence to members of the graft de-
fense, vanished at that Citizens' League of Justice mass
meeting. At its conclusion, resolutions were adopted
The Shooting of Heney 379
condemning the methods of the defense, declaring un-
wavering allegiance of those present to law, and pledg-
ing support in the cleansing of the city of grafters and
boodlers.*^^
415 The following resolutions were adopted at the meeting:
"Whereas, following unparalleled disaster from the elements our
unfortunate city fell upon times of unprecedented civic corruption,
necessitating the tearing down of the wreckage of government,
and the rebuilding of our civic structure on foundations of law
and justice; and
"Whereas, the first labor necessary was the prosecution of
criminals, bribe givers, bribe takers and brokers in corruption; and
"Whereas, the prosecution, beset with many difficulties, ob-
tained its evidence in the only way that such evidence could be
obtained; and
"Whereas, in the subsequent attempt to convict the guilty
there was developed a vast conspiracy to thwart the ends of jus-
tice, which conspiracy has involved social boycott and unjust and
coercive business pressure, has openly employed thugs to terrorize
the officers of the law, has employed lawyers to browbeat and
insult witnesses, prosecutors and the judges on the bench, and to
waste the time and money and to exhaust the patience of the
people by useless and technical delays, and which conspiracy has
moreover involved so large a part of our public press that many
of our people have been deprived of the truth and have been fed
upon poisoned lies; and
"Whereas, up to the present tim.e the law as administered has
proved inadequate to secure that prompt and certain application
of justice, which must be the basis of social order; and
"Whereas, out of this conspiracy grew plots to kidnap, and
actual kidnaping; plots to bribe juries, and actual jury bribing;
plots to assassinate witnesses and an attempt to assassinate a
witness by dynamite; and out of it also grew plots to assassinate
the pi'osecutors, and the attempted assassination of the bravest
friend that San Francisco has known, Francis J. Heney;
"Therefore be it resolved, that here and now we declare our
unwavering allegiance to law, and that if the criminal law be
found to be so framed as to permit the escape of civic malefactors
we shall see to it that the law be amended; that if the lax admin-
istration of the criminal law be due to misinterpretation by judges,
we shall see to it tliat men be placed upon the bench capable of
construing the law.
"Be it further resolved, that we call upon the Supervisors to
provide adequate funds for the District Attorney's office to secure
the detection, prosecution and conviction of criminals, high or low,
and the full protection of officers in the discharge of their duties;
"Be it further resolved, that we demand the truth from our
public press, and shall see to it that our people are informed of
the facts that they may judge of those who by lying and misrepre-
sentation are perverting public opinion.
"Be it further resolved, that we solemnly assert our utmost con-
fidence in the law-abiding chai^acter of our people; that we here
declare our gratitude for the inestimable service rendered us by
the office of the District Attorney in the restoration of reputable
and responsible government; and that we stand firm in our deter-
mination to indorse and to aid that office to the end that all per-
sons accused of crime shall be fairly tried and their guilt or Inno-
380 The Shooting of Heney
Another crisis had passed in San Francisco. The
situation was not unHke that of two years before, when
the clamor that drastic means be taken to free the city
of Ruef's domination, was silenced by announcement
that Rudolph Spreckels had guaranteed a fund for the
investigation of municipal conditions, and to prosecute
those found to be guilty of corruption. *^^
But even as the citizens met in mass mxceting another
tragedy of the Graft Prosecution was enacted. Haas,
under the eyes of policemen specially detailed to watch
him, killed himself or was killed. With him died all
hope of discovering who had urged him to avenge him-
self upon Heney.
Haas' suicide, if it were suicide ; or his murder, if it
were murder ; is one of the mysteries of the graft cases.
He was shot with a derringer. The weapon was an
inch through at the butt and 5-8 wide at the muzzle —
certainly an easily discovered weapon by officers prac-
ticed in searching men. And yet, Haas had, before he
was put in his cell, been thoroughly searched both by
Captain Duke "^^^ of the police force and Detective
cence be finally established in accordance with the provisions of
law.
"To these ends we pledge ourselves, that our beloved city may
be purged of boodlers and grafters and- be a better home for our-
selves and our children.
"Be it further resolved, that we send word to our wounded
champion, that his labors for us are appreciated and that his suf-
ferings for our sake are not in vain."
416 See Chapter IV.
417 Captain Duke, at an investigation which followed, testified:
"At Mr. Burns's suggestion, we took Haas into the room off the
courtroom occupied by the stenographers. First we made a slight
search, and then I said to Mr. Burns: 'Are you sure we searched
him thoroughly?' and we went over him again. I felt down to his
shoes. I always search a man that way, for when I first went on
the police force I had an experience with a Chinainan, whom Po-
liceman Helms, who was recently killed, and myself had arrested.
We found a dagger in his shoe, and since then I have always
The Shooting of Heney 381
Burns. The two officers are certain that Haas had no
weapon upon him. And yet, one theory advanced by
his keepers is that Haas had the derringer all the time
concealed in his shoe. Another theory is that the der-
ringer was smuggled in to him. But, with Haas under
watchful eyes of special guards, by whom? Another
theory, popular at the time, was that Haas had been
murdered in his cell. But if murdered — or even if the
derringer were smuggled in to him — what was the
motive behind it? These are questions which, short of
some death-bed confession, perhaps, are not likely to be
answered.
Those who hurried to his cell at the report of the
derringer found Haas dead. Whether he had shot
himself or whether he had been shot, his lips were
sealed forever.
On the Sunday following the shooting of Heney,
most of the Protestant pastors of San Francisco made
the attempted assassination the subject of their sermons.
The same course was taken throughout the State gen-
erally. In the afternoon mass meetings were held in
all parts of the State, at which resolutions were adopted
examined a man's feet. I will state that I felt the man's shoes
the other day after they had been put on the corpse and the der-
ringer placed in them, and from the bulge I noticed then I am
sure that I would have felt the weapon had it been in his shoe at
the time of the arrest. We were looking for anything that we
could find. From something the man said — that he didn't care if
he lived or not — I thought that he might make an attempt to com-
mit suicide.
"It would have been a.n utter impossibility for the derringer to
have been anywhere else than in the man's shoe," Duke continued.
"If it was in his shoe it would have been under the stocking and
the man would have had it there 29 hours before he killed himself.
It would have made a mark on the flesh or interfered with his
walking, and he did not even limp. If the cartridges had been in
the shoe they could have got under the foot and the man could
not have walked."
382 The Shooting of Heney
condemning the methods of the defense, *^® and pledg-
ing support to the prosecution.
Telegrams *^^ of condolence and of encouragement
poured in from all parts of the country.
418 Neither press nor defending lawyers were spared in the
criticism. "We have," said Rev. Bradford Leavitt of the First
Unitarian Church at San Francisco, "dreamed that we were living
under the government of laws, whereas we were living under the
government of newspapers hired by corrupt corporations, and the
enemies of civic decency."
"The lawyers who are paid to thwart this Graft Prosecution,"
said Charles S. '^''heeler, "have proceeded with deliberate plan to
destroy the effectiveness of the prosecution by withdrawing the
support of the people. In this way they have reached the home of
every individual. 'They have brought cunningly into the home
their hireling periodicals, and a press misguided or worse, has been
largely instrumental in aiding their desire."
419 President Roosevelt's telegram to Mr. Spreckels was as fol-
lows :
"White House, Nov. 14, 1908.
"To Rudolph Spreckels, San Francisco.
"Am inexpressibly shocked at the attempted assassination of
Heney and most earnestly hope he will i-ecover. The infamous
character of the would-be assassin no less than the infamous char-
acter of the deed call attention in a striking way to the true char-
acter of the forces against which Heney and you and j'our asso-
ciates have been struggling. Every decent American who has the
honor and interest of the country at heart should join not only in
putting a stop to the cause of violent crime of which this man's
act is but one of the symptoms, but also in stamping out the
hideous corruption in which men like this would-be assassin are
bred and flourish, and that can only be done by warring as Heney
has warred relentlessly against every man who is guilty of cor-
rupt practices without any regard to his social standing and his
prominence in the world of politics or the world of business. I
earnestly hope that Heney will recover, and I give utterance to
what I know would be Heney's wish when I say that I earnestly
hope that whether he recovers or not there be no faltering in the
work in which Heney has been so gallant and efficient a leader.
"9:10 A. M.
"THEODORE ROOSEVELT."
President Roosevelt telegraphed Mrs. Heney as follows:
"TV^hite House, Nov. 14, 1908.
"Mrs. Francis J. Heney: — Am inexpressibly shocked at news of
the attempted assassination of Mr. Heney and am greatly relieved
at the news this m.orning that he is doing well and will probably
recover. I hope you will accept my deepest sympathy. Like all
good American citizens, I hold your husband in peculiar regard for
the absolutely fearless way in which he has attacked and exposed
corruption without any regard to the political or social prominence
of the offenders or to the dangerous character of the work. Your
husband has taken his life in his hands in doing this great task
for our people and is entitled to the credit and esteem, and above
all, to the heartiest support of all good citizens. The infamous
character of the man who has assassinated him should add not
only to the horror and detestation felt for the deed, but also to
The Shooting of Heney 383
But in spite of this popular expression of sympathy,
there were astonishing exhibitions on the part of the
associates of those who had been indicted or nearly
indicted because of the graft revelations, of feeling
against Heney. For example, Rev. David J. Evans, of
Grace Episcopal Church, on the Sunday following the
attempted assassination, offered prayer for the recovery
of the stricken prosecutor. Instantly there was com-
motion in the pews. Members of the congregation, by
frown and toss of head, indicated their profound dis-
approval of their pastor's petition. ^^'^ But frown and
head-toss and open disapproval of the pews neither
stopped the prayer, nor prevented its answer. The
prayer was offered ; Heney did not die.
Within an hour after Heney had been shot down,
three of the foremost lawyers at the California bar,
Hiram W. Johnson, Matt I. Sullivan and Joseph J.
Dwyer, volunteered their services to take up the strug-
the determination of all decent citizens to stamp out the power of
all men of his kind.
"THEODORE ROOSEVELT."
420 Grace Episcopal Church is attended by many of the most
prominent citizens of San Francisco. At the time of the shooting
of Heney, several prominent Episcopalians were under indictment.
In spite of the intense feeling in his congregation, against the
prosecution, Rev. Mr. Evans continued to give the work of the
District Attorney's office his approval. An era of petty persecu-
tions for Mr. Evans followed. He was finally brought to resign his
pastorate and accept a less important charge at Palo Alto.
In this connection it is interesting to note that in spite of pow-
erful opposition to the prosecution of prominent Episcopalian lay-
men, the Convocation of the Church held at San Francisco in
August, 1907, adopted the following resolutions unanimously:
"Whereas, Our government is imperiled by the criminal use of
wealth to influence legislation; and
"Whereas, Existing conditions in San Francisco present a moral
issue; therefore be it
"Resolved, That, in the judgment of this convocation, bribery
is always a crime deserving punishment, and, furthermore, that
duty commands every Christian man to exert himself to foster a
public recognition of the quality of the crime."
384 The Shooting of Heney
gle for civic righteousness at the point to which Heney
had carried it.
But the attorneys for Ruef, having exhausted every
other delaying move, saw in the shooting of Heney op-
portunity for further delay. They accordingly moved
for change of venue. Failing here, a motion was made
for thirty days' delay. This being denied, Ruef's attor-
neys moved that the jury be dismissed. This move
failing, an attempt was made to examine the twelve
men in the jury box to determine whether the shooting
had prejudiced them and unfitted them for jury service.
These many motions were' backed up with affidavits
containing all that had been said at the public meetings,
and all that had been printed in San Francisco news-
papers, since Heney had been shot. The reading of the
voluminous affidavits consumed hours. The prosecution
filed answering affidavits which also consumed time.
But Judge Lawlor finally denied all the contentions of
the defense and ordered the trial to proceed.
During these proceedings, the jury had been locked
up in charge of the regular court officials. The jury
had not been in the courtroom when Heney was shot,
and from the moment of the shooting had been shut
away from the public. But lest the jury had learned
something of the shooting, and to account for Heney 's
absence, Judge Lawlor deemed it incumbent upon him
to notify them that Heney had been shot, and to ad-
monish them that the transaction so far as the court,
the jury, the defendant, the People of the State, the
counsel, and all other interests interested or involved
The Shooting of Heney 3^5
in the trial were concerned was to stand as though it
had not occurred. This Judge Lawlor did.^^i
The trial itself was not unlike the other graft trials.
The Supervisors told the story of their bribery. Gal-
lagher told how Ruef had given him the money, and
how he had given it to Supervisor Furey. Furey tes-
tified that he had received the money from Gallagher
because of his vote to grant the overhead trolley permit
to the United Railroads. The story had by this time
421 Judge Lawlor's statement to the jury was as follows: "Gen-
tlemen of the Jury: I have a few words to say to you before this
trial is resumed at this time. Since you have been sworn as
jurors the Court has on many occasions, with elaborateness and
repetition, sought to convey to your minds an understanding of
your duties as jurors in this case. It has been pointed out to you
that to the charge which is on trial here, the defendant, Abraham
Ruef, has interposed a plea of not guilty. That charge, consid-
ered in connection with that plea, puts in issue, for the determina-
tion of this Court and jury, the allegations of that charge. You
have been sworn as jurors to pass upon the facts in the case and
to apply those facts, when resolved from the evidence, to the rules
of law which the Court shall finally state to you to govern you in
the rendition of your verdict. These many admonitions, as it has
also been pointed out to you from time to time, are founded upon
a provision of the law which makes it the duty of the Court to
administer those admonitions.
"The purpose of the law requiring those admonitions to be
given is that when a jury is sworn to try an action it shall divest
itself of all matters Vv^hich theretofore might have found lodgment
in the minds of the members and to proceed to render a verdict
solely upon the matters which shall be brought to the attention of
the jury in the due course of judicial proceedings. These constant
reminders of that duty are calculated to keep the sense of jurors
alive to a full compliance therewith.
"I doubt if anything I could say at this time would tend to
amplify what has already been declared from time to time in that
behalf, but in view of a transaction that occurred in the court-
room on the afternoon of Friday, November 13, 1908, the Court
deems it proper to re-emphasize with all the power that it may
command the duty of the jury to proceed to the further discharge
of its duty at this time in utter disregard of that transaction. The
Court realizes that the jurors may have heard or seen a part of
that transaction, or that phases of that transaction may have been
communicated to the jury. Now, without regard to what extent
that assumption may be justified, the Couit desires the jurors to
in every manner relieve their minds of any impression or any-
thing that they have heard, or anything that has been said, or any-
thing that has been communicated, or that shall hereafter be
communicated concerning that transaction; in other words, we are
to resume this trial at this time at precisely the point that had
been reached when the recess, during which the transaction oc-
curred, was declared.
"I may state to you generally, that on that occasion Mr. Fran-
13
386 The Shooting of Heney
become sadly familiar to the people of San Francisco.
The trouble experienced with witnesses at former
trials characterized this trial as well.
Alex. Lathem, for example, at one time Ruef's
chauffeur, disappeared from the State about the time
the trial was to begin. He was brought back from
Oregon under extradition, charged with having accepted
a bribe to leave the jurisdiction of the court. On the
stand,*^^ Lathem repudiated important evidence which
cis J. Heney, the Assistant District Attorney, was shot by a man
bearing the name of Morris Haas; that Mr. Heney was wounded
as a result of that assault. Happily the injury was not a serious
one, and at this time there is every indication that Mr. Heney will
recover from that injury.
"Now, that transaction, so far as this Court and the jury, the
defendant at the bar, the People of the State of California, the
counsel and all other interests interested or involved in this trial
are concerned, is to stand as though it had not occurred; no per-
son is to be charged with any responsibility for that transaction;
this is not the place for the consideration of that transaction.
"It may be stated also to you that the assailant afterward took
his own life while he was confined in the County Jail upon his
arrest in connection with that transaction.
"And neither matter, I repeat, should find any place in your
minds. It should not in any manner form anything in the nature
of bias or prejudice concerning anyone.
"This Court w^ould despair of having the law administered upon
the charge at bar if the jurors did not in every manner comply
with the admonition of the Court to exclude that transaction
entirely from their minds."
422 Lathem testified before the Grand Jury that about the time
the bribe money had been passed he had driven Ruef to the Hirsch
Bros, store, wiiere Ruef had obtained a shirt box. He had then
driven Ruef to the offices of the United Railroads. Ruef had en-
tered the offices with the box. He had come out later with the
box and a package. With box and package he had gone to his own
office, and from there, taking the box and package with him, he
had been driven to the safe deposit vaults of the Western National
Bank.
Lathem did not testify before the Grand Jury until after Ruef
had confessed, and then Lathem testified with Ruef's consent. It
is a significant fact that Lathem was sent out of the State the first
time not in the interest of Ruef but of Tirey L. Ford, head of the
United Railroads law department. Lathem went to Colorado on
an automobile trip v.-ith the father-in-law of Luther Brown, one
of the United Railroad detectives. Lathem's wife was permitted
to accompany them in the automobile. They stopped at the best
hotels. Lathem v.-as paid $150 a month.
The importance of Lathem's testimony lies in the fact that at
the time he took Ruef with the sairt-box to Ford's office, Ford
The Shooting of Heney 387
he had given before the Grand Jury, and to which he
had made affidavit. As a minor incident of the graft
trials, Lathem, because of this incident, was indicted
for perjury.
But in spite of the backwardness of certain of its
witnesses, the prosecution succeeded in getting its case
before the jury. The jury found Ruef guilty as
charged. He was sentenced to fourteen years' penal
servitude at San Quentin prison.
had just received from the Relief corporation officials $50,000 in
small currency, which made two large bundles, which were car-
ried to Ford's office by Abbott and himself and placed in Ford's
desk. This was at the noon hour. A little after one o'clock Ruef
went to the Western Pacific Safety Deposit vaults where he then
had a deposit box. The cubic contents of this box was not suffi-
cient to accommodate those two bundles. Ruef at that time
secured two additional boxes. The cubic contents of all three
boxes together was just sufficient to nicely accommodate said
two bundles.
The theory of the prosecution was that Ruef carried bribe
money in box and package.
At the trial, Lathem stated that the story which he had told
before the Grand Jury was not true.
CHAPTER XXVL
The Calhoun Trial.
The trial of Patrick Calhoun for offering a bribe to
Supervisor Fred Nicholas began immediately after the
holidays, following the Ruef trials. The trial brought
into play all the machinery of the opposition at its worst
to the prosecution. At all points the defense was
carried on on a larger scale than at the former trials.
There were more and better lawyers employed by the
defendant ; there were more thugs in evidence in the
courtroom ; there was greater activity on the part of
the detectives, spies and agents engaged to meet the
efforts of the men working under Detective Burns.
Due largely to the activity of this army of opposition
to the prosecution, the weakness of the methods of
enforcing the criminal law was emphasized even more
than at the other trials, and the defects shown up more
glaringly.
To secure a jury to try Ruef, for example, 1450
talesmen were called. This v/as regarded as a record.
But before a jury had been secured to try Calhoun
2370 veniremen had been called into court, and no
less than 922 examined. Thus, for every juror who sat
at the Calhoun trial, 197 talesmen were called, and
seventy-seven were questioned by the attorneys.
The estimated number of words contained in the
transcript of the examination of these talesmen was
The Calhoun Trial 389
in millions. To conduct this examination three months
were required. The securing of a jury to try Ruef
occupied the time of the court for two months only.
But it must be noted that the securing of the Calhoun
and the Ruef juries occupied five months — to try charges
contained in two indictments, whereas in all the graft
cases 160 indictments had been brought.
The defendants who preceded Calhoun to trial had
an army of attorneys to represent them. But Calhoun's
line of legal representatives was quite double that of
any of his fellow graft defendants who had been caught
in the prosecution drag-net.
Prominent in Mr. Calhoun's defense appeared A. A.
Moore, Stanley Moore, Lewis F. Byington, Earl Rogers, ,
J. J. Barrett and Alexander King, supported by the
giant of the California bar. Garret McEnerney. That
the master mind of Garret McEnerney was directing
many of the graft defense cases had been intimated
from time to time, but there is no question about Mc-
Enerney's part in the defense of Calhoun.
And opposed to the strongest men of the California
bar, The People had two representatives. One of
them, Heney, was serving without pay, was still a sick
man not having fully recovered from his wound in-
flicted but a few months before, and worn out from j^
the continued effort of a three-years' fight to get at the
root of municipal corruption in San Francisco. The
second, a regularly employed Deputy District Attorney,
John J. O'Gara, was receiving $300 a month for his
services. It is not unlikely that some of the best of
the attorneys for the defense, for defending Mr. Cal-
houn, received as much in a day. Compared with the
390 The Calhoun Trial
army of lawyers for the defense, the representation of
The People was pitifully small.
Through the long, grueling contest of the trial, last-
ing for five months and eight days, '^^^ Heney and
O'Gara were kept under constant strain, while the de-
fendant's attorneys relieved one another when their
labors became irksome.
The bulk of the hammering and of the technical
quibbling was directed against Heney. Heney, still
suffering from the effects of his wound, received at
the Ruef trial, worn-out, over-worked, harassed in the
public prints, would at times become thoroughly ex-
asperated. Every indication of impatience on his part,
or of temper, was made subject of attack in the op-
posing newspapers.^-* These attacks, long persisted in,
did their part in the general campaign to weary the
public with the prosecution, and undermine confidence
in Heney.
The examination of talesmen for jury service showed
the results of this long-continued campaign. Many
talesmen announced their sympathy with the defendants,
and deplored the prosecution, which they appeared to
423 From January 12, 1909, to June 20, 1909.
424 Earl Rogers showed himself particularly clever at goading.
His ability in this line was shown to advanatge also, at the trial
of Clarence Barrow, charged with jury fixing at Los Angeles, whom
Rogers defended. The Fresno Republican in comparing the two
cases said, in its issue of July 12, 1912: "When Heney tilted, as
prosecutor against Earl Rogers as an apologist for crime, he was
the 'wild man of Borneo,' to the more staid and polished mem-
bers of the San Francisco bar. But now that Fredericks and
Ford, prosecutors of Los Angeles, lost their tempers under the
goadings of this same Rogers in the Darrow case, nothing is said
about the wild man of Borneo. Fredericks and Ford, unlike
Heney, are recognized as the socially elect of the profession, but
Heney in the wildest excitement of the Calhoun trials, never tried
to throw an ink bottle at Rogers, as Ford tried to do the other day.
Plainly, as a matter of social etiquette, it depends upon whose oX
Rogers gores."
The Calhoun Trial 391
believe had broug-ht shame upon and injured the city.
Some went so far as to call the prosecution of Calhoun
an outrage. ^^^ Others intimated that the giving of ' ■■'
bribe money might have been justifiable. ^^^ Such ex-
pressions, coming from men of average intelligence and
ordinarily law-abiding", showed conclusively that the
persistent efforts of the defense to poison the public
mind against the prosecution was at last bringing results.
' But after months of effort a jury was secured to
hear the case and the trial began.
425 See footnote 269.
426 The Chronicle, as early as July 10, 1907, punctured the the-
ory that the bribing- of public servants is justifiable.
The Chronicle said: "In the examination of a talesman in
Judge Lawlor's court on Monday an attorney for the defendant
charged with the crime of bribing city officials made the statement
that San Francisco is divided on the subject of punishing men
who have committed the offense named. He said: 'You know, of
course, that San Francisco is divided on this graft question. Half
in favor of the prosecution, and, say, half contrary minded.' Pos-
sibly he believes that this is true, but there is absolutely no foun-
dation for the assumption. There is no evidence on which to base
such a statement, and it would not have been made if there was
any possibility of determining its truth or falsity by some simple
test.
"It is doubtless true that there are plenty of men in this com-
munity who regard the crime of bribery lightly, and are ready to
defend it on the ground that laxity in the conduct of municipal
affairs made it necessary to resort to it or abandon all enterprise.
But the great majority of citizens take the sound view that both
briber and bribed are equally guilty and equally deserving of pun-
ishment, and utterly refuse to accept the excuse that the corpora-
tions which have been systematically debauching- city officials were
forced to that course. They know that the eager desire to secure
advantages is at the bottom of the corrupt condition of our
municipal affairs, and they feel that unless examples can be made
of those who have shov/n a willingness to protit by the greed and
turpitude of those elected to office the practice of bribing will be
again resumed and continued as long as there is anything to be
gained by the pursuit of criminal methods.
"Even if it were true that the community Is evenly divided it
would be outrageous to plead that fact as a justification for the
commission of criminal acts. If San Francisco should be so lost
to shame that nine-tenths of her population regarded bribery with
tolerance, it would be no less a crime, but there would be infin-
itely more reason for striving to punish offenders of that charac-
ter to save the city from the moral degradation involved In the
acceptance of the idea that it is excusable to defy the laws by
debauching public officials."
At the time of Calhoun's trial, however. The Chronicle read
talesmen who sided with the defense no such lecture.
jj
392 The Calhoun Trial
Heney, in his opening statement to the jury, set
forth the prosecution expected to prove that Ruef au-
thorized James L. Gallagher to offer the bribe to Super-
visor Nicholas ; that Ruef afterwards gave the money
to Gallagher to pay Nicholas ; that Calhoun authorized
/ I Ruef, either through Tirey L. Ford, or personally, or
both, to make the offer to Gallagher and to authorize
Gallagher to make the off"er to Nicholas.
The prosecution showed by Gallagher that the offer
had been made to Nicholas and to every member of the
Board of Supervisors with the exception of Rea. In
this, Gallagher was corroborated by the Supervisors.
Not only had the offer been made, but the bribe money
had been paid.
Gallagher testified that he had received $85,000
. from Ruef to be distributed among the Supervisors for
' their votes which gave the United Railroads its over-
head trolley permit, and that, after keeping out $15,000
for himself, he had distributed the money among them,
giving to Supervisor Nicholas $4000 of the amount.
Supervisor Nicholas testified that Gallagher had
offered him the bribe and had paid him the money.
By the officials of the United States Mint, the
prosecution showed that $200,000, about the time of the
bribery, had been turned over to General Tirey L.
Ford,' on order from Mr. Calhoun. The $200,000 could
not be accounted for by the available books of the
United Railroads. Ruef and Ford were shown to have
been in close touch with each other during the period. ^^'''
But nobody could be found who had seen Ford pass
$200,000 to Mr. Ruef.
427 See Chapter XV, "The Ford Trials."
The Calhoun Trial 393
Here was, perhaps, a weak link in the prosecution's
chain of evidence.
Mr. Calhoun did not, however, put General Ford on
the stand to tell what he did with the money. Neither
did Mr. Calhoun put Mr. Ruef on the stand to testify
as to the source of the $85,000 which Ruef gave to
Gallagher to pay the Supervisors for their votes by
which the trolley permit was awarded to the United
Railroads.
But, however weak the link between Ford and Ruef,
there was no w^eakness in the link between Calhoun
and Ford. By evidence that could not be disputed, the
prosecution showed that Ford got $200,000 through
Calhoun.
Frank A. Leach, Director of the United States
Mint at San Francisco, testified that Calhoun, with
General Ford, had called upon him at the Mint some-
time between May 22 and May 24. 1906.^-^ Calhoun
called. Leach testified, to ascertain how v$200,000, which
had been transferred from the East to his credit.^^^
428 The trolley-permit was granted May 21, 1906.
429 The letter placing $200,000 to Calhoun's credit read as fol-
lows:
"Treasury Department, Washington, May 22, 1006. Superin-
tendent of the United States Mint, San Francisco, Cal. Sir: Con-
firmation is certified to a telegram sent you this day, in sub-
stance as follows:
" 'Pay to Patrick Calhoun, President United Railroads, $200,000;
to Lachman and Jacobi, $12,500; to Beech Thompson, $20,600; to
Canadian Bank of Cominerce, $250,000; on account of original cer-
tificates of deposit Nos. 5251, 5252, 5253 and 5267, issued by the
Assistant Treasurer of the United States, New York city. In all
amounting to $482,500.
" 'Pay to master California Lodge, Number 1. A. F. and A. M.,
$319.65 on account of original certificate of deposit No. 112, issued
by the Assistant Treasurer of the United States, Chicago.' Re-
spectfully,
"CHARLES TT. TREAT.
"Treasurer of the United States."
394 The Calhoun Trial
could be drawn out in certain sums in favor of such
persons as he might designate.
Leach testified he had furnished Calhoun with the
desired information.
Ford afterwards appeared at the Alint with an order
from Mr. Calhoun for $50,000/^'^ which was paid to
him. Later, Calhoun telegraphed to Leach from Cleve-
land, Ohio, to pay Ford a second $50,000; and still
later the $100,000 remaining. ^^^
The Mint officials paid Ford the money in accord-
ance with Mr. Calhoun's directions. Mr. Calhoun of-
fered no evidence to show why this considerable sum
was paid to General Ford, or what General Ford was
supposed to have done with it. Mr. Calhoun, when the
last of the $200,000 had been turned over to General
Ford, had given Mr. Leach a receipt *^- in full for the
amount.
But what was quite as extraordinary as this direct
evidence against Mr. Calhoun was the ofifer of the
District Attorney to meet the defense's charges and
insinuations against the prosecution. Rudolph Spreck-
430 The telegrams directing the money to be paid Ford read:
"Cleveland, Ohio, .July 28, 06. Hon. Frank A. Leach, Superin-
tendent U. S. Mint. San Francisco. Please pay to Tirey L. Ford,
or order, fifty thousand dollars and charge same to my account.
Patrick Calhoun, President United Railroads of San Francisco."
431 Calhoun's order placing the $100,000 to Ford's credit read as
follows:
"Cleveland, Ohio, August 21, 06. Hon. Frank A. Leach, Super-
intendent United States Mint, San Francisco. Please pay to Gen-
eral Tirey L. Ford, or order, one hundred thousand dollars, and
charge the same to my account. Patrick Calhoun, President United
Railroads, San Francisco."
432 Calhoun's final receipt for the $200,000 was as follows:
"Received from Frank A. Leach, Superintendent U. S. Mint, two
hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) on c/d No. 5251, with Asst.
Treasurer U. S.. New York. PATRICK CALHOUN.
"President United Railroads."
The Calhoun Trial 395
els was called to the stand. The attorneys for the
defense were invited to ask him any questions they ,
saw fit.
"From the time we attempted to impanel this jury,"
said Heney, in extending this invitation, **the attorneys
for the defendant have been attempting to try Rudolph
Spreckels, James D. Phelan and God knows who else.
By insinuations they have been endeavoring to get into
the mind of this jury the idea that Mr. Spreckels was
back of this prosecution for malicious purposes and \^
for gain, for profit, to get hold of the United Railroads.
I told them when they were making those insinuations
that I proposed to throw down the bars to them ; that
I proposed to force them to the proof; that I would
put the witnesses upon the stand and would not object
to a single question asked them.
"The witness, Spreckels, is now upon the stand, and
we won't object to their asking him anything on earth,
from the time he was born down to the present day,
to the present minute."
One of the most frequent charges which had been
made against the prosecution was that it had expended
money wrongfully. Rogers asked for a statement of
the prosecution's receipts and disbursements.
Mr. Spreckels announced his willingness to account
for every dollar expended, but refused, until he should
be directed by the Court, to give the names of the con-
tributors to the fund."^
438 "I want to protect those (the contributors) whom I prom-
ised to protect in this matter," said Spreckels. "Outside of that,
the matter is entirely an open matter; I have no concern In it." —
See Spreckels's testimony, Transcript of evidence In the matter of
Th« People vs. Patrick Calhoun, Page 3385.
39^ The Calhoun Trial
"Will you," broke in Heney addressing Calhoun's
lawyers, "produce an itemized account of moneys ex-
pended in the defense of these matters?"
"I beg your pardon?" questioned Rogers.
"I say," said Heney, "will you produce an itemized
account of moneys expended in opposition to these
prosecutions ?"
The defense did not seize this opportunity to clear
itself of the not unreasonable suspicion that money had
been used to influence jurors to vote for acquittals ; to
get witnesses out of the State ; to corrupt agents of the
prosecution ; and perhaps to attempt murder. On the
contrary, the attorneys for the defense denounced Mr.
Heney's suggestion as "misconduct."
Mr. Spreckels stated his willingness to furnish item-
ized statement of the prosecution's expenditures. This
he did. Furthermore, he submitted himself to rigorous
cross-examination regarding the items of his account.
But the clever attorneys for the defense uncovered
nothing upon which charge of wrongful expenditure or
questionable methods could be based.*^*
The charge that Spreckels had engaged in the Graft
Prosecution to injure the United Railroads came to as
sorry an ending. By competent witnesses it was shown
that the prosecution had been planned, and the prelim-
inary work done, before the bribe-money in the trolley
deal had passed. Furthermore, it was shown that
Spreckels had offered to assist Calhoun to have the
time of his franchises extended, if such extension were
434 The statement in full of the expenditures of the prosecu-
tion, as shown in the transcript of the Calhoun trial, will be
found on page xxxiv of the Appendix.
The Calhoun Trial 397
necessary for practical installation of the conduit electric
system, asking only that the unsightly poles and over-
head wires be not inflicted upon the city. It was only
when Calhoun, dealing with a Board of Supervisors sus-
pected of corruption, showed conclusively that he pro-
posed to install an over-head trolley system, whether
the people wanted it or not, that Spreckels and his asso-
ciates organized their traction company. It was shown
that the object of the organizers of the company was
to demonstrate that the conduit system was practical
for San Francisco. And, finally, the articles of in-
corporation under which the company proposed to oper-
ate, provided for the transfer under equitable arrange-
ments of the proposed new lines to the city, should the
city wish at any time to take them over. Mr. Spreckels
and his associates were shown not to have had desire
or inclination to engage in the street-car business. But
it was shown that they proposed to fight for what they
considered the best interests of the city of their birth
and residence.
Another frequently-made charge had been that Heney
was the attorney for Rudolph Spreckels, directing a
privately-conducted prosecution.*^^ As a matter of fact,
435 The charge of private prosecution was raised early. The
Chronicle of May 14, 1907, printed as part of Ford's statement why
he did not testify before the Grand Jury, the following:
"The private interests that are behind this attack upon the
officers of the United Railroads have free access to this juryroom
through their chosen counsel who has assumed to exercise all the
official authority of the District Attorney of this city and who, by
reason of the exercise of such authority, has become the legal
counsellor and guide of this Grand Jury.
"The officers of the United Railroads are not unmindful of the
tremendous power for harm that lies in this unusual and extraord-
inary situation.
"They, therefore, protest against the consideration by this
Grand Jury of any evidence whose legality and sufficiency cannot
398
The Calhoun Trial
Langdon, and not Heney, headed the prosecution, and
Langdon let it be known at all times that he was the
final arbitrator in all questions growing out of the
prosecution. And at no time did he fail to assert
himself. But at the Calhoun trial, the fishing expedi-
tions in which the defense indulged, brought the facts
out convincingly that Heney, far from being in Spreck-
els' employ, or directly or indirectly receiving money
from him for graft-prosecution services, or any other
services, was giving his time to the city, without reward
or hope of reward.
Thus, point by point, the allegations which the graft
defense had for three years been making against the
prosecution, were shown to be without foundation in
fact. The bars were down, as Heney put it. Rudolph
Spreckels and others who had made the prosecution
possible, were under oath, and were prepared to answer
any question that might be put to them. The ablest
be judicially determined from a full, complete and correct tran-
script thereof.
"Second — Tlie subpoena by which my attendance here was
compelled was not only insufficient in both form and substance,
but was served by a privately employed detective who is not a
citizen of California and who is employed and paid by private
interests notoriously hostile to the United Railroads.
"Third — There is here present a person not permitted by the
laws of this State to be present, namely, an attorney nominally
representing the office of the District Attorney, while, in fact, rep-
resenting private interests in no manner connected officially with
any of the governmental affairs of this city and State.
"Fourth — I am the general counsel and legal adviser of the
United Railroads and its officers, and whatever knowledge I pos-
sess of any of the affairs of the United Railroads or of its offi-
cers, has come to me in professional confidence and, under the
law of this State, every attorney is compelled to keep inviolate,
and at every peril to himself, preserve the secrets of his clients.
"Fifth — Under the statement of the representative of the Dis-
trict Attorney's office in attendance before this Grand Jur5\ I feel
it my duty to stand with the officers of the United Railroads upon
my constitutional rights, and the District Attorney knows that he
cannot in these proceedings compel me to testify, and he also
knows that no unfavorable inference is permitted to be drawn
from our declination in this regard,"
The Calhoun Trial 399
lawyers, cunning in cross-examination, selected, indeed,
for their craft and skill in searching out the innermost
secrets of witnesses, were there to question.
But not one statement reflecting upon the purposes
of the prosecution, nor of its motives, nor of its meth-
ods, was brought out. The graft defense, free to ques-
tion as it would, was unable to justify the insinuations
of baseness of purpose and method ; nor to justify its
loosely-made charges against the prosecution.'*^®
Indeed, the attorneys for Mr. Calhoun even resisted
full discussion of Mr. Spreckels' motives.
The intimation, so broad as to approach positive
declaration, had been made repeatedly that Mr. Spreck-
els had inaugurated the graft prosecution for the pur-
pose of injuring Mr. Calhoun and the properties which
he represented — the United Railroads. On re-direct
examination, Mr. Spreckels was asked by the attorney
for the State whether, at the time he had first discussed
investigation of graft conditions in San Francisco with
Mr. Heney, he had had any idea of investigating Mr. |/
Calhoun. Mr. Barrett, representing the defendant,
strongly objected to this line of questioning.'*^''
After a wrangle between the attorneys as to the
matter of the witness's motives, Spreckels was permitted
to make a brief statement to the Court.
*'My motives," he said, "have been inquired into,
and I have indicated to Mr. Rogers (Calhoun's attor-
436 One of the most complete answers to the charges scattered
nation-wide bv the Graft Defense, came from Dean John H. WMpr-
more of the Northwestern School of Law at Chicago, author of
Wigmore on Evidence. (See footnote 283.)
437 See transcript of testimony, The People vs. Patrick Cal-
houn, No. 1436, page 3723.
400 The Calhoun Trial
ney) that as far as I am concerned the bars are abso-
lutely down; I am willing to take the judgment of this
community as to motives, as to my purposes and as to
the truthfulness of my statements made here."
Mr. Spreckels was finally permitted to answer the
question. He answered in the negative.^^^
The defendant placed no witnesses on the stand.
The explanation of their peculiar position which the
United Railroads officials were looked upon to make
when opportunity offered was not made. The denials
which they had for three years been indignantly making
through the newspapers were not stated under oath.'*^^
438 Mr. Spreckels finally testified on this point as follows:
"Mr. Heney. Q. At the time that Mr. Phelan agreed to con-
tribute the $10,000, Mr. Spreckels, what did you say, if anything,
about contributing yourself? A. That was in the first meeting,
I think, Mr. Heney, and I told him that I was readj^ and willing
to contribute a similar amount; that I believed it would be possi-
ble to get others to join and contribute.
"Q. At that time was anything said by any person about pros-
ecuting Mr. Calhoun? A. Absolutely no.
"Q. Or any person connected with the United Railroads Com-
pany? A. The discussion was entirely confined to the administra-
tion, the corrupt administration as we termed it.
"Q. At that time did you have any purpose or intention of
prosecuting Mr. Calhoun? A. I had not.
"Q. Did you have any reason to believe that Mr. Calhoun at
that time had committed any crime? A. I had no indication of
such a crime.
"Mr. Moore. Was that time fixed, Mr. Heney?
"Mr. Heney. Yes, it was fixed; the first conversation, and he
has fixed it as nearly as he could.
"The Court. Have you in mind the testimony on that point,
Mr. Moore? There was some reference to it in an earlier part of
the exainination.
"Mr. Heney. Q. "U''hen you had the talk with Mr. Heney in
April, 1906, did you say anything about prosecuting Mr. Calhoun,
or anybody connected with the United Railroads? A. I did not.
"Q. Did you at any time tell Mr. Heney, that you desired to
have him prosecute Mr. Patrick Calhoun? A. I did not, at any
time.
"Q. Did you tell him at any time that you desired to have him
prosecute any person connected with the United Railroads Com-
pany? A. I did not."
439 The Chronicle in its issue of March 19, 1907, the day after
the story of corruption of Supervisors was made public, refers to
the denials of United Railroads officials as follows:
"Weeks ago, when the first charges of a corruption fund was
The Calhoun Trial 401
The trial resulted in a disagreement. According to
published statements, purporting to come from mem-
bers of the jury, on the first ballot four jurors stood
for conviction, eight for acquittal ; on the second, nine
for acquittal, three for conviction. On all the other
ballots the jurors stood ten for acquittal and two for
conviction.***^
published, Patrick Calhoun issued from his New York offices a
typewritten statement, equivalent to about three-fourths of a
Chronicle column, in which he announced:
" *I have just seen the San Francisco papers, in which vague
charges are made that the United Railroads of San Francisco paid
or caused to be paid $700,000 for a permit to use electricity on the
roads that it formerly operated with cable. There is no foundation
for this rumor. The United Railroads of San Francisco never paid
or authorized any one to pay on its behalf a single dollar to the
Mayor, Supervisors or any public official of the city of San Fran-
cisco or the State of California.'
"Late last night the following additional denial was issued from
the office of the United Railroads:
" 'I am authorized to state in the most positive way that neither
Mr. Calhoun nor any officer of the United Railroads ever paid or
authorized anyone to pay one dollar to any official.
'THORNWELL MULLALLT,
'Assistant to the President United Railroads.' "
440 The following statement was published over the name of
Otto T. Hildebrecht, one of the two jurors who had voted to
convict:
"As soon as we entered the jury room, I overheard a crowd of
the jurors in the rear of the hall shouting 'Acquit! Acquit!' We
then proceeded to name a foreman. This matter disposed of, the
members began balloting.
"In the first half hour three ballots were cast. On the first vote
it stood 8 to 4 for acquittal. On the second ballot Maguire suc-
cumbed to the pressure. I called upon him for his reasons for
changing his vote and he replied: 'Oh, these corrupt conditions
have alwaj's prevailed in San Francisco. The Supervisors in this
case are no different from the other men, who have filled those
offices. It will always be like that.' To combat this attitude on
Maguire's part, I stated, 'Well, it is time to stamp out the crimes
in this, city. In order that the evil may be corrected we must
put a stop to it.' This seemed to have no weight with Maguire.
"The next ballot showed that Anthes had gone over to the
others. From him I secured this information: 'Oh, why I always
vote with the majority.' I said, 'Why, how can an honest man
take that view of the matter?' I have taken an oath and at that
time announced that I would try this case solely on the evidence.
"It is plainly pointed out in the testimony of Sanderson that
Calhoun was present when Ruef said, 'This thing will go through
on Monday. It is all settled.' This produced no impression upon
the others, although I argued that such testimony alone proved
Calhoun's guilty knowledge of the plan to put the deal through
402 The Calhoun Trial
Immediately after announcement of the verdict,**^
the District Attorney attempted to bring Calhoun to
trial for the alleged offering of a bribe to Supervisor
when he remarked in answer to Sanderson's query, 'Then you
won't need me?' 'I don't think we do.'
"I then asked the other jurors to come into court, they con-
tending that Ruef had carried on the conversation with Sanderson
and that Calhoun was an innocent witness. We asked to have
this testimony revealed and the jurors filed into court. Upon
returning- to the jury room we renewed our deliberations.
"The other ten jurors came at Binner and myself and sought to
induce me to stretch my imagination to the end that Calhoun had
paid the money to Ruef, but onlj^ as a fee. They acknowledged
right there that Calhoun had paid over the money taut they argued
that he didn't know that the money was going to be used as a
bribe to the Supervisors, — only as a fee to Ruef. After that I knew
that these men had purposely taken the wrong view of the whole
matter. I had called them to account for the remarks that the
testimony throughout the case was all purchased and that Heney
had held the whip over the Supervisors. Thereupon they backed
down on that stand and made their whole plea on the ground that
Calhoun had given the trolley money to Ruef as a fee.
"I disagreed on the ground that Heney, Spreckels and the other
members of the prosecution were not on trial as they insisted, and
that the other matters, such as the theft of reports and suppres-
sion of testimony, had only been touched upon during the trial to
prove that Calhoun knew that the bribery deal had been carried
through.
" 'Can't you give Calhoun the benefit of the doubt, that he paid
this money as a fee?' was the burden of the others' argument. 'I
would be willing to extend him every chance,' I replied, 'but Vv'hy
has he not introduced these vouchers of the United Railroads in
court, then we might see what was paid to bribe the juries in the
Ford trials.' After this they dropped me like a red-hot stove. I
seemed to have struck home. It was a terrifying ordeal to stand
off these ten men for twelve hours, but I held firmly to my course
and voted throughout upon my conscience. I should have been
ashamed to have lifted my head in the future had I fallen down
and voted for an acquittal. When the deputy, Mr. Coyle, called to
convey the word to Judge Lawlor as to the clearness of an agree-
ment being reached, I met him at the door that night. 'We shall
never reach an agreement,' I replied, 'unless these men come over
to my side. That I fear shall never come to pass.' The claim has
been made in the Globe that I asked for a secret ballot. That is
an untruth, as is the statement that I am a. Socialist. Not that
I am opposed to Socialism, but I have never been inclined to their
views. Our political outlooks differ. When I told Coyle that there
was no chance of a verdict being reached, the other jurors, one of
those standing alongside of me, punched me in the ribs in an effort
to make me shut up, as they figured that they ought to be able to
convince me. I have received letters from all over the State;
friends and acquaintances, even utter strangers, congratulating me
upon my stand in the Calhoun case and my vote for conviction."
441 Calhoun, after the disagreement of the jurj' that tried him,
issued a statement to the press in which he bitterly denounced
those who were responsible for the prosecution, and hinted at
retaliation. He continued to insist that Heney was a corrupt offi-
The Calhoun Trial 403
John J. Furey. This the defense resisted. The com-
munity was filled with the suggestion that the Calhoun
jury, having failed to agree, the costly graft trials
should be brought to an end.**^
Nevertheless, Calhoun's second trial was begun. But
before a jury could be secured, Francis J. Heney had
been defeated for election as District Attorney. This
cial: "There lies in the courtroom," said Calhoun, "forty checks
made by Mr. Rudolph Spreckels to Mr. Francis J. Henev since his
alleged appointment as Assistant District Attorney. Those checks
were deposited in the American National Bank to his private
account. They aggregate $23,800. The first of them amounted to
$4,900. They are the price of his infamy. He can not escape the
fact that he is a corrupt public official by the contention that he
has been engaged in a holy crusade. He can not defend the
acceptance of money from a private citizen for the express pur-
pose of enabling him to devote himself exclusively to the so-called
Graft Prosecution without committing the crime of accepting a
bribe. I here make the formal and specific charge that Francis J.
Heney stands side by side with James L. Gallagher as a corrupt
public official. I charge him with having accepted bribes and I
also charge Rudolph Spreckels and James D. Phelan with having
given him the bribes; and if we can get a fair District Attorney in
the city of San Francisco I propose at the proper time and in the
proper way to submit formal charges again.st Heney for having
received bribes and Spreckels and Phelan for having paid them."
Of Calhoun's threat of prosecution, The Call in its issue of
June 22, 1909, said:
"In that soiled and motley retinue of strikers and heelers, jury
fixers and gaspipe men that the head of the United Railroads has
gathered about him were many who made it a business to pro-
claim that when the indictments came to the test of fact in court
the disposition of that $200,000 would be explained as a perfectly
innocent matter in the simplest possible manner. How these prom-
ises have been fulfilled we know. The mystery of that $200,000
remains as dark as ever. Not even the stockholders of the com-
pany are invited into the confidence of its president. It is not
now the question, Where did he get it? but What did he do with
it?
"As long as that question remains unanswered by or for Cal-
houn and as long as he refuses to undergo cross examination and
the ordinary legal tests of proof, just so long will tlie whole Amer-
ican public believe him guilty of bribery. As for his threat of
some soi-t of vague legal proceedings against the prosecutors, that
will merely provoke a laugh, as men do laugh at a cheap and ob-
vious bluff."
442 The free press, not only of California but of the entire
nation, protested against such a course. "San Francisco." said the
Pittsburgh Times-Gazette, "owes it to the nation to continue her
fight against the big grafters of that town. If she lets up now
the grafters the country over will take heart, and the next time
it becomes necessary to go after the tribe, it will be more difficult
even than it has been in San Francisco to convict a briber."
404 The Calhoun Trial
meant the breaking down of the graft prosecution.
The District Attorney consented to continuance of the
case until the new administration should take charge.
The case was not pressed by Mr. Langdon's successor,
and finally, with the other graft charges, was dismissed.
CHAPTER XXVIL
The San Francisco Election of 1909.
Scarcely had the disagreeing jury in the Calhoun
case been discharged than the Graft Prosecution was
again called upon to meet the graft defense at the
polls. Langdon's second term was to expire the follow-
ing January. His successor was to be elected in No-
vember.
Mr. Langdon refused positively to be a candidate to
succeed himself. The supporters of the prosecution
turned to Heney as the most available candidate to
oppose the elements united against them.
Heney did not want to be a candidate. The gruel-
ing contest of the Calhoun trial, coupled with the nerve-
shattering efifects of the wound in his head, had brought
him to the point of physical and nervous breakdown.
But it was demonstrated to him that he had the largest
personal following in San Francisco ; that the public
had confidence in him ; that he must make the fight.
And Heney, doubtful of his physical ability to con-
tinue to the end of the primary and final campaigns,
consented to become a candidate.
There followed the most astonishing campaign for
municipal office ever held in San Francisco, or probably
in any other American city.
California was at the time groping her way from
the clutch of the Southern Pacific "machine." The
CaHfornia Legislature of 1909 had adjourned after a
4o6 The San Francisco Election of 1909
session which had ended largely in disappointing failure
for the anti-machine element. The anti-machine ele-
ment had been in slight majority, but it had blunderingly
permitted the machine minority to organize both houses.
As a result, the ''machine" had been able to defeat the
passage of many anti-machine — now known as progres-
sive— measures. In other instances progressive meas-
ures were before their passage,^^^ in the face of the
earnest but unavailable protest of the well-intentioned
but unorganized anti-machine majority, loaded with
hampering amendments.
Two of these measures bore directly upon the San
Francisco situation. The first measure provided for the
Direct Primary. The second provided for the elimina-
tion of the "party circle" from the election ballot.
This last named measure, known as ''the Party
Circle bill," passed the Senate, but was defeated by one
vote in the Assembly. The defeated measure was in-
tended to restore the Australian ballot to its original
simplicity and effectiveness.^**
Under the machine's tinkering of the State's elec-
tion laws, the Australian ballot had become a device for
encouraging partisan voting. The "party circle" was
placed at the head of the column of party candidates.
A cross placed in the circle registered a vote for every
candidate nominated by the party designated by the
circle. The question of "distinguishing marks" invali-
443 See "Storj' of the California Legislature of 1909," Chapters
VIII, IX, X, XI.
444 This reform was accomplished at the Legislative session of
1911. Tlie undesirable provisions were also stricken by amendment
from the Direct Primaiy lav/. See "Story of the California Legis-
lature of 1911."
The San Francisco Election of 1909 407
dating entire ballots was ruled upon so closely by the
State courts, that many voters voted by means of the
one cross in the party circle to avoid the risk of having
their entire ballot denied counting because of technical
defects that might creep in if a divided ticket were
voted. Had the "Party Circle bill" become a law it
would have eliminated the "party circle" from the ballot,
leaving the voter to select individual candidates of his-
choice. The one Assembly vote that defeated this
measure after it had passed the Senate, went far toward
bringing the San Francisco Graft Prosecution to an end.
The Direct Primary measure was not defeated, nor
did the machine element succeed in amending it into
complete ineffectiveness. The anti-machine Republicans
and Democrats, by joining in non-partisan caucus on
this measure, succeeded in forcing the passage of the
Direct Primary bill, but they were not able to keep it
free of defects. Harassed by the machine at every turn,
the anti-machine Senators and Assemblymen were com-
pelled to accept many undesirable provisions. *^^
445 "Before voting on this matter," (the Direct Primary pro-
visions) said Senator Stetson, an anti-machine leader in explain-
ing his vote, "lest any one in the future may think that I have
been passed something and didn't know it, I wish to explain my
vote, and wish to say that this permission accorded a candidate to
go on record to support that candidate for United States Senate,
who shall have the endorsement of the greatest number of dis-
tricts, comes from nobody and goes to nobody. It means nothing
— mere words — idle words. The only way in which a candidate
could have been pledged would have been to provide a pledge or
instructions to the Legislature. The words 'shall be permitted'
mean nothing and get nowhere. I shall vote for this report, not
because I want to, but because I have to if we are at this session
to have any Direct Primary law at all."
Senator Stetson was referring particularly to the section which
denied the people by state-wide vote the right to indicate their
preference for United States Senator, but his words would have
applied as directly and as truly to other sections of the measure.
Other good government Senators did, as a matter of fact, de-
nounce the very partisan clause which later contributed so largely
to Pleney's defeat. Senatoris Campbell, Holohan and Miller, for
4o8 The San Francisco Election of 1909
One of these provisions bore directly upon the San
Francisco election of 1909, and contributed to a large
extent to the outcome.
This clause required a primary candidate to make
affidavit giving ''the name of his party and that of the
office for which he desires to be a candidate ; that he
affiliated with said party at the last preceding general
election, and either that he did not vote thereat or
voted for a majority of the candidates of said party at
said next preceding general election, and intends to so
vote at the ensuing election."
At the time this section was under consideration,
anti-machine legislators and the unhampered press
pointed out that under it, District Attorney Langdon
could not, in all probability, have been nominated nor
re-elected in 1907 ; that Mayor Taylor's election of that
year would have been impracticable, if not impossible ;
that Judge Dunne would have been hampered to the
point of defeat in 1908 ; that under it, both in 1907 and
1908, the so-called "higher-up'' element in the field of
corruption would have been given an advantage which
the better citizenship of the community would have had
difficulty in overcoming.**^
But the machine element denounced these not un-
example, while voting for the bill, sent to the clerk's desk the
following explanation of their vote:
"V^^'e voted for the Direct Primary bill because it seems to be
the best law that can be obtained under existing political condi-
tions. We are opposed to many of the features of this bill, and
believe that the people at the first opportunity will instruct their
representatives in the I-.egislature to radically amend the same in
many particulars, notably in regard to the election of United States
Senators, and the provisions that prevent the endorsement of a
candidate by a political party or organization other than the one
that first nominated such candidate."
446 See files of Sacramento Bee for February and March, 1900,
and Senate Journal for March 22, 1909, page 1976.
The San Francisco Election of 1909 409
reasonable objectors as "enemies of the Direct Primary
bill," and under cover of the denunciation, and the
fight for practical expression of popular choice for
United States Senators, the objectionable clause was
permitted to remain in the bill.
No sooner had the Legislature adjourned than judi-
cial interpretation of the partisan clause of the Direct
Primary Act became necessary. The San Francisco
primary election was at hand, and the partisan pro-
visions of the new law proved the first snag which the
various candidates encountered.
Although the members of the Legislature, machine
as well as anti-machine, voted for the bill, believing
that the partisan clause restricted primary nominations
to members of the party of the candidates' affiliation,
the San Francisco Election Commissioners held there
was nothing in the law to prevent the name of a Re-
publican appearing on the Democratic ticket, or of a
Democrat on the Republican ticket, provided the can-
didate made affidavit of the party of his affiliation.
Under this ruling it appeared that, in spite of the
objectionable partisan provision of the Direct Primary
law, the San Francisco election could be held on the
non-partisan basis which had resulted in the election
of Taylor and Langdon two years before. The one
issue before the San Francisco electors was continuance
of the Graft Prosecution. The supporters of the prose-
cution. Republicans as well as Democrats, desired to
vote for Heney. McCarthy was the avowed Labor
Union party candidate for Mayor. The Union Labor
party was considering the nomination for District At-
4IO The San Francisco Election of 1909
torney of Charles M. Fickert. The prospects were
good that Heney would receive the Republican and
Democratic nominations, as Langdon had two years
before. He was supported by the better element of
both parties, and opposed by the anti-prosecution ele-
ment of both. This opposition found expression in the
Republican party in a committee of twenty-five, at the
head of which was I. W. Hellman, Jr., of the Union
Trust Company.**^ The better element of the party
planned the nomination of Heney, as did the better
element of Democrats.
On a non-partisan basis, such as had prevailed in
1907, the Union Labor party would have nominated
McCarthy for Mayor, and Fickert for District Attorney,
while the anti-machine, pro-prosecution Democrats and
Republicans would have nominated a strong candidate
for Mayor, and Heney for District Attorney.
Conditions v/ere thus shaping themselves admirably
for continuance of the non-partisan administration of
municipal affairs, which had at least blocked corruption,
even though it had not beaten down the barriers of
447 The Union Trust Company loaned $175,000 to the Calkins'
Syndicate, which published papers in opposition to the prosecution.
For the curious circumstances under which the loan was made,
see footnote 275, page 257. The Union Trust Company officials
were among- the most effective opponents of the prosecution, and
most persistent in circulating the story that the prosecution hurt
business. The head of the institution, I. W. Hellman, Sr., returning
early in August from a trip to Europe, when the 1909 campaign
was opening, said in an interview, published in the Chronicle,
August 4, 1909: "In New York I found that there is still a great
difficulty in securing capital for San Francisco on account of the
Graft Prosecution, or the 'graft persecution,' as they call it there.
Of course, I do not know what changes have occurred in the situa-
tion here since I left six months ago, but I had an interview with
certain people in New York and I found that thej- were unwilling
to send capital here as long as this 'graft persecution' was con-
tinued."
The San Francisco Election of 1909 411
technicality, which stood between the corruptors of the
municipal government and law-provided penalties.
But this developing- non-partisan arrangement was
suddenly overturned in an opinion rendered by the
Supreme Court, reversing the ruling of the Election
Commissioners.
The court held that the partisan provisions of the
Direct Primary law prohibited the name of a primary
candidate appearing upon any primary ticket except that
of the party of the candidate's affiliations.
Under this ruling, Fickert's name could not go on
the Union Labor party primary ticket, for Fickert had
affiliated with the Republican party. The Hellman com-
mittee of twenty-five (Republican) immediately took up
the Union Labor party candidate for District Attorney,
whose name could not go on the Union Labor party
primary ticket, Mr. Fickert being apparently quite as
satisfactory to Mr. Hellman and his associates as he
was to Mr. McCarthy,
Heney, under the Supreme Court's ruling, found
himself in a more difficult position. With other Califor-
nia Progressives, Heney had in 1908 supported Taft
for the Presidency. His political affiliations were there-
fore, under the provisions of the Direct Primary law,
Republican. His name could be placed on the Repub-
lican primar}^ ticket, but not on the Democratic. But it
soon became evident that if his name went on the Re-
publican ticket he would be defeated at the primaries.
The registration of voters under their party designa-
tion to enable them to vote at the partisan primaries
showed an astonishing condition. The machine, anti-
412 The San Francisco Election of 1909
prosecution element was discovered to be massing its
strength in the RepubHcan party. Two years before,
Daniel A. Ryan, the Republican candidate for Mayor,
had received only 9255 votes in San Francisco, while
Taylor, the Democratic candidate, had received 28,766,
and McCarthy, Union Labor, 17,583. But for the 1909
primaries, no less than 47,945 registered as Republicans,
a gain of 38,609 over Ryan's vote,^"*^ while the Demo-
cratic registration was 17,632 only, 11,134 less than
Taylor's vote, and the Union Labor registration, 10,546,
or 7037 less than McCarthy's vote in 1907. Heney's
name could not go on the Democratic ballot. If he
permitted it to go on the Republican ballot, the tre-
mendous Republican registration indicated that the anti-
machine Republicans would be outvoted by "machine"
members of all parties who had registered as Republi-
cans.
By another provision of the election laws, Heney,
should he be defeated at the primaries, could not become
an independent candidate ; defeat at the primaries barred
him from running at the final election.
Heney was effectively shut out from participating as
a primary candidate. And this, in face of the fact that
the anti-machine Republicans and the anti-machine Dem-
ocrats were striving to make him their candidate.
Had the 1909 primary law prevailed in 1907, Lang-
don's re-election could have been, and almost to a cer-
tainty would have been blocked, and the Graft Prose-
cution brought to an end two years before it was.
448 Ryan did not receive his full party vote (see chapter XXI)
while Taylor received the anti-machine vote of all parties. Never-
theless, this does not account for the extent of the astonishing
changes in registration.
The San Francisco Election of 1909 413
At the 1909 Primary election, Heney's name, al-
though he was the choice of the anti-machine element
of all parties, did not appear on any of the primary
ballots.**^ Nevertheless, 4594 Republicans wrote Heney's
name on their primary ballots. But this was not suffi-
cient to give him the nomination. Fickert, whose name
appeared on the Republican ballot, as a regular candi-
date, received 12,480 votes, which gave him the Repub-
lican nomination.
On neither the Democratic nor Union Labor primary
tickets did the name of any candidate for District At-
torney appear. The McCarthy element urged that Fick-
ert's name be written in by Union Labor party voters.
They carried their point, Fickert being nominated by
the Union Labor party by 3308 votes. But even here
there was registered protest at what was going on.
Union Labor party voters to the number of 617 wrote
Heney's name on their ballots.
In the same way, a determined efifort was made to
give Fickert the Democratic nomination also. He re-
ceived 2298 votes. But the pro-prosecution Democrats
rallied to Heney's support, and nominated him by a
vote of 2386. Thus out of a total of 28,967 who voted
for nomination of District Attorney, no less than 7597,
or more than 25 per cent., wrote Heney's name on their
449 It is interesting' to note that the politicians responsible for
this condition, and who regarded Heney's position at the 1909 pri-
maries with no attempt to conceal their amusement, were in 1912,
loudest in their insistence that they had been disfranchised be-
cause the names of Taft electors did not appear on the California
election ballot at tl:e 1912 election. It is also to be noted that
their representations were based on misrepresentation. They c^uld,
imder the 1911 election laws, had they had any intention of giving
Taft genuine support in California, have placed the names on
the ballot by petition, as was done in the case of the Roosevelt
electors, who, lest their regular nomination be questioned, were
also nominated by petition.
414 The San Francisco Election of 1909
ballots, in protest against the partisan conditions which
made his regular nomination impractical.
The law was new ; the election, the first held in the
State under the Direct Primary. It was difficult to
make the electors understand they could vote to nominate
Heney by writing his name on the ballot. Of the 38,385
who voted at the primaries only 28,967 voted for Dis-
trict Attorney. Unquestionably, a large percentage of
those who did not vote at all, would have written
Heney's name on the ballot had they known that such
a course was permissible. But they did not know, and
more than 25 per cent, of those voting did not vote for
District Attorney. As the Rev. Charles N. Lathrop
put it: "They have Heney sewed up in a bag, and the
bag is the partisan features of the Direct Primary." *^^
Out of this confusing prim.ary election, Fickert came
with two party nominations, the Union Labor and the
Republican, while Heney had one nomination, the Demo-
cratic. This meant that Fickert's name would be printed
twice on the final ballot under partisan designation,
while Heney's would be printed but once. Thus, for
every chance Heney had for a "party circle" vote Fick-
ert had two.
The prosecution forces had supported Byron Mauzy
450 The California Legislature of 1911 corrected the features of
the election laws which blocked free expression of the will of the
electors. San Francisco, by amendment of its charter, has since
placed all municipal elections on a strictly non-partisan basis,
with provisions under which no candidate can be elected by a
plurality vote. It is interesting to note that although opposed by
Mayor McCarthy and the group of politicians about him, these
amendments correcting the weaknesses of the election laws, were
adopted overwhelmingly. McCarthj'-'s vote in 1911 was practically
the same as the vote by which he was elected in 1909. Had the
election been held under the same conditions in 1911, as in 1909,
McCarthy would almost to a certainty have been re-elected.
The San Francisco Election of 1909 415
for Republican nomination for Mayor, but Mr. Mauzy *^^
was defeated by William Crocker, who received the Re-
publican nomination. The Democrats nominated Thomas
B. W. Leland for the mayoralty office, while the Union
Labor party named P. H. McCarthy. The mayoralty-
district attorney tickets were, therefore: Republican,
Crocker and Fickert; Union Labor, McCarthy and Fick-
ert; Democratic, Leland and Heney. But the issue be-
fore San Francisco, continuance of the Graft Prosecu-
tion, had no partisan significance at all. It was sup-
ported and it was opposed by members of both parties.
The whole fight was over the election of Heney. But
never had candidate for office opposition which had more
at stake.'*^^
Men with apparently unlimited means at their dis-
posal, realized that Heney's election would in all proba-
bility mean for them a term in the State prison. They
were fighting for their liberty. The commercial inter-
ests were warned that, in the words of L W. Hellman,
Sr., the banker, the Graft Prosecution was hurting busi-
451 Mr. Mauzy had the active opposition of the anti-prosecu-
tion element, which proposed that old sores be forgotten, and the
city be kept free of graft in the future.
"If you think," said The Chronicle, on August 17. 1909, "San
Francisco is suffering injury from the fruitless effort to obtain con-
victions in cases in which evidence is lacking, vote the Byron
Mauzy ticket. If you believe that the sane thing to do is to cease
wasting money over the attempt to accomplish the impossible,
vote for candidates who can be depended upon to give the city
an administration from which graft will be eliminated in future."
452 The platform expressions on the Graft Prosecution issue are
interesting. The Republican platform made no reference to it at
all. There was some talk of providing that "the District Attorney
should do his duty," but not even this was provided. The Union
Labor party plank on this question read as follows:
"We believe in the principle of the equality of all men before
the law; that every guilty person should be prosecuted with vigor,
in accordance with the law of the land, and that the administra-
41 6 The San Francisco Election of 1909
ness.*^^ The anti-Graft Prosecution press insisted day
after day that bribei*}' of public officials, while bad, is the
most common of crimes and the most difficult to prove ;
that San Francisco had tried to convict, had failed and
might as well give up. So-called ''improvement clubs"
went so far as to adopt resolutions not only protesting
against further prosecution, but demanding that the Su-
pervisors withdraw support given the District Attorney's
tion of the law should be free from any and all suspicion of pri-
vate control. We condemn favoritism or leniency in behalf of any
offender before the law, or any compromise with criminals. We
demand that any and all offenders be dealt with alike, and to such
end we pledg'e our nominees."
The Democratic plank alone pledged support to the Graft Prose-
cution. It read:
"We pledge the Democratic party absolutely and unequivocally
to the support of the Graft Prosecution which for three years has
valiantly battled for the principle of the equality of all men be-
fore the law, which has secured convictions against disheartening
odds and has paved the Vv'ay for the clean administration of public
affairs which we now enjoy.
"The people must declare at this critical election for or against
municipal corruption; for the enforcement of the law, or for its
abandoninent; for or against not only a greater but a better San
Francisco.
"Francis J. Heney, our candidate for District Attorney, em-
bodies these issues, and we pledge him the vigorous and loyal
support of the Democratic party." '
453 The "hurt business" argument was ably combated by busi-
nessmen who were free of the graft mire.
"From all the available information at hand," said Colonel
Harris Weinstock, of the firm of Weinstock-Lubin & Co., in re-
plying to this argument, "I find that on the whole the volume
of business is greater in San Francisco than it ever was before.
I am, therefore, unable to see how business has been hurt by the
Graft Prosecution.
"The burden of proof on this point properly rests with those
making the charge. They should present facts and fi.gures verifying
their statement that business has been hurt by the graft prosecution
before they can hope to have it accepted as fact.
"So far as I have been able to find out, the Graft Prosecution
has not hurt business, but even if it had seriously crippled busi-
ness it would still be your duty and my duty and the duty of
every lover and v/ell-wisher of our free institutions to hold up
the hands of those who are fighting your battle and my battle in
an effort to bring public wrongdoers to justice, and thus prevent
harm from coming to the republic. Let the work go on."
The American National Bank of San Francisco, in a financial
letter issued August 25, 1S09, gave figures which disproved the Hell-
man idea.
"It is significant of San Francisco's credit standing in the
world at large," the letter read, "that the bonds of this city com-
The San Francisco Election of 1909 417
office in its efforts to land bribe-givers behind the bars.*^*
And finally, the large business interests opposed to the
prosecution, threw strength to McCarthy; not that they
liked McCarthy — they united against him two years later
— but because the election of McCarthy would go far
toward the defeat of Heney. Members of the labor
unions were, to a large extent, supporters of the prose-
cution. Their votes had made Langdon's election sure
mand prices that compare favorably with the issues of other large
municipalities, as measured by the low interest return which in-
vestors are willing to accept. To illustrate: For every $1,000
put into municipal bonds at present figures, the purchaser would
receive per annum:
"From San Francisco bonds $39.00
"From Philadelphia bonds .37.00
"From Cincinnati bonds . . ; 37.50
"From Cleveland bonds 37.50
"From St. Louis bonds 38.80
"From Pittsburg bonds 37.00
"From Chicago bonds 38.50
"From Minneapolis bonds 38.50
"From Milwaukee bonds 39.00
"From New York bonds 39.50
"Considering these facts, and the readiness with which the San
Francisco bonds are being taken, it does not appear that this city
is suffering in reputation, as some people affect to believe, by
reason of certain trials which have engaged the attention of the
criminal courts for two years past."
"I have no patience," said Heney, in discussing the Hellman
argument, "with this talk that we hear from merchants and bank-
ers that the Prosecution is hurting business. They heard the
same talk in Boston when our Revolutionary sires threw tea over-
board. It would hurt business, they said, to have a war with
England. I can see the picture, when Thomas Jefferson was sign-
ing the Declaration of Independence, of a large man, who looked
like the cartoonist's representation of a corporation official, com-
ing through the door behind him and shouting, 'Hold on, Tom,
you'll hurt business.' And when Washington was spending that
terrible winter with his army at Valley Forge, the same class
of men who are now crying at us in Sa„n Francisco were shouting
for the war to stop. 'Damn principle,' they were crying. 'It's
hurting business. This war must stop.' "
454 "It is," said the Chronicle, commenting upon the adoption
of such resolutions, "a matter of common knowledge that there
is a widespread feeling among those whose good citizenship cannot
be disputed that the city, having done its best for three years,
without success, to find legal proof which would connect officials
of the corporations which profited by the corruption of the Schmitz
administration with the crime of bribery, it is necessary to dis-
continue the effort. Hitherto no one has been willing to formally
14
41 8 The San Francisco Election of 1909
in 1907. During the 1909 campaign, and down to the
very day of election, the sentiment among laboring men
was to vote for McCarthy and Heney. But Heney's
name did not appear on the Union Labor ticket.
Labor's support of Heney was vigorously opposed.
Appeal was made to workingmen to stay by their class ;
to vote for the labor candidates, McCarthy and Fickert.
On the Monday night before the election, the writer, with
Professor George H. Boke of the University of Cali-
fornia Law School, joined a group of working men who
were discussing the merits of the several candidates.
approach the authorities in the matter lest he should appear to
show sympathy with evildoers. The Richmond Club, however,
has formally memorialized the Supervisors to withdraw further
support by appropriations on the ground that it has become ap-
parent that success is impossible, and that further effort would
be not only a waste of money and energy but serve to keep be-
fore the world the memory of a most disgraceful epoch in our
history.
"Bribery of public officials is the most dangerous of crimes.
It undermines the very foundation of government by the people.
And yet it has been in this and all other large American cities
the most common of crimes. In the public mind, and in common
speech, any person or firm which has habitually done business
with our city government has been held to have on himself the
burden of proof that he was innocent of bribery. And then came
the riot of debauchery under the Schmitz administration, with
corruption in all forms permeating every department of the city
government. We have had nothing like that before, and yet
until the election of the present Board of Supervisors this city
has almost never had a Board on which some members were not
believed to be corrupt and constantly on the watch for oppor-
tunities to 'hold up' those seeking to do business with the city.
It is not believed that any franchise now in existence has been
obtained without bribery or operated without continuous bribery.
It has been generally assumed that whoever undertook to do busi-
ness with the city must buy his way in by some form of cor-
ruption.
"Bribery is a crime for which conviction is almost impossible.
Occasionally proof can be got through a decoy, as in the case of
the Schmitz Supervisors. "What was exposed in that way, how-
ever, was no legal proof against the higher officials of the bene-
ficiary corporations. For that other proof must be had, and thus
far, except in one case, no conviction has been had. And unless
the courts reverse themselves that conviction will not stand. The
question then arises as to the duty of the city. Shall we continue
to expend energy in striving to accomplish what we all see to be
impossible, or shall the city, having done its best, turn its energies
The San Francisco Election of 1909 419
Apparently all but one of them were for McCarthy and
Heney. The exception was for Leland and Heney. He
was defending himself, when the writer joined the
group, against the charge that in voting for Leland he
was "voting outside his class."
This Leland advocate was a most noticeable young
man. He declared himself to be a member of the elec-
tricians' union. Well under thirty, clear-eyed and force-
ful, he was prepared to stand his ground. When his
immediate opponent became personal, the electrical
worker, without raising his voice, without excitement, or
boast, or display, remarked quietly: "Do not resort to
into more hopeful channels? As to that there will be differences of
opinion, nor is it possible for anyone to know to what extent those
differences are founded in reason, and how much on personal
hatreds and a desire for notoriety.
"There is doubtless a feeling- that the continuance of these
prosecutions is now doing- great harm, which could only be
counterbalanced by conviction based on clear legal proof, for which
it is impossible to hope. In the first place, it is enormously
costly and has introduced a universal system of spying which is
exciting animosity against both sides of these cases. Decent citi-
zens are coming to resent secret efforts to induce them to com-
promise themselves on the one side or the other. Secondly, the
awful exhibitions of perjury in order to escape jury duty are
shocking- the moral sense of the community as severely as it was
shocked by the exposure of the bribery. And the examination of
the jurors are resulting in expressions of opinion by prospective
jurors which do not do the city any good. Finally, the conduct
of these trials is turning into a farce processes which should be
the most solemn exliibitions of the authority of the law. We must
all recognize that it is common talk that society ought not to
seek to imprison one possible criminal at the cost of the impris-
onment for months at a time of innocent citizens dragged from
their homes and compelled to listen to the interminable quarrels
of counsel over matters having no legitimate bearing on the case
and injected solely for the purpose of confusing jurymen. Every-
body sees that it will be impossible in the case now on trial to
get a jury fit to be intrusted with the fate of a dog. Every in-
telligent citizen has been 'disqualified' by reading the testimony
before the Grand Jury.
"It is a most difficult situation. No reputable citizen is will-
ing to seem to impede the course of justice. But, now that an
organized body has formally raised before the Supervisors a
question v/hich has long been a daily subject of discussion when-
ever two men have met, it will be necessary to frankly face the
situation and decide where duty lies."
420 The San Francisco Election of 1909
personalities, for if it comes to personalities, what chance
have you against me?"
There were no more personalities.
Incidentally his argument was fast bringing out the
fact that every w^orker in the crowd was going to vote
for Heney. The efifect of it was important. Suddenly
from somewhere there appeared a new man to do his
part in molding public opinion.
The new-comer went through that crowd with the
assurance of a practiced football player through an ag-
gregation of amateurs. In less than five minutes he had
addressed every man of the group. But he had none of
the marks of a worker, and nobody thought to ask for
his "card." His was the pasty face and the pudgy neck
^ and the soft, unclean hand of the cadet. His argument
was curious and even ridiculous, but it was most eflfect-
ive. It at least scattered the crowd.
"Of course Calhoun is a grafter," he said in efiFect.
"They are all grafters. Spreckels is a grafter. Of
course, Fickert is Calhoun's man, just as Heney is
Spreckels's man. They are all out for graft. But if we
are to have grafting, let's keep the graft in our own
class. Why should you vote to let Spreckels's men do
the grafting? You have a candidate of your own. Vote
for him. It is only a fight between millionaires any-
how, and a toss-up which is right. Let us vote for the
man of our class."
The effect of this running fire of words was imme-
diate. The electrician lost the attention of his associates.
The discussion came to an end with murmurs of ap-
proval of the newcomer's position. That he should have
The San Francisco Election of 1909 421
changed a vote with such argument seems incredible.
But that he had created a doubt in the minds of those
workingmen was apparent to all who saw. He left them
well prepared for the anti-prosecution workers who
would meet them at the polls the next morning.
But the laboring element was not the only "class"
forced into opposition to Heney. At the exclusive clubs,
fashionable hotels, social functions, support of Heney
was denounced as treason to the exclusive, fashionable,
social class. It was quite amusing to hear first genera-
tion descendants of honest steerage immigrants decrying
the prosecution of rich men trapped in bribe-giving on
the theory that to do otherwise ''would be treason to
our class."
Thus, Mr. Heney v/as called upon to meet the "class"
opposition of the laborer and the magnate. On the
other hand, the unafraid, intelligent people of San Fran-
cisco, who recognized no "class" issue, rallied to Heney's
support. But they were without the concerted plan of
action which the other side had perfected. The San
Francisco press, with the exception of The Bulletin and
Daily News, gave Heney no editorial support, 1)ut tlie
country press, which had no circulation in San Fran-
cisco, earnestly urged his election. ''^^
455 The following from the Fresno Republican is verj' good ex-
ample of this excellent but unavailing newspaper support:
"Good people of San Francisco, give heed and take notice, the
way it looks in the clearer perspective of an outside view.
"Francis J. Heney is a candidate for District Attorney, and he
is the issue. It is stop the Graft Prosecutions, or go on with them.
Your votes will determine it.
"You are 'tired of the Graft Prosecutions.' How long did it
take you to get tired of the graft? Can you not be patient as
long with militant honesty as j'ou were with sneaking crime?
"You may stop these Prosecutions, if you so vote. But re-
member the whole civilized world is looking on, and will judge
422 The San Francisco Election of 1909
Good citizens throughout the country wrote urging
Heney's election. "To rout the forces of the prosecu-
tion at this juncture in San Francisco," wrote Rabbi
Stephen S. Wise of New York, *'is to hoist the red flag
of anarchy, to proclaim that law and order are not al-
ways enforceable, or that such enforcement is not always
profitable."
But Rabbi Wise was in New York. His influence
did not, unfortunately, extend, in any important degree,
to San Francisco.
On the day of election, the writer visited many vot-
ing places in the districts in which the labor vote was
you by that vote. It is the good name of San Francisco that you
are voting up or down.
"Banker Hellman says not. He has been to New York and he
says 'New Yorli' wants the Prosecutions stopped, and 'New York'
will not lend any more money until they are stopped.
"What is Banker Hellman's 'New York?' It is certain banks
and certain syndicates in New York. And it is the San Francisco
oflficials of precisely these syndicates that you are now prosecu-
ting. Of course, Patrick Calhoun, of New York, wants the prose-
cution of Patrick Calhoun of San Francisco stopped. It is Banker
Hellman's privilege to have a mere pendulum which swings from
his San Francisco office to his New York office and thinks it is in
New York. But it is not incumbent on you to share that mental
deficiency. If Bankej- Hellman should announce in New York
that he was going to discuss the San Francisco situation, his audi-
ence would consist of the New York partners of the San Francisco
grafters. He thinks that is 'New York.' The real New York
would neither know nor care. It never heard of Banker Hellman.
But if Francis J. Heney should be announced to discuss the San
Francisco situation in New^ York, there is not a place of assem-
blage in the city big enough to hold the people who would want to
hear and see him. The whole nation knows Heney and it has
made up its mind about him. It is waiting to see what you do,
before it makes up its mind about you, too.
" 'The prosecutions must stop, some time,' to be sure. But
who has earned from San Francisco the right to say when? When
Francis J. Heney says it is time to quit, then it is time; not be-
fore. He has given his time, his strength, and almost his life for
you. He has purified your politics and regulated your government.
He has redeemed your city's name in the esteem of the world.
He is making for you a fight which no one ever had the courage,
the persistence or the ability to make before. He is not tired yet
and he has not surrendered yet. Suppose you leave it to him,
when it is time to quit.
"People of San Francisco, the world is looking on. It cannot
determine your decision. Neither can you determine what it will
think of that decision, when it is made."
The San Francisco Election of 1909 423
strong. Working men by the scores were taking less
than a minute to mark their ballots. It was evident that
they were voting by means of the party circle. Every
Labor Union party vote of this kind was a vote against
Heney. The last hope that Heney would get this sup-
port was gone. One did not need wait for the counting
of the ballots. It was plain that Heney was defeated.
The election returns spoke eloquently of the means
that had been employed to defeat Heney. For the pri-
mary election 47,945 had registered as Republicans, but
Crocker, the Republican candidate for Mayor, received
only 13,766 votes at the final election. Although but
10,546 had registered for the primaries as members of
the Union Labor party, P. H. McCarthy received 29,455
votes, which, wherever voting was done by means of
the party circle, carried a vote for Fickert.
Fickert, with the two nominations, received 36,192.
Heney, running on the Democratic ticket, received 26,075
votes, 6481 more than Leland, the candidate for Mayor.
But the combination against Heney was too great for
him or any man to overcome. Fickert was elected. ^^^^
The Graft Prosecution had been defeated at the polls.
456 Heney on the day after the election issued the following
statement:
"The first battle for equality before the law has been fovig:ht
and lost, but the war against graft will continue to be waged by
all true soldiers who have been fighting with me in the great
cause of common honesty, common decency, and civic righteous-
ness.
"The fight between the forces of evil and the forces of good is
and must be a perpetual one. The first battle of Bull Run cast
gloom over tlie entire earth, but that disaster only inspired the
immortal Lincoln and his followers with stern resolution and fresh
courage.
"San Francisco has received a sad blow and the cause of equal-
ity before the law a great setback, but be of good cheer and take
fresh courage, you many thousands of good men and women who
have joined in this fight for the maintenance of the purity and
424 The San Francisco Election of 1909
protection of our homes and the uplifting of the moral standards
of our city!
"We have been defeated in this election, but the sober moral
sense of the community will again reassert itself and San Fran-
cisco will vindicate herself before the world.
"I retract nothing that I have said during the recent campaign.
On the contrary, I reassert the truth of all that I have stated from
the public platforms. I have no regrets except that for poor San
Francisco and the many thousands of people who fought shoulder
to shoulder with me in the good fight.
"Let us all to-night firmly resolve that we will continue the
battle for equality before the law with unabated vigor until suc-
cess has crowned our efforts."
The following statement was issued by Rudolph Spreckels:
"While the defeat at yesterday's election of the principles for
which I have fought is regretted by me, it will speedily bring
about a truer estimate of my real motives.
"One of the compensations of this defeat is that I have so
quickly been given an opportunity to disprove the charges so fre-
quently made that I have been actuated by sordid or vindictive
motives. The individuals against whom it is alleged that I have
entertained malicious and selfish designs are entirely removed
from the possibility of haim at the hands of the so-called Prose-
cution.
"Attempting to punish was an unpleasant and incidental por-
tion of the public work which I set out to do. I am glad that the
people have taken that task off my hands and left me free to do
the more important part of my undertaking.
"Feeling that the people will fully realize this, I desire to say
that I shall continue the work of civic regeneration with undi-
minished hope and earnestness."
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Dismissal of the Graft Cases.
At the time of Mr. Fickert's election to the District
Attorney's office, the second trial of Patrick Calhoun
for offering a bribe was well under way. As at the
other graft trials, there had been delays ^^'^ so that after
five months the jury was only half complete. That the
trial could not be finished before Mr. Fickert assumed
the duties of his office became evident. The case was,
for that reason, on December 9, continued until January
10, in order that Mr. Fickert might participate in the
selection of the trial jurors. But on that date, Mr.
Fickert, who had been in office only two days, very
frankly admitted himself to be unfamiliar with the facts,
and not prepared to go to trial. Further continuance
was accordingly granted until January 31, and then until
Februarv 7.
In the meantime former Supervisor James L. Gal-
lagher, the pivotal witness in the case, had disappeared.
Gallagher was known to have been in San Francisco for
some three weeks after Fickert's election. About De-
457 The second trial of Patrick Calhoun (No. 1437) was begun
July 19, 1909. Owing to the illness of one of Mr. Calhoun's coun-
sel, the trial was suspended on August 16th. and resumed Septem-
ber 30th. The following day the defendant secured further con-
tinuance until November 15th, upon the ground of the pendency
of a municipal political campaign. After the election the trial was
resumed. On December 9th, it vv'as. by agreement between the
parties continued until January 10th, when the new District At-
torney should be in office.
426
Dismissal of the Graft Cases
cember 1 he dropped out of sight. He was supposed
to have gone to Europe. '*^''^
On February 7, Mr. Fickert moved the dismissal of
the case pending against Mr. Calhoun on the ground
that there was not sufficient legal and competent evi-
dence to warrant him submitting the case to a jury.*^^
458 The motives which prompted Gallagher to flee the city are
among- the undetermined elements of the graft cases. Perhaps rec-
ollection of his attempted assassination had something to do with
it. It may be that the defense, which had done so many extra-
ordinarv things during the course of the graft trials, made it worth
his while to go. Gallagher is known to have been plentifully sup-
plied with money while he was away. An attempt was made to
create the impression that agents of the Prosecution had been in-
strumental in getting Gallagher out of the State. But the attempt,
while it confused the situation somewhat, was not taken seriously.
"V\''hen in August, 1911, Judge Lawlor dismissed the indictments
against the alleged bribe-givers in the trolley case, he took occa-
sion to say: "I am more convinced now than I was when these
same motions were urged more than a year ago, that James L.
Gallagher is remaining out of this jurisdiction for a specific pur-
pose. The future will make that point entirely clear. When his
importance as a witness in any of these so-called graft cases has
ceased there is no doubt that James L. Gallagher will be again
in our midst. If I were able to lay the responsibility for that situ-
ation upon any individual or set of individuals I repeat that ap-
propriate proceedings would have been instituted to have the law
redressed in that behalf."
Judge Lawlor was right. After the dismissal of the graft cases
Mr. Gallagher returned to San Francisco.
To the intim.ation of District Attorney Fickert that Gallagher left
the State to embarrass the District Attorney's administration, Judge
Lawlor on one occasion said in an opinion: "That the former ad-
ministration may have distrusted the official intentions of the Dis-
trict Attorney toward these indictments might be assumed from
all the surrounding circumstances. But it does not seem probable
that the former administration would induce a material and indis-
pensable witness to leave the State and thereby make it easy for
the District Attorney to secure a result which otherwise might
entail serious embarassment. So far as the showing is concerned
there is no tangible proof tending to support the charge of the
District Attorney, nor is there any proof which would justify such
an inference."
4.59 Fickert's motion had been prepared in advance and was read
to the court. "Since the calling of this case on January 10th," he
said, "I have made a thorough and careful examination of the evi-
dence left in the District Attorney's office by my predecessor, Mr.
Langdon, and he informed me on my accession to the office, that he
had delivered to me all the evidence of every kind and character
in his possession or under his control in this case. I have also ex-
amined the transcript of testimony given at the former trial of this
defendant; besides this. I have made independent search for further
evidence. These examinations convince me that there is not suf-
Dismissal of the Graft Cases 427
Judge Lawlor denied the motion. In denying it,
Judge Lawlor stated that in the view of the court the
action should be tried by a jury and a verdict should
be rendered by a jury, if that were possible, in the full
operation of the law.
Fickert stated in the discussion which followed that
he wanted his motion to apply to all the other graft
cases of the same class as Calhoun's, with the exception
of the defendants Ruef and Schmitz. But here again
did the Judge deny the District Attorney's request.
After Judge Lawlor's ruling, Calhoun's attorneys
announced themselves ready to proceed with the trial
of the case. Fickert stated that he would be ready in
a week. Judge Lawlor thereupon questioned Fickert
very closely about the absent witness, Gallagher. Fick-
ert gave assurance that diligent hunt was being made
for the witness.
The questioning of the District Attorney was con-
tinued ten days later when the case again came up.
Judge Lawlor asked Fickert to tell definitely whether
he proposed to put the issue before a jury in the absence
of his material witness.
Fickert replied that Gallagher's absence greatly weak-
ened the State's case, and that in his belief certain facts
could not be proved without Gallagher being present.
But as for that, Fickert insisted that even with Gal-
lagher present he did not believe that the State could
ficient legal and competent evidence to justify me, as a sworn officer
of the law, to present this case to a jury.
"My opinion is confirmed by the fact that 42 out of 48 jurors
sworn to try this defendant and the defendant, Tirey L. Ford, upon
the same state of facts, voted 'Not Guilty.' I, therefore, 'in fur-
therance of justice,' move the dismissal of this indictment, on the
grounds that the evidence is wholly insufficient to warrant an-
other trial of this case."
428
Dismissal of the Graft Cases
make out a case.^'^^ Nevertheless, he continued to insist
that he was ready to proceed to try the action even in
the absence of the witness Gallagher.
But Judge Lawlor announced that he did not pro-
pose to proceed with the trial of the action :
(1) If a material witness were without the jurisdic-
tion of the court.
(2) If the court did not believe that the cause were
to be prosecuted with the vigor and fidelity that the law
contemplates. ^^^
460 Judge Lawlor was also careful to make clear that If the
court proceeded with the formation of a jurj', jeopardy would at-
tach to the case. He also pointed out that the statute of limita-
tions had run against the alleged crimes. The following is from
the transcript, the questions being directed to Mr. Fickert:
"The Court: You are aware that if you proceed to form a jury
to try this issue, and the witness does not appear, that jeopardy
has nevertheless attached and that the defendant will be entitled
to ask for his deliverance at the hands of that jury, whether that
witness is produced or not.
"Mr. Fickert: Yes, I am aware of that, if your Honor please.
"The Court: And you are aware further that the alleged crim-
inal act set up in the indictment is outlawed within the meaning
of Section 800 of the Penal Code; that is to say, that more than
three years have intervened since it is claimed that that act was
committed.
"Mr. Fickert: That is correct, if your Honor please.
"The Court: The witness, James L. Gallagher, gave testimony
in the trial of rase 1436 again.^^t this defendant. You are aware
that the testimony relating to an indictment cannot be read to a jury
on a retrial of the action; in other words, that if James L. Gallagher
does not appear in this trial his testimony cannot be presented to
the jury."
Fickert suggested that counsel might stipulate that the evidence
be read. But counsel for Mr. Calhoun hastened to assure Mr. Fick-
ert that counsel v/ould stipulate to nothing of the kind.
4G1 "At the present time," said Judge Lawlor in making this
announcement, "it is the intention of the Court to deal with this
matter, so far as the absence of that material witness is con-
cerned, and to suspend judgment as to the ultimate attitude of the
District Attorney in respect to this and other causes before the
Court. I do not intend to sit here and preside over a trial if for
any reason, whether it seems sufficient to the District Attorney
or not, the Court reaches the conclusion that the case is not being
prosecuted in good faith. The Court, in pointing out the duty of
the District Attorney on February 7th. Vv'as not inviting a sugges-
tion that we should proceed to trial without regard to the outcome
of that trial or to its particular features or the manner in which it
should be tried. The Court will try no case, it will not consume
its own time, it will not consume the time of others, it will not
Dismissal of the Graft Cases 429
Fickert also stated his position. He insisted that he
did not believe that any evidence had ever existed
against the trolley-graft defendants Abbott and Miillally,
and did not believe it to be his duty as District Attorney
to prosecute men against whom there was no evidence.
Fickert even attempted to commit Judge Lawlor to this
proposition, by stating that the Judge in chambers had
confessed as much. This Judge Lawlor denied. Mr.
Fickert's assistant, Mr. Berry, had been present during
the discussion in chambers between Mr. Fickert and
allow the expenditure of public money for the mere purpose of go-
ing through the forms of a trial. The Court must feel in the end
that the people are represented. Now, what its final view shall be
as to the District Attorney will be announced when the Court deems
that anouncement pertinent and proper. The Court has its own
views as to what may be done within the exercise of its prerogative
in the event that it does not feel that the people are represented,
and will act upon its own judgment when that time arrives. At
this time the witness being absent from the jurisdiction of the
Court, the Court points out to the District Attorney his duty under
Section 1052 of the Penal Code, to move for a proper continuance
of this action until the Court can be advised as to whether or not
that witness can be produced."
Later, when Fickert suggested that all criminal causes be trans-
ferred to some other department where the judge might be of a
different opinion. Judge Lawlor said:
"I have had no occasion to find fault with your acts in respect
to any other causes that have been brought before this Court, I
am endeavoring to have your mind concentrated upon one thing,
and that is the matters which are before this Court, and for the
prosecution of which you, under your sworn oath of office are re-
quired to give your full attention to. Your own statement in sup-
port of your motion to dismiss this case evinces in my judgment
a disposition not to do your duty. However, I still say that this
matter I bring to your attention, and ask you to give full reflection
upon the matter. I have no desire in any manner to hamper you.
The process of this Court is at your disposal at all times, in all
causes, and if any person or set of persons be found to be inter-
fering with the due administration of Justice you will have a full
hearing before this Court in order that you shall not be so ham-
pered. Yoiir statement concerning these cases is calculated not
alone to affect the fortune of these undetermined cases, but it Is
well calculated to affect the disposition of the other causes and
other charges wherein convictions were had against other persons
growing out of this alleged transaction, and which cases are now
on their way for a determination to the courts of appeal in this
State."
430 Dismissal of the Graft Cases
Judge Lawlor, but Mr. Berry failed to sustain his chief's
contention. *^^
"In these cases, the cases against Mr. Abbott and
Mr. Mullally," said Fickert, "I shall never proceed in
them because there is absolutely no evidence which at
all gives even a suspicion."
In respect to the other cases, Mr. Fickert announced
that he intended to take the same course that he had
in those under discussion, and stated that if the Judge
so desired he would advise him before hand as to which
of the cases he intended to make a motion for dismissal.
*'In view of the statement you made on February
7," *^^ replied Judge Lawlor, ''the Court will not feel
called upon to grant any application looking to a dis-
missal of any of those cases. The Court will finally
deal with them in the manner prescribed by the law.
And if that situation is not reached so that the Court
can proceed with the trial, the Court will be under the
462 "I think your Honor well knows," Fickert had said, "that
certain defendants in this particular class of cases, that there have
not been produced here in Court, and I do not think ever ex-
isted, any evidence against them. I allude to Mr. Abbott and Mr.
Mullally. And I so informed j-ou in your chambers, and you In
words confessed that proposition."
Judge Lawlor took this statement up. The following is from the
transcript:
"The Court: Now, before you pass to those other cases, in re-
■gard to these two cases do you make the statement that I made
any statement to you, in the presence of Mr. Berry, that I said
there was not sufficient evidence?
"Mr. Fickert: I so informed you, and you, in effect, so stated.
"The Court: Did you so understand it, Mr. Berry?
"Mr. Fickert: That there was no evidence against those men?
"Mr. Berry: I remember Mr. Fickert saying he did not consider
there was any evidence against those men, but I do not remember
the Court's reply: I do not remember that the Court did reply.
"The Court: I did not. It is not the province of the Court to
pass upon the facts in a criminal case. The facts are placed before
a jury, and the jury pass on the facts.
"Mr. Fickert: I am certainly not mistaken in that matter.
"The Court: You are certainly mistaken in that matter; I was
careful not to make any such statement."
463 See footnote 459, page 426.
Dismissal of the Graft Cases 431
solemn obligation of setting down in its minutes the
reason why a trial has not been had in any particular
instance, and why cases are dismissed or disposed of
without the trial of the general issue. The Court cannot
escape its responsibilities. I have pointed out that under
the law it is for the Court to say finally what shall
become of cases that are not pressed to conclusion, and
when the Court does that it must give its reasons — the
law says so. In this State, since the formation of the
government therein, the power has not for any consid-
erable length of time lodged in the District Attorney to
dispose of actions ; that matter is confided to the Court.
Counsel will be doing injustice to his own position if
he assumes that the Court has any other attitude than
to finally dispose of these matters according to the law
without doing injustice to any person, either to the Dis-
trict Attorney or any person who is unfortunate enough
to be involved. But when the Court comes to write
down its action it will be based upon what it believes to
be the fact and upon nothing else."
Fickert replied that he was ready to proceed with
the matter. To this Judge Lawlor reiterated that the
Court was not going to permit the District Attorney to
proceed in the absence of a witness, who, according to
the District Attorney's own statement, was material.'*^*
464 "In dealing- with the attitude of the District Attorney," said
Judge Lawlor, "as is manifested by all that I have said upon that
subject, I have endeavored to deal justly with him, to reach no con-
clusion myself definitely as to the attitude of the District Attorney.
I sincerely hope that in these cases, as in all cases that may come
before the Court, the District Attorney will do his full duty. I de-
sire it equally understood, however, that if the District Attorney
in any case fails of his duty the Court is not going- to be recreant
and it is not going to sit here as a minister of justice and permit
a travesty in any form, for any purpose, whatever the views of the
Disti-ict Attorney may be. Now, I have endeavored to make it
432 Dismissal of the Graft Cases
Nor did the earnest plea of attorneys for the defense
for dismissal move Judge Lawlor. In the absence of
the material witness, Gallagher, he continued the case,
on the Court's own motion, until April 25/^^
On that date, Calhoun's attorneys moved for dis-
missal of all the indictments pending against their client
upon the ground that his trial had been postponed and
continued for more than sixty days without his consent
and over his objection and exception.
Fickert submitted the motion, fortifying it with a
statement that he did not believe that the District Attor-
ney's office would be justified in asking continuance until
Gallagher's return.
Judge Lawlor postponed determination of the motion
clear that there are two considerations that will affect the Court
in the final disposition of this business: First, that it will not pro-
ceed with the trial of any action where material testimony is not
forthcoming. That would be the disposition of the Court in any
case, but it is especially its attitude in this case in view of the
sweeping statement of the District Attorney made on February 7th
that there is no sufficient evidence upon which to proceed to trial
against any of these four defendants."
465 The statement was made repeatedly that Gallagher was not
under subpoena when he left the State. The statement was even
contained in the opinion of the Appellate Court, granting the writ
of mandate that preceded the dismissal of the graft cases. Judge
Lawlor at the proceedings v.'^hen the cases v»'ere finally dismissed,
touched upon this feature as follows:
"The Court: The statement has been made in the opinion that
I am not able to account for its appearance in the showing. This
statement was made that no service had been made upon James
L. Gallagher or that he was not under the order of the Court. That
is a proposition of fact which has never been resolved by this Court
and I am unable to determine how it could be determined else-
where, how it could be declared elsewhere, in the absence of such
testimony as I might be able to give on the subject. I expressly
refrained, on an occasion when I made an extended statement cov-
ering these cases, from making any final word on that subject. I
am not prepared now to say so, because I don't know.
"Mr. Berry: I will state to the Court that I have made a very
careful inquiry in the District Attorney's office, and of the records,
and of the officials in that office in the previous administration, and
I have been unable to secure or to get any definite information on
that point."
Dismissal of the Graft Cases 433
until July 14/^^ His ruling was announced on Au-
gust 3.
Judge Lawlor went exhaustively into the situation
466 Judge Lawlor, in announcing- this decision, said in part: "Sec-
tion 13 of Article I of the Constitution provides in part: 'In crim-
inal prosecutions in any court whatever the party accused shall
have the right to a speedy and public trial. * * *.' Section 1382
of the Penal Code declares in part: 'The court, unless good cause
to the contrary is shown, must order the prosecution to be dis-
missed in the following cases: * * *. 2. If a defendant, whose
trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought
to trial within sixty days after the finding of the indictment, or
filing of the information.'
"This provision has repeatedly been declared to be a statutory
expression with reference to the section of the constitution to which
the Court has referred. It has been held to mark the period within
which a party accused of crime is to be brought to trial, unless
good cause to the contrary is shown. About the general proposition
of law involved in the determination of the present motion there
can be little ground for contention. The perplexity usually arises
in the determination of what the reserve language of Subdivision
2 of Section 1382 of the Penal Code may be included to cover. An
application of this character must be determined according to the
peculiar circumstances surrounding the application." * » *
"The Court is of the view that so far as the determination of
the motion itself is concerned the onus is on the People to show
good cause, which would take the case out of the operation of the
constitutional provision and the statute referred to. The Court, in
that view of the matter, has addressed the District Attorney as to
what his attitude is with respect to the motion, and the District
Attorney has made it plain that it is not his intention to take any
step toward meeting the application of the defendant to have the
causes dismissed. In the view which the Court takes of the gen-
eral attitude of the District Attorney toward the four defendants
at bar, the Court feels it is a case where it must act, and to the
extent that it may be needed, to protect the public interests. The
Court has judicial knowledge of the history of the charges against
these four defendants. It knows judicially that a material, and, it
is claimed, an indispensable witness to the prosecution of these
charges is without the jurisdiction of the State. It is not prepared,
on any evidence before it, to charge the responsibility of the absence
of that v/itness either to the former administration or to the pres-
ent administration in the District Attorney's office. The fact, how-
ever, that the witness is absent from the State and not within
reach of the process of the Court, is a fact established before the
Court at this time.
"It is not the intention of the Court to disregard the rights of
this or any other defendant, that may be urged before this Court,
but, it is likewise the disposition of the Court, to see that the pub-
lic interests are safeguarded, and that no arrangement between the
defendants and the sworn officer of the law shall be suffered to
direct and control the action of this Court. And in that view of
the matter the Court has reached the conclusion that it is its duty
to continue these causes further, in order to see whether or not
the missing witness can be secured, and if he cannot be secured
within such time as this Court may deem to be proper and which
would take the case out of the exception contained in the provision
434 Dismissal of the Graft Cases
presented. ^^' He pointed out that a material and in-
dispensable witness was absent from the State ; he
stated that the Court was called upon to intervene "be-
cause the District Attorney has at practically every turn
followed the lead of these defendants" ; he held that
through the influence of unusual agencies, so far as the
graft cases were concerned, the law had broken down,
and that the crimes charged are of the most serious
nature, "because such criminal activity tends to sap the
very foundations of government" ; he insisted that be-
fore the indictments should be finally disposed of every
reasonable effort should be made to get at the truth of
the situation.
"The disposition of grave charges other than on
their merits," he concluded, "is not to be encouraged
and should not be allowed, except in the face of a strict
legal necessity." He continued the cases until Au-
gust 29.
Stanley Moore, one of Calhoun's attorneys, when
Judge Lawlor had concluded, demanded that he be per-
mitted to reply. This demand was refused.
There followed one of the most extraordinary scenes
ever recorded of a court of justice. The defendant's
attorneys, the District Attorney, and even the prisoner
at bar, openly and contemptuously defied the Judge on
the bench.
Stanley Aloore charged him with "doing politics
of the statute, and the constitutional provision, then to deal with
this motion.
"It is therefore ordered that the determination of the pending
motion in the causes against the four defendants named be con-
tinued for further hearing until 10 a. m., Thursday, July 14, 1910."
467 Judge Lawlor's decision will be found in full in the Appendix,
page i.
Dismissal of the Graft Cases 435
from the bench that you stultify in your occupancy."
A. A. Moore, another of Calhoun's lawyers, accused
him of being "3. partisan, a bitter partisan, and doing
dirty politics."
''And," Stanley Moore hastened to add, "have been
before these indictments were ever filed in this court,
as the events of that midnight deal in which you par-
ticipated on April 29 amply demonstrate." ^^^
District Attorney Fickert, in the face of the Court's
direction that he take his seat, denounced ''the state-
ments and aspersions you have tried to cast upon me"
as "false in each and every particular."
A third of Mr. Calhoun's attorneys added his de-
nunciation. Mr. John Barrett decried the proceedings
as "infamous."
Judge Lawlor sentenced Calhoun's three attorneys
to serve five days each in the county jail for contempt
and ordered the Sheriff to take charge of them.
But the extraordinary scene \yas not concluded. The
prisoner at the bar had not yet been heard. Calhoun
took the floor to tell the Judge on the bench that should
the Judge send him (Calhoun) to jail for contempt "it
will be heralded all over this country as an honor." *^^
4C8 See Chapter XV.
469 Calhoun's denunciation of Judge Tjawlor was as follows:
"Mr. Calhoun: May it please your Honor: I have been educated,
sir, to have respect for the courts. I have sat in your court under
circumstances that would have tried the patience of any American.
Throughout these trials I have sought, sir, to give you under most
trying circumstances that respect to which your office entitles you.
But, sir, I cannot sit quiet and listen to the vile insinuations which
you yourself have stated there was no evidence before you to
justify. There have been periods, sir, when the greatest honor
that could come to a man was to go to jail; and as an American
citizen I say to you that if you should send me for contempt it will
be heralded all over this country as an honor. You have seen fit,
sir, to send three of the most distinguished counsel of this State
436
Dismissal of the Graft Cases
The Court attempted to interrupt the angry defendant.
The interruption was ignored. The prisoner at the bar
was exhibiting himself as more powerful in San Fran-
cisco than the Judge on the bench. When he had said
his say, he took his seat.
The trolley-graft cases dragged along for more than
a year after this astonishing scene in Judge Lawdor's
courtroom. ^^^ The defendants applied to the Supreme
Court in habeas corpus proceedings, but failed to secure
interference. They then w^ent to the State District Court
of Appeal, where they secured a writ of mandate di-
recting Judge Lawlor to dismiss the indictments in the
cases of the trolley-graft defendants. ^^^ The District
Attorney's office announced to Judge Lawdor that the
District Attorney had no intention of prosecuting an
appeal from the judgment and order of the District
Court.
to jail. Why? Becaiise they have sought to express in terms of
respect, and yet in terms of strength, their protest against in-
justice
"The Court: Mr. Calhoun
"Mr. Calhoun: There is a time — pardon me, your Honor — when
every man has a right to be heard
"The Court: Mr. Calhoun
"Mr. Calhoun: Now, before I take my seat, I desire further to
say this, that any insinuation that implies either that I was a party
to any obstruction of justice, or that I was a party to the absence
of this witness, or that I have sought to control the District At-
torney's office of this city is untrue. There is no evidence before
this Court. You yourself know it."
470 Judge Lawlor's term of office expired in January, 1913. At
the 1912 November elections he wa,s a candidate for re-election. The
force of the influence of the graft defense was thrown against him.
Nevertheless, he v>^as re-elected to serve as Superior Judge of the
City and County of San Francisco until January, 1919. In November,
1914, however, he was elected to the Supreme Bench of the State,
his term of office beginning in Janviary, 1915, and ending in January,
1927.
471 Of the three Appellate Judges who granted this writ, one
of them, Kerrigan, was prominent in the flash-light picture taken
at Santa Cruz during the 1906 State Convention, in which Ruef
occupied the -center position of honor. See Chapter IV.
Dismissal of the Graft Cases 437
Judge Lawlor thereupon dismissed the cases as di-
rected. He also included the cases against Frank G.
Drum, Eugene de Sabla and John Martin, which were
governed by much the same considerations as the trolley
cases. Four years and a half had passed since the
indictments had been brought. Little by little, the in-
fluence of those of the community who were for law
and order and impartial law enforcement had been-
sapped and broken down. The prosecution had been
worn out ; the community had been worn out. The de-
fense had shown greater staying qualities than either
peace officers or community. It had been pretty thor-
oughly demonstrated that convictions could not be had.*^^
The dismissal of the trolley-graft and gas-graft cases
was the final breaking down of San Francisco's efforts
to have the cases tried upon their merits. To be sure,
the indictments against the telephone-graft defendants
and the prizefight-graft defendants, and against Schmitz
and Ruef still stood. Glass, a telephone-graft defend-
ant, had been convicted, but the Supreme Court had
reversed the decision on technicalities.*^* The absent
472 Assistant District Attorney Berry on the occasion of the dis-
missal of the indictments said on this point: "If the men who are
involved in this transaction have transgressed the laws they are
sowing- the wind possibly which may reap the whirlwind by break-
ing down the institutions of the land. I regret exceedingly, if
these men are guilty of the offense with which they have stood
charged here, that they cannot be convicted. I assure the Court
and I state here that it would be my purpose to follow these cases,
if these defendants are guilty and the evidence were had, to the
uttermost in order to bring about the ends of justice. It is no
doubt in the minds of the community that where men of promi-
nence and where men of wealth are concerned, and are brought be-
fore the bar of justice and justice is not had, that those who are
less fortunate in influence and means are thereby made to feel and
believe that this is not a government for those who stand before
the law equal with those who stand with the tremendous power
of influence behind them."
473 The seven Justices of the Supreme Court took no less than
four views of the points raised in the Glass case. The majority
438
Dismissal of the Graft Cases
witness, Gallagher, was not a material witness in the
Glass case. But when along in August, 1912, a year
after the dismissal of the gas and trolley-graft cases,
Glass's case was called, it was found that important wit-
nesses had disappeared. The incident was taken by the
papers, not as a reflection upon the community, but as
a joke on Judge Lawlor.^^^ The Glass cases were finally
dismissed.
Former Mayor Schmitz in February, 1912, was
brought to trial. Ruef was brought over from San
opinion was written by Justice Henshaw, and concurred in by Jus-
tices Melvin and Lorig-an. Chief Justice Beatty concurred in the
judgment, but not in all the particulars of the opinion. In" signing
the decision, the Chief Justice adds: "I concur in the judgment
of reversal and in most particulars in the opinion of Justice Hen-
shaw. I shall, if other pressing duties permit, present my views
in a separate opinion." (See 112 Pacific Reporter, page 297.) The
dissenting opinion was written by Justice Shaw and concurred in
by Justice Angellotti. A third opinion was written by Justice Sloss.
Justice Sloss, after defending the single point in the majority
opinion in which he concurs, concludes: "On each of the other
points discussed in the opinion of Justice Henshaw, I agree with
the dissenting members of the court (Shaw and Angellotti) that
no prejudicial error was committed."
The fourth opinion, which the Chief Justice intimated he might
file, was not filed.
474 The following from the San Francisco Call of August 2, 1912,
indicates the completeness of the triumph of the defense campaign:
"Mrs. Theodore Halsey, wife of Theodore V. Halsey, appeared
before Superior Judge Lawlor yesterday morning on a bench war-
rant in the case of Louis Glass, indicted for bribery in the tele-
phone cases growing out of the so-called Graft Prosecution. She
was in court to explain the absence of her husband from the State,
whose appearance is wanted if Lawlor orders Glass to trial.
"Attorney Bert Schlesinger appeared with Mrs. Halsey, explain-
ing the bench warrant was void inasmuch as Mrs. Halsey was not
a fugitive. He said he did not wish to impede the trial in any way
and would allow her to answer any questions propounded by the
Court.
"Lawlor asked Mrs. Halsey, through her attorney, where her
husband was. Mrs. Halsey was not compelled to take the stand.
She said Halsey left San Francisco six weeks ago because of ill
health, going to Nevada, and that she has not heard from him in a
week.
"Assistant District Attorney Berry said a motion was before
the Court to dismiss the indictments pending against Glass and he
wished to know the Court's intention. Lawlor said he believed
Halsey and Emil J. Zimmer, who is said to be in Europe, were
competent witnesses against Glass, and It was his duty to try
Glass again. He said the result of the former Glass trials showed
Dismissal of the Graft Cases 439
Quentin prison to testify against him. But Ruef re-
fused to testify unless the Ruef indictments were dis-
missed. This, Judge Dunne,*^^ before whom many Ruef
indictments were pending, refused to do. Ruef did not
testify. Schmitz was acquitted. The other indictments
against Schmitz were eventually dismissed.
The same course followed in the cases of the other
graft defendants. The graft defense had beaten San
Francisco ; its record of shameful success was complete.
Halsey had knowledge of the source of the bribe money and who
paid it to the Supervisors.
"Lawlor continued the cases of Glass until August 12th, to learn
from the District Attorney if the Prosecution has exhausted all its
resources in the matter.
"Schlesinger and Mrs. Halsey were about to leave the courtroom
when Lawlor said, *I trust, Mr. Schlesinger, you will inform the
Court of the whereabouts of Mr. Halsey, if you learn in the mean-
time.'
" 'I will assist the Court in any way possible,' replied Schles-
inger. 'But I regard all these Graft Prosecutions as corpses and the
mourners have long since ceased to mourn.'
"The Judge said nothing in the record showed such a condition.
Detective Sergeant Prool took the stand and said he had learned
nothing more of the whereabouts of either Halsey or Zimmer."
475 Judge Dunne, until the last, stood as staunchly for effective
prosecution of the graft cases as had Judge Lawlor.
CHAPTER XXIX.
Ruef's Last Refuge Fails.
That a jury of twelve men had found Ruef guilty of
bribe-giving did not mean necessarily that the broken
boss would be confined at San Ouentin, the prison to
which he had been sentenced to serve his fourteen-year
term. Indeed, the probabilities wxre very much against
his suffering any such indignity. Ruef had. at the test,
continued "true to his class" ; he had not assisted the
State in bringing the bribe-givers to account. Men,
powerful in financial, social and political circles were
unquestionably imder the greatest obligation to him.
He had not ''gone back on his class." His ''class" owed
it to him to save him from stripes, as Ruef by his
course had beyond question saved many of his "class"
from stripes.
Having been convicted by a jury, the first move was
for Ruef to appeal to the trial judge for a new trial.
This appeal was denied him. Ruef then appealed from
the judgment of the trial court to the District Court
of Appeal. The three justices of the District Court of
Appeal found nothing in Ruef's contention to warrant
the granting of a new trial. ^^'^ Thus four judges found
that Ruef's trial had been fair, even technically fair.
But Ruef's possibilities were not exhausted.
The Supreme Court could, if four of the seven
476 See Cal. App. Rpts., vol. 14, page 576.
Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 441
members were so inclined, grant him a rehearing, and
to the Supreme Court Ruef appHed.
The California State Constitution provides that
"the Supreme Court shall have power to order any
cause pending . . . before a district court of ap-
peal to be heard and determined by the Supreme Court.
The order last mentioned may be made before judg-
ment has been pronounced by a district court of ap-
peal, or within thirty days after such judgment shall
have become final therein."
The District Court of Appeal found against Ruef
on November 23, 1910; this action became final thirty
days later, or on December 23, 1910. The Supreme
Court had thirty days after December 23, that is to
say, until January 22, 1911, to grant Ruef a rehearing,
if a majority of the seven Supreme Justices so decided.
If the Supreme Court failed to act before the close of
January 22, Ruef, unless pardoned or parolled, would
have to go to State prison.
Ruef, on December 31, 1910, petitioned the Su-
preme Court for a rehearing. On January 23, an-
nouncement was made that the Supreme Court, by a
four to three decision, had decided to grant Ruef's
petition. The decision was received with protest from
one end of the State to the other.*^^ The Legislature
478 Said the Sacramento Eee in an editorial article discussing
this order, the day after it was made public, January 24, 1911:
"It cannot be denied that this order, by a bare majority of the
Supreme Court and — with the single exception of the Chief Justice,
by the three of its members least esteemed and respected by the
public — has excited disgust and exasperation thi-oughout California.
There is a strong popular feeling and belief that the Supreme Court
should not thus have interposed to save from punishment the most
notorious scoundrel and corruptionist in California, a man known
to everybody as having enriched himself by systematic grafting
and by the bribery of public servants in the interests of corpora-
442 Ruef s Last Refuge Fails
was in session at the time. Senator George W. Cart-
wright of Fresno introduced a resolution *^^ requesting
the Assembly — where impeachment proceedings . must
originate — to take such steps as might be deemed
necessary for investigation of the Supreme Court's con-
duct.
And finally there came the rumor — at first not gen-
erally believed, but later confirmed by the Supreme
Justices themselves — that one of the Justices at least
had signed the order granting Ruef his rehearing be-
fore the Attorney-General had filed his brief in answer
to Ruef's petition. The Justice ^Yho had thus acted
tions, a man with many indictments resting against him, but con-
victed only on one.
"What adds to this general disgust and indignation over the
Supreme Court's order is apprehension that the rehearing before
that tribunal may result in the grant of a new trial for Ruef, a
reversal which in all probability would be equivalent to a final
discharge. Such changes have taken place in San Francisco in the
last two years, especially in the office of the District Attorney, that
a new trial would have small chance of ending in conviction.
"No reasons are given by the Supreme Court for its order for a
rehearing, but presumably they are of a purely technical sort, for
the fact of Ruef's guilt was abundantly proved on the trial."
479 The Cartwright resolution was in full as follows:
"Whereas, The Supreme Court of this State on or about the
23rd of January, 1911, rendered a decision in the case of the Peo-
ple of the State of California vs. Abraham Ruef, in which the de-
fendant is granted a rehearing; and
"Whereas, Various newspapers have published criticisms con-
demning said decision, and intimating that the Justices participa-
ting therein were controlled by corrupt and unworthy motives; and
"Whereas. The integrity of our courts has been frequently as-
sailed by public speakers and by many of our citizens, all of which
tends to destroy the confidence of The People in the purity and
integrity of our courts of justice; be it
"Resolved, by the Senate, That the Assembly be requested to
appoint a committee of the Assembly, such committee to be au-
thorized, empowered and instructed to investigate the whole sub-
ject matter and particularly to investigate said decision, the
grounds upon which the decision is based and the conduct of the
Justices of the Supreme Court in relation to said decision, and that
the committee report to the Assembly the results of such investi-
gation, with such recommendations as to the committee may seem
meet and proper in the premises; be it further
"Resolved, That said committee shall have power to summon
witnesses, and to send for persons and papers and to issue sub-
poenaes and compel attendance of witnesses when necessary."
Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 443
was Justice Henshaw, the same Supreme Court Justice
who occupied prominent position in the picture of the
banquet scene at the 1906 Santa Cruz convention, in
which Ruef appears in the central position of honor.*®^
The facts later brought out involved the following
dates :
December 31, 1910 — Ruef's petition for rehearing was
filed in Supreme Court.
January 10 — W. H. Metson was granted permis-
sion to file a brief in the case as Amicus Curiae.
January 10 — Justice Henshaw signed the order grant-
ing Ruef a rehearing.
January 11 — Justice Henshaw left the State and
was absent until after the order granting Ruef a re-
hearing had been filed.
January 12 — Metson filed his brief as Amicus
Curiae.
January 12 — The Attorney-General filed his reply
to Ruef's petition for a rehearing.
January 19 — Justice Melvin signed the order grant-
ing Ruef's petition.
January 20 — Attorney-General filed reply to Met-
son's brief.
January 21 — Chief Justice Beatty, and Justices Shaw,
Angellotti, Lorigan and Sloss met in the chambers of
the Chief Justice for consultation regarding Ruef's
petition. Justice Lorigan signed the order granting
the petition. Justices Shaw, Angellotti and Sloss de-
clined to concur in such order, and Chief Justice
480 See Chapter IV.
444 Ruef s Last Refuge Fails
Beatty reserved his decision in the matter until Janu-
ary 22, 1911.
January 22, 1911 — (Sunday, the last day on which
the order could be signed) Chief Justice Beatty signed
the order, his being the fourth name on the document,
four signatures being necessary to make it effective.
January 23 — A typewritten copy of the order was
filed with the Clerk of the Court, the original being
retained in the office of the secretaries to the Justices.
Up to this time, eleven judges had passed upon
Ruef's case. Seven of them — one Superior Judge, three
Judges of the District Court of Appeal and three
Justices of the Supreme Court — had decided that Ruef
had had a fair trial, that no technicality could be in-
voked to save him. Four of the eleven judges, in
a way which, to the lay mind at least, was some-
what irregular, had decided to grant a rehearing. The
public was not at all backward in expressing the opinion
that this would mean a new trial ; and that under con-
ditions as they were at San Francisco, Ruef v/ould not
for a second time be convicted. ^^^ As is usual in such
cases, the public was dissatisfied, suspicious, indignant,
but without plan or remedy. Some demanded investiga-
481 This view was entirely justified by the outcome in the Coffey
case. Coffey was one of the boodle Supervisors who had at the
test refused "to go back on his class." He was tried for bribe-
taking and convicted. In the Court of Appeal practically the same
points were raised in his favor as were raised in the Ruef case.
The Appellate Court refused to interfere. The Supreme Court, by
a three to four decision, granted Coffey a rehearing and later a
new trial. The line-up of the eleven judges was the same in Cof-
fey's case as in Ruef's — seven found Coffey had had a fair trial;
four found that he had not. The four — under the rules of the
legal game — were more potent than the seven. The jury verdict
was nullified. The indictments against Coffey were finally dis-
missed. Had the Supreme Court's order for a rehearing of the
Ruef case stood, the outcome would have unquestionably been the
same.
Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 445
tion at the hands of the Legislature; others wanted
impeachment ^^^ proceedings instituted. Mr. William
Denman, a leader of the California bar, urged before
the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Legislature
owed it to the Supreme Court, as well as to itself and
to the public, to make thorough investigation, and de-
manded of the committee if the Legislature on proper
showing would declare the office of a Supreme Justice
vacant.
Senator Shanahan, a member of the committee, was
quick to reply that under such a showing the Legis-
lature would certainly act. "But," added Shanahan —
and here he touched the weak point of impeachment
proceedings — "it would take months if not years. That
is why impeachment proceedings will not be instituted.
Impeachment proceedings from the trial of Warren
482 Some of the ablest men in the State urged impeachment pro-
ceedings. "If the charges," said United States Senator John D.
Works in a letter to State Senator Hewitt, "made against Judge
Henshaw by the Attorney-General of this State, under oath, are
true, why is it the Legislature of this State before this has not com-
menced impeachment proceedings against him?
"The legislature has no right to shrink from this duty and re-
sponsibility and relieve itself from taking such a step by relegating
that duty and responsibility to The People of the State by the en-
actment of recall legislation. If Judge Henshaw, or any other
judge, has violated his duty to the State and betrayed his oflRce
as the charges made against him indicate, the duty of the legisla-
ture is imperative, and that duty should be performed without
hesitation and without delay."
Justice Henshaw, in discussing Judge Works' letter, in an in-
terview in the San Francisco Examiner, February 15, 1911, is
quoted as saying: "All the charges made by Attorney General
Webb in his affidavit attacking the Ruef rehearing order of Janu-
ary 30th are true. The orders were signed in the manner stated
and I told him so when he visited my offlce. There was nothing
unusual about it. It was done in accordance with the usual prac-
tice of this court.
"We seldom meet in session to sign the orders. There may be
twenty cases to be passed on in one week. Each Justice looks them
over at his leisure and signs what orders he agrees to.
"I was out of the State, as Mr. Webb says, and at the time that
he says. I did not even imagine that there was a legal point in-
volved. The practice never has been questioned before."
446 Ruef s Last Refuge Fails
Hastings to the present time have proved unsatisfac-
tory."
But, however individuals differed on the question of
impeachment proceedings, the general attitude was that
the Attorney-General should take steps, if such course
were practical, to have the order granting Ruef a re-
hearing set aside. This the Attorney-General did.
He attacked the order before the tribunal which had
made it, the highest tribunal in the State, the only
one to which appeal could be made.
And the Supreme Court set the order aside, de-
claring it to be "ineffectual for any purpose and void."
But the Supreme Court did not set the order aside
because Justice Henshaw had signed the document be-
fore the argument of the prosecution had been heard.
The order was set aside on the ground that Henshaw,
being absent from the State when the signature of
the fourth Justice was attached thereto, was at the time,
being absent from the State, unable to exercise any
judicial function as a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Without Henshaw's signature, the signatures of but
three of the Supreme Justices appeared on the order.
As the signatures of four of the Justices were re-
quired to make the order effective the Court declared
it to be worthless. ^^^
483 The following is from the Supreme Court decision revoking
the Ruef order for a rehearing- Csee California App. Reports, Vol. 14,
page 576): "The moment Justice Henshaw left the State, in view
of the authorities already referred to, he became unable to exercise
any judicial function as a Justice of the Supreme Court, in this
State or out 01 it, and this disability continued during the whole
period of his absence. During that time his situation was the same
as if he had absolutely ceased to be a member of this court. It is
true that there was a suspension, only, of bis judicial power, instead
of a final abrogation thereof, but the suspension, while it continued,
was as absolute in its effect on his judicial power as would have
Ruef's Last Refuge Fails 447
Thirty days from the time the judgment of the
District Court of Appeal became final having expired,
the Supreme Court could not interfere further. Ruef
had lost his last technical play on a technicality. He
went to State prison.
But Ruef did not go to State prison because a jury
of twelve men had found him guilty of offering a bribe
to a Supervisor; he did not go to State prison because
seven out of eleven judges who passed upon the ques-
tions involved had found that he had had a fair trial.
Ruef went to State prison when he did because a mem-
ber of the Supreme Court of California was absent
from the State at a time inopportune for Ruef.
Ordinarily, after his failure in the Supreme Court,
Ruef would have had two more chances for escaping
the full penalty of his bribe-giving, namely, parole at
the hands of the State Board of Prison Directors, and
pardon from the Governor.
But again was Ruef unfortunate. Hiram W. John-
son, as Governor of California, sat at Sacramento.
been a complete vacancy in his office. Assent to or concurrence in a
decision or order of the court being- the exercise of a purely ju-
dicial function, his previous proposal to concur in a proposed order,
one that had not yet been made and one that had not yet received
the assent of other justices making: it an accomplished decision,
temporarily ceased to be effectual for any purpose, and so con-
tinued ineffectual for any purpose during: the whole period of his
absence. Such previously indicated willingness to concur could
not accomplish that which the absent justice himself could not ac-
complish. The time having expired before he returned it follows
that he never concurred with even a single other justice in the
purported order. (1) Admittedly this order, if it ever did become
effectual, did not become so until January 22, 1911. when the fourth
justice appended his name. At that time, however. Justice Hen-
shaw could not effectually join therein, because of his absence from
the State, and his previously indicated willingness to join therein
could have no legal effect. The result is that only three justices of
this court concurred in the purported order, and as such order
could be made only by the concurrence of fovir justices, it was in-
effectual for any purpose and void."
448 Ruef s Last Refuge Fails
He had gone into office pledged "to kick the Southern
Pacific machine out of the State government." He
was keeping his pledge. There was no pressure which
men of Mr. Ruef's "class" could bring upon Governor
Johnson to move him to grant Ruef freedom.
The possibility of parole was as remote, although
the State Board of Prison Directors — who in Cali-
fornia are appointed for ten-year terms — continued for
a time under the old order.
One of the five directors was Tirey L. Ford *^* of
the United Railroads. Ruef went to prison convicted
of a charge of bribing a Supervisor to vote to give
the United Railroads its overhead trolley permit. The
evidence indicated, if it did not show, and Mr. Ruef
has since confessed, that this money came to him from
General Ford. Ruef, because of the crime, found him-
self confined in a prison of which General Ford was
484 Ford's term as prison director expired January 12, 1914.
He continued in office until his term had expired and his successor
had been appointed. After Ruef had confessed that the trolley
bribe money had come to him through Ford, the Sacramento Bee of
August 30, 1912, after reciting the allegations of Ruef's confession,
said:
"There, in brief, is the tale which Abraham Ruef tells v/ith
much particularity. It is now in order for the Board of Prison
Directors to ask the resignation of Prison Director Ford.
"Undoubtedly, Governor Johnson would make a demand to that
effect were he in the State.
"Much sorrow, if not sympathy, has been felt for Tirey L. Ford
all over California. The Bee has expressed some itself. The feel-
ing has been that a man of naturally fine principles and honorable
sentiments had been warped by his environments, and had done
under instructions that at which his better nature rebelled.
"It would be futile now to discuss what Tirey L. Ford should
have done and should not have done; or to declare that no tempta-
tion should have led him to perform any other than legal work for
the United Railroads.
"The Bee will say as little as it can say conscientiously under
the circumstances. Human nature is human nature the world over.
And The Bee men cannot forget the long, long years of intimate
friendship with and faith in Tirey L. Ford. But every considera-
tion of the eternal fitness of things demands that he should no
longer remain a member of the State Board of Prison Directors."
Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 449
one of the five governors, with power of parole in his
hands. But it developed that Governor Johnson had
power to set aside such parole. So Ruef could expect
little from even the Board of Prison Directors.
Scarcely had Ruef been placed behind the bars,
however, than a State-wide campaign was inaugurated
to compel his pardon or parole. The public was treated
daily by the newspapers with descriptions of the dis-
comfitures *^^ which Ruef was suffering. When he was
found, for example, smuggling sweet chocolates into
prison, and was punished for it, the Ruef-friendly press
cried out at the cruelty and unreasonableness of such
punishment. *^^
The suffering which his imprisonment has brought
485 The following is a fair sample of the articles descriptive of
Ruef's suffering in prison, which have been inflicted upon the Cali-
fornia public ever since Ruef donned stripes; it appeared in The
San Francisco Bulletin of December 21, 1912: "Ruef is an epicure.
As discordant sounds do violence to the feelings of a musician
gifted with an exquisite ear, so coarse, badly cooked or tasteless
food does violence to the epicure who is gifted with exquisite nerves
for inhaling, tasting and appreciating delicate flavors. The gastric
juices of the epicure cannot become freely active on mere hunger
as with men not so endowed. Digestion with the epicure must
wait upon the fine dictates of the palate; and a stomach so guarded
cannot wantonly change to an extreme opposite without material
suffering. To eat merely to be filled, to overeat, to eat hur-
riedly, is for the epicure, as one epicure puts it, 'to commit moral
sins.' Ruef since his imprisonment has been compelled to do all
these things."
486 To this complaint of cruelty to Ruef, The Fresno Republican
made sharp answer: "A visitor," said The Republican, "smuggled
articles to Ruef — nothing more dangerous than sweet chocolate and
newspaper clippings, to be sure, but still a covert violation of a
necessary rule — so Ruef is deprived of visitors and letters for two
months, and the automatic application of a general rule postpones
his application for parole for six months. Whereat there is wailing
and woe, and the San Francisco Call says that Ruef's friends re-
gard it as particularly unfortunate that he should be deprived of
visitors just at the time when a movement for his parole is go-
ing on.
"To all: Let us be sympathetic. Only let us make it general.
Ruef shall have his sweet chocolate. But all the other prisoners
shall have it too. Ruef shall sneak things into prison, inside his
blouse, by bribing the guards. But all the other prisoners shall
have all the like privileges, though it Is known that some of them
would prefer dope, daggers and dynamite to sweet chocolate."
15
450 Ruef s Last Refuge Fails
upon the members of his family is dwelt upon at length.
Letters from them, pleading for assistance for their
imprisoned relative have been received by many whose
assistance it was thought might prove effective in se-
curing his release. But when Ruef was brought back
from San Quentin prison to San Francisco to testify
at Schmitz's trial, the pathetic story w^as published
broadcast that these letter-writing relatives had been
kept in ignorance of his imprisonment, and thought
him to be traveling in Europe.*^^
One of the most contemptible stories circulated to
create public opinion for his release was that Ruef
had been made scapegoat because of his religion. Ruef
is a Jew, circulators of this story insisted that he is
in prison because he is a Jew, while the gentile bribe-
givers go free.
As a matter of fact, the gentiles associated with
Ruef have gone free because of Ruef's treachery to the
graft prosecution, but this does not prevent the circula-
tion of the story.
A saner view, breathing of better citizenship, came
487 Commenting upon this the Sacramento Bee, in its issue of
Febrviary 9, 1912, said: "In an effort to create sympathy for Abra-
ham Ruef, a story was originated at San Francisco, and has found
wide publicity as news, that the aged mother of the felon has been
kept in ignorance of his Imprisonment, and does not even know of
his conviction for bribery.
"Yet letters purporting to com.e from and to be signed by Ruef's
mother, and pleading for his parole, have been received by The
Bee and other newspapers for months past. Either these letters
were forgeries and fabrications, or this tale of the mother's ignor-
ance of Ruef's confinement is mere fiction.
"In either case a contemptible trick has been played by some
agency both active and unscrupulous in seeking to promote Ruef's
release. After this the public and the newspapers may well be
suspicious of sympathetic stories respecting Ruef and his confine-
ment. If he is personally responsible for the effort to exploit his
mother in the manner here related, he is even a more despicable
specimen of humanity than the known facts of his career would
indicate."
Ruef's Last Refuge Fails 451
from Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of the New York Free
Synagogue. "Israel," said Rabbi Wise, "is not re-
sponsible for Ruef's crimes any more than the Roman
or Protestant Church is responsible for the crimes of
its communicants. But we of the House of Israel in
America would be in part answerable for Ruef's mis-
deeds unless we made it clear, as we do, that Israel is
unutterably pained by this blot upon its record of good
citizenship in America."
By far the most astonishing support of the move-
ment to free Ruef came from the San Francisco Bul-
letin and Fremont Older, its managing editor. Older
was one of the strongest supporters of the graft prose-
cution, as was the paper under his management. But
once the graft prosecution was concluded, Older and
the Bulletin became the most persistent of the sup-
porters of the movement to secure Ruef his freedom.*^®
488 Older, in a letter to Dr. S. W. Hopkins, of Lodi, gives his
reasons for working for Ruef's release as follows:
"San Francisco, September 25, 1911. Dr. S. W. Hopkins, Presi-
dent Board of Health, Lodi, Cal. Dear Sir: If you read my article
in the Survey, I think there is much in it that you did not under-
stand. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I tried to. I wanted
those who read the Survey article to believe that I at least no
longer think we are going to better the world by punishing men
individually. I do not feel that it is good for people or for the edi-
tor of the Pacific Christian to want vengeance administered to our
brothers and sisters. I think vengeance, and by vengeance I mean
punishment, makes us all worse rather than better. I have asked
for mercy for Ruef because I felt that I, above all others, had done
most to bring about his downfall. If you have followed the long
fight the Bulletin has made during the past eight or nine years, you
will recall that I was fighting Ruef long years before the city woke
up. You will also recall that I attacked him bitterly with all the
invectives that I covild personally command, and all that I could
hire. I cartooned him in stripes. I described him on his way to
San Quentin; told hnv/ I thought he would act en route, and what
his manner would be when the barber shaved his head, and how he
would feel when locked up in a cell. I was vindictive, unscru-
pulous, savage. I went to Washington and enlisted Heney in the
fight. Burns came, and Spreckels joined in the chase. Then I pur-
sued with the same relentless spirit in the wake of these men.
At last, after eight years of a man-hunting and man-hating de-
bauch, Ruef crossed over and became what I had wanted him to
452 Ruef s Last Refuge Fails
Largely through Older's influence, men of prominence
throughout the country — with apparently no very clear
knowledge of the situation — have been induced to ex-
press themselves as favorable to Ruef's release.
In the publicity campaign for Ruef's release which
gives no indication of abatement, Ruef, and those who
seek his release, are praised in the most extravagant
terms, w^iile those who will not enroll themselves
in his interests are as extravagantly condemned. '^^^
be. what I had longed and dreamed that he might be — a convict,
stripped of his citizenship, stripped of everything society values
except the remnant of an ill-gotten fortune. It was then I said to
myself: 'I have got him. He is in stripes. He is in a cell. His
head is shaved. He is in tears. He is helpless, beaten, chained —
killed, so far as his old life is concerned. You have won. How do
you like your victory? Do you enjoy the picture now that it is
complete? You painted it. Every savage instinct in your nature
is expressed on the canvas.'
"My soul revolted. I thought over my own life and the many
unworthy things I had done to others, the injustice, the wrongs
I had been guilty of, the human hearts I had wantonly hurt, the
sorrow I had caused, the half-truths I had told, and the mitigating
truths I had withheld, the lies I had allowed to go undenied. And
then I saw myself also stripped, that is, stripped of all pretense,
sham, self-righteousness, holding the key to another man's cell.
I dropped the key. I never want to see it again. Let it be taken
up and held by those who feel they are justified in holding it. I
want no more jail keys. For the rest of my life I want to get a
little nearer to the forgiving spirit that Christ expressed.
"Isn't what I am accusing myself of, true of all of us? Think
it over. Think of your own life. Think of the lives of those
around you. and see if you cannot discern that we are all guilty.
And then think whether or not you believe that society will be
benefited by denying Ruef a parole, which only gives him a half
liberty and still holds him under the restrictions of the prison until
his term is finished.
"I am surprised at the tone of the article you sent me, published
in the Pacific Christian. It reads like a chapter out of the Old
Testament rather than the New. But I fear that the world is be-
ing governed more upon the lines of the Old Testament than the
New. I asrree wuth the article about the young men who have been
sent to prison for years. I would release them all if I could. But
I can't. I can't even release Ruef, because society has not ad-
vanced far enough to make it possible. But I can at least be true
to myself and express what I honestly feel.
"I wish as a favor to me that you would send a copy of this
letter to the Pacific Christian, as I am leaving for the East and
will not have time. I should like them to know what I am writing
you. Sincerely 3'ours, Fremont Older."
489 The San Jose Mercury, controlled by Congressman E. A.
Hayes, in its issue of September 22, 1911, published one of these
Ruef campaign articles. The following description of Ruef occurs:
"Not many months have gone since Ruef found domicile in
Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 453
But in spite of all that is being done to create
public opinion favorable to Ruef's release, the sober
expression of machine-free press and public is that
Ruef should be treated both on the score of parole
and confinement precisely the same as any other pris-
oner/^^ This attitude was clearly presented by the
Fresno Republican at the time Ruef was found smug-
gling chocolate sweets into the prison.
In the attitude of prison officials toward Ruef, the
Republican pointed out, there are two alternatives.
"One," the RepubHcan went on to say, "is the course of
Warden Hoyle, in treating Ruef like any other prisoner,
and disciplining him humanely but sternly, for any in-
fraction of the necessary prison rules. The other is
to let Ruef have privileges which the other prisoners
do not and can not have. News travels nowhere faster
or surer than in prison. If Ruef bribes guards, the
officials may not know it, but the prisoners will. If Ruef
states prison. But what changes Time has wrought in that brief
period. Tlie little man sits in his cell, lonely and solemn, as he
meditates on the singularities of mankind. With no bitterness in
his soul, without a thought of revenge twisting his sense of peace
and good will toward man, he passes the time planning the com-
forts of his fellow unfortunates and reading and rereading the let-
ters that come so regularly from the loved ones whose burdens
he so gladly carried and to whose joy he so gladly contributed. He
is neither unhappy nor without hope."
The same article contains another word picture — of Francis J.
Heney. It reads:
"But if Older has turned 'right about face,' Heney, the other
member of the firm, has not. He remains the unforgiving, snarl-
ing, short-haired bulldog, with his hand against every man, and
every man's hand against him."
Such is the character of the publicity campaign to release Ruef
from prison.
490 When in 1914 Governor Johnson became candidate for re-elec-
tion, extraordinary efforts were made to compel him to pardon, or to
consent to the release of Ruef on parole. So persistent were Ruef
advocates, that the Governor found it necessary to issue a state-
ment of his position regarding Ruef. That statement will be found
in full on page xxviii of the Appendix.
454 Ruef s Last Refuge Fails
may have smuggled sweets, the other prisoner, whose
every nerve-cell shrieks in agony for cocaine, but who
knows he will be thrown in the dungeon if he smug-
gles it, will have no illusions about the smuggling
privilege. If the very minions of justice do injustice,
as between Abe Ruef and Convict No. 231,323, every
man in that vast prison will be taught that he is the
victim not of justice, but of force and favoritism.
And if Ruef, at the expiration of a bare year, were to be
paroled out, every other convict, whose very application
can not be heard until he has served half his term,
will know that he is suffering the penalty, not of his
crime, but of his poverty and friendlessness. Shall Abe
Ruef be suffered to teach that lesson? Shall he cor-
rupt San Quentin prison as he did San Francisco?
Or shall there be at last one place found where even
Abe Ruef gets exact and equal justice?"
Ruef is getting equal justice at State prison, not be-
cause he corrupted San Francisco, not because a jury
of twelve citizens found him guilty, not because seven
out of eleven judges declared against him, but because
the political machine, of which Ruef was one of the most
powerful leaders, has been broken in California. Under
the old order, to have kept Ruef jailed would have been
impossible.
CHAPTER XXX.
Conclusion.
After the McCarthy-Fickert election there were ru-
mors that the graft defense, flushed with its successes
in the overthrow of the prosecution, would resort to
reprisals, by singling out persons prominent in the
movement to enforce the law, for trumped-up charges
and possible indictment. But aside from an abortive
attempt to make it appear that former Supervisor
Gallagher had fled the State at the behest of William
J. Burns, reprisals of this nature were not attempted.
The reprisals came in more subtle form. Members
of the Oliver Grand Jury which had brought the in-
dictments against Ruef and his associates, found them-
selves marked men in business, political and social cir-
cles. A member of the faculty of the State University
who had been active in defending the cause of the
prosecution, found his salary remaining practically
stationary, while his associates received material ad-
vances. When the directorate of the Panama-Pacific
International Exposition Company was formed, finan-
ciers who had supported the prosecution found them-
selves barred from directorships. It may be said, how-
ever, that the graft defense was well represented, one
of the Exposition directors at least, Thornwall Mul-
lally, having been one of those indicted in the graft
cases.
456
Conclusion
When the suggestion was made that James D.
Phelan be made Pacific Coast representative in Presi-
dent Wilson's cabinet, at once the graft defense pack
was on his track, openly naming Mr. Phelan's assist-
ance to the prosecution cause as reason sufficient why
he should not be given the cabinet appointment.*^^
On the other hand, all danger of confinement in
State prison being gone, the graft defense, through its
various newspapers, urged incessantly that the past be
forgotten, that San Francisco interests get together
for the good of San Francisco. But this "getting to-
gether" meant the banishing from political, social, and,
as far as practical, business circles, all who had sided
with the prosecution, thereby giving control of all
activities to sympathizers with the graft defense.
This is well recognized throughout the State, and
the exclusive "get-together" movements are received
with general ridicule.*®^ The graft defense does not
491 The San Francisco Argonaut, one of the principal apologists
for the Graft Defense, in its issue of November 23, 1912, said of the
suggestion of Mr. Phelan's name for the cabinet: "Ex-Mayor
Phelan, of San Francisco, would be in line for cabinet honors if
our local war of the roses were not so recent and if its unfragrant
memories and resentments could be set aside. But this is not yet."
492 The Fresno Republican in its issue of December 7, 1912, pays
the following tribute to the graft defense's "get-together" plans:
"They are going to hold a 'burn the hammer' celebration in San
Francisco on New Year's eve, for the cremation of knocking.
"It is a good idea, and one worth going the limit on. By all
means, burn the hammers! But the onlj'^ effectual way to get that
done is for each fellow to burn his own. Unfortunately, when we
begin knocking the knockers, the hammer we are after is usually
the one with which the other fellow knocks us. There is no boost-
ing way to dispose of the other fellow's hammer. If we go after it,
we knock it, to the further multiplication of knocking. But if we
begin at the other end, with our own hammer, that is real boosting.
Besides, it gets the thing done. "V\^hat we do to the other fellow's
hammer may not succeed, and if it does, it is merely more knock-
ing. But when we burn or bury our own, then we know that at
least our part of the knocking is ended.
"The purpose of the 'burn the hammer,' or 'get-together,' is, of
Conclusion 457
stand well in California. The "vindication" that was
heralded throughout the country when the indictment?
were dismissed has not been accepted in California as
generally as those most immediately affected could
have wished.
Then again, the corporations involved in the scan-
dals, have a heritage from the graft defense which
seems destined to bring confusion upon them at every
turn of their development. Late in 1912, for example,
a year and a half after the trolley-graft indictments
were dismissed, the United Railroads attempted re-
adjustment of its bonded indebtedness. This could be
done only with the consent of the State Railroad Com-
mission. The Commission, willing to allow any proper
adjustment upon competent showing, asked that the
corporation's books be produced. The books had, dur-
ing the days of the prosecution, been sent out of the
State. The United Railroads could not produce the
books, and consent to its petition to readjust its finan-
cial affairs was withheld until the books should be
course, to bridge the breach left by the Graft Prosecutions. And
to this end we suggest that
"The higher-ups of the Pacific Union Club give a dinner at
which Francis J. Heney and Rudolph Spreckels are the guests of
honor.
"The directors of the Panama-Pacific Exposition elect James D.
Phelan one of their number.
"William H. Crocker give a reception to such members of the
Oliver grand jury as have survived the boycott.
"The San Francisco Post issue a congratulatory edition, com-
mending the achievements of Governor Johnson's administration.
"Patrick Calhoun offer to take Abe Ruef's place in San Quentin
for a year, and for alternate years hereafter, until they shall both be
purged or pardoned of their joint guilt.
"These suggestions are all purposely addressed to the side which
is most clamorous for 'getting together.' Since they shout the
loudest for 'harmony,' presumably they are the ones who want it.
The way to get it is first to put away their own implements of
discord. And no better pledges of intent to do this could be con-
ceived than are contained in the suggestions here offered."
458
Conclusion
forthcoming. Unofficial assurance was given officials
of the corporation that investigation would not be made
of its graft defense expenditures/^^ nor of any ex-
penditures involved in the scandal of the alleged bribe-
giving. But apparently even this assurance did not
satisfy those connected with the United Railroads
whose reputations, at least, were at stake. *^* The com-
493 The machine-free press of the State, however, openly insisted
that it would be a good thing if full publicity of the United Rail-
roads expenditures could be had.
"What the missing books might contain of an interesting sort,"
said The Sacramento Bee in discussing the incident, "may be gath-
ered from a 'list of expenses' submitted by Calhoun in lieu of the
books, including an item of $314,000 to Patrick Calhoun for 'services
rendered.'
"The character of these 'services' may be surmised by anybody
familiar with the history of the recent bribery and Graft Prosecu-
tions in San Francisco. But surely the public and the stockholders
and creditors of the United Railroads are entitled to specifications.
"It is largely that corporations may not bribe in secure secrecy,
or otherwise commit criminal acts without detection, that the Pro-
gressive states are bringing them under strict regulation and in-
spection bj'- proper authority."
494 The Railroad Commission of California, in its Decision 1536,
made May 22, 1914. held "that the methods pursued by the former
offlcials of applicant in handling the funds in their care amounts to
nothing more than a fraud, not only upon the public forced to use
an inadequate and unserviceable system, but upon the bond and
note holders of such company."
Of one transaction, in which President Calhoun was permitted
to take $1,096,000 of the company's funds, which it was claimed he
had invested in a land project in Solano, in which Mr. Calhoun was
interested, the Commission said:
"No proof was made to this Commission that any part of this
inoney was actually invested in the so-called Solano project, but
we are confronted by the fact that Mr. Calhoun, under authority
of the board of directors, and ratified by the stockholders, took
from the treasury of applicant $1,096,000, and whether he invested
it in the Solano project or not is unimportant in the consideration
of this railroad company as a public utility.
"It seems that upon the taking of office by Mr. Jesse Lilienthal,
the present president of the railroad company, Mr. Calhoun was
forced to execute a promissory note for $1,096,000, payable one day
after date, in favor of the railroad company, secured by stock of
the Solano project; but the judgment of the value of this promis-
sory note is perhaps best indicated by the fact that Mr. Lilienthal
immediately wrote this note down in the books of the company as
of a value of $1.00.
"We hesitate to put in words a proper characterization of this
transaction. In plain terms, Mr. Calhoun took from the funds of
this public utility corporation over $1,000,000, when every available
dollar was sorely needed properly to increase the facilities of thivS
company so as to serve the community of San Francisco, and at a
Conclusion 459
pany's books were not opened for the Commission's
inspection.
By far the greatest sufferer from the graft defense
was San Francisco. Here it was demonstrated that
even with a District Attorney intent upon the discharge
of his sworn duty, with upright trial judges on the
bench, the machinery of the criminal law broke down
when men with practically unlimited means were
brought to bar. To accomplish this required a four
years' contest, in which community resistance to po-
lical corruption was overcome, the people misled, their
minds poisoned against that which is wholesome, and
made tolerant of that which is base and bad.
The unhappy effects of this are just beginning to
be understood. The evil of the graft defense will live
long in San Francisco after the dismissal of the indict-
ments. Four years after the defeat of the Graft Prose-
cution, Referendum petitions against State laws have
been forged in San Francisco, and the laws, which had
been passed by the State Legislature and signed by the
Governor, have been delayed from going into effect
for nearly two years, because of the forgeries. And
yet, although the forgers are known, their prosecution,
except in one instance, has not even been attempted.
Governor Johnson has called the attention of the Attor-
ney-General of the State to this condition, and has
urged him to undertake the prosecution of these forgery
cases.
time when this same company was urging- upon this Commission
the necessity of issuing further bonds to pay off maturing obliga-
tions, and also at a time when admittedly the outstanding obliga-
tions could not be paid at maturity by approximately $20,000,000."
This enormous sum had been taken in gold at various times,
ranging in amounts from $250 to |85,000.
460 Conclusion
Tenderloin interests at San Francisco now indicate
even greater power in the community than they exerted
during the worst days of Ruef-Schmitz regime. The
same is in a measure true of the pubHc service cor-
porations.
When District Attorney Langdon announced in 1906
that pubHc-spirited citizens would assist in meeting the
expenses of running to earth the corruptionists that
had San Francisco by the throat, prospect of law-en-
forcement through the regular channels was welcomed,
and ugly talk of lynch-law prevalent at the time, ceased.
The success of the graft defense meant that the efforts
to reach the corrupters of the municipal government
through the courts had failed. San Francisco was
beaten. In the community's present inability to pro-
tect itself against the encroachments of the public
service corporations, and to correct vice conditions
which are far worse than in the worst days of the
Schmitz-Ruef regime, the effects of that beating are
seen. San Francisco will be long in recovering from
the effects of her defeat. Because of the results of it,
she finds herself handicapped in her race for Pacific
Coast supremacy with Los Angeles, Seattle and even
Oakland. And the prospects arc at the close of the
year 1914, that the burden of this handicap will be
increased before it is diminished. In the old days an
invading army conquered a city and sacked it. The
System conquered San Francisco and is exploiting it.
The defeat of the graft prosecution was a defeat for
San Francisco alone. It was not a defeat for the State
of California.
Conclusion 461
The evil influence of the graft defense did not
reach beyond the metropoHs. On the contrary, the suc-
cess of the defense uncovered for the whole State the
actual political conditions inider which all California
was laboring.
The registration of 47,945 Republicans at San Fran-
cisco to defeat Heney at the primaries, and the Re-
publican vote of 13,766 at the final election, demon-
strated the emptiness of partisan pretense. One of the
immediate results was a uniting of all good citizens
regardless of political affiliations for good government,
and Hiram W. Johnson, Heney's associate in the
graft trials, was in 1910, elected Governor of California.
Four years later, James D. Phelan, Rudolph Spreckels's
associate in financing the graft prosecution, was elected
United States Senator from California, while Judge
Lawlor was that year elected to the State Supreme
Bench. Judge Dunne was in 1914 re-elected to the
Superior Bench to serve until 1920.
Decisions from the higher courts — to the lay mind
astonishing; to authorities on questions of law, vicious
and unwarranted — which set free men who had been
convicted of dangerous felonies ; scandals which grew
out of these decisions ; the public's demonstrated help-
lessness against them, aroused the State. By over-
whelming vote California added to her Constitution a
provision under which The People may by direct vote
remove a corrupt or incompetent judge from the
bench.
The public had assumed that men trapped in bribe-
giving would be measured by a fixed rule of the law,
462 Conclusion
and their proper punishment in due course be meted
out to them. That anything else could be had not
occurred to the average citizen.
But the astonishing performances at the graft trials,
the extraordinary anti-prosecution publicity campaign,
and, finally, the amazing technical defense, and the
failure of the graft defendants to take the stand and
manfully deny under oath the charges brought against
them, opened the eyes of the public to the fact that
the methods of criminal procedure were sadly inade-
quate.
And the further fact was emphasized that while
the weak points in the methods of bringing an of-
fender to punishment could be used to advantage by
the rich man, they were unavailable to the man without
the means to employ a lawyer to present the techni-
calities governing his case.
Out of this conviction, came agitation for reform
of the methods of criminal procedure. An elaborate
plan for such reform was presented to the 1909 Legis-
lature.*^^ But the machine element controlled the com-
mittee organization of both houses, and the measures
were defeated.
At the 1911 session of the Legislature, after John-
son had been elected Governor, measures for the re-
form of the criminal procedure similar to those defeated
by indirection at the 1909 session, were introduced.
Many of them became laws. But, unfortunately, certain
labor leaders were made to believe that the measures
495 These measures are described in "The Story of the California
Legislature of 1909." The methods employed to defeat them were
told in detail. See chapter "Defeat of the Commonwealth Club
Bills."
Conclusion 463
were aimed at Labor. This led to opposition which
resulted in the defeat of several of the proposed re--
forms.
One important constitutional amendment was, how-
ever, presented to the people that goes far toward cor-
recting the abuses which attended the graft trials.
This amendment provides that "no judgment shall be
set aside, or new trial granted in any criminal case
on the ground of misdirection of the jury or the
improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for
error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, un-
less, after an examination of the entire cause in-
cluding the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion
that the error complained of has resulted in a miscar-
riage of justice."
Not a vote was cast against this amendment in
either house of the Legislature. The feeling against
the use of trifling technicalities for the release of con-
victed criminals which the graft cases had displayed so
glaringly, was shown in the popular vote on this amend-
ment; 195,449 voted for the amendment, while only
53,958 voted against it.*^«
The San Francisco graft prosecution succeeded in
sending but one of the corrupters of the municipal
496 Under the provisions of measures which became laws at the
1911 session, it is held that it will be impossible hereafter to put
grand jurors on trial as was done in the San Francisco graft cases.
Hereafter, too, an indictment or information may be amended by
the District Attorney without leave of the Court at any time be-
fore the defendant pleads; and at any time thereafter in the dis-
cretion of the Court where It can be done without prejudice to the
substantial rights of the defendant.
Another measure takes from a witness his privilege of refusing
to give testimony on the grounds that it may incriminate him. The
witness is safeguarded, however, by a provision that he shall not
be liable thereafter to prosecution nor punishment with respect to
the offense regarding which such testimony is given.
464 Conclusion
government to State prison. He, too, would in all
probability have escaped imprisonment but for the ab-
sence from the State of a single member of the Supreme
Court at a critical moment.
But the graft prosecution did something infinitely
more important than the sending of a few corruptionists
to cell and stripes. It awakened a State to its help-
lessness against a corrupt system. The People arose
in rebellion against the "System," and is laboring to
throw the ''System" off.
In 1910 and 1911 a political revolution was worked
in California.
But the revolution had its beginning back in 1906,
when Rudolph Spreckels guaranteed the expenses of
the prosecution of the corrupters of the municipal
government of San Francisco, and Francis J. Heney,
as his share in the campaign, pledged his services.
Had there been no San Francisco graft prosecution,
there w^ould, in 1910, have been no successful political
uprising in California. Hiram W. Johnson would not
have been a candidate for Governor. The accomplished
reforms which are the boast of the State, and the
models which other States are adopting, would still
be the unrealized dreams of ''reformers." The "Sys-
tem" would still be in the saddle.
The graft defense has left its mark of ill upon
San Francisco. That city has borne the brunt of the
injury because of it.
The graft prosecution, by forcing the "System" out
in the open, where all its power for evil can be seen,
worked California inestimable good. And here, San
Francisco, in common with the whole State, gains also.
APPENDIX
JUDGE LAWLOR'S RULING ON MOTION TO DIS-
MISS GRAFT CASES, AUGUST 3, 1910.
On April 2Sth, 1910, an application was made by Pat-
rick Calhoun, Tirey L. Ford, Thornwell Mullally and Wil-
liam M. Abbott to dismiss the indictments against them.
The application is before the Court at this time for con-
sideration.
When the defendants pleaded not guilty they exercised
their statutory right and each demanded severance from
each other and from their co-defendants, Abraham Ruef
and Eugene E. Schmitz. (Sec. 1098 Penal Code.) There
have been five trials — three of Tirey L. Ford and one each
of Abraham Ruef and Patrick Calhoun.
The second trial of Patrick Calhoun was commenced
on July 19th, 1909 (case No._ 1437). Owing to the illness
of one of his counsel the trial was suspended on August
16th, 1909, and resumed on September 30th, 1909. On the
following day the trial was ordered continued until Novem-
ber 15th, 1909, on motion of the defendant, upon the ground
of the pendency of a municipal campaign.
On January 8th, 1910, Mr. Charles M. Fickert assumed
the office of District Attorney.
On February 7th, 1910, the District Attorney moved the
Court to dismiss the remaining charges against these de-
fendants (Sec. 1385 Penal Code), which motion was by the
Court ordered denied, (Sec. 7, Art. I, and Sec. 19, Art. VI
of the Constitution; Sees. 1041, 1042, 1126, 1385, 1386 and
1387 Penal Code.)
On February 14th, 1910, the parties announced that
they were ready to resume the trial in case No. 1437 against
Patrick Calhoun, but the Court continued the case for trial
until February 17th, 1910. On the last named day the
cause was ordered continued for trial until April 25th, 1910.
On April 25th, 1910, the four defendants interposed a
motion to dismiss the remaining indictments against them.
The further hearing of the motion was continued until
July 29th, 1910. On the latter day the causes were con-
tinued until this time.
Two things are chiefly responsible for the Court's action
in respect to the remaining indictments since the District
Attorney moved to dismiss them on February 7th, 1910 —
first, the Court's apprehensions based on the declared atti-
tude of the said District Attorney toward the remaining
indictments, and, second, the absence from the State of
11
James L. Gallagher, a material and indispensable witness
in the said causes. The second reason will now be con-
sidered.
It was the theory of the People in the five trials re-
ferred to that Abraham Ruef represented the defendants in
the alleged bribery of the members of the Board of Super-
visors, and that James L. Gallagher, one of its members,
in turn represented Abraham Ruef in the transactions. In
this way the Court is able to determine that the testimon}'
of this witness is material, and now holds, as a matter of
law, that unless additional testimony is produced, it is in-
dispensable to the establishment of the res gestae.
In the early part of December, 1909, it became known
that the witness had departed from the State. Up to the
present time it has not been shown whether he had been
formally subpoenaed or was otherwise under the authority
of the Court to appear as a witness in the trials of the
remaining indictments. If he is subject to the authority
of the Court in any of these cases his absence would con-
stitute a criminal contempt, and * he could be extradited
from any other State having provisions of law similar to
those of this State. (Sub. 4, Sec. 166, and Sec. 1548 Penal
Code.)
In this connection it may be proper to point out that
practically ever since issue was joined on these indictments
they have been on the calendar for trial, and that during
the trials referred to the cases not actually on trial were
from time to time called and the witnesses admonished by
the Court to appear on the deferred date. But it has not
been ascertained whether on this manner the missing wit-
ness has been so admonished to appear so far as the re-
maining indictments are concerned.
In the month of January, 1910, the Court directed that
all persons who could give testimony concerning the ab-
sence of the witness be subpoenaed. On January 24th,
1910, the first hearing was had, and on several occasions
thereafter witnesses have been orally examined on the sub-
ject. From this oral testimony it is difficult to determine
the intentions of the witness concerning his departure from
and his return to the State. It seems that in the latter
part of November, 1909, he left for Europe, accompanied
by his wife. Robert F. Gallagher, a brother of the wit-
ness, testified in effect that the witness never stated he
intended to absent himself as a witness in the graft cases
and made no suggestion of that nature; that he, Robert F.
Gallagher, gained no such impression from anything he
did say, except that it was a disagreeable situation for him
to be a witness; and that their talk proceeded along the
Ill
line that there was not going to be any future trial in the
graft prosecution. This brother testified further:
"He did state on one occasion something to the effect
that Burns had disappeared and that Heney had disappeared
and that there wasn't any prosecution; that the incoming
District Attorney would not certainly be in earnest in the
prosecution."
Other witnesses testified to a variety of facts touching
the departure of the witness from San Francisco and his
declarations on the general subject. Dr. Alexander War-
ner gave testimony to the effect that he went to Europe
on an Atlantic steamer with the witness and his wife,
Thomas J. Gallagher, another brother, among other things
quoted the witness to the effect that he was going to
Europe, that he might settle in an eastern State, that he
made no secret of his purpose, and that William J. Burns,
special agent of the former administration in the Dis-
trict Attorney's office, knew of his intention to leave.
Nothing definite appears in the oral showing concerning
his intentions on the subject of his return, and so far as
that showing is concerned the point is more or less in-
volved in conjecture. But on July 29th, 1910, Frederick
L. Berry, the Assistant District Attorney, assigned to this
department of the Court, filed an affidavit embodying clip-
pings from the local newspapers of the previous month,
which state that the witness was, at the time the articles
were written, in Vancouver, B. C. From these clippings
it appears that the witness intended to permanently locate
in Vancouver. The only tangible evidence from the wit-
ness himself, however, is found in his letter to Thomas
J. Gallagher under date of June 29th, 1910, in which this
excerpt appears:
"In reply to your inquiry I cannot state when I shall
return to San Francisco, if at all. I may remain here."
In my judgment a review of the showing up to this
time leads to the inference that the witness left this juris-
diction and is remaining away because of some form of
understanding or agreement. The circumstances under
which he left California clearly show that he was acting
guardedly, notv/ithstanding the testimon3^ which there is
no reason to doubt,, that he informed several persons of
his intention to take a trip. When the quoted statement
of Robert F. Gallagher was first made I was disposed to
assume that the witness left the State principally because
he believed the prosecution was at an end, and that he
made his plans quietly so that the step would not occa-
sion comment. In other words, that he did not believe
there would be any further attempt to prosecute the so-
IV
called graft cases. But from a study of the entire show-
ing I cannot adhere to that theory. I repeat that up to
the time his presence was discovered in Vancouver, the
showing was uncertain as to whether he really intended to
return to California, and if so, when he would return. It
was to be seen that the action of the Court would be in-
fluenced by this uncertainty, so when the exigencies of
the situation called for a definite showing as to the wit-
ness' intentions, he seems to suddenly appear in Vancou-
ver, where, under the treaty conditions, he would be safe
from extradition, and is promptly discovered by the re-
porter of a New York paper. In the clippings his quoted
statements on the subject of his intentions are unequivocal.
He is to make his home in Vancouver. But his personal
communication to Thomas J. Gallagher, already referred
to, which he probably realized would be produced in Court,
is significant in tenor and he is apparently less certain of
his intentions. This would tend to make his future action
consistent should he hereafter return to California. From
the entire showing I do not entertain any serious doubt as
to what his real purpose is. I am inclined to believe that
when the necessity for his presence as a witness has passed
he will return. To entertain any other view, or be in
serious doubt on the point, is to ignore the inherent prob-
abilities of the showing and to deny a fair consideration
to the known history of this litigation.
Now, it must follow that if the witness has left and is
remaining away from the State because of an arrangement
of some nature affecting these cases, the responsibility for
his absence should be placed where it belongs. On April
25th, 1910, the District Attorney stated to the Court:
"... and it appearing also that James L. Gallagher
left with the consent and connivance of those who had
preceded me in office, I at this time do not wish to as-
sume any responsibility for his disappearance. Whether
he shall return or not I cannot say. Some of the wit-
nesses who were called here testified that he went away
with the intent and with the purpose of embarrassing my
administration and that he was supposed to keep away until
such time as certain persons would request his return. . ."
The foregoing fairly states the position of the District
Attorney on this point, as repeatedly expressed in Court
. since he first moved the dismissal of these indictments. If
the charge that the former administration entered into a
bargain with the witness to default be true, there would
be no alternative but to dismiss the indictments without
delay. But I have found no evidence in the showing tend-
ing to support so grave a charge, and upon sound reason-
V
ing it would seem to be opposed to every reasonable
probability. According to the showing, William J. Burns
left the State about three weeks in advance of the witness,
and, so far as the Court is advised, he has not since been
in the State. That the former administration may have
distrusted the official intentions of the District Attorney
toward these indictments might be assumed from all the
surrounding circumstances. But it does not seem probable
that the former administration would induce a material and
indispensable witness to leave the State and thereby make
it easy for the District Attorney to secure a result which
otherwise might entail serious embarrassment. So far as
the showing is concerned there is no tangible proof tend-
ing to support the charge of the District Attorney, nor
is there any proof which would justify such an inference.
Nor, on the other hand, do I find any formal evidence
in the showing which tends to bring the responsibility for
the disappearance of the witness home to these defendants.
In the absence of tangible proof neither side should be
charged with so grave an act. But if there has been com-
plicity on the part of either of the parties, every effort
should be made before disposing of these cases finally to
establish the facts. It has been pointed out that if the
former administration entered into a bargain with the wit-
ness looking to his absence, the application should be
granted without delay. And clearly, if the defendants are
responsible for the absence of the witness, under a famil-
iar maxim of the law, the application should be promptly
denied. (Sec. 3517 Civil Code.)
There being no tangible proof, therefore, before the
Court, of the complicity of the parties, should the pending
application be granted at this time?
A person accused of crime is entitled to a speedy trial.
(Sec. 13, Art. I, Const.)
This fundamental right has been made the subject of
statutory provision. The second subdivision of Section 1382
of the Penal Code provides that:
"Unless good cause to the contrary is shown, the court
must order the prosecution to be dismissed if the indict-
ment is not brought to trial within sixty days after the
filing thereof."
More than sixty days have run in favor of this applica-
tion, and the question presented at this time is whether
the showing touching the absence of James L. Gallagher
shall constitute "good cause" within the meaning of the
law. This term must be construed and applied according
to the peculiar circumstances of each case. It should be
VI
interpreted so that the rights of both parties shall be
equally recognized. The absence of a material and indis-
pensable witness for the People would, under proper cir-
cumstances, constitute good cause, provided that good faith
and diligence are shown in the effort to produce the wit-
ness. In re Bcrgerow (133 Cal., 349) is a leading authority
on this question and is almost invariably cited in support
of applications of this character. It is proper to point out
that in the prevailing opinion the Court studiously elim-
inates from the pertinenc)^ of the authority the absence or
illness of a witness for the prosecution.
The conclusion I have reached is that under the law,
and the surrounding circumstances, including the recent
action of the witness, that another reasonable continuance
should be directed in order, if possible, that the duty of
the Court in the premises shall be rendered more clear.
At this time the Court is not satisfied that the relief sought
should be granted. On the other hand it is realized that
a final decision should not much longer be delayed. In the
determination of this matter the Court, while fully recog-
nizing the rights of the defendants, is mindful of the rights
of the People and its own sense of responsibilit}'-, and is
anxious to avoid a decision which will serve as a mischie-
vous precedent.
It is idle to attempt to ignore the inherent probabilities
of the situation presented. A material and indispensable
witness is absent from the State, and the Court is called
upon to intervene because the District Attorney has at
practically every turn followed the lead of these defend-
ants. Through the influence of unusual agencies the law
has broken down, so far as these cases are concerned. The
crimes charged are of the most serious nature, because
such criminal activity tends to sap the very foundations of
government. The statute of limitations has run against
these charges and if the application is granted, therefore,
there can be no further prosecution, no matter what de-
velopments may follow, (Sec. 800 Penal Code.) In the
trial of Patrick Calhoun the Court admitted evidence of
a most extraordinary character on the theory of the People
that it tended to show guilty consciousness on the part of
the accused. This evidence was not contraverted. It in-
cluded the dynamiting of the home of the witness under
circumstances which threatened not only his life, but also
the lives of several other persons, A certain other build-
ing, the propertv of the witness, was subsequently blown
up by the use of dynamite. If the apparent design on the
life of the witness had been successful, the Court would be
less perplexed in deciding a question of this character. It
Vll
is possible that these experiences and not the suggested
arrangement with the witness are responsible for his ab-
sence. The evidence also included an effort to suppress
testimony by an attempt to induce a witness to leave the
jurisdiction of the Court, and other matters of a serious
nature.
And, finally, while the Court is clear that it should not
base any action at this time upon the assumption that
either side is responsible for the absence of the witness,
yet reason and the exercise of a sound discretion dictate
that the Court should act with prudence. Before the in-
dictments should be finally disposed of, every reasonable
effort should be made to get at the truth of the situation.
The disposition of grave charees other than on their
merits is not to be encouraged and should not be allowed,
except in the face of a strict legal necessity. Let the cases
be continued until 10 a. m., Monday, August 29th, 1910.
So ordered.
HOW THE SUPERVISORS WERE BRIBED.
Thomas F. Lonergan, when elected to the Schmitz-Ruef
Board of Supervisors, was a driver of a bakery wagon.
He recited at the trial of The People vs. Louis Glass, the
manner in which he had been bribed by agents of the
Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company. Loner-
gan's testimony was as follows:
"I reside in Sanchez street, San Francisco. I have
lived in San Francisco since March, 1879. I have a family
composed of a wife and three children. I was in the bakery
business. I was in that business quite a number of years.
I worked latterly for Mr. Foley. I worked in a bake shop
quite a while and also drove a wagon for him. I do not
hold any official position now. I did hold the position of
Supervisor of the City and County of San Francisco. I
was elected Supervisor in November, 1905, and took ofiice
on January 7th or 8th, 1906. I know John Kraus. I first
met him some time after my election at my home. I did
not invite him to come there.
"One morning, some time after my election, the doorbell
rang, a gentleman was at the door and wanted to sec mc.
I went downstairs. He asked me if I was Mr. Lonergan.
I said yes. He says, 'The recently elected Supervisor?' or
words to that effect. I said yes. He says, 'I don't think
you are the man I wanted. I came out here from the
Vlll
East a few years back with a Mr. Lonergan, and I thought
he was the one that might have been elected.' I said, 'No,
you are mistaken, it is the other one,' or something like
that. He then incidentally told me he was connected with
the Pacific States Telephone Company, and would be pleased
to take me around their works at any time that I would
find it convenient. I answered him as well as I recall now,
that I possibly would take it in some time. I subsequently
went to the telephone company's office. To the best of
my recollection I saw Mr. Kraus in the meantime before
going there, and made an appointment with him. I don't
well remember meeting him at the telephone company's
office. I think v>iiere I met him was on the corner of
Mason and ]\Iarket or Powell and Market, one or the
other, around there. That was by appointment. Then I
went with him to the telephone company's plant on Bush
street, I think, out in the Western Addition at that time.
He took me through the works, showing me the works and
the arrangements in connection with it, and how they
treated their help, and stated to me thej^ were installing
another new plant, I forget now whether it was one or
two or more. After we left there I had lunch with Mr.
Kraus. I don't well remember where. He spoke about an
opposition compau}'- in that talk. The opposition company
was spoken of, considering the appliances they had, and
the amount of work they were then doing, and the new
switchboards they would put in, that it didn't appear neces-
sary to have an opposition company here. Mr. Kraus paid
for the lunch, I believe.
"I am acquainted with Mr. T. V. Halsey. I first met
him, I think, either on Pine or Bush street, to the best of
my recollection. I. N. Copus introduced me to him. To
the best of my recollection it was some time after meeting
Kraus and before I took office as Supervisor. That meeting
was by appointment. Mr. Copus made the appointment I
believe. To the best of my recollection that was my first
meeting with Mr. Halsey. I think I was introduced to him
by Mr. Copus at the time and place of the meeting. We
adjourned to lunch at a restaurant that we were standing
in front of. We went upstairs in the restaurant, had some
lunch. Nothing particular was spoken of there outside of
the current topics. The room we lunched in was not a
public dining room. It was a private room. Copus went
up to lunch v/ith us. I believe Mr. Halsey paid for the
lunch. We were there possibly an hour or an hour and a
half. We had Sauterne wine to drink, as well as I remem-
ber. The next time I saw Halsey to the best of my recol-
IX
lection was at his office on Bush street, in the telephone
building there. It was some time between the 12th and
14th and the 20th of February, 1906, I should judge. I
think I went there on that occasion on the invitation of
Mr. Kraus, as well as I remember, that Mr. Halsey would
like to see me. I found Halsey when I got there. I am
not conversant with the building; I suppose the part of the
building I met him in was his office. I don't remember
whether there was any one else in the room. I had a talk
with him in there. No one else was present while I was
talking with him that I am aware of. Mr. Halsey, as well
as I remember, spoke to me about the foolishness of having
a second telephone system in San Francisco. He told me
the same as Mr. Kraus had told me — all they had accom-
plished, and that they were going to accomplish, and that
it would cost merchants twofold for the other telephone,
and they wanted to know if I would not be friendly toward
them. I told him I was deeply impressed with the work-
ings as I had seen them, and that I felt that I could be
friendly to them. I cannot remember the exact words he
then said at the time. The substance of it was that it
would be to my interest to be friendly, or rather, that they
would make it to my interest to be friendly to them, and
I was told — I think it was at that meeting — that there
would be five thousand dollars in it for my friendship
down, and $2,500 the following year, provided I did not
accept a commission, or any such thing as that while I
remained a member of the Board of Supervisors. To the
best of my recollection at that time I received from him
one thousand dollars in currency. I put it in my pocket
and took it home. The next time I saw Mr. Halsey was
some few days later. It was the Saturday previous to the
passing to print of the ordinance relative to the Home
Telephone Company. That meeting was held in a room in
the Mills Building. I cannot well recollect whether I was
telephoned for or not; I possibly must have been. The
meeting was up in the building some few stories. To the
best of my recollection it was on the side of the building
that looked out on Bush street, and not very far from the
corner of Montgomery street. T found Mr. Kraus there
when I went in. There was no one else in the room
where Kraus was. That room was furnished with a table
and a couple of chairs. Well, he asked me if he could
depend upon me as to my friendship in regard to the
Pacific States Telephone Company, and I told him T saw
no reason why he could not. T don't remember whether
anything was said about the Home Telephone Company
franchise. There may have been. I can't recollect just at
this moment. He told me that he had a sufficiency of the
members of the Board of Supervisors, to the best of my
recollection, who were friendly towards the Pacific States,
and that they did not particularly need Mr. Coffey, except
that I had spoken well of him, and depending on my
friendship, he gave me the four thousand dollars in cur-
rency. During our conversation I had mentioned Mr. Coffey
as a friend of mine that I thought was particularly friendly
towards them. I don't well remember whether he then said
he would see Mr. Coffey, or not, or whether he made
answer. I do remember that he said at the latter meeting
that they did not particularly need him, that he had a
sufficiency of the members. I took it home and gave it to
my wife.
"To the best of my recollection I next saw Mr. Halsey
at my home the latter end of the following week after I
got the money. No one else was present when he talked
with me. It was in the front room of my house."
Supervisor Michael W. Coffey was a hack driver. At
the Glass trial he told the manner in which the bribe-givers
approached him. He said:
"I have lived in San Francisco about forty years. I
have been in the carriage business driving a hack. I own
a hack of my own. My stand was on Fifth street, right
opposite the Mint. I was elected a member of the Board
of Supervisors in November, 1905, and took office early in
January, 1906. I am a married man. My family consists
of four girls and one boy. I am acquainted with T. V.
Halsey. I first met him some time in the month of De-
cember at my hackstand. I am acquainted with John
Kraus. I first met him about the same time. At the time
that I met Halsey at the hackstand, Kraus was with him.
I am not sure whether it was the first time, but probably
the second time. I think Mr. Kraus came to see me first,
and Mr. Halsey came with him afterwards. Well, he, Kraus,
just came up merely to introduce himself to me, and asked
me how business was. There was nothing said at the time
that he brought Halsey to me. There was nothing said
pertaining to telephone matters at that time, neither; it
was simply merely to give me an introduction and ask me
up to have a drink on the corner of Jessie and Fifth streets.
Nothing was said about the telephone service at that time.
I next met Halsey a few days afterwards. Both Halsey
and Kraus were there together at that time, and we spoke —
they spoke to me about my telephone service, both home
XI
and in the drugstore in front of which I had my hack-
stand, and asked me if the telephone service was satisfac-
tory. I told them it certainly was, that I couldn't find any
fault with either one. The drugstore 'phone I had nothing
at all to do with, any more than I had the privilege of
placing the number of the telephone upon my business
cards so that my friends could know where to find me in
case they wanted to telephone me. I paid for no service
on that 'phone at all. My hackstand was right in front of
the drugstore. I should judge Halsey and Kraus came
around there to see me between three times and a half-a-
dozen. I received telephone messages from Mr. Halsey
several times. He called me by 'phone, he telephoned to
the house, and to the stand, and wanted me to come down
to see him. I went down to see him one time. He after
that invited me around to the telephone company's offices,
to view the system, but I never accepted his offer, I never
went with him. The first occasion that I went down to
the telephone company's office to see him he extended me
an invitation to come around amongst the different branch
offices there to see the system, how it was working, and
show me the advantages of a one-system telephone. Kraus
was there on one occasion. Somewhere around in the
neighborhood of noon time, Mr, Kraus was there, and Mr.
Halsey asked me if I had lunch. I told him no, not at
that time, so he asked Mr. Kraus to take me out to lunch,
excusing himself on the ground of a previous engagement,
that he couldn't go to lunch, but he asked Mr. Kraus to
take me out to lunch and Mr. Kraus did so.
"I had a talk with Halsey in the Mills Building. I
can't exactly tell the date, but it was on a Saturday, in
and around noon time. I can't exactly fix the date. It
was some time, I think, in the month of February. We
caucused on the Sunday night, and it was Saturday, either
the week prior to the caucus or the day before the caucus.
This caucus was the Sunday prior to the passing of the
ordinance to print which was on a Monday. I went to the
Mills Building by telephone invitation of Mr. Halsey. When
I got down there I took the elevator and went up on, I
think, the seventh floor at the extreme end of the building,
on one of the rooms facing on Bush street, and the other
on Montgomery street. I found Mr. Halsey there and no
one else with him. To the best of my recollection there
was either a box or a chair and a table, and a telephone in
there, and no other furniture at all in the room. Mr. Halsey
when I went in, said, 'Good day, Mr. Coffey.' Said I, 'How
do you do, Mr. Halsey?' I says, 'Did you telephone for
Xll
me?' He says, 'Yes, I want you to be friendly with the
company,' and stepped into another room, the door leading
into the Montgomery street entrance, and then came out
with a parcel, a bundle, and handed it to me, and says,
*I would like to have your friendship for the company.' I
did not open the package at that time. Nothing was said
then about the Home Telephone Company's application for
the franchise. I took this package that he handed me home
and put it in a box in the room. I did not open it when
I got home, not at that time. Subsequently I did. When
I opened it I found in it five thousand dollars in United
States currency. That was very shortly after I had been in
the Mills Building on that occasion. I think it was a few
days after that. After putting this money in the box I
kept it there,"
GALLAGHER'S ORDER REMOVING LANGDON
FROM OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
(October 25, 1906.)
"To the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San
Francisco:
"Gentlemen — Pursuant to the provisions of the Charter of
the City and County of San Francisco, and especially in
pursuance of Sections 18 and 19 of Article XVI thereof, I,
James L. Gallagher, Mayor of the City and County of San
Francisco, do hereby suspend William H. Langdon, District
Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, and an
elected officer thereof, for cause, as hereinafter assigned and
specified, and I hereby notify you of such suspension and
the causes therefor, which are as hereinafter assigned and
specified.
"Said cause is contained in the following specifications,
which specifications I hereby also present to you as the
written charges against said William H. Langdon, District
Attorney as aforesaid, and I hereby present said specifica-
tions of causes of such suspension as written charges against
said William H. Langdon, District Attorney, suspended by
me as aforesaid.
"Specification 1:
"Neglect of Duty.
"In this, that for a period of about 30 daj^s prior to
the presentation of these charges the said William H. Lang-
don, District Attorney as aforesaid, has absented himself
Xlll
from the City and County of San Francisco, without leave,
and has neglected his official duties, being during that time
engaged in the canvass and campaign for the office of
Governor of the State of California.
"That during said time, owing to the recent disaster, a
large number of acts of violence have occurred at the
hands of criminals congregated in said city, resulting in
an excessive and unusual number of murders, maimings,
assassinations, assaults and other crimes of violence, tend-
ing to render the city unsafe and to injure its reputation,
yet the said District Attorney wilfully, without permission
from any of the public authorities of said city and county,
did absent himself a greater portion of said time from said
city and county, and so negligently conducted and per-
formed the duties of his said office as District Attorney as
to render no active or efficient assistance to said city and
county in the proper prosecution, detection or preventing
of any of said crimes, and during the main portion of said
period did leave his said office without the aid of his super-
intendence, direction or service, thereby being guilty of
inefficiency in such public office and being negligent and
inattentive in the performance of his public duties at a
time when the unusual activity of those engaged in crimes
of violence demanded and required his personal presence
and greatest personal activity to aid in preventing or at-
tempting to prevent, detecting or attempting to detect or
punish the said crimes or the persons guilty thereof.
"Specification 2:
"Neglect and Dereliction of Duty.
"In this, that during the period of about 30 days last
past, the newspapers of the City and County of San Fran-
cisco have published and proclaimed that the said William
H. Langdon, as District Attorney, and others co-operating
with him, were, and for months past had been, in the pos-
session of evidence sufficient to convict certain officials of
the city and county of serious crimes. These charges have
been repeated daily and within the knowledge and cogni-
zance of said District Attorney, and yet notwithstanding
said knowledge and said purposes, the said District Attor-
ney has failed to cause the arrest of any of said officials,
and if the charges so publicly made are and were not true,
the said District Attorney had knowledge of said falsity
and untruth, and yet notwithstanding said knowledge has
failed to cause the arrest of the publishers or editors of the
newspapers for publishing said statements for criminal libel.
"Specification 3:
XIV
"Neglect and Violation of Duty.
"That under the provisions of the Charter of the City
and County of San Francisco, it is part of the duty of the
District Attorney, when required, to advise the Board of
Police Commissioners, the Chief of Police, the Board of
Health, or the Coroner as to the matters relating to the
duties of their respective offices, yet notwithstanding said
official duty, the said William H. Langdon, as such District
Attorney, has entered into a combination and conspiracy
for political purposes and effect to bring unmerited discredit
upon said officials or some of them, and has failed to advise
them relative to their duties, and has assumed a_ position
and attitude inconsistent with his duty to the Police Com-
missioners and the Chief of Police, thereby tending tp im-
pair and demoralize the Police Department of said city at
a serious and critical time.
"Specification 4:
"Neglect and Violation of Duty.
"That the said William H. Langdon, being the District
Attorney of said City and County of San Francisco, as
aforesaid, during period above mentioned, in addition to
neglecting his public duties, as above set forth, instead of
aiding the authorities of said city and county, did on the
contrary engage in and assist in a combination in the
interest of certain insurance corporations and other persons
to injure and defame the character of the Chief Executive
of this city, Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz, in substance as
follows:
"A large number of German insurance companies, having
lost many millions of dollars by the conflagration of April
18, 1906, having denied their liability, Eugene E. Schmitz,
Ma3'-or of the City and County of San Francisco, deemed it
advisable in the interest of the upbuilding and rehabilitating
of the city, to visit the German Empire in his official
capacity for the purpose of stating the true facts concern-
ing said conflagration to the home officials of said com-
panies and to use his personal influence wherever the same
would be available in the German Empire, with a view to
cause the said insurance companies to pay the said losses;
and deeming said matter one of great public interest, the
said Mayor did obtain from the Board of Supervisors a
leave of absence from the Cit}^ and County of San Francisco
for a period of 60 days from October 1, 1906; and after he
left on said mission, a combination, plot and plan was
formed for the purpose of defaming and injuring and weak-
ening the standing and reputation of said Eugene E.
XV
Schmitz, in order that his said attempts might be discredited
and to destroy whatever influence the Chief Executive of
thiscity might have in dealing with the said insurance com-
panies at their home offices and in obtaining influence
abroad to compel said companies to properly recognize their
obligations; and that as a part of said scheme, it was
determined to print and publish in the newspapers of San
Francisco charges against the said Mayor which were false,
malicious and slanderous and known so to be by the par-
ties engaged in said scheme, and among other things said
persons so engaged did cause it to be published that the
Chief Executive of this city was a fugitive from justice
and had absconded from the City and County of San Fran-
cisco; and that the said William H. Langdon, as District
Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, and
acting in his capacity as such, did aid, assist and abet and
further the said scheme as aforesaid, and has become and
is an active party thereto to the end that said Mayor should
be induced to return to San Francisco to defend himself
against such charges before he could have time to accom-
plish the said purpose for which he went to said German
Empire,
"Specification 5:
"Violation of Duty and Use of Office for Ulterior Purposes.
"That during the fall of 1905, one Francis J. Heney, in
a public speech in said city and county, aspersed the char-
acter and good name of a prominent citizen of this com-
munity, and stated that he knew him to be corrupt, and
said citizen having instantly demanded that said Heney be
compelled to make proof of said assertions and said Heney
having been compelled to appear before the Grand Jury of
said City and County of San Francisco v/ith reference
thereto, there admitted that he had made such statements
without any personal knowledge regarding the same, which
facts were widely published at the time, and brought said
Heney into obloquy and contempt, from which time said
Heney had been possessed of a purpose to effect a personal
revenge both against the object of his false charges and
against Eugene E. Schmitz, Mayor of San Francisco, and
all of these facts were and are well known to said William
H. Langdon, as District Attorney as aforesaid; yet not-
withstanding said knowled!G:e and within the month of
October, 1906, the said William H. Langdon, in order to
enable said Heney to use public office, position and povver
tc gratify his spirit of revenge and malice, did appoint
said Heney Assistant District Attorney of said city and
XVI
county, and did turn over to him the powers of office of
said District Attorney in order that he might gratify his
private revenge and malice.
"Specification 6:
"That prior to such appointment as such Assistant Dis-
trict Attorney, said Francis J. Heney had publicly assailed
the Judges of the Superior Court of the city and county as
corrupt and crooked, and had denounced all or nearly all
of them as dishonest and corrupt, and yet has failed at any
time to make proof of such charges, which facts were all
well known to said William H. Langdon, District Attorney
as aforesaid, from the time of the utterance, which was long
anterior to the time of said Heney's appointment by said
Langdon, and said Langdon also knew that said Heney
frequently, while intoxicated, made grave and serious
charges involving the personal character of citizens of this
city, yet notwithstanding such knowledge said William H.
Langdon did appoint said Heney to such office, knowing
that the said Heney in such office would be required to
appear before the Judges whose character he had thus
aspersed, and to practice in their courts, did appoint said
Heney to said office, which appointment is not conducive to
the proper co-operation which should exist between the
Judges of the Superior Court and the office of District
Attorney.
"Specification 7:
"That said Francis J. Heney at and prior to the time of
his appointment as Assistant District Attorney was the
representative of the corporation controlling the street car
system of said city and county in a certain dispute be-
tween said corporation and its employes. That the appoint-
ment of said Heney to said office will, in regard to the
enforcement of law against said corporation, be prejudicial
and detrimental to the interests of said city and county.
"Specification 8:
"That prior to the turning over of said District Attor-
ney's office and its powers to said Francis J. Heney, as
hereinabove specified, the City and County of San Francisco
had intended to procure its own water supply and thereby
to prevent the exorbitant charges for water now exacted
by the private corporation controlling the city's water
supply, and that it was about to take proceedings to pro-
vide a safe and secure supply of water for said City and
County of San Francisco for domestic use, extinction of
conflagrations, etc., and that such purpose was greatly to
XVll
the interest of said City and County of San Francisco,
That said corporation now supplying water to said city and
county is bitterly opposed to the acquiring of a water sup-
ply to the City and County of San Francisco on account
of its present monopoly.
"Said Francis J. Heney has been and is attorney em-
ployed by said Water Company, and his attorneyship for
such company is inconsistent with the holding of a place
as Assistant District Attorney, and against the best inter-
ests of the people of San Francisco.
"Specification 9:
"That in the interest of the corporations and persons
before mentioned, or some or all of them, together with
persons unknown, large sums of money have been and are
being raised for the purpose of slandering, defaming and
injuring the reputation of said Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz,
and of suborning perjury against him, thereby injuring the
interests of said city and county and its residents and
inhabitants; and said William H. Langdon as such District
Attorney, knowing said facts, by the appointment of said
Heney, is knowingly aiding and abetting the said plot and
scheme.
"Specification 10:
"Violation of Duty and Ulterior Use of Office.
"That since the appointment of said F. J. Heney as an
Assistant District Attorney of the City and County of San
Francisco by said William H. Langdon, the said Langdon
and the said Heney have caused to be published or have
been parties to the publication of open and covert threats
against the Superior Judges of the City and Count}^ of San
Francisco for the purpose of influencing the judicial action
of said Judges.
"Specification 11:
"That the appointment of said Heney as such Assistant
District Attorney was made by said Langdon in furtherance
of the combination aforesaid, and at the dictation of cer-
tain newspaper influences and individuals, who have con-
tributed many thousands of dollars to further the political
ambitions and aspirations of said William H. Langdon and
other persons, and to secure through the appointment of
said Heney the consummation of a political plan and the
wreaking of their private revenges against Eugene E.
Schmitz, Mayor of San Francisco, and the Board of Super-
visors and the Police Department of the City and County
of San Francisco and their political supporters, and to
generally disrupt the business and proper government of
16
XVlll
this city, and also for the purpose of attempting to influ-
ence the ensuing election. And said combination is also in
pursuance of a well-defined and organized plan for the
purpose of controlling and subjugating the labor market
and the wage-earners.
"And the said William H. Langdon turned over said
ofllice of District Attorney as aforesaid to said Francis J.
Heney with the intent and purpose and with the under-
standing that said Francis J. Heney would and should
abuse such position, and use his said position as a deputy
in a substantial control of said office of District Attorney
to gratif}'^ his own private and personal revenge, and also
with the intent that said Francis J. Heney, through said
office, should produce before the Grand Jury of said city
and county illegal and hearsay evidence which by law said
Grand Jury is forbidden to act upon, and procure such
Grand Jury to return indictments against innocent citizens
of said city and county upon such illegal and hearsay evi-
dence for the purpose of gratifying the private revenge of
said Francis J. Heney and the political ambitions of said
William H. Langdon. And said William H. Langdon also
further turned over said office and power to said Francis J.
Heney with the intent and purpose that said Francis J.
Heney in such position should advise such Grand Jury that
matters and acts not constituting an offense at law were
indictable ofifenses, and thus and thereby falsely and un-
lawfully procure indictments against innocent citizens of
said cit3/ and county.
"Specification 12:
"That in addition to the purposes hereinabove specified
as a foundation and reason for the acts set forth, that all
the acts hereinabove charged and set forth as having been
done, aided, abetted, procured or assisted by said William
H. Langdon as said District Attorney, were so done and
performed by said William H. Langdon as such District
Attorney to promote his own political ambitions and upon
and at the eve of an election about to occur in the State
of California, at which said William H. Langdon is a can-
didate for Governor, all with intent to deceive and mislead
electors and voters and to procure an increased vote for
himself as such candidate for Governor.
"Inefficiency in the office of District Attorney, and
neglect on the part of the District Attorney and his office
to perform the duties of his office.
"Date-d, San Francisco, October 25, 1906.
"JAMES L. GALLAGHER,
"Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco."
XIX
THE RUEF "IMMUNITY CONTRACT."
The "immunity contract" given Ruef was as follows:
"Whereas, Abraham Ruef of the City and County of San
Francisco has agreed to impart to the District Attorney of
the City and County of San Francisco, State of California,
a full and fair statement and disclosure, so far as known to
him, of all crimes and offenses involved in the so-called
'graft' prosecutions or investigations now and heretofore
conducted by said District Attorney by whomsoever such
offenses or crimes may have been committed, and has agreed
in making such disclosure and statement to state fully and
wholly all the facts and circumstances known to him in,
about, and surrounding the same, and in making such state-
ment and disclosure to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth;
"Now, Therefore, In consideration of the premises it is
agreed by the undersigned that if said A. Ruef shall do said
things and immediately make such full and fair disclosure
of all such crimes and offenses involved in the so-called
'graft' prosecutions and investigations above referred to, and
known to him, and shall state and disclose to the under-
signed the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, and shall make full and fair disclosure of all said
crimes and offenses known to him, and of all the facts and
circumstances in, about and surrounding the same and known
to him, and shall at all times whenever called .upon, before
any court, testify in regard thereto and to the whole thereof
fully and fairly, together with all the facts and circumstances
surrounding the same, so far as the same are known to him,
and shall state, tell and testify on oath the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth therein, then and in that
event the undersigned, deeming it to be in the interests of
public justice, and believing that said A. Ruef will thereby
be equitably entitled to such consideration in accordance
with the time-honored custom and practice of prosecuting
officers in both State and Federal jurisdictions throughout
this country, and in line with common law precedents.
"1. Will grant and obtain for said A. Ruef full and
complete immunity from prosecution or punishment for all
and any of said offenses and crimes involved in said so-
called 'graft' prosecutions or investigations, and will not
prosecute him for any thereof.
"2. Will cause said A. Ruef to be jointly and not other-
wise indicted with all and any others against whom indict-
ments have heretofore been or may hereafter be returned
or found for or upon any crimes or offenses in which said
XX
Ruef has participated or is alleged to have participated to
this date; provided, however, that the undersigned shall not
be bound to include any of the present members of the
Board of Supervisors in any such indictments.
"3. Will, as any one of said joint indictments relating
to a specific subject matter shall be taken up for trial, after
the jury has been impaneled and sworn to try the same,
dismiss the same and all other indictments and charges on
the same general subject matter as against the said Ruef,
under the provisions of section 1099 of the Penal Code of
the State of California, and will at the same time dismiss
all indictments relating to the same general subject matter,
which are now pending against said Ruef singly.
"Any and all indictments or charges upon any general
subject matter of which one shall not have been brought
to trial before December 31st, 1907, shall be dismissed as
to said Ruef and said Ruef discharged on or before Decem-
ber 31st, 1907, under the provisions of section 1099 of the
Penal Code where applicable, or under provisions of other
sections of said code in cases where said section 1099 shall
not be applicable.
"It is however expressly agreed that in any event all in-
dictments and charges now pending or hereafter to be
brought against said Ruef (except action No. 305 which is
herein otherwise provided for) shall be dismissed as against
said Ruef under the provisions of section 1099 of the Penal
Code where the same may be applicable and when said
section is not applicable shall be dismissed under other
provisions of the Code, all prior to December 31st, 1907;
provided, the undersigned District Attorney shall not be
re-elected as such District Attorney in November, 1907. and,
in any event, prior to said District Attorney resigning or
otherwise surrendering or giving up his office or terminating
his tenure thereof, it being the understandincr and agree-
ment that each and every indictment and charge now pend-
ing or hereafter to be brought against said E.uef shall be
absolutely dismissed.
"Provided, that said Ruef shall have fully per^-'-med so
far as may have been in his power the spirit and letter of
his agreement herein.
"4. All and any indictments or charges which are to be
found or returned against said Ruef jointly or othervvise.
shall be returned and found not later than October 1st, 1907,
unless hereafter otherv-ise mutually agreed.
"5. In the event of the prosecution of said Ruef by any
other officer or person on account of any of such crimes or
offenses committed or participated in or alleged to have
XXI
been committed or participated in by said Ruef to this date,
the undersigned will employ every legitimate influence and
power to secure a dismissal thereof, and in the event that a
conviction shall be had in any thereof, the undersigned
hereby agree to apply to the Governor of the State of Cali-
fornia for the pardon of said Ruef therefor or therein and to
use all legitimate influence and power to secure such pardon.
"6. It is understood and agreed that, notwithstanding
the scope and effect of the language used throughout this
agreement, it does not and shall not be construed to apply
in any respect or particular to that certain indictment No.
305, or the ofTense charged therein, which is now pending
against said Abraham Ruef jointly with Eugene E. Schmitz,
in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Fran-
cisco, State of California, in Department No. 6 thereof.
"Dated, May 8th, 1907.
_ "WM. H. LANGDON,
"District Attorney of the City
and County of San Francisco.
"FRANCIS J. HENEY,
"Assistant District Attorney of the
City and County of San Francisco.
"Agreed to:
"A. RUEF."
"IMMUNITY CONTRACT" GIVEN SUPERVISORS.
"San Francisco, Cal., July 30, 1907.
"Whereas, James L. Gallagher, E. J. Walsh, F. P. Nich-
olas, C. J. Harrigan, Max Mamlock, J. J. Furey, Jennings
Phillips, Thomas F. Lonergan, James F. Kelly, L. A. Rea,
W. W. Sanderson, Daniel C. Coleman, Sam Davis, A. M.
Wilson, M. F. Cofifey, all of the City and County of San
Francisco, State of California, have each made to me a
disclosure of certain crimes and offenses committed by him-
self, and by himself jointly with others and by others, which
he claims to be a full and fair disclosure thereof, so far as
known to him.
"Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises, deem-
ing it to be in the interest of public justice, and believing
that each of the above-named parties will thereby become
equitably entitled to such consideration, in accordance with
the time-honored custom and practice of prosecuting officers,
in both State and Federal jurisdictions throughout this
country, and in line with common law precedence, it is
XXll
agreed by me that if he has made a full and fair disclosure
of all of such crimes and offenses and has stated to me the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and if he
shall whenever called upon to do so by me, or by any
other officer on behalf of the People of the State of Cali-
fornia, to again make a full and fair disclosure of such
crimes and offenses, together with the facts and circum-
stances surrounding the same and the persons therein in-
volved, in any cause, action or proceeding whatever in
regard thereto, fully and fairly, together with the facts and
circumstances surrounding said crimes and offenses and the
persons involved, and tell and testify the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth, then, and in that event,
each one of them who so does shall not be prosecuted,
complained against or indicted for any of said crimics or
offenses, or his connection therewith.
"It is understood that the making or verif3^ing of any
affidavit or answer in the case of 'Langdon vs. Ruef. et al.,'
heretofore brought in the Superior Court of this city and
county, is included in this agreement; and it is further
understood that Fred P. Nicholas shall not be further prose-
cuted in the case now pending against him in which he is
under indictment in this city and county, upon the charge
of accepting and agreeing to accept a bribe from one
Holmes.
"Signed: W. K. Langdon, District Attorney; Frsnci": J.
Heney, Asst. Dist. Atty. Witness: James L. Gallagher."
The People vs. Ruef, page 1382.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY LANGDON'S PLAN FOR RE-
ORGANIZING THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
(See Chapter XVII.)
"San Francisco, July 9, 1907. — To the San Francisco
Labor Council, the Merchants' Association, the Building
Trades Council, the Chamber of Comjnerce, the Board of
Trade, the Real Estate Board and the Txlerchants' Exchange:
Gentlemen — We respectfully submit to your consideration
and ask your co-operation in the carrying out of the fol-
lowing proposed plan for the selection of a Ma3^or of the
City and County of San Francisco for the unexpired term
of Eugene E. Schmitz, who, having been elected Mayor of
the City and County of San Francisco in November, 1905.
was on the 13th day of June, 1907, convicted of a felony:
to v.'it, of the crime of extortion, by a jury in Department
XXlll
No. 6 of the Superior Court of the City and County of
San Francisco, State of California. Thereafter, upon the
8th day of July, 1907, judgment upon the conviction was
duly pronounced and entered, by which a sentence was
imposed of five years' imprisonment in the State Prison at
San Quentin.
"The Political Code of this State, and the charter of the
City and County of San Francisco, both provide that the
office becomes vacant when the incumbent is convicted of a
felony, and in several decisions our Supreme Court has held
that the words 'convicted of a felony,' signify the verdict
of a jury. That court has also held that this provision of
the code and charter is self-acting, and that the vacancy
is created 'eo instanti,' upon the happening of the event,
and that all that is necessary is for the appointing power
to fill the vacancy thus created. By virtue of the conviction
of Eugene E. Schmitz, the office of Mayor of the City and
County of San Francisco became vacant. Upon the 9th day
of July, 1907, the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to the
charter, elected as Mayor to fill the vacancy thus created
Dr. Charles Boxton. This action was taken to avoid legal
complications in the interim, before a permanent selection
of Mayor could be made, and it is thoroughly well under-
stood that the selection of Dr. Charles Boxton is merely
temporary.
"The conditions surrounding the present Board of Super-
visors have been so completely explained, through the public
press, that it is unnecessary to go into further detail in that
regard than to say that Dr. Boxton has offered to resign
his office as Mayor, as soon as a suitable successor has
been found. In the present unprecedented condition of the
municipal government, circumstances have made it the duty
of the District Attorney, in the interest of the public wel-
fare, to take the initiative, in the endeavor to find such a
successor.
"It is the desire of the District Attorney as speedily as
possible to confine the operations of his office entirely to
those duties ordinarily incumbent upon it. The next election
for city officers takes place in November of this year, but
the situation of the city government, and the material con-
ditions obtaining in the city with regard to necessary public
improvements, render it absolutely indispensable that we
proceed with the utmost energy to obtain for the office of
Mayor a man of unblemished integrity and great executive
ability. . ,. . ,
"The District Attornev and his associates, realizing that
the selection of a Mayor 'to fill the unexpired term in ques-
XXIV
tion shonld be made by as representative a body of the
people as possible, have deemed it wise to call together a
convention that will be, as nearly as circumstances and the
time at our disposal permit, fairly representative of _ the
community at large. For that purpose they have decided
to call together a convention composed of thirty delegates,
fifteen of v/hom shall represent labor, and the remaining
fifteen shall represent employers generally.
''It is, of course, impossible on account of the limited
time at our disposal to accord representation to all the
organized bodies in the city entitled to the same. All that
we can reasonably be expected to do is to make a sincere
and earnest efifort to have the convention composed of
delegates from such well-known organized bodies, large and
varied in membership, that the people generally will be
satisfied that the plan of selection is fair, reasonable and
democratic.
"The prosecution in the graft cases feels that^ it is
highly desirable to keep politics out of the organization of
the city government as much as possible until the people,
in the manner ordained by law, have an opportunity at the
ballot-box again to express their will directly.
"We address this communication and invitation to the
following bodies, to wit: The San Francisco Labor Coun-
cil, the ^Merchants' Association, the Building Trades Council,
the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade, the Real
Estate Board and the Merchants' Exchange. We respect-
fully request the foregoing associations to send delegates
to the proposed convention on the following basis of appor-
tionment, that is to say, that the two bodies representing
labor shall select fifteen delegates, eight of whom shall be
selected by the San Francisco Labor Council and seven by
the Building Trades Council, and the remaining fifteen
mem.bers of the convention shall be selected, three each, by
the remaining five bodies above mentioned.
"It will be appreciated that it is necessary to impose a
time limit within which the selection of delegates shall be
made, and the subsequent nomination of a Mayor by the
convention shall be accomplished. In that view we ask that
a response to this invitation, containing the names of the
delegates selected, be delivered to the District Attorney's
office. 2181 Fillmore street, on or before Saturday, July 13,
1907. and that the Mayor be nominated within five days
thereafter. The success of this plan, in our judgment, de-
pends absolutely upon the harmonious co-operation of all
sections of our people, who, we believe, are^ fairly repre-
sented bv one or more of the foregoing associations. Con-
XXV
sequently we deem it essential to prescribe as a condition
for the assembling of the proposed convention that this
invitation shall be accepted by all of these bodies.
"This plan for the selection of a Mayor is the result of
most patient, thorough and anxious deliberation on the part
of those associated in the graft prosecution, and its single
purpose is to satisfy, so far as in our power, the desire of
all good citizens to sink factional and political differences
and choose for Mayor a man who will be generally recog-
nized and accepted -as representative of the whole people,
who will bring to all industrial disputes a spirit of con-
ciliation and harmony, and who will be possessed of the
capacity, energy and honesty needed in the great work of
rehabilitating our city and restoring it to normal conditions.
We desire that perfect freedom and independence of action
shall govern the convention from its inception to its close,
and accordingly the District Attorney and his associates will
wholly refrain from any participation after the convention
has assembled. I have the honor to be,
"Yours very truly,
"W. H. LANGDON, District Attorney."
ROOSEVELT'S LETTER TO SPRECKELS ON THE
GRAFT SITUATION.
"The White House, Washington, June 8, 1908.
"My Dear Mr. Spreckels — Now and then you and Mr.
Heney and the others who are associated with you must
feel down-hearted when you see men guilty of atrocious
crimes who from some cause or other succeed in escaping
punishment, and especially when }/ou see men of wealth,
of high business and, in a sense, of high social standing,
banded together against you.
"My dear sir, I want you to feel that your experience
is simply the experience of all of us who are engaged in
this fight. There is no form of slander and wicked false-
hood which will not as a matter of course be employed
against all men engaged in such a struggle, and this not
only on the part of men and papers representing the lowest
type of demagogy, but, I am sorry to say, also on the part
of men and papers representing the interests that call them-
selves pre-eminently conservative, pre-eminently cultured.
"In such a struggle it is too often true that the feeling
against those engaged in it becomes peculiarly bitter, not
merel}'' in the business houses of the great financiers who
directly profit by the wrongdoing, but also in the clubs, in
XXVI
certain newspaper offices where business interests exercise
an unhealthy control and, I regret to add, in other news-
paper offices v^^hich like to be considered as to a marked
degree the representatives of the cultivation and high social
standing of the country.
"Now, I do hope that you and your colleagues will treat
all this bitterness with entire disregard. It is of small con-
sequence to you, or to any of us who are engaged in this
work, whether men think well or ill of us personally; but
it is of very great consequence that we should do the work
without flinching, on the one hand, and on the other hand,
without losing our good-humored common sense, witiiout
becoming angered and irritated to a degree that will in any
way cause us to lose our heads.
"Therefore, I hope that you and Heney and your asso-
ciates will keep reasonably good-natured; but that above all
things 3^ou will not lose heart. You must battle on valiantly,
no matter what the biggest business men may say, no
matter what the mob may say, no matter what may be said
by that element which may be regarded as socially the
highest element. You must steadfastly oppose those foolish
or wicked men who would substitute class consciousness
and loyalty to class interest, for loyalty to American citi-
zenship as a whole, for loj^alt}'- to the immutable laws of
righteousness, of just and fair dealing as between man and
man.
"It is just as bad to be ruled by a plutocracy as by a
mob. It is profoundly un-Am.erican and, in a social sense,
profoundly imm^oral, to stand for or against a given man,
not because he is or is not a brave, upright and able man,
but because he does or does not belong to a labor union or
does or does not represent the big business interests. In
their essence, down at the foundation of things, the ties that
are all-important are those that knit honest men, brave
men, square-dealing men, together, and it is a micfht},'- poor
substitute if we replace these ties by those that bind men
together, whether the}'' are good or bad. simply because
they follow a particular business, have a given social stand-
ing or belong to a particular organization. It is an evil
and a dreadful thing for laboring men to endeavor to secure
the political dominance of labor unions by conniving at
crookedness or violence, by being 'loyal' to crooked labor
leaders, for to be 'loyal' to the fancied interests 0+ the
unions when the\^ are against the laws of morality and the
interests of the whole people m.eans ultimately the destruc-
tion of the unions themselves, as an incident to the destruc-
tion of all good citizenship.
XXVI 1
"But it is, if anything, an even more evil and dreadful
thing to have the merchants, the business men, the captains
of industry accessories to crime and shielders and support-
ers of criminals; it is an even more dreadful thing to see
the power of men high in State politics, high in finance,
high in the social life of the rich and fashionable, united
to stifle the prosecution of oft'enders against civic integrity
if these offenders happen to be their friends and associates;
and most evil of all is it when we see crooks of a labor
party in offensive and defensive alliance with the crooks of
a corporation party. Labor unions and corporations alike
should be heartily supported when they do good work, and
fearlessly opposed when they stand for what is evil. The
best kind of wage worker, the best kind of laboring man,
must stand shoulder to shoulder with the best kind of pro-
fessional man, with the best kind of business man, in put-
ting a stop to the undermining of civic decency, and this
without any regard to whether it is a labor union or a
corporation which is undermining it, without any regard
to whether the offender is a rich man or a poor man.
"Indeed, if there can be any degrees in the contemptuous
abhorrence with which right thinking citizens should regard
corruption, it must be felt in its m.ost extreme form for the
so-called 'best citizens,' the men high in business and social
life, v/ho by backing up or by preventing the punishment of
wealthy criminals set the seal of their approval on crime and
give honor to rich felons. The most pov/erful ally of lav^^-
lessness and mob violence is the man, whoever he may be,
politician or business man, judge or lawyer, capitalist or
editor, v,^ho in any way or shape works so as to shield
wealthy and powerful wrongdoers from the consequences of
their misconduct.
"You have heart-breaking difficulties with which to con-
tend. You have to fight not only the banded powers of
evil, but, alas, that it should be said, the supineness and
indifference of many good men upon whose zealous support
you had a right to -feel that yon could rely. Do not be
discouraged; do not flinch. You are in a fight for plain
decency, for the plain democracy of the plain people, who
believe in honesty and in fair dealing as between mn.n and
man. Do not become disheartened. Keep up the fight.
"Very sincerelv vours.
"THEODORE ROOSEVELT.
"Rudolph Spreckels, Esq.,
"San Francisco, Cal."
XXVlll
GOVERNOR JOHNSON'S STATEMENT REGARDING
RUEF'S IMPRISONMENT.
(See Chapter XXIX, page 453.)
Ever since Abraham Ruef was taken to San Quentin an
organized and systematic agitation has been carried on to
effect his release, and all that power, influence and money
and favorable publicity could do to manufacture public sen-
timent for him has been done. His case ha.s ever been be-
fore the people, and never since his confinement at San
Quentin has he been permitted to be in the category of
the ordinary prisoner.
Purposely have I heretofore refrained from any public
utterance upon the subject, and this for reasons that may
be obvious. Ruef's partisans now charge his failure to ob-
tain his release to me.
In so far as I have expressed my views to certain mem-
bers of the Prison Directors, and their views accord with
mine, I accept the responsibility.
I do not believe that Ruef should be paroled at this
time. I insist that he shall be treated just like any ordi-
nary prisoner, neither more harshly nor more leniently.
As vigorously as I am able, I demand that there shall
be no special privilege in the prisons of the State of Cali-
fornia, and that when special privilege _ has been banished
from every department of government, it shall not be per-
mitted, no matter what the power or threats, to creep into
our penitentiary.
The grossest injustice that could be committed against
the other 3,300 men confined in our State prisons^ would be
to single out the one rich, powerful and conspicuous of-
fender and, because of his riches and his influence, _ grant
him what is denied to the humble and friendless prisoner.
If prisons are to be maintained, and the system in vogue
continued, all prisoners must be treated exactly alike.
Since the parole law went into eft'ect, the Prison Direct-
ors have continuously acted under a rule which required,
save in exceptional cases, the service of half of the net
sentence before an application can be heard. In the Rob-
erts case, recently decided, the Supreme Court held this
rule to be illegal, but also held that paroles rested in the
absolute discretion of the Prison Directors, and that in de-
termining whether or not parole shall be _ granted, it was
the right and duty of the Board to take into account the
length of sentence, the time served, etc.
As I understand the attitude of the Directors, they in-
sist that in the matter of granting paroles, although appli-
cations may be made after one year, it is neither unjust
XXIX
nor unfair nor illegal that prisoners be required, save in
exceptional cases, to serve half the net sentence.
This rule is applicable to 3,300 prisoners, most of them
unknown and unheard of. It is demanded that another
rule be made for Ruef.
Ruef's sentence was fourteen years. His net sentence
will be eight years and ten months. Half of the net sen-
tence will be four years and five months. He was received
in San Quentin about March, 1911. If required to serve
half his net sentence, presumably he will be paroled about
August, 1915. Purposely, apparently, misapprehension has
been created about the recent parole of Dalton. Dalton
desired to be liberated before half his net sentence had
been served, and was not. He was granted a parole at the
last meeting of the Prison Directors, which takes effect
some months after the completion of half of his net sen-
tence.
The Recent Action of the Prison Board.
In behalf of the parole of Ruef it is insisted that any
man is entitled as a matter of right to a parole after one
year's imprisonment. I will not subscribe to this doctrine.
It has been asserted that the Supreme Court has so de-
cided. This is not true. The Supreme Court simply deter-
mined that after one year the prisoner had the right to
make his application, but that his parole rested absolutely
thereafter in the discretion of the Prison Board.
At the last meeting of the Prison Directors 78 men ap-
plied for parole, Ruef among them. None of these had
served half his net time and this fact was known to all the
members of the Prison Board. To four members of the
Prison Board before that time every application had been
presented with the history of the case, and with all the
facts that had been filed concerning it. Every man, prison
director or other, knows the facts of the Ruef case. The
78 were all denied parole. When the Ruef people assert
he had no hearing, they mean he had no such hearing as
Ruef desired. When they shout that his case was not con-
sidered, they mean not considered as Ruef demanded. If
the hearing had been as Ruef and his partisans had staged
it; if Ruef had delivered an oration, taken down by the
shorthand reporter, brought for the purpose; if Ruef had
dominated the entire situation, and the Directors had
yielded to his power and his influence; if Ruef had been
paroled, what a virtuous and glorious Prison Board it
would have been! But the hearing being otherwise than
had been staged, the determination being other than what
the power of Ruef demanded, the Prison Board is abused
XXX
and denounced; not denounced or abused because 11 other
men were not paroled (they are unknown, poor, helpless,
without friends), but abused and denounced because one
man, Ruef, v/as not paroled; because one man, Ruef, was
treated exactly as all others were treated.
The Charge of Bitterness and Vengeance.
I resent any imputation of bitterness or revenge on my
part toward Ruef. I have neither. More than two years
ago I expressed what I write to-day — that for the sake of
society and the unfortunates confined in prison, Ruef must
be treated like all others similarly situated. To yield be-
cause of fear to the persuasion, cajolery or the threats of
a powerful prisoner, is to cause the iron to enter the soul
of every obscure and friendless prisoner, and to make every
other one of the 3,300 men in our jails know that even in
prisons class distinctions prevail, and to add to the bitter-
ness and the hopelessness of men confined.
The bitterness and revenge are on the other side of
this controversy. It has become necessary to make this
statement because of the unmerited abuse of the Prison
Board, and because some individuals, while begging mercy
for Ruef, have without mercy sought Ruef's release by
threats of annihilation and destruction of all opposed.
The Plea That the Past Be Forgotten.
Often w^e hear that Ruef is the only one who has been
punished of those guilty of the particular crimes of which
he was a part, and that for this reason should be liberated.
If three men committed a murder, two escape and are
never found, and the third is convicted, ought he to be re-
leased because he is the only one punished?
It is unnecessary', however, to discuss this phase of the
case. After conviction and imprisonment, if clemency be
asked, ordinarily the only question that can be considered
is whether the prisoner is guilty or innocent. Does any
person claim Ruef to be innocent? If guilty, then to him
must apply the usual prison discipline and rules.
There is to-day in the same prison with Ruef a poor,
uneducated, friendless Greek, the product of the graft prose-
cution just as Ruef is. Claudianes is serving a life sentence
for dynamiting Gallagher's residence and almost murdering
seven people. Claudianes v/as paid to do the dynamiting
that Gallagher might be put out of the way. He was the
ignorant, sodden instrument of men who would not stop
even at murder; but he was only the miserable tool after
all. No appeal has been made to me for Claudianes. No
petitions have been presented in his behalf, no organized
XXXI
effort for his release, no threats of political annihilation
unless clemency be extended to him. Why? Is it because
Claudianes is unknown, ignorant, friendless, moneyless?
The Unjust Charge of Racial Prejudice.
Every cheap politician has been quick to seize upon the
Ruef case and endeavor to make political capital for himself
or create hostility to me out of it. Among the baseless
and outrageous things that have been published is that
Ruef is not granted special privileges and immunities be-
cause of racial prejudice. When Ruef was denied parole,
denied with him were men of many races. No one has
claimed that these were denied parole because of race
prejudice.
In San Quentin to-day are thirty-one Jews. Thirteen
of these, for one reason or another, have at times lost their
privileges. Is it possible that Ruef is the only man to be
considered? No complaint is made for the thirty-one, or
for the thirteen. Since February 1, 1912, twenty-seven Jews
have been paroled from San Quentin. Six of these have
been returned for violations of parole. In relation to the
twenty-seven or the six there has been neither outcry nor
protest nor publicity nor effort of any sort. Why the as-
tounding, organized effort and publicity campaign for Ruef
alone?
The appointments that have been made by this adminis-
tration include Rabbi Meyer, H. Weinstock, Paul Sins-
heimer, Simon Lubin, Miss Steinhart, Julius Jacobs, E.
Franklin, Louis Frankenheimer, A. Sapiro, Jacob Alexander,
A. Bonnheim, Miss Peixotto, Judge Cerf and many others.
No list of more able and patriotic men and women in the
service of any State could be furnished than this.
Is Ruef the sole test of every question?
To two j'^oung men of Jewish faith lately have been
granted pardons. No tremendous petitions loaded down
with the names of politicians, no extraordinary publicity
was presented in their behalf.
Is there no man in the list of appointees to whom in
pride we may all yield our praise? Is there no man among
the 3,300 prisoners in San Quentin and Folsom who justly
can arouse efforts in his behalf? Or is the sole test of
official action by the Prison Directors of California or the
Chief Executive of the State to be the disregard of every
other man's rights and the granting to Ruef alone of a
privilege that none other enjoys?
California Prisons To-day.
In the discussion that has ensued from the Ruef case
XXXll
and because of the Ruef case, the prisons have been said
to be the one part of the present administration that is
not progressive, and that they are yet a relic of the Herrin
machine. Nothing could be further from the fact. I chal-
lenge contradiction of the following statements:
California is in the forefront of all the States in the
management of her prisons. In matters of food, shelter,
clothing, employment, recreation, medical attention, oppor-
tunities for education, general freedom consistent with dis-
cipline, encouragement of decent tendencies, and in the
number of paroles (although these have been granted under
the half term rule), no State has gone further.
Within the past three years the strait-jacket, the water-
cure and the hooks, once so freely used, have not been
tolerated. Every form of corporal punishment has been
abolished. When prisoners are received the effort is made
to get the history of the crime and possible cause of it,
and then to apply corrective measures intelligentl}'. As
soon as received, every newcomer is given a thorough phys-
ical examination and his teeth are looked after by a den-
tist. It not infrequenth' happens that the first place a man
is quartered in is the hospital. Special attention is given
to tuberculars, alcoholics and dope fiends. Wassermann
tests are made for the slightest indication of blood taint,
and the best treatment afforded. After the physician and
dentist conclude their examinations, the new-comer is turned
over to the Director of Education, who endeavors to take
the man's mental measurement and get at his moral status.
There are now 200 pupils in the day school at San Quen-
tin, and three rooms of thirty each in the night school.
The educational facilities are being constantly increased.
Two hundred and twenty-six are enrolled in the academic
courses with the University of California and by cor-
respondence are receiving their training from our great
institutions of learning. The State Use system, which w-as
enacted in 1911, furnishes work in industries for the State.
In the matter of food the State purchases the best and
the rations issued are abundant. Sanitary conditions are a
model in the newlj' constructed portions of the prison and
the best possible in the old construction.
In the last three 3'ears 1372 paroles have been granted
by this harsh, cruel and outrageous Prison Board, as against
1132 granted in all the years from 1893 to 1910 inclusive.
The paroles have been granted, however, justly. Because
one was not granted unjustly and unfairly, the record of
the Prison Board counts for naught.
I have purposely refrained from discussing the character
XXXlll
of Ruef's crimes or any matters extraneous to the one issue
presented. I have tried to make clear that I believe Ruef
should be treated just as the least known prisoner is treated.
That his advocates wish him to be treated otherwise because
he is Ruef will be clear to any wlio will reflect that had
Ruef been paroled and the other 11 denied parole there
would have been no agitation; if Ruef were granted what
others were denied, there would be no fulminations against
the Prison Board and petty politicians would not have
seized upon recent events to bow and scrape and bend and
crawl to the organized power of Ruef.
SCHMITZ'S ATTEMPT TO CONTROL SAN FRAN-
CISCO RELIEF FUNDS.
In the early part of June, 1906, it was agreed that a
committee consisting of Benjamin Ide Wheeler, Judge W.
W. Morrow and James D. Phelan should go to Washing-
ton, in order to interest Congress in some project for
financing the rebuilding of San Francisco.
Before their departure, Mayor Schmitz invited them and
other members of the Committee of Fifty to his residence,
where a luncheon was served. During the luncheon he
stated that the Board of Supervisors were about to resume
their public functions for which they were elected by the
people, and the private persons who were administering the
affairs of the city doubtless would employ their abilities
for the rehabilitation of their own business, and he sug-
gested that the relief fund be turned over to the Board of
Supervisors for distribution. Judge Morrow, Mr. Phelan and
others protested that it was not the function of the Super-
visors to distribute relief, and that there was a trust rela-
tionship existing between the donors and the finance com-
mittee of the Relief and Red Cross Funds. After the lunch-
eon, the Mayor handed Mr. Phelan his transportation, but
later in the afternoon Mr. Phelan, suspicious of his purpose,
sent word to the Mayor that he had decided to remain in
the city. He remained behind to protect the funds.
As subsequently developed in the graft investigations,
the Supervisors had accused the ]\Iayor of abandoning the
city government to his enemies, and insisted upon the en-
joyment of all the rights and privileges of their oftice, and
that the work of distributing relief at that time was the
principal business of the city.
17
XXXIV
RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS OF PROSECU-
TION FROM JUNE, 1906, TO MAY 17, 1909.
(As shown by testimouy taken at trial of Patrick Calhoun.)
RECEIPTS.
Subscription account $ 73,384.75
Subscription account R. Spreckels. 138,478.05
Cash received by W. J. Burns 1,278.70
Refunded by the Bulletin account Older case 250.00
$213,391.50
DISBURSEMENTS.
W. J. BURNS ACCOUNT: W. J. Burns account, per-
sonal, $12,357.45; office expenses, $1,911.43; office furniture,
$671.50; carriage hire, $27.25; auto hire, $2,700.75; auto ex-
pense, $4,162.36; traveling expense, $1,302.15; telegrams,
$797.79; The Bulletin, $309.55; incidentals, $158.50; paid for
account City and County of San Francisco, $223.52; detective
services, $70,572.65; detective expenses, $27,277.35; extra sal-
aries, $778.55. Total, $123,250.80.
F. J. HENEY ACCOUNT: Rent, $3,186.25; office ex-
pense, $1,522.02; private exchange and operator, $1,949.22;
telegrams, $316.82; postage and messenger expense, $280.26;
traveling expense, $118.45; office salaries, $8,684.67; office
furniture, $433.50; auto and carriage hire, $957.05; steno-
graphic and legal expense, $2,147.37; detective expense,
$4,232.61. Total, $23,828.22.
SUNDRY DISBURSEMENTS: P. Dolman, $5,087.65;
Hiram W. Johnson, $11,000.00; J. J. Dwyer, $13,400.00; C. W.
Cobb, $10,000.00; legal expense, official count for judges,
$191.50; George T. Cleary, $70.00; L. Kavanaugh, S506.20;
D. M. Duffy, $1,878.85; W. T. Burns, $17,195.00; Jas. Foley,
$1,010.00; Miler & Co., $40.00; automobiles, $5,100.00; auto
expense, $815.98. Total, $66,295.18.
Total disbursements $213,374.20
Balance, cash 17.30
$213,391.50
ITEMS, W. J. BURNS ACCOUNT.
Personal: Salary, $8,548.80; subsistence, $2,081.75; rent,
$1,726.90. Total, $12,357.45.
Office Expenses: Rent (R. L. Radke Co.), $935.00;
XXXV
telephone, P. S. T. & T. Co., $398.93; light and heat— E. D.
Fell, $25.00; W. G. Stafford, $8.00; mantels, $0.95— $33.95;
towels (Star Towel Sup. Co.), $15.80; newspapers, $46.40;
P. O. Box, U. S. A., $12.00; stamps, U. S. A., $20.40; Purity
Water Co., $12.00; advertising— Call, $1.60; Examiner, $3.40
— $5.00; car fare, $3.20; stationary — Library Bureau, $7.40;
Mysell-Rollins, $3.00; Barry Co., $9.75; Brown & Power,
$59.90; E. H. Wobber and others, $76.70— $156.75; typewriter
expense — Vaughn, $56.30; Revalk, $77.10; Underwood, $5.50
—$138.90; stenographic, $43.80 (L. F. Hurlburt, et al.);
incidentals — pans, $0.40; opening Marchand's safe, $10.00;
safe dep. Crocker, $6.00; painting floor, $1.00; N. Y. Ex-
change, $0.95; express charges, $8.40; keys, $3.25; paint,
$1.00; tel. directory, $1.50; stars (spec), $5.25; city directo-
ries, $9.00; elect, buzzer, $1.35; show cards (A. Unsworth),
$18.50; show card frames (Young & Rhodes), $2.00; whet-
stone, $0.70; hauling, $5.00; moving safe (Gorham & Thom-
as), $15.00— $89.30. Total office expenses, $1,911.43.
Office Furniture: Lamp, $3.55; two desk lamps, $7.80;
J. Breuner Co., $68.00; water heater, $19.20; Library Bureau,
$78.00; Ladd's Gun Store, $55,50; safe (Freeman, Brewster,
McCabe), $165.00; 2 gas heaters, $13.10; Spencer Desk Co.,
$37.50; Geo. Walcom (curtains) $3.35; E. Emerson (desk),
$10.00; Olympic Arms Co., $28.55; Library Bureau, $40.50;
L. & E. Emanuel, $12.00; Acme Furn. Co., $96.75; Hale's,
$23.20; C. P. Stanton, $9.50. Total, $671.50.
Carriage Hire: Kelly, $2.50, $4.00, $5.00, $3.00, $12.75.
Total, $27.25.
Auto Hire: Scott, $15.00, $5.00. $50.00, $65.00, $10.00;
H. M. Owens, $20.00; W. J. Burns, $90.00; March 30th,
$207.50; Ruef's arrest, $10.00; F. J. Heney, $10.00; W. J.
Burns, $5.00; April 27th, $32.50; L. Heidinger, $25.00; Auto
Livery Co., $73.50, $92.50; Kelly, $32.50; Otis Patkhill,
$45.00; Auto L. Co., $538.00; A. S. Lathaw, $105.00; Auto
Livery Co., $296.50, $60.00, $20.00; M. Mamlock, $17.50; auto
Livery, $78.00; Cal. & Coulter, $25.00; F. Coulter, $42.50;
Auto Livery Co., $25.00; Auto _ Livery Co., $288.00; Zim-
merline Bros., $5.75; Auto Livery Co., $132.50, $22.50,
$190.50, $35.00, $22.50; Broadway Garage, $8.00. Total,
$2,700.75.
Auto Expense: Goggles, $3.50; sundries, $9.35; Harris
Rubber Co., $120.98; Harris Rubber Co.. $70.10; Geo. P.
Moore Co., $12.30; Geo. P. Moore Co., $9.35; Harris Rub-
ber Co.. $48.58; Chanslor Lyon, $30.88; Harri.s Rubber Co.,
$24.39; Bauer Lamp, $1.50; Bauer Lamp, $4.50; Auto Livery,
$132.00; Auto Livery, $2.00; Chans. & Lyon, $12.75; Chans.
& Lvon. $14.05; G. P. Moore, $26.90; G. P. Moore, $6.12;
Arcade Garage, $51.20; towing auto, $5.00; Irvine Mch. Wks.,
XXXV 1
$114.60; Harris Rubber Co., $6.00; Franklin Car, $59.12;
Gillig & Son. $9.00; Gillig & Son, $5.00; Arcade Garage,
$149.45; Arcade Garage, $134.25; G. P. Moore Co., $3.00;
H. W. Bogen, $103.50; H. W. Bogen, $127.00; Pioneer
Auto Co., $0.75; Pioneer Auto Co., $5.40; Gorham Rubber
Co., $35.00; Berg Auto Supply Co., $1.50; Pioneer Garage,
$6.00; Keenan Bros., $51.80; Keenan Bros., $23.05; Pioneer
Garage, $186.70; Diamond Rubber Co., $222.50; Pioneer
Auto Co., $2.50; Pioneer Auto Co., $24.00; Auto Livery Co.,
$166.00; G. P. Moore, $2.50; G. P. Moore. $4.50; Harris
Rubber Co., $2.25; Arcade. $151.60; Arcade. $151.50; Bogan,
$9.75; Bogan, $39.00; Pioneer, $3.00; Pioneer. $1.00; tire
repair, $0.75; Pacific Gar., $12.85; Pacific Gar., $97.40; Arcade,
$123.35; Keenan, $11.00; Keenan, $13.95; Chans. & L., $3.25;
Chans. & L., $2.50; Bogen, $9.85; Bogen. $7.00; Osen 8c
Hunter, $109.45; Pacific Gar., $5.25; Pacific Gar., $70.00;
Irvington Garage, $71.50; Pioneer, $8.50; Pioneer, $6.00;
J. E. Elkington & Sons, $55.50; Continental R. Co., $88.88;
Schwartz & Gotlieb. $8.00; C. & L., $12.45; Pacific, $9.75;
Pacific, $11.25; Spreckels Garage, $384.85; Sunset Garage,
$14.50; Spreckels Garage, $82.65; Pioneer, $7.00; Letcher,
S. Tose, $4.00; Keenan, $104.05; Pioneer Auto Co.. $10.50;
Pacific, $29.10;^ Halls Auto Rep., $32.30; Studebaker. $17.91;
Arcade, $159.15; Spreckels Garage, $185.25; Jerome Garage,
$2.25; Miller Bros.. $8.75; Goodyear, $5.00; Cr. H. W. Bogen,
$10.00. Net total, $4,162.36.
Traveling Expense: Kendall to Portland, $20.00; Ferry,
$1.05; Halsey, $493.40; Geo. Burns, round trip home. $130.00;
baggage transfer, $1,50; trip to Oakland, auto, etc., $7.10;
trip to Oakland, auto, etc., $6.60; B. T. Block to San
Jose, $2.15; ferryage auto. etc.. $15.35; ferrj^age auto, etc.,
$6.60; F. A. Leach. $230.00; B. A. Libby, $100.00; ferryage,
auto, etc., $1.90; ferrvage auto, etc., $1.90; ferrvage auto, etc.,
$1.00; W. J. Burns to Los Angeles. $57.40;' W. J. Burns,
$2.10; Slater witness Ford case, $168.90; trips Okd. Galla-
gher case, $13.20; Marie Ware McK. Port. S. F. Ret., $50.00;
Cr. F. H. Leach, witness Ford case, $8.00. Net total,
$1,302.15.
Telegrams: $797.79.
The Bulletin: 30.000 papers (10-31, 1908) $309.55.
Incidentals: Christmas turkeys, $37.85; 5 glove orders,
$10.00; theater party, $6.00; C. P. Stanton (burglar alarm),
$57.25; S. F. Call 1400 Jones, $2.25; expense account Blake
case, $3.50; lunches, W. J. Burns et al., $41.65, Total,
$158.50.
Paid for account City and County of San Francisco:
Exchange on Washington, D. C, sent to F. A. Leach, wit-
ness, to cover expenses to S. F., $250.00; less amount re-
XXX VI 1
funded by City and County of San Francisco, $26,48 —
$223.52.
Detective Services and Expenses: D. F. Cecil, services
$2,396.00, expenses $942.50; H. J. Woolman, services $476.00,
expenses $328.00; R. J. Bergen, services $708.00, expenses
$510.50; R. H. Perry, $3,095.00, expenses $1,318.05; I. H.
Henderson, services $350.00, expenses $188.85; E, S. Spauld-
ing, services $2,820.00, expenses $550.70; W. W. Farrell,
services $704.00, expenses $196.50; L. G. Car-penter, services
$225.00; expenses, $170.20; R. S. Spaulding, services $2,042.00,
expenses $378.25; j. G. Lawlor, services $2,837.50, expenses
$1,221.63; I. J. Scott, expenses $30.00; E. G. Borden, serv-
ices $78.00; P. Hendirard, services $202.00, expenses $200.55;
R. J. Burns, $2,810.00, expenses $2,076.47; S. S. Simon,
services $206.00; B. Kohlman, services $248.00, expenses
$18.75; G. E. Burns, services $2,510.00. expenses $4,369.62;
C. F. Oliver, services $2,920.00, expenses $833.85; C. P.
Fox, services $472.50, expenses $265.35; S. G. R. Ollsen,
$40.00; G. W. Hess, $1,595.00, expenses $1,250.22; J. Mc-
Carthy, services $1,313.00, expenses $227.35; J. C. Saulman,
services $110.00, expenses $1.20; L. Pring, services $44.00;
L. Cullen, services $60.00; M. C. Doyle, services $52.00; D.
M. Duffy, services $150.00; Chas. Wyman, services $20.00;
A. Steffens, $45.00; A. Greggains, services $780.00, expenses
$665.85; J. H. Shiner, services $480.00, expenses $310.80;
P. F. Roller, $290.00, expenses $349.20; P. E. Sowers,
services $410.00, expenses $284.10; T. R. Sullivan, services
$320.00, expenses $328.55; D. McCarthy, services $948.00,
expenses $114.21; J. Compton, services $1,880.00, expenses
$81.40; R. Ellis, services $246.00, expenses $6.00; P.
Bergin, services $20.00, expenses $17.00; C. P. Stanton,
services $2,645.00, expenses $4.20; H. Sullivan, services
$95.00, expenses $1.70; J. S. Hensley, services $140.00; James
Foley, services $2,335.00, expenses $134.10; J. F. Severney,
services $285.00, expenses $15.55; A. Flornberg, services
$44.00; E. W. Stow, services $342.00, expenses $216.60; G.
M. Insley, $1,417.00, expenses $414.45; B. F. Daman, serv-
ices $1,148.00, expenses $529.80; L. C. Caldwell, $896.00, ex-
penses $360.25; R. N. Hamlin, services $1,902.00, expenses
$50.00; F. Kingsberg, services $90.00; W. Bcttiee, services
$1,068.00, expenses $164.25; W. J. Dewer. services $160.00;
J. F. Clark, services $1,072.00, expenses $501.29; W. J.
Biggy, Jr., services $260.00, expenses $35.40; M. C. Perry,
services $144.00, expenses $109.00; C. A. Spaulding, services
$336.00, expenses $109.70; E. T. Newsome, services $364.00,
expenses $58.85; F. J. Barry, services $32.00; J. H. Hamil-
ton, services $26.00; R. C. Schindler. services $1,483.00, ex-
penses $706.85; W. S. Schindler, services, $1,161.00, ex-
XXXVIU
t
penses $224.15; O. G. Schleicher, services $340.00, expenses
$122.66; E. A. Piatt, services $1,205.00, expenses $315.20;
W. H. Russell, services $1,305.00. expenses $298.30; S.B.
Priest, services $210.00, expenses $1.40; E. J. Whiskatchies,
services $1,200.00, expenses $484.85; E. W. Madden, services
$255.00, expenses $33.35; J. M. Creighton, services $1,494.00,
expenses $667.60; G. E. Aladden, services $30.00, expenses
$1.70; J. Crawford, services $35.00; E. Graf, services $20.00;
expenses $7.00; W. Duchion, services $100.00; J. V. Thomp-
son, services $72,00, expenses $13.00; F. C. Boden, expenses
$62.35; F. F. McGee, services $50.00; M. L. Doyle, services
$286.00; E. M. Burgoyne, services $84.00, expenses $53.95;
C. Bernstein, services $64.00; E. Goldstein, services $92.00,
expenses $15.25; H. C. Wilier, services $216.00; J. W. F.
Jackson, services $384.00, expenses $178.50; D. L. Chiles,
services $20.00; Mrs. Alay Schindler, services $154.50, ex-
penses $3.50; L. Gold, services $805.00, expenses $58.65; J. M.
Ullmache, services $40.00, expenses $93.20; C. P. Snell, ser-
vices $12.00, expenses $0.65; W. C. Heney, services $1,939.00,
expenses $20.05; E. C. Lange, services $42.00; expenses $2.60;
E. Emerson, services $365.00, expenses $79.15; J. McKenzie,
services $47.00; O. Hooper, services $85.00, expenses $12.45;
Geo. Mane, services $15.00; Chas. Cook, services $40.00, ex-
penses $0.80; C. T. Oliver, Jr., services $236.00, expenses
$25.80; D. W. Armstrong, services $5.00; F. A. Neary, serv-
ices $280.00,^ expenses $42.50; P. D. Code, services $280.00,
expenses $35.65; Martin Judge, services $40.00; J. D. Silver-
thew, services $14.00, expenses $1.71; G. Hague, services
$68.00; W. J. Kelly, ^services $199.00, ex_penses $3.75; S. G.
V/hitney, services $52.00, expenses $6.65; C. F. Schneider,
services $148.00, expenses $9.30; L. R. Mower, services
$34.00, expenses $26.50; G. L. Doolittle, services $26.00,
expenses $7.10; W. A. Conneau, services $25.00, expenses
$2.20; E. S. Newsome, services $125.00; J. M. Creighton,
services $615.00, expenses $200.00; H. Beasly, services
$175.00; L. T. Cass, services $155.00; L. Murphy, services
$230.00; Ed. 'Hornback, services $71.00; E. M. — '- , ser-
vices $435.00, expenses $44.80; P. Berr, services $36.00; S. J.
Rohan, services $70.00; Geo. Yearaner, services $237.50, ex-
penses $11.60; E. Vetisarator, services $63.00; F. C. Boden,
services $150.00; T. C. McGifT, services $12.00; H. J. Lovent-
zen, services $680.00, expenses $471.25; A. H. Barr, services
$748.00, expenses $2.00j P. M. McGee, expenses $100.50; N.
Komgold, services $525.00, expenses $37.35; E. Gensler, ser-
vices $15.00, W. J. Otts, services $510.00, expenses $423.85;
J. H. Dewey, services $30.00, expenses $6.75; W. C. Knox,
services $180.00; M. F. , services $1,162.50, expenses
XXXIX
$363.00; J. M. Kelly, services $35.00; R. H. Schouatt, services
$161.00, expenses $2.25; D. S. Hutchins, services $80.00, ex-
penses $40.45; Chas. Goff, services $127.15; C. P. Morey, Jr.,
services $10.00; S. F. , services $95; Jesse A. Gahans,
services $30.00; A. Setrakian, services $12.00, expenses $14.50;
E. E. Kam, services $10.00; J. Walsh, services $25.00. Total
services, $70,572.65; expenses, $27,277.35.
Extra Salaries: O. F. Holmes, $25.00; S. S. Simon,
$5.00; O. F. Holmes, $48.25; W. J. Flynn and 2 assts., $73.00;
Wyman, $20.00; Steffen, $20.00; T. Lonergan, $50.00; T.
Lonergan, $50.00; T. Lonergan, $50.00; CuUen- Watchman,
$28.00; A. Fromberg, $8.00; G. H. Knox, $5.00; A. B. Lycaw,
$48.80; W. J. Flynn, $50.00; securing information at Roys,
$5.50; D. M. Duffy, $104.50; C. A. Sage, $30.20; B. Bergen,
$20.80; P. Callender, $25.00; P. Callender, $2.00; J. C. Brown,
$30.00; D. W. Armstrong, $10.00; D. W. Armstrong, $25.00;
b. E. Scales, $5.00; Bob Ellis, $15.00; D. W. Armstrong,
$1.00; S. Hitchcock, $1.00; D. Wilkie, $25.00. Total, $778.55.
ITEMS FRANCIS J. HENEY ACCOUNT.
Rent of Office: $3,186.25.
Office Expenses: Water, light, heat (repairs gas fixtures,
$4.88; purity water, $22.75; Stafford & Co., $297.93; S. F.
G. & E. Co., $209.59; gas regulator, $4.76; Gas Appliance
Co., $18.00; gas mantels, $3.00; Bush & Lind, $17.00);
stationery (E. H. Wobber & Co., et al., $314.90; numbering
machine, $5.00; I. Upham Co., $97.23; Brown & Power, $1.00;
Schmidt L. & L. Co., $6.00; Badescu Prtg. Co., $2.50);
typewriter, rental and supplies (Remington T. W. Co.,
$139.80; Smith Premier, T. W., $8.00; Typewritorium, $7.50);
newspapers, $126.15; janitor supplies (scavenger, $16.59;
towels, $26.44; C. Brown & Sons, $19.80; J. H. Reardon,
$2.40; W. E. Johnson, $3.35; Greenblatt & Co., $1.80; New-
man & Levinson, $2.55; Brittain & Co., $19.00; O'Connor,
Moffatt, $3.00; W. T. Wilev, $3.00; H. G. Root, $14.33;
S. P. Co., $1.33; carpet-cleaning, ^$7.55; Hill & Co., $18.50);
sundries, C. P. Stanton et al., $85.14; glazing, $11.25. Total,
$1,522.02.
Private Exchange, Telephone and Operator: $1,949.22.
Telegrams: $316.82.
Postage and Messenger Service: $280.26.
Traveling Expenses: $118.45.
Office Salaries: J. H. Reardon, $1,050.00; W. E. John-
son, $1,650.00; Miss O. O. McShane, $1,934.66; Mrs. Smith,
$806.25; Mrs. L. E. Russell, $2,085.00; C. H. Stanton, $377.51;
xl
♦
janitress, $156.25; voucher No. 1, Jan3\ 31, 1907; no detail,
$625.00. Total, $8,684.67.
Office Furniture: j. Behrn & Co., $15.75; Fuller Desk
Co., $27.00; Rucker Desk Co., $142.25; J. Breuncr Co.,
S2S.50; O'Connor, Moffatt, $91.65; Goodyear Rubber Co.,
S3.50; Sloane & Co., $52.37; G. Lipman, $7.50; Bush & Lind,
$27.89; C. Brown & Sons, $6.05; shelving $10.00; Jewel Gas
Appliance Co.. $21.04. Total, $433.50.
Auto and Carriage Hire: United Carriage Co., $100.25;
Pacific Garage, $100.00; Auto Livery, $70.00; Kelly's, $8.50;
Arcade Garage, $5.00; Tom Snwyer, $17.50; J. W. Burke,
$3.00; Max Mamlock, $15.00; T. White, $5.00; L. D. Crane,
$632.80. Total, $957.05.
Stenographic and Legal Expense: L. Kavanaugh,
$1,031.00; T. B. Elderkin, $83.40; G. W. Smith, $28.00; State
of California, $3.50; H. Hernon, $18.10; County Clerk, $6.00;
citation for Codes, $0.37; express on briefs, $2.65; F. L.
Gauhey, $2.00; F. M. Handy, $1.50; R. B. Treat, $1.75;
D. W. Burchard, $200.00; S. Potter. $15.00; notary fees, $2.00;
H. Harper, $96.15; C. Bennett, $5.00; A. W. Reynolds,
$13.20; W. C. Bristol, $77.15; H. C. Finkler, $6.40; Richards
& Carrier, $258.20; Mrs. M. Moore, $10.00; Mr. Webb, $3.00;
Mrs. C. Tellison, $5.80; D. Young, expert, $25.00; C. D.
Stewart, expert, $189.00; G. W. Revnolds, expert, $63.00.
Total, $2,147.37.
Detective Expense: W. T. Burns. $2,416.95; L Ritten-
house et al, $1,815.66. Total, $4,232.61.