| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: 'The System,' as uncovered by the San Francisco Graft Prosecution
Author: Hichborn, Franklin, 1869-1963
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "'The System,' as uncovered by the San Francisco Graft Prosecution" ***
(This file was produced from images generously made
Transcriber's Note
Footnotes have been gathered at the end of each chapter.
There are numerous apparent spelling or typographical errors, including
those that appear in the copious quoted material. These have been
corrected, and are noted in the detailed notes at the end of this text.
Italics are represented here using the underscore character as _italic_.
Bold text uses the equal character as =bold=.
"THE SYSTEM"
AS UNCOVERED BY
The San Francisco Graft Prosecution
BY
FRANKLIN HICHBORN
(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 devolves 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 adopting 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 constituted 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
Press of The James H. Barry Company
1915
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
CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. The Union Labor Party Movement 11
II. The Ruef Board of Supervisors 22
III. The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 30
IV. San Francisco After the Fire of 1906 49
V. Graft Prosecution Opens 73
VI. Ruef's Fight to Take the District Attorney's Office 87
VII. Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 96
VIII. Ruef Loses Fight for District Attorney's Office 107
IX. Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 110
X. Fight to Evade Trial 121
XI. Ruef a Fugitive 130
XII. The Trapping of the Supervisors 139
XIII. Confessions of the Bribe-taking Supervisors 154
XIV. The Source of the Bribe Money 168
XV. Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 186
XVI. Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 208
XVII. Schmitz Ousted from Office 215
XVIII. The Real Fight Begins 240
XIX. The Glass Trials and Conviction 269
XX. The Ford Trials and Acquittals 279
XXI. The San Francisco Election of 1907 300
XXII. Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 320
XXIII. The Defense Becomes Arrogant 335
XXIV. Jury Fixing Uncovered 357
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 "Immunity Contract" xix
"Immunity Contract" Given Supervisors xxi
District Attorney Langdon's Plan for Reorganizing
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 Prosecution xxxiv
PREFACE.
A tethered bull does not know that he is tied until 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 appear, 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 "System" 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 herself; 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 "System" granted immunity from punishment.
To secure evidence against bribe-givers, the State granted immunity to
bribe-takers who confessed their crimes and joined with the State to
bring larger criminals to justice. And the "System's" agents cried
outrage that bribe-takers should go free of punishment.
But the "System" granted immunity from punishment 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 attacked the "System" as did San Francisco.
Had they done so, unquestionably they would have found themselves 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 we call it "The Southern Pacific Machine,"
for in California the Southern Pacific Company was its chief
beneficiary. 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 overpowering "System" until it resists. San Francisco
resisted 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
resistance 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 "System," 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 "System" 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 effective 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 fashionable 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 instincts 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 Francisco's attack upon the "System"
possible and stirred the "System" to extraordinary resistance.
The "System," seeing itself threatened, went to the relief of the
"boss," its agent, whom even its chief beneficiaries 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 vacancy.
The boldness of the move startled the whole community. But the act
merely demonstrated the extremes 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, intimidated, 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 town, forced into a
stateroom of an outgoing 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 prisoner 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 witnesses; 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 Prosecution's
papers and reports. An agent of the Prosecution in the employ of the
Defense, working in the interest of the Defense, was to sit at the
Prosecutor's side during the selection of a trial jury, to advise the
Prosecutor 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 extraordinary 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 beating, 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 punish or to save, and knowing the
power of the "System" 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 penitentiary. 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
punishment. 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 himself 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 persistent, 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 offered.
In preparing this volume for the press it is my purpose--so far as lies
in my power to do so--_to keep the cover off_.
_FRANKLIN HICHBORN._
Santa Clara, Calif., Dec. 25, 1912.
CHAPTER I.
THE UNION LABOR PARTY MOVEMENT.
Eugene E. Schmitz[1] was elected Mayor of San Francisco in November,
1901. He had been nominated by the Union-Labor party. This 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.[2]
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, but in 1903 when Schmitz was
a candidate for re-election.
On the other hand, the new party had in the beginning the support of the
Coast Seamen's Journal, published 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 beginning of a
permanent political 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 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, regardless 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 was quick to see the potentialities of the political Frankenstein
which groping labor leaders had brought into being. He knew that _they_
could not control their creation; he knew that _he_ could. He did not
overestimate his powers. He managed the new party's 1901 campaign.[4]
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.[5]
In practical acknowledgment of Ruef's services, Schmitz issued an open
letter, in which he stated himself privileged to consider Ruef his
friendly counsellor.[6] The issuance of that letter made Ruef the
recognized political representative of the Union-Labor party
administration, a position which he held until the estrangement of
himself and Schmitz under the strain of the graft prosecution.[7]
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.[8] Schmitz, under Ruef's management, was re-elected in 1903.
But the Union-Labor party failed at that election, 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 opposed to machine political methods. When,
however, the movement gave evidence of vitality and strength, the
political agents of public service corporations became identified with
its leadership.[9] The new leaders were soon in practical control.
Public-service corporations were largely instrumental in financing the
movement. Testimony was brought out before the Grand Jury which
conducted the graft investigations, that nearly every public-service
corporation in San Francisco contributed to the fusion fund, the
average of the contributions being $2,500 for each corporation.[10]
On the other hand, the public-service corporations contributed liberally
toward the election of the Ruef-backed, Union-Labor party
candidates.[11] Ruef was already on the pay-roll of the law departments
of many of them. Thus, generally speaking, it made little difference 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 encountered 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 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 was openly denounced as corrupt. Francis
J. Heney,[12] 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 Francisco that he
knew Ruef to be corrupt,[13] and, given opportunity, could prove it.
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[14]
votes, being defeated by a majority of 11,504.
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 adviser, and political
agent for the Union-Labor party, found himself in control of every
branch and department of the San Francisco municipal government.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Schmitz, previous to his election, was employed as a musician 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 Francisco 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
recognition. The negotiations failed. During the progress of the
strike there were constant disturbances. A steamship company,
for example, 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
carrying supplies to and from railway stations. The Chief of
Police, in order to preserve peaceful traffic, placed two
policemen upon each truck. Labor leaders asked not only that the
police be withdrawn from the trucks, but from the waterfront.
This action the Mayor refused to take, on the ground that it was
his duty to preserve 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 workmen did
not want to be clubbed let them go to work. Both sides now admit
the statement was not made. Joseph S. Tobin, Henry U.
Brandenstein, 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, referring to the
workingmen's strike, that 'if they don't want to be clubbed let
them go to work,' nor did he make 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.
[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. Lane,
the present Secretary of the Interior, Dean John H. Wigmore 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
practically forgotten. Ruef continued with Kelly and Crimmins
for ten years. He drifted with the machine, securing excellent
training for his future career. His opportunity came in 1901,
when, in its effort to throw off the yoke 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 powerful. 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
unrest, and the Union Labor party movement. Ruef managed to
combine the Republican Primary League with the Union Labor party
movement. This combination 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 election of municipal officials on a
non-partisan basis, and prevent election by plurality vote.
Henceforth all officials must be elected by majority vote.
[6] Schmitz's letter announcing his obligation to Ruef was as
follows:
"My Dear 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 supported 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 utterance 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 accorded
you.
"I have now for some fifteen years enjoyed your acquaintance
and friendship and your services as my attorney in many
capacities, 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 important 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-service 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 after the third election his
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
Halsey, 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.
Hellman, 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 Railways, came to me to ask my advice whether Mr. Ruef
should be employed as an attorney for the United Railways,
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, recognized 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.
[9] George F. 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
Construction 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
contributed 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
Company thereupon proceeded to secure its franchise by employing
Ruef.
[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
"reform" 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 Company, 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 Supervisors
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. Halsey, 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.
[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 Law 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 solicitation of United States Attorney-General
Knox, he undertook the prosecution of the Oregon Land Fraud
cases. He was at the close of successful prosecution 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
Mechanics Pavilion last Saturday night you are represented as
saying: 'I say to you, moreover, that I personally know that
Abraham 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
understood 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 attorney for the United States Government. Your
statements, if unchallenged, 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 you 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 consent,
I give you here and now full consent and authority to proceed,
and I go further and ask that you do so.
"I regret that your recent identification with the Citizens'
Alliance 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 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 candidates. 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, contributed in no small degree
to the election of Mayor E. R. Taylor and the re-election of
District Attorney William H. Langdon, thereby 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 Supervisors was the greatest surprise of all. Ruef, with his
political intimates, had selected the Supervisorial candidates, but more
with a view to hold the organized labor vote for Schmitz than with idea
of the fitness of the candidates for the duties involved in managing the
affairs of a municipality of 500,000 population.[15] Not one of the
eighteen elected was a man of strong character.[16] Several were of
fair, but by no means exceptional 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, bartenders and clerks. Without an exception,
they saw in their unexpected elevation to the Board of Supervisors
opportunity 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 advantage; 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.[17] 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 special privileges
worth millions.
None realized this better than Ruef. From the beginning, he recognized
that the likelihood of individual members of the board yielding to
temptation to petty gain[18] 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[19] should represent him on the
board. The Supervisors at once accepted Gallagher, and dealt with him
as Ruef's recognized agent.
(2) Finally Ruef arranged for a regular weekly caucus[20] 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,[21] 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 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[22] of the
proceedings and sent written notices[23] 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
Supervisors at the next caucus. There were 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 organization 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 wishes.
The official clerk of the board, who was also secretary of the caucus,
was his tried henchman. Gallagher, the ablest of the Supervisors,
flattered at being made his representative, and further bound by
mercenary ties, was ready to do his slightest bidding. And never had
entrenched boss more fruitful field for exploitation.
But scarcely had the new administration been installed, 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
proposed 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.[24]
The gamblers appealed 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 Francisco.[25]
With Langdon in the District Attorney's office it was still possible
that the laws could be enforced--even against Abraham Ruef. The raiding
of the gambling dens marked the beginning of the division in San
Francisco, with those who approached the Ruef administration with bribe
money on the one side, and those who resisted with the check of law
enforcement on the other.
FOOTNOTES:
[15] At Ruef's trial for offering a bribe to Supervisor Furey,
Supervisor James L. Gallagher testified that 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 Supervisors
were James L. Gallagher, attorney at law; Cornelius J.
Harrigan, grocer; James T. Kelly, piano polisher; Thomas F.
Lonergan, driver of a bakery 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. Furey,
blacksmith and saloonkeeper.
At the time the graft 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
Schmitz.
[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 programme?
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 way; 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 $1000 only. Of the scene on
this occasion, 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."
[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 Supervisors) 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
directed Supervisor Wilson 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 member 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
Furey, Gallagher testified that soon after his election in
1905, Ruef 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
others; 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 secretary 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 Supervisor 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, however, 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.
[22] At Ruef's trial on the charge of offering a bribe to Supervisor
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 Supervisor 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 Sunday evening, June 24th, at 8 o'clock p. m., at
Hamilton Hall, Steiner street, near Geary. Your attendance is
respectfully requested.
"Yours truly, GEORGE B. KEANE, Clerk."
[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 by 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 lawbreakers have
the most earnest longings, and behind their closed doors the
idle gamblers are trying to figure out what 'lay' this dreadful
Langdon is really on, and by what trade he has been induced 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. What 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
Attorney, because he considered that Langdon's intimate
acquaintance 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 than 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 Attorney, 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 expenses. 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. Everybody 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.
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 completed; vast land-holdings as large as 40,000
acres in a body were cut up into small tracts and sold to settlers;
waters brought to the land by vast irrigation enterprises 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 power 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 time of the San Francisco fire, April 18, 1906, San Francisco,
of the cities of the State, profited most by this development. San
Francisco bank clearances, 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 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.[26]
The rapid increase in population, the sustained prosperity of the
community, and its prospective development 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 franchise 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 Board of Supervisors to a
seventy-five-cents-per-thousand rate.
Another matter of tremendous importance to the growing municipality 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.[27] 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.[28]
The corporation had, at the time of Schmitz's election in 1905,
practically a monopoly 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, recognized 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 overhead trolley method of propulsion; the public, so far
as it could find expression, declared for the underground conduit
system.[29] 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.[30]
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.[31] The directors of the Merchants'
Association thereupon declared 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.[32]
But the most determined opposition to the installation 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 Improvement and Adornment
Association,[33] the Sutter Street Improvement Club[34] and the Pacific
Avenue Improvement Club. The membership of these organizations
consisted of some of the largest owners of San Francisco properties. The
leaders were comparatively young men, natives of San Francisco, whose
interests 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[35] and James D.
Phelan,[36] rated among the heaviest property-owners of San Francisco.
These men were ready to join with the United Railroads in any plan which
proposed the highest development of the street-car service.[37] On the
other hand, they were prepared to oppose any attempt to exploit the
service to the detriment of San Francisco.[38]
A conference of the directors of the Improvement and Adornment
Association with officials of the United Railroads was finally
arranged.[39] 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 substantially 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 avenue. Calhoun
would not consent to install the conduit beyond 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, declared the information contained in the
Chronicle article to be inaccurate,[40] 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 uniform 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 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
supported 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]
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, believed, even at the time Mr. Calhoun made his suggestion,
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. Calhoun's motives.
In answer to the criticism which Mr. Calhoun's suggestion had aroused,
Mr. Calhoun, in a second letter to the Adornment Association, withdrew
his offer to submit the question to the people, and announced the
intention of his company to proceed with preparation of a plan for a
uniform trolley system to be installed wherever the grades would
permit.[42]
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.[43] But the opposition took more practical form
than mere denunciation. A group of capitalists, headed by Claus
Spreckels, father of Rudolph Spreckels, Rudolph Spreckels 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.[44]
But 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 incorporators. 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.[45]
With this $450,000 an experimental line, under the conduit system, was
to be built on Bush street.[46]
The articles of incorporation provided that the franchises acquired
under them should contain provisions for the acquisition by the City and
County of San Francisco of the roads thus built.[47]
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. The 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[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.
[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
understand that the amount to be divided would be as much as
$1,000,000.
[28] The United Railroads was controlled by Eastern capital. Before
the entrance of the United Railroads into the San Francisco
field, California capital had dominated in purely local public
utilities.
[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 Francisco was as much entitled as Washington and New
York to the best system. Rudolph Spreckels at the trial of
Patrick Calhoun for offering a bribe, testified as to his own
opposition:
"I believed that the overhead trolley was unsightly; that it
increased the risk of fire; that it was dangerous; that it was
noisy and unsightly. I believed from my own observation of the
operation 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 interests 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 interests of its citizens and its
property owners. That was my purpose in opposing that franchise
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 railroads.
The city also employed J. C. H. Stutt as consulting engineer,
and sent him to New York and Washington to inspect and report
upon the conduit systems in operation in those cities.
He reported that the 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
system, it is natural for private corporations to prefer the
overhead trolley system on account 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 supporting
wires and without the menace to the public and especially to
the firemen, always inherent 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 grounds:
(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 system.
(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 Merchants' Association Review, the organization's
official publication, for February, 1906:
"TOTAL VOTE OF MEMBERS, 364.
"1--Do you favor Mr. Parsons's view of a uniform system of
overhead 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 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
underground conduit, 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 Patrick 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
intended 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 beautiful 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 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. We 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
conduit electric system was impracticable on account of the
accumulation of rain water in its conduits. This claim it has
been forced to abandon.
"Second: It proclaimed loudly that the added cost of
construction 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 desirable.
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 whatever in using a mixed
tramway system, i.e., partly underground (conduit) and partly
overhead.'
"We would suggest that the public compare the present overhead
trolley system, operated by the United Railroads these many
years in this city and county, with the service rendered by the
California Cable Railway. There is no overhead trolley system
in San Francisco to-day which surpasses the service given by
the California Street Company.
"It is claimed that the public will be given a speedier and
more 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 passengers. The only advantage
which thus far has come from the system seems to be to the
company itself. It employs fewer 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
system throughout the whole city, the United Railroads would do
well to show on some one of their overhead trolley lines now in
operation 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 system 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
organization will put before our citizens a plan for building a
complete conduit 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 J. Sullivan, Rudolph Spreckels, Julius Rosenstirn, Geo.
W. Merritt, W. D. McCann, Houghton Sawyer. Edward P. E. Troy,
Secretary."
[35] Rudolph Spreckels is a native of San Francisco. At seventeen he
was employed in his father's (Claus Spreckels) sugar refinery
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 which later
he was to do at San Francisco. At twenty-two he became
president of the Hawaiian 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 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 prosecution. 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
California. From his youth he has taken keen interest in public
affairs. He was chairman of the Charter convention of 1900
which 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 designated 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 complimentary 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 associate 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 whatever 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 important 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
suggested that property owners agree to drain the conduits
without expense to the United Railroads, thus demonstrating
their practicability, on the understanding that if the conduit
system were found to be practical it should be installed. But
in this the United Railroad officials 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
underground conduit on Sutter street?
"Mr. Stanley Moore: That is objected to, if your Honor please,
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. We 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." (See
Transcript of Testimony, page 3197.)
[38] Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads, had several
conferences with 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 conviction 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 he 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
reason was the fact that it was an engineering impossibility;
that the accumulation of water in the conduits during the rainy
season would prevent 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 proper 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 your
engineers will be obliged to admit that there was not one hour
during the twelve months during which you could not
successfully operate an underground 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 argument 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 him I was not an engineer, but
that common sense told me and indicated to me that it might be
possible to carry off the water 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. Calhoun said: 'Well, there are other reasons--the
question of a uniform system.' He urged very strongly that it
would be a very desirable 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 compromised, 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 what 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 overhead 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 which 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 property-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 manager, 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 together, and the subjects that I will
relate may have occurred, some of them in the previous meeting
and some in the latter. Mr. Calhoun 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 we changed the system 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
circumstances on a boulevard than on a street 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 fortunate as I, who did
not own carriages and did not own automobiles 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. Calhoun 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 owner of property there. I think that in substance was the
conversation as I remember it."
[39] Patrick Calhoun, Tirey L. Ford and Thornwell Mullally were
among the officials representing the United Railroads at the
conference. At the meeting, first mention of $200,000 in
connection with the proposed chance 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 Committee, 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 was greatly interested. Phelan replied that San
Francisco would 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. Patrick Calhoun for offering a bribe, page 2750.)
[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 conduit 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 United Railroads have receded from their
iron-clad determination not to consider the electric conduit at
all. When that is 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 horse-car a quarter of a century ago."
[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
telephone franchise order for further consideration. Since the
hasty vote on the ordinance last Monday ugly rumors have been
the measure. The regard of the Supervisors for the good name of
the Board demands that they should clear the record of the
SUSPICIOUS 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 public
utility question is to favor an ordinance granting a franchise
for fifty years to a private corporation without proper
compensation to the city and WITHOUT 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 Supervisors 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 telephone 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
Francisco. 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 the backing of a certain popular
support to the advent of a new 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 many 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. Calhoun), was as follows:
"San Francisco, March 23.--Messrs. James D. Phelan, R. B. Hale,
Herbert E. Law, Rufus P. Jennings and others--My dear Sirs: You
will recall that the only condition on which I consented to
even consider the introduction of an underground conduit on
Market 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 Francisco, a uniform system of overhead
trolley operation.'
"The development of the last few days, the threatened
litigation against my company, and the action of the
Sutter-Street Improvement 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
system of electric propulsion, 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
conference to reach a basis of harmonious action in order that
the development of San Francisco might not be obstructed and
delayed.
"Very truly yours, 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
exasperating form. Mr. Calhoun is too well bred, or perhaps too
cautious a man to tell the public to be damned, but 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 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 Railroads 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 annually." (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 conduit system, I can only say that through his
wonderful ambitions of purpose San Francisco will take a
stride forward that is wonderful 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 awaken 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. Spreckels 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 beauty of San Francisco be not sacrificed, but
that the public desire for rapid transit shall be fulfilled.
Backed with the millions 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 my
always expressed desire that my administration 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 Francisco 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, Calhoun'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 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
administration, and the only resort left to us to do was to
build a road of our own to demonstrate that it was practicable
and possibly profitable--a conduit system."
[46] As early as April 3, 1906, a petition was circulated for
signatures 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 years 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
incorporation the following: "To accept and acquire franchises
for street railroads, elevated railroads and subways,
containing provisions for the acquisition thereof by the City
and County of San Francisco, or such other conditions as may
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 McGushin's saloon.[48] The ashes of the burned
city were still 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 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,[49] but for weeks after the fire few citizens had time to
think about it. The people forgot for the time the issues which 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.[50]
But if the corporations were quick to avail themselves of the situation
to secure privileges denied them 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 corporation had established efficient
service over a number of its electric lines. For a time, passengers were
carried 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 collected from all persons. For a time, in a glare of
much publicity, the United Railroads contributed these collections to
the fund for the relief of the stricken city.
The Home Telephone Company had no plant to restore nor authority to
establish one; but on Ruef's suggestion it, too, contributed to the fund
for the relief of the stricken city--$75,000.[51]
The United Railroads' activity in restoring its electric roads, was in
curious contrast to its failure to take advantage of the possibilities
offered by its cable systems. As some excuse for this inactivity, the
corporation'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.[52] But as a matter of fact, there were many
to testify that the damage done the cable slots was not from the
earthquake, 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.[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 systems. 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.[54] Although the 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, comparatively 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.[55]
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 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 properties 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.[56]
Within two weeks after the fire, the United Railroads 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, President Calhoun gave out that if allowed to place
overhead wires on Sutter and Larkin streets, he would place 2,000 men at
work and have both these lines in operation within thirty days.[57]
But the era of good feeling was not of long duration. On May 14, less
than a month after the fire, the Supervisors received a communication
signed by President Calhoun as President of the United Railroads,
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 Railroads would be glad to put all of their lines in commission
as rapidly as could be accomplished by the most liberal expenditure of
money and the largest possible employment of men.[58]
That very day, the Supervisors took the initial step toward granting to
the United Railroads a blanket permit, authorizing that corporation to
substitute the trolley system for all its cable lines.
Immediately, San Francisco's opposition to the trolley system was
revived. All classes joined in condemning the action of the board. The
Sutter Street Improvement Club, representing large down-town interests
and property holders, adopted resolutions demanding that the Supervisors
refuse to grant the permit. 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]
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 operate
trolley cars in Market street.[60] 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."
President 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.[61]
Long before the board met to take final action it was recognized that in
spite of opposition the permit would be granted.[62] 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.[63]
Demand that Mayor Schmitz veto the ordinance granting these
extraordinary privileges followed. Nevertheless, 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 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[64] to the Examiner, announcing that such
criticism was unwarranted, and injured the city. The letter contained
veiled threat that questioning of the Supervisors' motives would not be
tolerated. The threat, however, intimidated nobody. Criticism of Ruef
and the administration continued.
But in spite of the hostility toward him, Ruef controlled the San
Francisco delegates who were named that year to attend the Republican
State convention. The convention met at Santa Cruz. Ruef held the
balance of power. He was the most sought man there. He had the
nomination for Governor in his hands. He gave it to James N.
Gillett.[65]
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 nomination for Governor, his hand resting
upon Ruef's shoulder. 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. Henshaw of
the California Supreme Bench, who was nominated at the convention for
re-election;[66] Walter F. Parker, political agent for the 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 Company while on the Superior Bench, in the
so-called San Joaquin Valley railroad rate case, made him a conspicuous
figure in California public life.[67]
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 himself harassed by
criticism and beset by opposition. At every point in the municipal
administration, with the exception of the District Attorney's office,
was suggestion of graft and incompetency. The police department could
not, or would not, control the criminal element. Merchants, 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 utterly powerless to protect this
property. It became the loot of unchecked bands of thieves.
A reign of terror prevailed. Citizens feared to appear on the streets at
night. Merchants charged that their business was seriously injured by
these conditions. On all sides, blame was placed upon the Schmitz
administration which Ruef was known to control.[68]
Then again, Ruef's toll from the tolerated gambling, saloon and social
evil interests was getting too heavy for his own safety.[69] The public
was given hint of this when the newspapers quoted George Renner, a
prominent 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 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 Ruef. 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 realized the amount of
truth it contained.
The Supervisors were spending money freely. Men, who in private life had
earned less than $100 a month, 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. Wilson 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.[70] Reports
printed in San Francisco papers of Schmitz, the orchestra player, as
guest of the most expensive European hotels, did not tend to lessen the
opposition to the administration.
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.[71] 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 situation where all elements were at work.
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 radicals 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' Association, E.
R. Lillienthal. The ayes 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.
"I would suggest," he announced,[72] "that you disperse to your
respective homes."
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 was in control of the meeting which had been called to
protest against the conditions in San Francisco, for which the
administration, of which he was the recognized head, was held to be
accountable.[73] The first serious attempt to oust Ruef from his
dictatorship had failed.
But while the protestants against prevailing conditions 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 investigation might not be handicapped by
lack of funds, Mr. Langdon stated Rudolph Spreckels had guaranteed that
he would personally undertake the collection from public-spirited
citizens of a fund to provide for the expenses necessary to make the
investigation thorough.[74] It became 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. 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[48] See Keane's testimony in The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, Part 3,
vol. 1, page 455.
[49] See footnote 41, page 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 electricity 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 announcement 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
United Railroads still wanted its electric permit, and directed
that Gallagher 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 permit could be put through by paying each member
of the Board the amount which Ruef had specified, $4,000.
[51] 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 determined.
[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
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 Examiner
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 injury 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
railroad, the safety, utility and efficiency of which had been
demonstrated in New York and other Eastern cities.
"The emergency created by the destruction of the traffic
systems 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 Buchanan
streets must be built up to comply with the ordinance of the
city 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 what day we will begin to run cars. All depends
upon the smokestack 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 Examiner, 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.
"Frank E. Sharon, being first duly sworn according to law,
deposes 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; that on the morning of April
18, 1906, immediately following 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 fire from the adjoining buildings on
the east 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 $350; $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 slack of the cable. These tension carriages could
very easily have been restored. This loss, $4,800, and the
$2,000 stock loss, deducted from the total of $9,375, leaves a
total loss of $2,575 to the machinery of a plant estimated to
have cost $115,842.
[56] 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
entrench 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 hindering or
hampering progress. We recognize fully that every new
street-car line adds materially to the value of property within
its tributary 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
franchises 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
statement, but in practice the principles here laid down have
been virtually 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 made after the fire.
"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 explanation 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 permits
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 Mayor and Supervisors so complaisant to the will
of the United Railroads 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 trolley permits. The people
will not consent to see their most valuable property traded
away by a lot of conscienceless boodlers, and if it should
prove that the United Railroads 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 municipal government. There will come a
reckoning."
[57] See statement printed in San Francisco Examiner, May 4, 1906.
[58] Calhoun's letter to the Supervisors read:
"United Railroads of San Francisco.
"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
respectfully represents that, notwithstanding its urgent and
earnest efforts to provide adequate street railway
transportation on the lines being operated, constant pressure
is being applied and innumerable requests are being presented
to it to increase its transportation facilities.
"The company is anxious to please the people, and is willing to
do its part in the immediate upbuilding of the Greater San
Francisco, 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
company's other lines, we will be glad to put all of our lines
in commission, and will agree to have them in complete
operation wherever grades will permit as rapidly as the most
liberal expenditure of money and the largest possible
employment of men will accomplish. 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
transportation 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."
[59] The trolley permit was passed to print on May 14. The Examiner,
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
advantage.
"Before the disaster of April 18 it had been balked in its
purpose to make San Francisco a trolley town. The protests of
citizens who knew that the underground system is better than
the cheap, unsightly trolley 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
establishment 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
temporary in its character and should only obtain during the
pendency of present conditions.
"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
excitement 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
absolutely 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
Francisco's misfortune would bring out a horde of corporate
ghouls 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 proposed franchise is merely a temporary measure. It does
not mean that 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 wires has been granted. It can be revoked."
[61] At the Calhoun trial, William H. Sanderson testified to having
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
committee 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 portions 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 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 propose 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 substance that he thought that the company
would be paying all that the privileges was worth if it built
the road. Then I suggested to him that perhaps that sentiment
which objected to the disfigurement of Market 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
immediate work for 5,000 men. We 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, Mr. Ruef, but it seems to me that there
is another side to this question--a political side. The people
of San Francisco are at last all behind your administration.
What they need in this crisis is leadership, and we will have
to take such leadership 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 Examiner, 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."
[62] Said the Examiner in its issue of May 16, 1906: "It looks very
much as if Patrick Calhoun, Thornwell Mullally and their pals
of the United Railroads had sneaked up behind San Francisco
just as she lay wounded from earthquake and conflagration. In
the guise 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 FRANCISCO 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
certainly do know that the city never was so greatly in need of
money as now. To give away 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."
[64] The Supervisors' letter to the Examiner was as follows:
"San Francisco, Cal., May 26, 1906.
"To 'The San Francisco Examiner,' City--Gentlemen: The Board of
Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, regretting
the hostile stand which your journal has in these distressing
times assumed toward the rebuilding of our destroyed city, by
indiscriminately attacking every vested interest and all
intending 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 striving to restore and rebuild our beloved
city.
"Irrespective of any personal feeling caused by your wanton
attacks on his Honor the Mayor, and on this Board, we ask of
you, 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 every interest which has
expressed its intention to assist in our rebuilding and which
has manifested a practical confidence in our future. Otherwise,
the day will certainly not be far distant when the people,
realizing the result of your course, will seek to protect the
city against its further continuance.
"In all good faith for the city's interests and without any
personal rancor, these suggestions are submitted to your
careful attention.
"Respectfully, James L. Gallagher, Max Mamlock, Chas. Boxton,
L. A. Rea, F. P. Nicholas, Andrew M. Wilson, Geo. F. Duffey, J.
J. Furey. M. W. Coffey, Daniel G. Coleman, C. J. Harrigan, J.
J. Phillips, P. M. McGushin, E. I. Walsh, Sam Davis, Jas. T.
Kelly, Thomas F. Lonergan, W. W. Sanderson."
[65] Ruef, in his story of his political career, "The Road I
Traveled," 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 were 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: "Herrin 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, Henshaw,
before the briefs had been filed in the matter of the appeal
from the Appellate to the Supreme Court, signed an order
granting Ruef a new hearing. See Chapter XXIX.
[67] See decisions in Edson vs. The Southern Pacific Co., 133 Cal.
Reports and 144 Cal. Reports.
[68] Nor was this criticism confined to San Francisco; it was
general 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 formulated. This schedule has been rigidly adhered to.
In the case of houses of ill-fame, the proprietors were
required to pay the policemen 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 Barbary
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."
[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. I begged him not to go. I pointed out to him
that the city was in ruins and the place for the Mayor was at
home. He persisted, and all my pleadings were in vain."
[71] At a preliminary meeting of the organizers of this movement,
held in the office of the California Canners, October 10, 1906,
responsibility for the state of affairs 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 which warranted his prosecution.
[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 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 inefficiency. One or
two more crimes of violence with well-known people as victims
will fire 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 confronting 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 criminals, 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 Francisco
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 before 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
without country, expatriated by his own cowardice. This is Dr.
Jekyll.
"But there are some who see in Schmitz Mr. Hyde. These do 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
people 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 by 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 California. Ruef owns the Board of
Supervisors. The Police Commissioners belong to him. The
saloon-keeper who wants a license, a corporation that wants a
favor from the Board of Supervisors, 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, 1906. 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 official graft and
malfeasance in office, I have determined to seize the
opportunity presented, by the impanelment of a new grand jury,
which has been set down for next Wednesday by Hon. Thomas F.
Graham, the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in the City
and County of San Francisco, to inaugurate a systematic and
thorough investigation into these conditions. 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
convicting those who are guilty. If the charges be untrue,
their falsity should be demonstrated to the world, so as to
remove the impressions 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 country that there is enough strength,
virtue and civic pride in our people to enable the regularly
constituted machinery 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
prosecute every man who is guilty, regardless of position or
standing in the city. In order that we may have the benefit of
expert services 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 has accepted. It is unfortunate
that this work should be commenced 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 by 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 the grand jury is, of course, utterly
inadequate. Often previous investigations by other grand juries
have been made abortive 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 results may ensue. The
city is in deep affliction consequent upon the dreadful
calamities of last spring; it is in danger from certainly
increasing invasion 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 conditions, and have
restored decency, efficiency, honesty and honor in her public
affairs.
"WILLIAM H. LANGDON, District Attorney."
CHAPTER V.
GRAFT PROSECUTION OPENS.
Three days after the announcement of his plans, District Attorney
Langdon appointed Heney to a regular 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 responsible for conditions in San Francisco.
The Bulletin had been the most fearless and consistent of the opponents
of the Schmitz-Ruef regime.[75] After Ruef's complete triumph at the
November election 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 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."[76]
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 Heney's return to California early in 1906, Older brought him and
Rudolph Spreckels[77] and James D. Phelan together. Heney and Spreckels
met for the first time. Phelan vouched for Langdon's[78] integrity and
honesty of purpose. Indeed, Langdon was already giving evidence of his
independence of the Ruef organization. Up to that time no attempt had
been made to raise the funds necessary to conduct a practical
investigation. 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 confidence that he could get twenty men who
would subscribe $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.[79]
"If there be anything 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 corruptionists 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.[80] Spreckels told him that he
wanted the investigation begun at the earliest possible moment, and that
he (Spreckels) would himself guarantee the expenses which might be
incurred.[81] Heney notified Burns, and as early as June[82] 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 prosecution was undertaken to injure the
United Railroads, these dates are important. The services for which the
bribe money which got the United Railroads into difficulties 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 Railroads bribe money
was not completed until late in August[83] of that year. Burns was at
work, and had received pay for his services before the bribe-giving for
which United Railroad officials were prosecuted had taken place.[84]
Langdon's announcement that he would appoint Heney as a Deputy District
Attorney, to assist in investigating into charges of official
corruption, brought upon him the condemnation of the municipal
administration 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
denunciations. 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."
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 organizations and again to
gain control of the government of our fair city."
Ruef, in an earnest address, insisted upon his innocence of wrongdoing.
"As sure as there is a God in heaven," he announced solemnly, "they have
no proof as they claim."[85]
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 movement on the part of the Citizens' Alliance to
disrupt the labor unions.[86]
From another angle, officials of public service corporations 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, "I 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 justice."[87]
Then, too, there were points at which the two supposed extremes,
corporation magnates and Labor-Union politicians, touched in their
opposition to the prosecution. 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 denounced 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 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 Supervisors.[88]
On the other hand, practically the entire press of the city,[89] the
general public and many of the labor 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 corruption.[90] Rudolph
Spreckels's statement, that "this is no question of capital and labor,
but of dishonesty and justice,"[91] was generally accepted as true
expression of the situation.
Those directly connected with allegations or suggestion of irregular
practices, issued statements disclaiming any knowledge of irregularity
or corruption. General Tirey L. Ford, chief counsel of the United
Railroads, in a published interview,[92] stated that no political boss
nor any person connected with the municipal administration 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 denials.[93] 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
assist in the inquiry. "Let us," said Supervisor Lonergan, "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 Gallagher, Clerk Keane, and his
attorney, Henry Ach. The public knew little of these consultations, but
a rumor became current that Mayor Gallagher would suspend 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 investigations.[94]
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."
FOOTNOTES:
[75] The persecution of the Bulletin during this period was
characteristic 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 organized into a union. The boys were sincere enough,
but the movement 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 Bulletin.
Business boycotts were attempted against it.
[76] See address made by Heney before Citizens' League of Justice in
October, 1908.
[77] 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 administration 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 I 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 Union party. Just at the
time that the bids are about to come in, I will arrange to tie
up this town; we will have the biggest strike that the
community has ever known, 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' attitude 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 serve private
interests, 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 absolute 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
had 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 higher kind of moral
courage, and that courage was exercised to the credit of San
Francisco as well as to the credit of Mr. Langdon."
[79] The Graft Defense labored without success to make it appear
that Heney was compensated for his service. Out of the
Prosecution fund, the expenses--rental, clerical hire,
etc.--of offices, so far as they were maintained especially
for the work of the Graft Prosecution, were paid. These were
known as "Heney's offices." When Rudolph Spreckels was on the
stand at the Calhoun trial, he testified 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.
[80] 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
several months before the bribe money was paid.
[81] See testimony of Rudolph Spreckels at trial of The People vs.
Patrick Calhoun, No. 1436.
[82] Al McKinley was the first detective put to work for the Graft
Prosecution. On May 25, 1906, Chief Burns detailed him 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 following, for example, is taken from Rudolph Spreckels'
testimony:
"Mr. Heney--Q. At the time that Mr. Phelan agreed to contribute
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
prosecuting Mr. Calhoun? A. Absolutely no.
"Q. Or any person connected with the United Railroads Company?
A. The discussion was entirely confined to the administration,
the corrupt
"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
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 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
Company? A. I did not." See transcript The People vs. Patrick
Calhoun, No. 1436, page 3730.
[84] Rudolph Spreckels testified at the trial of The People vs.
Patrick 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."
[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 impassable 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
officials elected by the Union Labor party in the hope that
they may thereby themselves secure control of the municipal
administration 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
disruption 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.
[88] The nature of the attacks upon the supporters of the
Prosecution 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 purposes 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 mislead 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 appraised by an expert
at $5,000,000 and held by the bondholders to be worth, as
realty speculation, $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 Chronicle, 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 welcome 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
verification 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 public officials 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 dishonesty
in office the officials 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
crimes. 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 turn of their windings. We are convinced that some of
our Supervisors and not a few of the executive officials
appointed by Schmitz are in no degree superior in point of
intelligence and moral sense to the gaspipe robbers.
"Mr. Heney's record as a remorseless and indefatigable
prosecutor of official 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 believed 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 franchises, 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 drunken sailor. It is time for housecleaning and a
day of reckoning. Heney and Burns will put the question: 'Where
did they get it?'"
[90] Bishop Montgomery, of the Roman Catholic Church, in an
interview in the San Francisco Call, October 20, 1906, said in
reference 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. Nothing 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."
[91] Mr. Spreckels' statement was contained in an interview printed
in the San Francisco Call, October 28, 1906. It was as
follows:
"This is no question of capital and labor," he said, "but of
dishonesty 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 Shortridge.
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. Very 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 undertaken 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
municipal 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."
[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."
Supervisor Andrew Wilson: "I shall be glad to welcome any
investigation 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 administration
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 many
accusations 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 administration 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."
[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 corrupt, etc."
Acting-Mayor Gallagher's order of removal was made in persuance
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
suspended 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 discharge the
duties of the office during the period of such suspension.
"Sec. 19. When the Mayor shall suspend any elected officer he
shall immediately 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 such 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 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 office; but if the action
of the Mayor is not so approved such suspended officer shall be
immediately reinstated."
CHAPTER VI.
RUEF'S FIGHT TO TAKE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
The impaneling of the Grand Jury was to have been completed on October
26. Heney was appointed Assistant 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[95]. The Acting Mayor expressed himself as
ready to carry out whatever Ruef might want done.
Gallagher testified that the names of several attorneys, including that
of Henry Ach, Ruef's attorney and close associate, were canvassed as
eligible for appointment 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. Cator, a member of the municipal Board of Election
Commissioners. Henry Ach came in later.
Ruef told Gallagher that he had decided it was necessary 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 Supervisors, who had been waiting
for him for nearly four hours, were called to order. The communication
removing Langdon was read and adopted without debate or opposition.[96]
Gallagher then announced that he had appointed Ruef to be Langdon's
successor.
How completely Ruef dominated the municipal departments 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 with misgivings. 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.[97] 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.[98] Later in the evening he appointed as Heney's
successor Marshall B. Woodworth.
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 Attorney'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 interpretation 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, in
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 accusations 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 anarchy 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, with malice
aforethought, with strategy and cunning and used as a fort for thieves
to battle down the forces of citizenship. The criminals, accused of
felony, after inviting investigation and pretending to assist, have
shown their 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 government 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 organizations.
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 repudiated the
action of the central body.
The Bricklayers and Masons' Union, for example, with 800 members
present, and without a dissenting vote, adopted resolutions declaring
that "the President and Secretary[99] 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 municipal administration,
which the Building Trades Council had approved, as "high-handed defiance
of the law."[100]
In spite of this repudiation by the unions, Ruef issued a statement in
which he denounced the prosecution as a movement "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 accepted 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 believe that his
moral standing is equal to the position."[101]
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.[102] Even while Ruef and his
associates 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 with the
District Attorney in the discharge of his duties. The papers were not
ready before 5 o'clock of the morning of the 26th. At that hour,
Superior Judge Seawell signed an order temporarily restraining Ruef from
installing himself as District Attorney, and from interfering with
Langdon in the discharge of his duties as District Attorney. 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 Attorney's office
with instructions to enforce the restraining order. For the time, at
least, District Attorney Langdon was secure in his office.
Ruef appeared two hours later. He was that morning 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 District
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 setback. 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 Attorney. The
restraining order kept Ruef and Woodworth 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[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
substance of the conversation was that Mr. Ruef stated that it
might become necessary to remove Mr. Langdon from the office of
District Attorney, 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."
[96] The San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of October 26, thus
describes the proceedings attending Langdon's removal:
"Gallagher took the chair at 6:30 p. m. and there was ten minutes'
perfunctory business.
"His honor seemed uneasy, but at the careful prompting of
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 charges.
"During the reading of the long document there was no sound In the
hall save the hoarse voice of Secretary Keane, and on its
completion Supervisor Sanderson arose.
"Gallagher explained that Langdon would 'be given an opportunity
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
Transcript 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 Railroad Commissioner, and he said I
would feel better after I had something to eat, and we went
over to Tait's and had supper. On the way over he (Ruef) sent
Charlie Hagerty in to notify Mr. Heney of his removal."
[98] Ruef's order dismissing Heney was as follows:
"Mr. Francis J. Heney: You are hereby removed from the position
of Assistant District Attorney of the City and County of San
Francisco.
"Dated. October 25, 1906.
"(Signed) A. RUEF,
"Acting District Attorney."
[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'
International 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
Supervisors 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 by
the Acting Mayor and Supervisors 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
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 officials 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
disrepute."
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.
[102] Mr. Langdon, on arriving in San Francisco, issued the
following 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 prevent 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 deny the legal right of the Mayor or the Board of
Supervisors 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
they will 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."
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 public
found by the morning 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 Judge Graham recognize Ruef or
Langdon as District 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 clearing the building of all who could
not show that they had business there, then began. In this work,
deference 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 administration who protested against removal
were unceremoniously thrown out.
Although little groups of partisans of the administration appeared in
the crowd, the citizens assembled were in the main clearly in sympathy
with the prosecution.[103] The arrival of Langdon, Heney and Spreckels
was signal for outbursts of applause. Ruef apparently appreciated the
feeling against him. He appeared guarded by two detectives of the
regular police department,[104] 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 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. District 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 discrimination. This
course was taken. The crowd poured in until every available foot of
standing room was occupied.[105]
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 nineteen men as to their qualifications as Grand
Jurors.
Ruef, announcing himself as an officer of the court, 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
appeared 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]
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,[107]
addressed the Court. At his suggestion the Grand Jurors were excused
for the day. General Webb then stated that he knew of no law for the
procedure which Mr. Heney suggested. He admitted, however, that such
procedure would be desirable, and advised 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 examination of Grand Jurors, and continued:
"The only question remaining is as to when this examination 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
examination instead of waiting until we have presented our evidence 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 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 together 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 alliances 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 Langdon and Heney at the
entrance of the building brought forth cheers from the crowd that all
through the proceedings 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."
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.[108]
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 examination 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, 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 connected with his political
organization.
A second crowd filled courtroom, building and street when Judge Graham's
court was called to order the following Monday. Mounted policemen,
plain-clothes men and detectives, directed by two captains of police,
were, however, on hand to preserve order.[109] 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
further 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 with 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
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 controversy should be decided. Shortridge
expressed himself as fearful that, if the examination of the Grand
Jurors went on, Judge Seawell's decision might invalidate the Grand Jury
proceedings.
W. T. Baggett, Assistant City Attorney,[110] 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 Langdon should be recognized as
the de facto District Attorney, and ordered the impaneling of the Grand
Jury to continue.
Shortridge thereupon announced his desire to participate 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 curiæ[111] in examining jurors. This privilege was accorded
him.
The examination of the Grand Jurors occupied more than a week. Several
of the nineteen were excused, it being found that their names were not
on the assessment roll.
The examination was concluded[112] on November 7th and the Grand Jurors
sworn. B. P. Oliver was appointed 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?
FOOTNOTES:
[103] The San Francisco Chronicle in its issue of October 27 thus
described the crowd: "Every man the police put out of the
building 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 afternoon 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 people 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.
[105] While the crowd was pressing into the room, a deputy sheriff
undertook to search Heney for concealed weapons. Heney
complained of the officer's conduct, protested vigorously.
"That is the man standing there," cried Heney, "he did so at
the request of Abe Ruef."
"Who 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.
[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 indictment set aside if
any member of the Grand Jury is biased or prejudiced 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 become public
through the newspapers--to some extent, at least--that Abraham
Ruef is to be investigated. The People have the same right as
the defendant to examine the members of the panel as to their
qualifications. 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 assessment 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 necessary to take for grand jurors the
nineteen whose names are first 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 instructed 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 statement 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 penitentiary, 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 prosecution 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 relation
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
Calhoun, and would just as soon testify against him as not.
But the moment 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 desperate 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 many influential people are involved in this
thing. You and Burns think you know, but there are a lot of
people whom you don't know anything 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 weight of my testimony any by having me plead
guilty in that extortion case. Besides that, the Court would
not allow me bail after I had pleaded guilty, and the Supreme
Court may 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 Herrin 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."
[108] While 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 fist 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 persecution. 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 their 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 seizure of the office of the District Attorney is
solely due to the presence and strenuous efforts of the
police."
[109] In sending his officers 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 permitted."
[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.
[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;
Jeremiah 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; Christian P. Rode, drayman; Ansel C.
Robinson, merchant; Dewey Coffin, real estate; F. G. Sanborn,
law book publisher; Maurice Block, merchant.
CHAPTER VIII.
RUEF LOSES THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
While the impaneling of the Grand Jury was going on before Judge Graham,
Ruef was disputing Langdon's title to the office of District Attorney
before Judge Seawell. In these proceedings Samuel M. Shortridge appeared
with Ruef's attorney, Ach, and Deputy City Attorney Baggett, not as
amicus curiæ, but as Ach's associate in the legal contest to force
Langdon out of office.
The principal feature of Ruef's case was the introduction of affidavits,
signed by sixteen members[113] of the Board of Supervisors, in which
the Supervisors denied 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 evidence they had against Ruef. In this Ach
failed. On the other hand, the prosecution sought to bring out testimony
that Ruef had directed Gallagher to suspend Langdon.[114] To this end
Heney placed Ruef on the stand. But Judge Seawell stated[115] that he
did not at that time wish to go into question of motive and the point
was not pressed.
The outcome of the proceedings was a second victory for the prosecution.
The injunction against Ruef was granted;[116] Langdon was left in
peaceful possession of the District Attorney's office.[117] 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[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
character, and has never been a party thereto, and there is
not and can be no evidence presented of or concerning any
felony committed 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 commission of any
crime or felony or offense against the laws of the State of
California; and this affiant further says that he has no
knowledge, direct or indirect, of the commission of any felony
or of 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 the afternoon that affidavit was signed, I came down
late to a meeting 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 them up and to find
out if that was so. It was not read at the notary's office
while I was there. I did not read it before signing it." See
Transcript on Appeal The People vs. Glass, page 278.
Supervisor Boxton 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.
[115] The passage between Heney and Ruef's lawyers which followed
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
skeptically.
"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 proceeding 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 compelled to proceed against the very persons who
might be conducting 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
sustained 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. Tenderloin 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 assignation 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
alleged to be "French 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.[118]
French Restaurants had long been a scandal in San Francisco. Toward the
close of 1904, the Police Commission, 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 Tortoni's. Without a license to sell liquor a
"French Restaurant" 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 applications 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 Commissioners as attorney
for the "French Restaurant" keepers.[119] 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 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[120] Ruef's request that the sale of liquors in "French
Restaurant" 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.[121] 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 people, 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[122] an honest attempt to get to the bottom of the scandal. The
efforts of this early Grand Jury came to nothing.
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 Commissioner 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 investigation 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
appeared before the commission on January 3, 1905, on behalf 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 testimony. After that meeting he had advised his client,
and a little group of "French Restaurant" keepers who had gathered
about him, 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, Rosenthal told them,
what every observer in San Francisco knew, "There is only one man who
could help you, and that is Mr. Ruef."[123] The French Restaurant
keepers received this advice from all sides. Joe Malfanti testified 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 practically every night, entertained friends and received his
henchmen.
Ruef had from time to time acted as Loupy's attorney. He had also loaned
Loupy money. At the time 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 Restaurant proprietors that Ruef would
represent them all before the Police Commission for $7000 a year,[124]
on a contract for two years. The sum was finally cut to $5000,[125]
$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 considerable
expense and was a poorer man than the others, paid only $300.[126]
The money being paid over to Ruef,[127] Ruef appeared before the Police
Commissioners, as has already been told, with his plan for regulating
the French Restaurant business in San Francisco.
Ruef's arrangements with the French Restaurant 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.[128] 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 licenses 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 Restaurant 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 appearance before the
commissioners as representative of the French Restaurants, Mayor Schmitz
removed Hutton.[129] The licenses were then issued to the "French
Restaurant" keepers.[130]
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
evidence was presented.
The Grand Jury, on the evidence, indicted Schmitz and Ruef on five
counts for extortion.[131] Bonds were fixed at $10,000 on each charge,
$50,000 for each defendant.
Ruef[132] was released on $50,000 bail.
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 prominent capitalists.
FOOTNOTES:
[118] See Transcript on Appeal The People of the State of California
vs. Eugene E. Schmitz, pp. 500 and 557.
[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. Eugene E. Schmitz that they held 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 flatly refused to
represent them; that he had had no intention whatever of so
doing until the San Francisco Bulletin denounced him for
having had the 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 Heney's affidavit in the case of The
People vs. Patrick Calhoun, et als., No. 823, pp. 141 to 143,
inclusive.)
[120] Commissioner 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
establishments, 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 Jury, named from its foreman, T. P. Andrews.
The work of the Andrews Grand Jury was not lost, however. It
served as basis for much of the investigation conducted by the
Oliver Grand Jury.
[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 only 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 Jury over his testimony on this point. Both
Rosenthal and Adler, however, testified at Schmitz's trial.
[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
Commissioners 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 brought 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
additional 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
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 administration--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
receipt. 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."
[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
requested 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 requested 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."
[130] The Chronicle in its issue of February 1, 1907, thus
summarized 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 they were issued. In the 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 revenues thus obtained were
evidently the sources of Schmitz's suddenly acquired wealth.
Presumably some small share was paid to the subordinates.
"Certainly that is extortion, and extortion of the most
villainous kind. To the ordinary reader it is completely
covered by the language 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 they are no
better than Ruef or Schmitz themselves."
[131] The press throughout 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
secure immunity for himself and those who were with him in the
grafting 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 apprehension and converts it into confidence that
the body now in session is in deadly earnest and that it will
earn the gratitude of its fellow citizens and cover itself
with glory by striking an effective blow which will put an end
to flagrant venality in office and restore 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 political regeneration and civic reform that has been
sweeping the country has hit San Francisco with the force of
all the other successes behind it. In other cities and other
States the powerful rascals as well as their satellites have
been sent to prison. Evidently 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 remembered. It marks the
beginning of San Francisco's regeneration. 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
published in the San Francisco Chronicle of November 16, 1906,
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 baseless. I have nothing
to fear."
On November 17 the Chronicle, touching upon Ruef's defense,
said: "Every 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 question is about to be settled."
CHAPTER X.
FIGHT TO EVADE TRIAL.
The indictments against Schmitz and Ruef were returned November 15.
Schmitz reached San Francisco on his return from Europe on November
29.[133] He at once joined with Ruef in the fight to prevent the issue
raised by his indictment being presented to a trial jury.
The two defendants were to have been arraigned on December 3, but at
their earnest solicitation arraignment[134] was continued until December
6.
On that day the plans of the defendants became apparent. 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 appeared for Schmitz, while
Ruef was 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. The long technical fight to disqualify the Grand Jury had
opened.[135]
In the attack upon the Grand Jury, Joseph C. Campbell 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.
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 indictment failed as much as
though the whole nineteen Grand Jurors were disqualified.[136]
Judge Dunne, after a three days' hearing, swept aside the multitude of
technical objections which the various attorneys for the defense had
advanced. In particular did he refuse to declare the whole nineteen
Grand Jurors disqualified, because of the alleged disqualification 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.[137] The defense went further, and
had Rudolph Spreckels up to question him as to his motives in
guaranteeing a fund for the investigation of graft conditions.[138]
District Attorney Langdon was also placed on the stand to be examined as
to his motive in appointing Heney his assistant. He denied most
emphatically that he had appointed Heney for the sole purpose 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 another delaying play. They demurred to the
indictments. The demurrers were not disposed of until February 18.
In the meantime, the defense had made several complicating 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 Sheriff, and applied to the Supreme
Court for a writ of habeas corpus, and a writ of prohibition, setting up
the points already raised in Judge Dunne's court against the
indictments. The Supreme Court finally decided against Schmitz.
But there remained another way of having the case transferred from Judge
Dunne's court. The law governing changes of venue could be changed by
the Legislature. The 1907 Legislature had convened early in January. 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.[139] The measure was known as the "Change
of Venue Bill." Its chief supporter in the Legislature was George B.
Keane.
Keane was not only clerk of the Board of Supervisors, but he was a
member of the State Senate representing a San Francisco district. Keane
championed the "Change of Venue Bill."[140] 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, when the efforts of Schmitz and Ruef to evade trial
were being pressed the hardest, agitation against the Japanese gave
Schmitz opportunity not 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 conference 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 Washington.
A telegram was received from Congressman Julius Kahn, a close supporter
of Ruef and Schmitz, who represented 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 conference with them and
the California delegation."
Schmitz started for Washington on February 3.[141] 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 negotiations
was not satisfactory to California. There was 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 administration had occurred.
FOOTNOTES:
[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 existed 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
investors 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 company in the
West. A lease was sought and obtained by a man notorious 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 significant 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."
[134] During the reading of the first of the five indictments,
Schmitz stood, but Ruef remained seated. When the second
indictment was read, both the defendants kept their seats.
Heney demanded to know what was going on. Judge Dunne
announced that the arraignment must proceed as in ordinary
cases. During the reading of the remaining indictments both
defendants remained standing, but Ruef kept his back turned
toward the court. Commenting 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, however, through one arraignment, and the people have
reason to complain 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 considerable 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 represents the
majesty of the law. He sits for the people in solemn judgment
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."
[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. Several 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 investigation. That the
investigation was going far was now conceded. 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 represented 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 statement 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
connected with the administration is corrupt?" asked Lawyer
Fairall of counsel for the defense. "I do not believe anyone
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,
absolutely 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
examination of the Grand Jurors followed in the case of Ruef
and Schmitz, and was repeated for the third time on behalf of
public-service corporation agents who were indicted later.
[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 it does not put
a speedy end to it we are mistaken. We are getting an object
lesson which, perhaps, was needed. The whole miserable
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
interested 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 collect the evidence. I have
stated publicly relative to this fund of $100,000."
[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
provide 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 have their cases retried from the
beginning."
[140] Ruef had, as early as 1904, secured a hold on the State
Legislature, by putting up and electing a Union Labor party
legislative ticket. "I told the legislators," said Ruef in a
statement published after he had entered San Quentin prison,
"to vote on all labor questions and legislation directly
involving labor interests always for the labor side. I told
them on all other questions to follow the Herrin 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 governing 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 intended 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
stenographers and bookkeepers testifying against their
employers. During the discussion in the Senate Committee on
the Change of Venue bill, Keane offered an amendment to make
this measure take effect immediately.
[141] On the way across San Francisco Bay to take the train at
Oakland, in the words of newspaper reports of the incident,
members of Mayor Schmitz's personal following who accompanied
him, "were frankly delighted with the prospect of the indicted
Mayor returning from the national capital covered with glory,
and acclaimed 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 Mayor's
departure, "the nation was saved."
CHAPTER XI.
RUEF A FUGITIVE.
Three months[142] 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 March 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 violation 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.
In opposing Ruef's new move, Hiram W. Johnson,[143] 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 arguments before Hebbard's colleague,
Judge Dunne, and in the course of those arguments every question
presented in the proceedings had been passed upon.
Ach, representing Ruef, denied that the Federal question had been
presented. Johnson insisted that it had. An unfortunate scene
followed.[144] Hebbard showed symptoms of intoxication. Johnson, Langdon
and Heney finally refused to participate further in the proceedings and
walked out of the courtroom.[145] 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.[146]
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 further struggle in the courts to
evade trial. But he undertook a new move. After leaving 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. When Ruef's case was
called for trial in Judge Dunne's department on the morning following
the proceedings in Judge Hebbard's court, Ruef's attorney, Samuel M.
Shortridge, was present, but not the defendant.
Shortridge was in the position of an attorney in court without a
client.[147] 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
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 before Judge Hebbard had not
occurred. Those proceedings, 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[148] for a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Dunne and others
from further proceeding against Ruef in the extortion cases, and to show
cause why the writ should not be made permanent. Ruef being in hiding,
the application was not signed by the petitioner. The Appellate Court,
after twenty-four hours, denied the petition. Ruef's representatives
then went before the State Supreme Court with the same representations.
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,[149] Judge Dunne
disqualified Walsh and appointed William J. Biggy[150] 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 under arrest.[151]
Having taken his man,[152] the elisor 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, remanded 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 following.
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 before Judge Dunne.[153] 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
prosecution, and immediately the extortion cases became of comparative
unimportance. The trapping of the three Supervisors led to confessions
from fourteen others, 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[142] Ruef and Schmitz were indicted November 15, 1906. The date of
Ruef's plea of "Not guilty" was February 18, 1907.
[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 candidate 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 California 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 Roosevelt
on the National Progressive ticket. In 1914 he was re-elected
Governor of California with overwhelming vote. Johnson is the
first Governor since 1853 to secure re-election in California.
[144] See Heney's affidavit in The People vs. Ruef, No. 823.
[145] "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, according to our ideas, comport with the dignity of
justice, the dignity of this court, or our own dignity."
[146] On March 25, 1907, Ruef's appeal in the habeas corpus matter
was dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Of
this move, Frank J. Murphy, 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 decision 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.
[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 contempt of court, and
sentenced him to serve twenty-four hours in jail. The
Chronicle of March 9, 1907, contains the following account of
the incident:
"Have you 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
Shortridge.
"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
declare you guilty of contempt and sentence you to be confined
in the County Jail for twenty-four hours. Mr. Sheriff, take
him into custody."
[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.
[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
arrested. Long after, when he had plead guilty to one of the
extortion 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. Naturally we were surprised when
we learned that Campbell, the Mayor's (Schmitz's) attorney,
was at Sacramento lobbying against the bill. What his object
was I do not know. He even went to George 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
insisted 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
confusion. 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 morning following Ruef's capture, he went down
to Henry Ach's apartment to ascertain if the rumor that Ruef
had been found were true.
[153] Of the procedure which made possible Ruef's long technical
fight 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
miscarriages of justice. There have been wealthy men whom
everybody 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 effrontery. 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 interest 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 community 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 roustabouts is dragged out in open
court."
CHAPTER XII.
TRAPPING OF THE SUPERVISORS.
Months before the Oliver Grand Jury was convened, it was common gossip
in San Francisco that the members of the Board of Supervisors were
taking money from the public service corporations.[154] Belief 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 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, during the months of
February and March, 1907, unquestionably lost ground in public opinion.
But with Ruef holding the Supervisors to rigid accounting, and agents of
public-service corporations lynx-eyed[155] 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 hurried to Ruef for advice.
When he directed them to return the bribe money they promised to do so,
and in some cases actually returned 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 position so far as the Supervisors was concerned was
almost 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 organization 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 position. 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 Lonergan 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 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 enterprises, among them
interests in a skating-rink. An ordinance regulating skating-rinks was
pending before the Supervisors. Roy, acting under direction of the
District Attorney, approached Lonergan with 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 ordinance.
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 Lonergan and charged him with getting the
money.
Gallagher hurried Lonergan to Ruef much the same as they would have
rushed a man showing the symptoms of a deadly malady to a physician.
Ruef warned him and advised him. The thoroughly frightened Supervisor
assured Ruef that he would be careful in the future, and that he would
return the money he had received from Roy.[156]
But even as Ruef was dealing with Lonergan, Supervisor 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 Attorney's trap was Dr.
Charles Boxton.
Dr. Boxton[157] 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 folding 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 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 Lonergan, for the second
time,[158] the victim.
Lonergan, instead of returning the $500 he had accepted in the
skating-rink transaction, as he had promised 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 support the measure. The ordinance had been cleverly prepared,
with an acrostic in the title, spelling the word "Fake."[159] 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.
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, indicating 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 Supervisors. 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 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. Halsey, representing the Pacific States
Telephone and Telegraph Company. Halsey had paid Lonergan the money, the
Supervisor said, to oppose the granting of a franchise 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 would 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 would not have provided
sufficient to convict. The confessions of the three were 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 Boxton; the measures could, with
the votes of the fifteen, have been passed without the votes of the
three Supervisors trapped. To make out even a fairly good case against
Ruef, it was absolutely essential to have Gallagher's testimony, and in
addition thereto, the testimony of a majority of the members of the
Board of Supervisors.[160]
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 Supervisors remaining would have filled their
places by appointment. The situation would then be more difficult for
the prosecution than ever.
While the agents of the District Attorney were dealing with the
complicated problems which the first break in the line of the graft
defense brought upon them, Ruef continued a fugitive. Gallagher, Ruef's
immediate representative, 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
prevent the conditions of graft in the Board of Supervisors from
becoming public.[161] Supervisor Wilson was assisting 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 Supervisors 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 observed 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 side. Wilson
assured Gallagher that he considered such a move would be a wise one.
Gallagher's first definite word 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 confession, had been
broached, and the suggestion had been made that Gallagher meet some
member of the prosecution 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 appointment 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 indicate 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[162] on the strength of
his giving full and free, 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 meeting-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.[163]
Gallagher would make no admissions, and indicated that under no
circumstances would he consider the District Attorney's immunity
proposition unless all the Supervisors were included within its
provisions.
After this preliminary meeting, Spreckels conferred with Langdon and
Heney. It was agreed that Gallagher's testimony was essential. He was,
indeed, the pivotal witness. The confessions of Lonergan, Boxton and
Walsh showed that he had carried the bribe money from Ruef to the
Supervisors. Furthermore, the testimony of a majority of the Supervisors
would be necessary. Under the circumstances it was decided that immunity
could very properly be extended to all the Supervisors.
This decision Spreckels took back to Gallagher. Gallagher called his
leaderless associates together.
By this time it was generally known among the Supervisors 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 situation.[164] 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
willing to sacrifice himself, if necessary, but that the whole matter
was with them to decide.
Wilson and Boxton urged that the terms offered by the prosecution be
accepted.[165]
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 discussion."
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 word to Spreckels that he had communicated to the
Supervisors the message which Spreckels had delivered to him from the
District Attorney, to the effect that immunity would be granted to the
Supervisors, provided they would make sworn declaration of the crimes
in which they were involved, giving a truthful account of all matters.
The Supervisors, Gallagher told Spreckels, had decided to accept the
proposition, 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 feature 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 corporations involved
practically every day at luncheon. But the corporation officials would
give no assistance in exposing the corruption which was undermining the
community.[166]
FOOTNOTES:
[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 replied:
"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
advised 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. Choynski 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 paralyzed when he mentioned the exact amount,
but denied it; and I says to Mr. Ruef, 'He has the correct
amount on the trolley,' and he stated that there must be a
leak somewhere in the Board; and I told him 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 information 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 Supervisor
Kelly telling Morris Levy, and Morris Levy telling
Choynski."--See Transcript, page 2643.
[155] Supervisor James L. Gallagher testified at the trial of The
People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, 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 delivered 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 Supervisors."
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 shorthand memorandum of it, and read the message to
Ruef later. See transcript, The People vs. Ruef, Part 3, Vol.
2, pp. 976 to 983.
[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 officers of the Native Sons' organization; an
officer of the First California Regiment in the Philippines,
and had been several times elected Supervisor by large and
popular votes."
[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.
When 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
published a story to the 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."
[160] 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 receiving money in
the Parkside matter.
With all this evidence before it, the jury stood six for
acquittal and six for conviction.
[161] Wilson testified at the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No.
1437, of the anxiety of the Supervisors during this period.
Although Wilson had resigned from the board to accept the
office of State Railroad Commissioner to which he had been
elected, he went to a conference of the Supervisors to decide
what should be done. The following is from Wilson's testimony:
"Q. You were not then a Supervisor, 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. What 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."
[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 individuals and tempt men of no means to commit a
crime in order that he might make more money."--See transcript
of testimony, page 3326.
[163] At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, Gallagher
testified that Spreckels told him in substance as follows:
"Mr. Spreckels then stated that he was not actuated by
vindictiveness 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 corporations and big interests remained; that they
were, as he thought, the source of the trouble, and therefore,
he did not consider it important, 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
unlawful character. I think I then said to him I would
consider the matter and would talk with the members of the
Board of Supervisors about it."
[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 were 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 purpose was not to prosecute the members of the
Board of Supervisors 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.
[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
were honest men; that I did not feel he should be sacrificed
alone in the matter."
[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 Union Club, where they generally lunched,
Spreckels and Heney were the recipients of many kind words of
encouragement 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 public works, and of Supervisor Wilson[167] 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 confession of their participation in the gains
of the organized betrayal of the city.
Supervisor Wilson added his confession to the sixteen. Thus, of the
eighteen Union Labor party Supervisors elected in 1905, four years after
the organization of that party, seventeen[168] 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 organized primarily to control municipal government
to 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 leaders of the Union-Labor party.
The Supervisors' confessions corroborated the statements previously made
by Lonergan, Walsh and Boxton.
The bribery transactions to which the seventeen Supervisors confessed,
came naturally under two heads:
The first class included the briberies carried on through Ruef, who
dealt directly with those who furnished 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 Telephone Company, its franchise; to the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, an 85-cent gas rate; to the prize fight combine,
monopoly of the pugilistic contests in San Francisco. In this class,
too, is properly included the Parkside Transit Company, which had, at
the time the exposure came, paid Ruef $15,000 to secure a street
railroad franchise, with a promise of $15,000 more when the franchise
had been actually granted. The Supervisors 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.[169] Of
this, he 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 divided 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 confessions 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 demanded of him. He stated that he had taken out 5 per
cent. as his commission.
So strong was the dissatisfaction created by the holding 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 Gallagher was followed when
the Supervisors were paid after fixing gas rates at 85 cents per
thousand cubic feet, instead of 75 cents,[170] 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.[171]
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 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[172] had accepted from T. V.
Halsey, representing the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company,
bribes to block the granting of a franchise to the Home Telephone
Company. On the other hand, the Home Telephone Company had paid Ruef
$125,000[173] 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 remainder with Schmitz. In this way, the
administration was bribed to grant the Home Telephone franchise, while
eleven[174] 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 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 matter."[175]
But Boxton was unable to prevail against the support which Ruef and
Schmitz were giving the Home Telephone 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
franchise.[176]
The next day, in open board meeting, with Boxton still leading the
opposition, the franchise was awarded to the Home Telephone Company.
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 support 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 administration 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 Telephone money.
In this way each Supervisor who had voted for the Home franchise would
get $6000 for his 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
Halsey, and yet voted to give the Home Company its franchise. 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.[177]
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 testified, Ruef had given him $85,000 to be
distributed among the Supervisors.
Of this $85,000, Gallagher kept $15,000 for himself, gave Wilson
$10,000,[178] and to each of the other Supervisors with the exception of
Rea,[179] $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,[180] Ruef had
told Gallagher that the amount would be $1000 to each Supervisor.
Gallagher had conveyed this information to the Supervisors. At the time
of Ruef's flight, arrest and the attending breaking up of his
organization, the Supervisors were impatiently waiting for this money to
be paid.[181]
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
statements from seventeen[182] of the eighteen Supervisors, that they
had received large sums of bribe money to influence 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 statement
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
those who had bribed. This testimony could have been had, had the
prosecution agreed to give Ruef complete immunity.
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.[183] They told him that
full statements had been made to the District Attorney. Ruef complained
that Gallagher should have tried to get into touch with him before
making statements. To which Gallagher replied that such a course would
have been impossible.[184] Both Gallagher and Wilson advised Ruef to
make terms with the District Attorney. Ruef replied that he would think
it over. Little came of the conference. The statements of the two
Supervisors, however, must have shown Ruef how thorough the undoing of
his organization had been, and how hopeless 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
present writing, told the full story of his connection with the public
service corporations.[185]
After the confessions of the Supervisors, the District Attorney left
Ruef to himself and hastened the Supervisors before the Grand Jury,
where they repeated their miserable stories.[186]
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.
FOOTNOTES:
[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 hurry 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 prosecution decided to abide by the impression which
Gallagher claimed he had formed.
[169] This was the amount that Ruef turned over to the Supervisors.
It represented a comparatively small part of what he received
from the Public Service corporations. From the United
Railroads alone, because of the granting of the trolley
permit, he received $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
Gallagher gave them. There were times when they entertained
the idea that Ruef had sent more than Gallagher gave. They
accordingly delegated Supervisor Wilson to ascertain from Ruef
whether all the money intended for them was reaching them.
Ruef refused to discuss the matter with Wilson. 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 wanted other information to confirm Mr.
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 in at that time and discuss those matters
with anyone."
[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 would be used as one of the
reasons 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 platform 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: "I 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.'"
[172] The Supervisors who accepted money from Halsey, acting for the
Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company, to prevent a
franchise being awarded an opposition company were: Boxton,
Walsh, Wilson, Coleman, Nicholas, Furey, Mamlock, Phillips,
Lonergan, 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 faithful, 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 which had
been temporarily engaged for Mr. Halsey's use by Frank C.
Drum, a director of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph
Company. Examples of the methods employed to corrupt the
laboringmen Supervisors who suddenly found themselves placed
in a position of trust and responsibility will be found in the
appendix.
[173] This is the amount given by Ruef in his "confession." He
states that he received $25,000 when he agreed that the Home
Telephone 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 franchise. The Supervisors in taking the Pacific
Telephone and Telegraph 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 (Ruef) 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. "No," 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.
[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
Supervisors to stand by Ruef and Schmitz: "Mr. Wilson talked
to a number of those boys (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."
[177] In his confession, Gallagher stated that under this
arrangement he paid $3,500 each to Coffey, Coleman, Furey,
Lonergan, Mamlock, Nicholas, Phillips and Wilson; $6,000 each
to Davis, Duffey, 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 Company, and Walsh, according to his
recollection, $3,500. McGushin and Rea received none of the
bribe money paid by the two telephone companies.
[178] Gallagher testified before the Grand Jury, that the additional
compensation had been given Wilson because he was more useful
than any other member, besides himself, in keeping the
Supervisors 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 me 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 overcome by ordinance. He feared criticism,
but finally yielded to the Parkside people's request. Then
went word 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:
"Q. Now, then, the Parkside trolley, was there an
understanding in regard to money 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 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 the Nineteenth 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 say
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 matters?
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 same 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 you 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."
[183] "I want to learn from your own lips," he told Wilson, "if what
I have already heard is true regarding your making a statement
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 make 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."
[185] The nearest Ruef has come to a statement of his connection
with the public service corporations is contained in his
story, "The Road I Traveled," which appeared In the San
Francisco Bulletin. The account is inaccurate 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 important 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 evidence 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 under which it was paid;
even the character of the currency used in the transaction.
(4) The names of the corporations benefited by the bribery transactions,
as well as the character of the special privileges which their money had
bought.
With the exception of the Home Telephone Company, the names of the
directors of these benefiting corporations were readily
obtainable.[187]
With this data before them, the Grand Jurors proceeded to trace the
source of the bribe money.
Naturally, men who had long held places of respectability in the
community were slow to admit having given Ruef vast sums, even under the
transparent subterfuge of paying him attorney's fees.[188] 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
testify on the ground that their testimony would tend to incriminate
them.
Nevertheless, the Grand Jury succeeded in wringing from the officials of
the several corporations involved, damaging admissions; admissions, in
fact, quite as startling 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 Telegraph 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 Building. 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. Halsey, under the
company's organization, reported to Glass. Zimmer testified that Halsey
could not spend the company's money except on the proper approval of the
executive officer of the company. From October, 1905, when President
Sabin of the company died, until February, 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
approve expenditures made by Halsey. After Scott's elevation to the
presidency, either Glass or Scott could have approved such expenditures.
Zimmer testified further to giving Halsey, at Glass's order,[189] as
high as $10,000 at a time. Halsey[190] gave no vouchers for these large
sums; they did not appear on the books;[191] they were carried on tags.
Zimmer stated that he did not know for what the funds were used; had
merely followed out Glass's instruction, and given Halsey the money.
The testimony of Thomas Sherwin threw some light 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.[192]
Passing from the investigation of the bribery transactions of the
Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company to the activities of the
Home Telephone Company, the Grand Jury examined prominent business men
of Los Angeles as well as of San Francisco.
The plan of operation followed by the capitalists behind this enterprise
was to organize a construction company, whose part was to establish the
plants, put them into operation and turn them over to the operating
companies, taking their pay in the securities of the local operating
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 Company 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 was 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 questions put to them, availed
themselves of their constitutional privilege, and refused to make
further answers. The books of the Adams-Phillips Company disappeared and
employees of that company undertook to evade answering 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 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 Construction Company and of the Home Telephone Company in San
Francisco, and had the disbursing of the funds.
Incidentally, through the testimony of Dr. Fred Butterfield, 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
franchise 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 responsible 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 intended to
invest $4,500,000 in the San Francisco enterprise, and that Ruef knew of
the extent of the company's plans. With such testimony, the assertions
of Ruef's partisans that opposition to the Ruef-Schmitz administration
retarded development of the community compare curiously.[193]
The Grand Jury could not secure the attendance of Mr. Detweiler, for
about the time of the investigation Mr. Detweiler mysteriously
disappeared. The investigation into the affairs of the Home Company
had, therefore, to be concluded without Mr. Detweiler's testimony.
Following the policy of the stockholders of the Empire Construction
Company, the officials of the United Railroads refused to testify.
President Patrick Calhoun[194] and Thornwell Mullally, assistant to the
president, 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.[195] They were accordingly excused
from the Grand Jury room.
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 prosecution 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
transfer from the East to the United States Mint at San Francisco,
$200,000.[196] Two days later, the day the trolley permit was signed,
President Calhoun took Ford 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 Francisco from all parts of
the country by individual subscribers to the relief fund.
This money was taken away from the Mint, the testimony showed, by Ford
and William M. Abbott.
Soon after, Ruef loaned Supervisor Rea[197] $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 Supervisors
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
received $5000.
Later, Ford, making two trips to the Mint, drew out the $150,000
balance of the $200,000 that had been telegraphed 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 denomination,
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 prosecution 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 distributed among the Supervisors as
second and final payment on account of the granting of the trolley
permit.
In the Parkside deal, the Grand Jury had little difficulty in tracing
the money involved. William H. Crocker,[198] a capitalist of large
affairs, who owned the largest interest in the company, showed
astonishing ignorance 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.
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 transaction was then
charged to the purchase of property.[199] The property was deeded back
to Umbsen and Watson at the same time, but these last deeds were not
immediately 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 time of the exposure, Umbsen[200] testified he was withholding
the second payment until the franchise should be put through.[201]
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 Electric Company. The four responsible men in this
company 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.
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 Supervisors to having received money after the
gas rates had been fixed. Later, after Ruef had plead guilty to
extortion, both de Sabla and Martin refused to testify further before
the Grand Jury.[202]
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.[203] 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.[204]
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
matter; 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 Company 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 Telephone and Telegraph Company, for the
bribery of Supervisors to prevent the sale of a franchise to a competing
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 franchise. The Detweiler indictments, thirteen in number,
were based upon payments of money by Ruef to Gallagher, 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[205] was brought against Halsey and two against Glass. On
that 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[187] The following persons sat on the Boards of Directors of the
several corporations involved in the graft disclosures, either
during 1906 when the briberies were committed, or during 1907
when the exposures came:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company--N. W. Halsey, E. J. de
Sabla, John Martin, Frank G. Drum, Wm. H. Crocker, N. D.
Rideout, Frank B. Anderson, John A. Britton, Henry E. Bothin,
Louis F. Monteagle, Jos. S. Tobin, G. H. McEnerney, Cyrus
Pierce, Carl 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.
Holbrook, 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
illustrated 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 salary 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.
[189] Zimmer insisted at first that the total of the amounts which
he turned over to Halsey would not exceed $20,000. Later he
admitted 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 admitted 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 same as
this tag account was."
William J. Kennedy, cashier and assistant treasurer of the
company, 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 account, 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, treasurer, 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."
[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 Reserve 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 go to legal? A. Because--instead--to what else
would it go?
"Q. What 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
department. Why? 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. Yes,
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."
[193] See Supervisors' letter to the Examiner, footnote 64, page 62.
[194] Calhoun returned to San Francisco April 10. In interviews
published in the San Francisco papers of April 12, Calhoun
emphatically denied all knowledge of the bribery transactions.
In his interview in the Chronicle he said:
"I 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 securing this franchise I would not
have accepted it."
[195] The refusal of Calhoun and Mullally to testify created a
sensation, 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
president 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 Assistant 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 informed
that it had under investigation the alleged bribery of public
officials by the United Railroads, we declined to be sworn and
in order that our action may not be misconstrued, I call your
attention 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 repeatedly 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 alleged crime.
"We relied, in declining to be sworn, upon the broad
Constitutional 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 vindication 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.
[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.
[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
together 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 whatever in any business enterprise, sprang up
between Ruef and myself, and when he told me that in my office
it didn't surprise me a bit."
Crocker had testified that Ruef had promised to do all he
could to get him his franchise, and wouldn't want a dollar
from Crocker, or from the institution with which Crocker was
connected.
[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
account 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 attorneys' fees were charged against property
account.
"Q. Were Morrison & Cope's fees charged up as a piece of
property and did they 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; 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 you cover up this in connection with Ruef? A. I
don't know; 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 salesman of the Parkside Company, that he had heard money
was being used in the Parkside case. Soon after, Thomas L.
Henderson, secretary of the company, received word from
William I. Brobeck, of the law firm of Morrison, Cope &
Brobeck, attorney for the Parkside Company, to call at that
firm's law office. Of the incident. Henderson 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 attorney? 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, you know
about that remark made by Mr. Burns at Nineteenth and H. I
replied how I got the remark from Hooper who was the salesman
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 communicate with Gus? And I told him I could on the
4th of the month, he was then between Havana and Florida, and
would arrive 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.
"Q. What was the remark as you heard it that Burns made? A. We
were coming down on the Sutter street car, Mr. Kernan and
myself, when Ed Hooper, salesman, spoke to us and said: I had a
distinguished visitor yesterday. I said, who; he said, Mr.
Burns, the detective. He said, I knew something about the
telephone 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 anything 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 Oldsmobile won the race in Los Angeles, because I
didn't want to continue the conversation with him.
"Q. Did Brobeck, in 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 interview.'
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 I
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 proportion 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."
[202] John Martin's statement, when he refused to testify, furnishes
fair example of the attitude of those who became involved in
the graft 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
tendency to subject you to prosecution--. A. (interrupting).
No, not that. I am not so advised that that is necessary. My
constitutional rights are broader than that, I am advised.
"Q. Then you 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 with reference to the rates? A. No,
not that I know anything about."
[204] Ruef on this point testified before the Grand Jury as follows:
"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 Supervisors about, as I remember It
now, $14,000. It may have been a few hundred dollars more or
less. I 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, and engaged me as attorney to represent the
interests, as I understood 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 thought 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 to 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
interests which he represented, to have 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 office in
the Mills Building."
[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 professed particular concern for the welfare
of the working class, as represented by organized labor, and
has sought and secured election 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 every 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 efficiency 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-operation 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 Union Labor party or any other political party or
organization, and therefore being in no way responsible for the
conduct or misconduct of any such party or organization;
further
"Resolved, That we also reaffirm our belief that the private
ownership 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 system of public
ownership of public utilities."
[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.[207]
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 under 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 indicates 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 as
of the State government[208]. Ruef realized that Langdon might die; that
the State Attorney General might set Langdon aside and himself conduct
the graft prosecution. And he realized that some day a district attorney
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 extortion 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 punishment for the extortions and
briberies which had been brought to his door.
The period was one of activity for both District Attorney 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 begun, but Ruef's technical
fight had not been abandoned 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
attempted 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 bias 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 Hebbard'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,[209]
eight days later than the date originally set for trial. The State was
represented by District Attorney Langdon, Francis J. Heney and Hiram W.
Johnson. 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 April
2. Even after that date there were interruptions, but the work of
securing the jury[210] 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 Prosecution 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[211] that he
was willing to make confession, provided he were given immunity from
punishment for all crimes which he had committed or in which he had
participated.
Heney refused absolutely to consider any arrangement which involved
complete immunity for Ruef. Negotiations on the basis of partial
immunity followed.[212]
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 who 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 corroborated, 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 selecting 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 refused
to yield to Burns's urging that he give way to Ruef in this particular
and accept Ach as Ruef's representative.[213]
Under Ruef's temporizing, negotiations dragged until April 2, the day
that, Ruef's technical obstructions 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 prominence 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 endeavoring to make
Ruef 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.[214] Nevertheless, Nieto
visited Ruef. Members of Ruef's family were called into consultation.
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 immunity. Heney sent back word that he
was confident that the District Attorney had no such power, but with
the further statement that if the terms of the immunity 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[215] and take his
chances with the sentence that would be given him; that if Ruef did
this, Heney was willing to arrange for complete immunity in all the
other cases, provided Ruef showed to Heney's satisfaction that his
testimony could be sufficiently corroborated and would sustain a
conviction 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[216] described himself as no particular friend 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 dismissed.
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.[217] Finally Nieto, Kaplan and Ach
sent word to Heney and Langdon by Burns that they desired to meet the
District Attorney and his assistant 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 get.[218] Neither Langdon[219] 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[220] were held, at which Ach continued to urge
complete immunity for Ruef, which 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 matters
Ruef was acting in bad faith, or that the information which he might
give was not of sufficient importance 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,[231] when the work of selecting 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 Francisco 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 lateness 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 Burns 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 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 chambers. Heney went straight
at the purpose of the meeting.
"Judge," Heney sets forth in his affidavit he said in substance, "we
come up here tonight to ask you what the practice of your court is in
criminal cases in relation 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
recommendations 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 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 courtroom that night, but finally yielded
to the same representations 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 confidence
in District Attorney Langdon and himself.
Judge Dunne replied in substance: "I have confidence 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 District
Attorney fails to convince me that he is well advised, or that good and
sufficient grounds exist for his motions, it must be remembered that the
final determination 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 interview. 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.
Heney listened to him patiently, but refused to consider any suggestion
that he alter the original proposition.
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 substance: "You must plead guilty in case No.
305 and take your chances on the sentence which will be imposed 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."[222]
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.[223]
Heney pointed out that Ruef had made no revelation which the Prosecution
had not known before, and 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.[224] Ruef's future course tended
to strengthen this conviction.
Having agreed to make full statement of his connection with the bribing
of the Supervisors, Ruef haggled over the form of immunity contract. He
endeavored 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.[225]
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,[226] and was 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 numerous 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 attorney, 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 conference 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
adjournment 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 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 Shortridge, 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 acknowledge whatever there may have been of
wrong or mistake in his record, and pledged himself, so far as it lay in
his power to make it right.[227]
"I desire," concluded Ruef, "to withdraw my plea of not guilty
heretofore entered, and to enter the contrary plea, and at the proper
time submit to the Court further suggestions for its consideration.[228]
"If the defendant wishes to change his plea of 'not guilty' to
'guilty,'" said Heney, "the prosecuting attorney 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."[229]
FOOTNOTES:
[207] The statements contained in this chapter are based on
affidavits 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 attorneys, in the same proceedings.
[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 prescribed 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."
[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.
[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
condition:
"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 fight 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 whom
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 intelligence, fine education, with the
choice of good environment, great power of persuasion over
men, dominating personality, great shrewdness 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 privilege 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."
[212] Running through the affidavits which resulted from the
differences between the forces of the prosecution and the
defense concerning these negotiations, is a thread 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.
[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 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
examining 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:
"'Why, 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 adjournment
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 whatever on account of his religion. All I am
trying to do in this matter is to get fair grand jurors, and I
am just as willing to trust honest Jews as honest Christians,
but I want to make sure that a man is honest, whether a Jew or
Christian, and it looks to me 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 anybody else may think
of my method of questioning them.'"
As a matter of fact Jews not only sat on the Oliver Grand Jury,
but were among the most earnest and effective in sifting the
graft scandal to the bottom. But that the false cry that Ruef
was persecuted because he was a Jew influenced many of his
fellow Jews in his favor is unquestionably true.
[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 proceeds 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 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
interested 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
questioning than by anything which he said. I immediately
became convinced that he was influenced 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 unsophisticated."
[218] Heney, in his affidavit, states: "During the conversation Ach
stated, in substance: 'You can't convict Ruef in this French
Restaurant 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 interview, Langdon stated to Ach and the
two Rabbis that he had authorized Heney to conduct the
negotiations for him, but that he wanted it to be distinctly
understood by everybody that 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
frequented the front halls of the private residence in which
Heney, after the fire, had his offices. Ach, Heney states, was
desirous of not being known as party to the negotiations.
Heney in his affidavit says: "In this same conversation (at
the first conference) Ach said in substance: 'I want everybody
here to agree that the fact that I participated in this
conference, or had anything to do with advising Ruef to turn
state's evidence, shall never be made known; it would
absolutely ruin my 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 I 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 William F. Herrin. Now just to illustrate to you
how it would affect me in business if it was known that I
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
thousand dollars a year as a salary for attending to its
business, and Herrin is one of the directors of the company
and undoubtedly has sufficient influence with the other
directors to take this client away from me. This is only one
instance, and there are many others.'"
[221] See affidavits of Francis J. Heney and Judge William P. Lawlor
on file in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et al.,
No. 823.
[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.
[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 against 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 Attorney
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 conviction, that they did
not give the money voluntarily, but yielded it up under
threats which they believed it to be in his power to execute.
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. Nothing is gained by society by the conviction
even of the most unmitigated 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."
[227] Ruef's statement 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 disclosed my determination, and against their
express protest. I take this occasion to thank them for their
services, fidelity and friendship. 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 of 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 election of the present Board 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 purpose, 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 measure
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
restoring the ideals which have been lowered; shall, as soon as
opportunity 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 between the constantly
struggling constituent element of our governmental 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
reflection 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. I 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 submit to the Court further suggestions for its
consideration."
[228] The Chronicle, to its issue of May 16, said of Ruef's
confessions:
"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 crimes 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 every
branch of the city government 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 before San Francisco can
outlive the shame which the man Ruef has 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, however, would have sworn that he did so. It is
unthinkable that such sums should have been paid him
voluntarily by the restaurant keepers. 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
situation 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 distressed 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 faculties and
caused the self-contradictions in what is a virtual confession
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 office, was controlled by the corrupt
administration, of which Schmitz was the official head. The
necessity of dealing 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 case, 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 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 justified 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 any conviction of Schmitz
could possibly be secure so that the new Board of Supervisors,
so selected through Schmitz by themselves, would have the
power of appointing the new Mayor in case Schmitz were
convicted. This new Mayor could appoint a new Police
Commission 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, was stopped by Ruef's plea
of guilty. There were the same allegations of bias, the same attempts to
secure change of venue, the same appeals to the higher courts in habeas
corpus proceedings. But these moves availed Schmitz as little as they
had Ruef. Point by point the upper courts found against the indicted
Mayor; step by step he was dragged to proceedings 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.
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-restaurant keepers to prevent
the liquor licenses, without which their establishments could not be
successfully conducted, 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 licenses, 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 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 reduced 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 currency, 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.[230]
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.
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 reason 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 keepers, 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.[231] Heney
charged Ruef with falsehood 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 associates, 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 public 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: "I didn't
know that Mr. Ruef got any $5,000, nor did I receive any part of
it."[232]
And then, in detail, Schmitz denied that he had received any money from
Ruef, or had had any conversation with him regarding a "fee" which Ruef
had received from the French-restaurant keepers.
In rebuttal, Ruef was called to the stand.[233] "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."
"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 restaurants. I did say to
him that I had received from the French restaurants the sum of $5,000,
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]
FOOTNOTES:
[230] For fuller discussion of this testimony see Chapter "Ruef and
Schmitz Indicted."
[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 delegates from this city to the Santa Cruz
convention. You have not told us all the truth in the
telephone franchise matter. You lied to us in the Parkside
matter, and I caught you at it before the Grand Jury. You
tried to protect Will 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
influence 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.
[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 People 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."
[234] Where Schmitz spent the night of Thursday, June 13, the night
of his conviction, is a matter of dispute. Sheriff O'Neil
insists that he spent the night in jail. This has been denied.
The statement 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, was 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 angling for control of the municipal government under its
prospective reorganization began.[235]
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 who were 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 provisions empowering the
Board of Supervisors to fill vacancies occurring in the mayoralty
office, and providing 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 Prosecution the Mayor 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
appointment 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, laboring 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 was necessary that the sixteen confessed bribe-taking
Supervisors should continue in the offices which they had betrayed, so
long as Schmitz's power to appoint their successors continued.[236]
There were, too, further complications. The Prosecution could and did
secure the discharge from municipal positions of Ruef's satellites who
held their places under the Board of Supervisors. Thus, soon after the
Supervisors had confessed, Charles Keane,[237] 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
their jobs. Thus, former Supervisor Duffey, appointed by Schmitz to head
the Board of Public Works, continued 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 indicted 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.[238]
The situation could not but cause confusion. To the average man on the
street, the Supervisors had confessed to bribery. Why, then, were they
permitted to remain an hour in office? Why were they not indicted,
placed on their defense and sent to the penitentiary?
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 resistance to the Prosecution, combined with
the unqualified yielding of the Supervisors and the partial confession
of Ruef, San Francisco was in a condition of confusion and discord.
At the time Ruef entered his plea of guilty to extortion, 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 insurance money. Titles to real property
were confused if not in doubt, much of the records having been destroyed
in the fire. Thousands found themselves forced into court to establish
their titles. A little later, the community was to suffer a visitation
of bubonic plague. There were many authentic plague cases and some
deaths. For months the city was in dread of quarantine.
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 to 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 with 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.
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
industry and business. Merchants, hotel keepers, manufacturers, all
suffered. There were many failures. Citizens in all walks of life
implored Mr. Calhoun to arbitrate his difference with his men. He
refused absolutely.[239] Henry T. Scott, president of the Pacific States
Telephone and Telegraph Company, as doggedly refused to submit to
arbitration the questions involved in the telephone girls' strike.
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 compromise, issued numerous
proclamations[240] in which he 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 produced 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.[241] On the
contrary, the strike might have been averted had the United Railroads
adopted a more tactful policy in dealing 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
carmen's union, the support of the United Railroads went to the Union
Labor party candidate for District Attorney. 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 United 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' Association, the Board of Trade, the Chamber
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 Committee of Seven because of its numbers--[242]
already 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 headlines in its issue of May 18, that
"Mayor Schmitz practically turns reins of government over to citizens.
Committee of Seven may run this city."[243]
"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[244] was reported to be heartily in accord
with the committee's purposes. Finally, in an editorial article, the
Chronicle announced that "the public looks to this committee to restore
the good name of the city, and to the prosecuting authorities to stand
solidly 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 support;
quite the contrary. "The District Attorney," announced 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, Rudolph 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
Calhoun, 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 own volition. I do
not see the necessity of this committee demanding 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 commissions, let them go ahead and
outline their own programme. I have no desire to dictate who shall
constitute 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 designs in this matter regardless of whatever anyone may
say to the contrary."[245]
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. Without popular
demand for it, there was nothing for the committee to do but resign. And
it did resign.[246]
The resignation of the Committee of Seven brought from Governor Gillett
a statement urging the appointment of "a strong governing body to take
charge of affairs."[247] 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
restore order." The Chronicle went on to say that "It 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 meeting some of the conditions which
he has to face."[248]
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 was 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 commercial 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 discredited
Mayor.
There was no question about a vacancy existing in the Mayor's office.
Under the California laws, a vacancy in office exists upon conviction of
the incumbent 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
without the approval of the District Attorney. They would name for
Mayor, him whom the District Attorney approved 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 substituted. 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]
After the sentencing of Schmitz the rapidly developing 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 formulated.[250] 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[251] was decided upon. 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 organized commercial bodies. On the side of Labor were
apportioned eight delegates to the Labor Council and seven to the
Building Trades Council. The five commercial 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.[252]
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 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 Prosecution, instead of exciting
admiration, was condemned. The Examiner, referring to Langdon's
associates, for example, announced: "Their failure to agree on anyone
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 followed 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, were clamoring for "recognition."[253] District
Attorney Langdon's plan, on the whole, was not received in the spirit in
which it was offered.
The Building Trades Council, under the influence of P. H. McCarthy and
O. A. Tveitmoe, promptly rejected the District Attorney's proposal and
refused to name delegates.[254] This action influenced the Labor
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 invitation. The board named its three
delegates and so notified the District Attorney.
The Merchants' Exchange demanded that the number of delegates be
increased from thirty to forty-five by the addition of fifteen
professional men, and proposed that the convention name a new Board of
Supervisors as well as Mayor.[255]
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 Langdon himself to proceed with the
reorganization. All that Langdon and his associates required was that
the new executive should be independent of political control 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 Mayor
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 to Dr. Gallwey the appointment was
offered. But Dr. Gallwey declined to accept the responsibilities 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 would 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] would be
too onerous for him to undertake at his time of life.
Dr. Edward R. Taylor,[257] dean of the Hastings College 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 conduct
the office according to his own judgment. He was assured that no one
connected with the Prosecution would expect or ask him to be guided or
controlled or influenced in any way by all or any of them.
Boxton, after Taylor had agreed to serve, resigned his office. The
Supervisors then elected Dr. Taylor to fill the vacancy.[258]
The next step in the reorganization of the municipal government was the
resignation of the sixteen Supervisors who had confessed to bribery and
the appointment of their successors. When Mayor Taylor[259] had 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.[260]
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 concerned, had passed.
FOOTNOTES:
[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 punishment for his offenses, as
he is said to have done with the Supervisors. 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
redeeming San Francisco from the toils of the grafters."
[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 citizenship 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
disgraced. 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 implicitly 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 Supervisor
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 themselves. 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 movement with the swift
punishment which befell briber and bribed when the Broadway
street railroad franchise was purchased doubtless do not
understand that the laws and court procedure in California are
designed not to convict criminals, but to aid their escape
from justice, 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.
[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
commission 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 he 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. Governor 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!"
[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 telephone 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 conviction 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 people have the right to intervene when the grantees of
those privileges are at war with their employes. The people
have the right, at least, to mediate for peace. Mr. Cornelius
and Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Scott and the leader of the telephone
strikers may refuse to listen to the pacific overtures of the
conciliation committee, but if they do they must understand
that the price of refusal is the loss of public sympathy and
support--elements without which ultimate victory is
impossible.
"San Francisco has had about enough industrial warfare. The
city wants peace, lasting peace. No sane man wants a fight to a
finish between labor and capital, or if he does he is San
Francisco's enemy. The adjustment of the iron-workers' strike
is a hopeful sign. It points the way to an end of all
bitterness and contention. It augurs an early return to the
harmonious relations of those who earn and those who pay wages,
relations which are essential to the progress and prosperity of
any community. It is the best news of this stormy, stressful
month."
[240] The following, issued on May 17, is a fair sample of the
statements which Mr. Calhoun gave out during the period of
confusion 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 Supervisors 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 Municipal
Street Railways of San Francisco on the 17th day of April,
1906, the day before the earthquake and fire with a capital
stock of $14,000,000, of which $4,500,000 were subscribed for
as follows: Claus Spreckels subscribed $1,900,000, James D.
Phelan subscribed $1,000,000, George Whittell subscribed
$500,000, Rudolph Spreckels subscribed $1,000,000, Charles S.
Wheeler subscribed $100,000. Ten per cent of the amount
subscribed, 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
prosecutor 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 majority 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, 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
comfort to the strikers. Shall his great office be prostituted
to the support of lawlessness?
"The officials of this company are ready to meet their enemies
in the open, and before they are through, they expect to show
to the 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 community in disorder and
bloodshed, provided it furthered the private prosecutor's
personal ends.
"The organization of the Municipal Street Railways of San
Francisco, the attacks upon the officials of the United
Railroads, the immunity granted to self-confessed criminals,
the strike of the carmen, the hold-up of the Geary-street
Railroad Company, the forfeiture 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
consideration. 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 I 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. Cornelius, 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 justice."
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 conditions. 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
repeatedly 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.
[242] The seven members of the committee were: F. B. Anderson,
manager of the Bank of California; Percy T. Morgan, president
of the California Wine Association and a director in the
Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company; F. W. Van
Sicklen, president of Dodge Sweeney & Co.; F. W. Dohrmann,
president of Nathan, Dohrmann & Co.; Henry Rosenfeld, a
shipping and commission merchant; 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 District Attorney.
Illness compelled Mr. Dohrmann to sever his connection 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
recognize that every element in the community has a right to
representation in the government."
[244] In a published statement printed May 19, 1906, Governor
Gillett said: "The good citizens of San Francisco are for
preserving order and the good name of this city, and
protecting the constitutional 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 their work."
[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
Governor Gillett in an interview printed in The Examiner, May
21, 1907, "is great. It means a bad moral effect on the local
industrial disturbance. 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, Committeeman
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
represented 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."
[247] Governor Gillett's suggestions were contained in a statement
published in the San Francisco papers on May 25th. It was as
follows:
"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
suggestion 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
commission, the removal of officers in charge of districts who
are incompetent, and the substitution of competent, firm men.
"Mayor Schmitz would not dare to refuse to accede to the
demands 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 beating 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 committed 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."
[248] See footnote 229, page 206.
[249] Of the eighteen Supervisors, two, O'Neil and Tveitmoe, had
been appointed by Mayor 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 difference," 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.
[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
refinement of cruelty. His elevation to high executive office
but emphasized the shame of his position. From taking his oath
of office 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 conducting the case for the
defense. Delmas suavely turned Boxton'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,
Gallagher 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
office. 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
office. 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 office, and
will be glad when it is 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 "Having
put our bribe-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.
[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
government, were as follows:
"Whereas, An invitation has been received by this council from
the District Attorney of this city and county, requesting this
council appoint seven delegates to participate in a convention
composed 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 organizations; and whereas, said convention is to
be called for the purpose of selecting 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 office 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 guiding 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 directing, protecting and conducting the
building industry from the standpoint of the journeymen with
justice alike to the owner, contractor 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' Exchange
was as follows:
"We cannot entertain any such proposition at this date. We
have already had submitted to us, and have considered at least
one hundred plans for calling an electoral convention, and
after carefully 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
convention 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."
[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 permitted 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 arranged 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) signature. 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 imprisoned executive a
soothing or grimly humorous letter, as one may view it, in
which he recognized Schmitz as the de jure Mayor, possessing
"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 refused to recognize Schmitz as Mayor and refused
Sawyer a seat.
Even after Taylor had been elected, Chief of Police Dinan
continued 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
campaign 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 organization no longer exists, but its
component parts, though scattered, 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, Ill., 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 California 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.
[258] Dr. Taylor's selection gave general satisfaction. "My belief
is," said Governor Gillett in a published interview, "that Joe
will make an able and trustworthy executive. It is
particularly fortunate 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 personal 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
offices, 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
government, 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."
[260] The citizens named by Dr. Taylor to act as Supervisors were:
Dr. A. A. D'Ancona, dean of the Medical Faculty of the
University 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 Supervisor; Matt I.
Sullivan, attorney; Thomas Magee, real estate; Lippman Sachs,
capitalist and retired merchant; L. P. Rixford, architect; 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 criminal 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 XVIII.
THE REAL FIGHT BEGINS.
Nine months after Heney assumed his duties as Assistant District
Attorney, Mayor Taylor named the successors 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 corporations. 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 interests 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 bottom 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
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, responsible for the bribe-giving of public-service
corporations, 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]
"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 astonishingly effective
opposition of interests representing hundreds of millions of capital.
Every indictment of capitalist charged with bribe-giving was signal for
a new group of financial leaders, their satellites, beneficiaries and
dependents, to array themselves on the side of the graft defense.[262]
With every indictment came a new group of attorneys 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 apparently 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 themselves under indictment
making similar attacks. And between them, in this new move to quash the
indictments, the defendants enlisted the ablest members of the
California bar.[263]
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.
Just before the principal indictments were brought, for example, the San
Francisco merchants had given a banquet to celebrate the progress which
San Francisco had made during the first year following the fire.[264]
Langdon and Heney were given places of honor. They were the heroes of
the occasion. Every reference to their work was signal for tremendous
demonstration. 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 debilitated 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 attended
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 examination for hours in efforts to show that his
motives in backing the Prosecution were bad.[265]
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 unauthorized person in the
Grand Jury room and her unwarranted presence sufficient to invalidate
the indictments. Garret McEnerney, representing Eugene de Sabla, Jr.,
Frank Drum and John Martin, whose indictments 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 attorneys
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
properly sworn. The question was seriously debated, whether she had
looked at Prosecutor Heney or Foreman Oliver at the moment she was sworn
to secrecy.[266]
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.[267] Another objection was that the Grand
Jury box had been 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 objections been sustained,
all indictments against the graft defendants would have been
invalidated. Every objection 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 indictments 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 connection with street
riots. Their attorneys, before Superior 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 indictments against the
strikers be invalidated, but those against the alleged bribe-givers
also.[268] 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, although 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
defense 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 efforts 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
prosecution of influential offenders had gone too far, had been
injudiciously conducted, was "hurting business," and that for the good
of the community the graft cases should be dropped.[269]
The evident policy 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 who
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 subsidy 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 opening 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 Francisco was, in the
beginning, heartily in accord with the prosecution. Gradually, however,
The Examiner and The Chronicle[270] shifted their policy. Even while The
Chronicle was backing the prosecution in its editorial columns, its
reports of the proceedings at the various hearings were colored in a
way well-calculated to undermine Langdon and his associates.[271]
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 selection 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 disadvantage.
The most tawdrily clever of The Examiner's efforts were the so-called
"Mutt cartoons." The cartoons appeared 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 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" cartoon The Examiner had pictured. After the shooting of Heney,
The Examiner discontinued the anti-prosecution "Mutt cartoons."
Mr. William Randolph Hearst's San Francisco Examiner did effective
service in discrediting the graft prosecution. But Mr. Hearst, with
curious inconsistency, outside California, gave the prosecution his
personal endorsement.
In his Labor Day address at the Jamestown Exposition, 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 District
Attorney, who is doing his best to put beside the Mayor the men really
responsible for all this debauchery and dishonor. While it is the
fashion to criticise San Francisco just now, I venture to assert that
the only difference between San Francisco and some other cities is that
San Francisco is punishing her corruptionists. 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 penitentiary, an article on
the San Francisco Graft Prosecution appeared in one of Mr. Hearst's
magazines.[272] The article was printed under the signature of Mr.
Edward H. Hamilton, one of the ablest of Mr. Hearst's employees. Mr.
Hamilton gave the credit for the work of the graft prosecution to Mr.
Hearst and The Examiner. The men whose steadfastness of purposes and
high integrity had made even approach to the prosecution 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 well known, Mr. Hamilton's article was received with
some amusement and not a little resentment.[273]
Although, with few exceptions, the policy of the San Francisco press was
adverse to the prosecution, the principal interior papers gave Langdon
and his associates 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 defense. The papers were
started or purchased by a newspaper publishing company known as the
Calkins Syndicate.
The Calkins people had for several years been identified 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, including the
printing of the railroad corporation's monthly, The Sunset Magazine. The
Sacramento Union, the most important California morning newspaper
printed north of San Francisco, and the Fresno Herald, an afternoon
daily, were purchased outright. A bid was made for the San Francisco
Post,[274] but terms 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 incredibly
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' attacks, in fact, that they injured rather than assisted the
defendants' cause. This was generally recognized. The Calkins Syndicate,
after losing whatever effectiveness it may have had, eventually went
into bankruptcy.[275]
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 enforcement of the law openly
objecting to their presence.[276] 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 adjunct of the defense. Those in
accord with the prosecution 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 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.[277]
The boycott of those in sympathy with the prosecution extended to the
larger business world as well as to exclusive social circles. When, for
example, the American battleship fleet visited San Francisco on its tour
around the world in 1908, the committee appointed by the Mayor to
arrange fitting reception and entertainment 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 committee, or even identified
with it, gave serious offense to the large business and financial
interests that did not approve the prosecution.[278] The large interests
thus offended refused to contribute to the reception fund. William C.
Ralston, United States Sub-Treasurer at San Francisco, and treasurer of
the Fleet Reception Committee, 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.[279]
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, assisted 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.
In the work of undermining the prosecution, the humbler 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
prosecution 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 prosecution 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 own, and had
instituted the graft prosecution to drive the United Railroads out of
business. This story was told and retold, although the purposes for
which Mr. Spreckels had contemplated engaging in the street-car business
were well known.[280] It was quite as well known, too, that the
briberies alleged against officials of the United Railroads were
committed long after the graft prosecution had been inaugurated.
Heney[281] was also made target for criticisms. His 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.[282] This was made basis of a
charge that Heney had committed murder. The new version of the Arizona
incident was fairly shouted from San Francisco 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 illegal;[283] that he had been a drunkard.
A most effective attack consisted in charging connection of the graft
prosecution with the California Safe Deposit and Trust Company.
This institution closed its doors during the 1907 panic. It had carried
an enormous volume of deposits. Thousands of homes were affected. The
California 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
the prosecution's backers. It was shown at the Calhoun[284] 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 criminal 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 hurting business; that the
material prosperity of California demanded that the proceedings be
stopped; that capital would not seek investment in California until the
disturbance caused by the prosecution had subsided.
Every move of the prosecution was made subject of criticism.
Announcement, for example, that immunity 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 constant objection and
criticism. During the period of Ruef's apparent co-operation with the
prosecution, when 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.[285] The Chronicle 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 prosecution,
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 prosecution. The work of bringing
influential offenders before trial juries went steadily on. As soon as
the 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[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
Nieto 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 maintained. The testimony of the members of
the Board of Supervisors throws great light on this question,
and Ruef could aid considerably 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 enlightening the people as to its
causes and by thereafter endeavoring to remove the temptation
which causes evil by proper remedial legislation, 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 punish the poor man who has no friends or
influence. The people 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 officials 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
capitalist whose own skirts were clean of the graft scandal,
"but before the investigation was over I had to exert myself
to prevent my own 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 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
Quentin for fourteen 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
relations with others he has always been most particular. I
cannot imagine 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 indictment, when the truth is known, he will not appear
in such a discreditable 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, represented by Bert Schlesinger, William P.
Humphries and D. M. Delmas. The several attorneys represented
the best legal ability obtainable in San Francisco. No less
than fifty-two attorneys, all working to the same end, were
employed by the several graft defendants.
[264] The Merchants' Association banquet, April 18, 1907, the first
anniversary of the great earthquake and fire.
[265] At one of the examinations of Spreckels, Attorney A. A. Moore,
representing the United Railroads, is reported as demanding:
"Can it be that we have got to a point where a private
prosecution, 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
associate 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
statement that we have made, to wit: that Mr. Heney was an
unauthorized 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."
[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 meaning 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 demonstration 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 members 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 evidence, 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
subjected to a grilling which it was 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 conviction 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 possession of all the evidence, and if
that is such as to arouse his indignation, 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 verdict 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."
[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 thought in their
own minds that they were so connected with the crime that
Patrick Calhoun, Thornwell Mullally and Tirey L. Ford each
made a public explanation in the press, denying that they had
bribed a city official. 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. Wasn't that an explanation? Will it not be an
explanation 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 authorized 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
constitutional 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 subpoena
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 coming solemnly here to
get these indictments set aside on the grounds that their
constitutional rights have been invaded. That's trifling with
the law. Laws weren't made to juggle with. Laws were made for
the protection 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
because he refused and walked out he has been deprived of his
constitutional right."
[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."
[269] Some went so far when examined for jury service at the later
graft trials as to say they would not vote to convict.
[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 newspaper 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
Supervisors to write it up favorably, that is to say, talk
about the advantage of a competitive telephone system in the
way of keeping out a monopoly, and doing away with the poor
system of the Pacific States."
[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 incident in its news columns as follows:
"Spreckels, who had been keeping in the background, came
forward, glancing furtively at Heney, whose lips were moving
nervously." In the column from which this quotation is taken,
Heney is represented as replying "nervously" to charges made
by attorneys for the defense, and Spreckels, when a question
was put to him as looking "appealingly" to the attorney
representing the prosecution. But observers of the proceedings
recall no perceptible nervousness on Heney's part, nor
"furtive" nor "appealing" glances from Spreckels.
[272] The Cosmopolitan, issue of July, 1911.
[273] The Sacramento Bee, 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
Edward 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 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 published
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 Wm. 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
Examiner 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
coincidence, 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 Examiner
wrote of all connected with the graft prosecution in terms of
respect. But this repentance born of fear did not prevent
Californians 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
Hamilton'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 contemptible Judas Iscariot.
"Regrettable indeed is it that
"Poor Ned 'must torture his invention
To flatter rogues or lose his pension.'"
[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.
[275] The astonishing business conditions under which the Calkins
Syndicate was conducted were brought out during the
proceedings in bankruptcy. 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
Company 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 the 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 Publishing 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 curiously 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 newspaper and the real property where the paper was
published.
Soon after purchasing the Sacramento stock, the Calkins
Syndicate organized a second Sacramento Publishing Company. The
first company--that of the 2500 shares--was organized as The
Sacramento Publishing Company. The Calkins people in organizing
the second company dropped the "The," calling it "Sacramento
Publishing 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
concern, as collateral to secure a loan of $30,000. Of the
25,000 (preferred) 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 collateral agreement, as further security for the first
loan of $30,000. The first loan was eventually reduced to
$16,085.02. When the crash came, two Sacramento Publishing
Companies, one with a "The" and one without a "The," claimed
ownership of the Sacramento "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 company and 100,000 shares of its
preferred stock, together with the paper's Associated Press
franchise, were in the hands of the successor of the London,
Paris and American Bank, the Anglo & London, 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 corporation's office building to the second corporation.
The second corporation 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
Company--also one of the prominent managers of the Hellman
movement in local politics--was on the witness stand, at the
time of the Calkins investigation, he was asked to whom he
looked for the payment of the $175,000.
"To the Calkins Syndicate," replied Mr. Hellman.
[276] The presence of President Calhoun at an Olympic Club dinner 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 made 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
members of the club, "to the presence here of Mr. Calhoun and
I protest 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 officials, 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
denounced. "The Olympic Club of San Francisco," said the
Sacramento 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 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 against
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 members 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 appointing himself, Thornwell
Mullally and William Abbott, all under indictment on bribery
charges, as delegates 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 names of himself and his two subordinates
and substitute others." Mrs. Eleanor Martin gave a dinner in
honor of Congressman and Mrs. Nicholas Longworth 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 important 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. "Socially" the defense had
decidedly the better of the situation. Calhoun, 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.
[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
affairs, 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
instructions he "was not able to make a subscription for this
purpose in behalf of the Atchison Company."
[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 Committee, 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
disliked Phelan. Among the corporations were the Telephone
Company, 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
election 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.
[280] See Chapter III.
[281] President Calhoun's denunciation of Heney was scarcely
consistent with the high regard in which Heney was at the
opening of the prosecution, held by the United Railroads'
executives. So well did they think of Heney that they selected
him to sit on the Board of Arbitration which 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 Langdon from office, in
October, 1906, when the Graft Prosecution opened.
Specification 7 of Gallagher's order removing Langdon because
of the appointment of Heney reads: "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 (The United 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
Railroads 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 announced 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 embarrassment 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
this contention. In a letter to President Calhoun, dated
August 10, 1909, Dean Wigmore 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 contains assertions reflecting on the conduct of
Francis J. Heney and the Federal Department of Justice, in
taking part in the prosecution of a criminal charge of bribery
in the State Court of California against yourself. The pamphlet
contains no defense of yourself; it does not even mention your
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 fellow-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 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 beyond example, especially as against a man like
yourself who publishes 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 imagined 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 went 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 personal 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 rare courage; that
the moral courage displayed by him is as much entitled to high
money compensation as the unprincipled commercial 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
questioning 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
Municipal 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."
[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
editorial article:
"It appears that it is costing the city about $70 a day to
keep Ruef in jail. That expense should be shut off 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 has 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
otherwise 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 away 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."
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 opposition of the Pacific States
Telephone and Telegraph Company 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 his associates were able to proceed
with the trial of Glass.[286]
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 minutia of detail, how
the bribe had been paid to him. Dr. Boxton was the first of the
Supervisors to testify before trial jury and public, of his corruption.
During the next year and a half San Francisco was to hear the story
repeated time after time from the lips of sixteen men who had occupied
the supervisorial office. 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 testimony, to the mayoralty 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, 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, Boxton 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 was not seriously disputed. 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 important 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 show 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. 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 Mr. 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[287] 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 depended 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.[288]
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[289] 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 associates had reckoned without D. M. Delmas,
Glass's chief counsel. The defense introduced no evidence, but 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[290] could have provided for it.
The jury, after being out forty-seven hours, failed to agree. At the
final ballot it stood seven for conviction and five for acquittal. That
Delmas's argument 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.[291]
As soon as the prosecution could bring Glass to second trial, impaneling
of the jury began.[292] Glass, at this second trial, was tried for the
alleged bribery of Supervisor Lonergan. The trial was in many
particulars a repetition of the first. Again, there was no serious
attempt to dispute that Halsey had paid Lonergan the bribe money. Zimmer
again refused to testify against his superior, and was again committed
for contempt. 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 prosecution showed that
checks drawn by the corporation on San Francisco banks were to be signed
"by the assistant 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 showed by the testimony of Assistant
Treasurer Eaton[293] of the telephone company that the corporation did
not notify the banks to honor President Scott's signature until February
27, which was after the alleged bribery of Supervisor Lonergan had been
consummated.
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
characterized 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 further delayed proceedings against
him. Until after the defeat of the Graft Prosecution in 1909, Mr.
Halsey's health did not permit of his being tried. His trials under the
new administration of the District Attorney's office, resulted in
acquittals.
Mr. Halsey, in August, 1913, still survives both the appendicitis attack
and the threatened tuberculosis.
FOOTNOTES:
[286] Glass's attorneys contended to the last moment that the trial
judge had no jurisdiction to hear the case. After the District
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.
[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 rights 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 contempt,
found guilty and sentenced to three months in the county Jail.
He appealed to the higher courts.
[290] Scott had been elected President before the alleged bribery
transactions, but had left soon after for the East. The
Prosecution 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, 23d 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 were 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.
Who 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 office as
District Attorney that Scott left on the 18th or 19th, when 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 February, 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 which 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."
[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)
because 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 confession of a case too
weak to be given to a fair jury on a plain showing 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
lawyers for Glass to shift their ground in the midst of the
impaneling 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
impartial. It is because he is impartial and stern that
crooked lawyers, 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."
[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.
CHAPTER XX.
THE FORD TRIALS AND ACQUITTALS.
The conviction of Glass, following immediately upon the overthrow of the
Schmitz-Ruef municipal administration, and coupled with the pitiful
position in which, all recognized, Halsey would find himself before a
jury, stirred the graft defense to astonishing activity. Although it
developed later that the defendants had had their agents at work even
before the bringing of indictments,[294] 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 courtroom ranged in
social and professional standing from the highest priced lawyers of the
character of Alexander King, President Calhoun's law partner, down
through layers of the typical, criminal lawyer of the Earl Rogers-Porter
Ashe[295] grade, to characters of the type of Harry Lorenstzen,[296]
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 interest of the defense.[297]
With such motley array of attorneys, detectives, gunfighters and agents,
District Attorney Langdon and his associates contended until, what was
practically the ending 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 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 Supervisor 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-examination, 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 consideration 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, Supervisor 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, Gallagher 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 sensational as the statement itself.
Lonergan, the driver of a bakery wagon, confronted by the keenest
practitioners at the California bar, harassed and confused, stammered
out explanation of the manner in which he had been induced to sign the
paper in Rogers's hands.
Long before he had signed it, one Dorland had secured introduction to
him. Dorland had represented himself to be a magazine writer, who held
that the ousted Supervisors had been misused. Dorland 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. Dorland made himself very
agreeable to Lonergan. He took the unhappy fellow to lunch. He gave him
and members of his family automobile trips and expensive dinners.
Lonergan finally signed the statement which the agreeable "magazine
writer" was to use in his behalf, and with which the graft defense[298]
confronted him on the witness 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."
Then Lonergan was confronted with the affidavit which he had signed at
the opening of the Graft Prosecution when Langdon was fighting against
Ruef, Acting Mayor Gallagher and the Schmitz-Ruef Supervisors 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."[299]
"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 hammering, "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
document 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 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 falsely concerning your offenses."
"I 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 prosecution 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,
Dorland, the alleged magazine writer, called him up by telephone and
invited him "to make a night of it." Dorland stated two women would
accompany them. Before accepting the invitation, Lonergan notified
Detective Burns. Burns instructed him not to go on the trip, but to meet
Dorland and to take Mrs. Lonergan with him. Lonergan, with his wife,
accordingly met Dorland and the two women at the appointed place.
Dorland expressed his chagrin when 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 Dorland'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 was a plot to kidnap, or at least
compromise, Lonergan on the eve of his appearance as a witness against
General Ford.[300]
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 "J. C.," the latter of
whom is alleged to have been the one who co-operated with Dorland 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 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
Southern 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
communicate with his friends nor with the passengers, but was confined
in a stateroom which his captors had secured.[301]
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 prepared 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 proceedings. His release
followed,[301] another sensation of the graft defense thereby coming to
sorry ending.[302]
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 exact amount of the bribe money paid Ruef
in the overhead 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.[303]
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
Lonergan, could, when brought to the witness stand, remember nothing of
the incident. Supervisor Coffey also proved equally forgetful.[304]
In the midst of these extraordinary happenings, General 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 beginning that the defense was
battling not for General Ford alone, but for President Calhoun, and the
other officials of the United Railroads under indictment.
The State's attorneys, target for constant abuse and ridicule at the
hands of the defense, proceeded, however, to present the case of The
People. In spite of sensations, the disappearance of witnesses and the
forgetfulness of witnesses, the prosecution brought out testimony to
show that the Supervisors had received $85,000 for their votes granting
the trolley permit. By 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 Railroads, 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.[305] United Railroads employes who
could be made to testify 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.
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 denominations.
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 currency,
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,[306] in making up a
package 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 thought 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,
reluctantly, 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.[307] That Ruef and Ford had more or less intimate
relations during this period was fully established.[308] 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 $200,000 which had disappeared into General Ford's
possession?[309]
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 possession.
Heney, in an affidavit[310] 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
granting 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.[311] 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 was 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 withdraw his plea of guilty in the
extortion case, and dismissed 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 testify or not
testify, as he saw fit.
That night, according to Heney, Rabbis Nieto and Kaplan, with Ruef's
attorney, Henry Ach,[312] appeared at Heney's office. Ach announced in
substance, according 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,[313] the time had arrived when,
in justice to Ruef, this ought to be done.[314]
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.[315] Both Kaplan and
Nieto agreed with him that his statement was correct, but Kaplan
insisted that he had understood 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 prosecution and he has only
succeeded in jobbing himself into the penitentiary."
Ten days later, when Heney made his opening statement 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,[316] Heney closed the case of The People without putting
Ruef on the stand.[317]
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, but the jury brought in a verdict of "not guilty."
General 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 documents 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]
At the time of the third Ford trial, for example, Heney was engaged with
Ruef's trial in the Parkside case. The Ford trial was conducted for the
State by John O'Gara. One of Burns's men, Platt by name, was appointed
to assist O'Gara by advising him of the character of the men drawn for
jury service. O'Gara repeatedly discovered Platt's advice and
suggestions to be unreliable. Long after it was discovered that Platt
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 Calhoun and Abe Ruef[319] 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
description passed into the hands of Abe Ruef, $85,000 of which Ruef
distributed among the Supervisors for voting 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 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 permit. 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[294] John Helms, a detective, testified at the trial of Patrick
Calhoun 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 Prosecution accounted for every dollar spent
in the operations against the Schmitz-Ruef regime. The
attorneys representing the United Railroads were invited to
make as frank statement of the expenditures made by the
defense, but they declined.
[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-mindedness 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
laboring 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
testimony 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."
[298] The Call, in its issue of September 26, 1907, stated in
explanation of how the graft defense had come by the statement
Lonergan had made to Dorland that: "After court adjourned
(September 25) Attorney Rogers offered an explanation for
Walter Dorland, the man who was charged by the prosecution
with having attempted to kidnap Lonergan. Rogers's story
differed from that told by Dorland. Rogers stated that Dorland
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 Dorland were old friends and
the former induced Dorland to get statements from the
Supervisors for him. Dorland did this. Rogers says he has
statements from all the Supervisors with the exception of
Gallagher."
[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
contradictory statements of the confessing Supervisors.
[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. In
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."
[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 have been taken into a mountain county and held
there until the United Railroads cases had been disposed of.
He states his belief that Ruef was party to the plot.
[303] The disinclination of the United Railroads to produce its
books continues to cause that corporation inconvenience and
trouble. 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 Commission 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 commenting upon its
refusal, the Commission said:
"It should be understood that 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
adverse, 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 years' 'back salary' was
voted to Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads of
San Francisco, in the 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 thorough investigation in order to
determine the items claimed by applicant as operating expenses
of the United Railroads over a series of years." See Decision
No. 439 Railroad Commission of California, in the matter of the
application of the United Railroads, etc., February 4, 1913.
[304] Both Wilson and Coffey were indicted for bribe-taking. Wilson
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 what he was testifying. Coffey was tried for
bribe-taking and convicted. The Supreme Court, however, set
aside the verdict on technicalities.
[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
Railroads 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.
[306] The two men were at the time detailed to handle 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 headquarters, where it was exchanged for the currency.
Selig and Hawkins counted out the bills.
[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. Calhoun
were known to have enjoyed friendly relations with Mr. Ruef
during this period.
[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.
[310] This affidavit deals with the Graft Prosecution from its
beginning down to the spring of 1908. 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.
[312] This is the same Ach who dramatically left the Ruef defense 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
suspect that Ruef, Ach, Dr. Kaplan and Dr. Nieto would claim
eventually 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."
[316] Heney, in his closing argument, told the jury 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."
[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 substance,
'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, 1907, at night in my office 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 somewhere
between there and the entrance door of the building and Dr.
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,' meaning 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."
[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 law 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 destroyed 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
lawyers 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
circumstance in different lights. To an unprejudiced mind a
thief is a thief, whether he has stolen an old pair of shoes or
robbed the public through a municipal or other government. And
the honest man rejoices in his capture, the recovery of the
stolen goods and apprehension 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
testimony 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.
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, California had even then entered
upon the struggle of throwing off the yoke of machine domination through
the convention system of naming candidates. The delegates 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 hammering 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.
On the side of the defense, too, was the solid support of the powerful
Southern Pacific Company, and of the various public 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 vigorous 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 were, however, three prominent political
parties, Union Labor, Republican 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 parties the temerity to declare
against the prosecution of those trapped in corruption, however
vigorously opposed to the prosecution this or that faction might be. But
each of the three parties did divide on the question 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 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--element. At its head were many of the
experienced machine 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 "Irish-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 immigrant and his descendants have,
in these United States, been admitted. Well educated, forceful, a
brilliant speaker, effective as an organizer, a lover of the political
game, Ryan was soon the recognized leader of the new movement.
He was trusted implicitly. The selection of candidates for convention
places was left largely in his hands. Under Mr. Ryan's leadership the
fight for effective continuation of the Graft Prosecution was carried on
within the Republican party.
The division in the Union Labor party was scarcely 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 Langdon, went to the primary polls under the regular
Democratic leadership, with Thomas W. Hickey, chairman of the Democratic
County Central Committee, at its head. Prominent in the opposition was
Lewis F. Byington, who had preceded Mr. Langdon as District Attorney.
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]
Of the delegates to the Republican convention the Ryan (pro-prosecution)
forces elected 142, the "Herrin" (anti-prosecution) forces 7 only. Of
the 164 delegates 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.[321] 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 Republicans and Democrats
would unite without hesitation upon Taylor and Langdon, leaving the
cause of the indicted corporation managers to find expression in the
Union Labor party platform and candidates.[322]
But scarcely had the primary returns been made public than the San
Francisco Call, generally regarded as staunchly on the side of the
prosecution, brought confusion upon the pro-prosecution element, by
suggesting the candidacy of Mr. Ryan for Mayor and belittling the
candidacy of Mayor Taylor.
"Ryan," said The Call through its political representative, 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 Democrats might not
nominate Taylor. Without a Democratic 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. If the Democrats 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 nomination of Taylor by either party."
The source of The Call's information is not apparent. 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 Mayoralty. 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.[323] Such had been the understanding
during the primary campaign; such was the sense of the community 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, however,
that he had selected delegates for the purpose of giving himself the
Republican nomination for the Mayoralty. Then, again, aside from the
confusion his candidacy would work in the ranks of the anti-Herrin,
pro-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 determining that he is the
most worthy object of the charity, and putting[324] the money in his own
pocket."
But Ryan's candidacy was not to be defeated by adverse criticism. Mr.
Ryan had been largely instrumental in selecting the Republican delegates
who were to name the candidates. Besides, he had the clever support, 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 Republicans, 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.[325]
As to Taylor, with the ability of the forces at work to defeat the
prosecution considered, opinion gained daily that the failure of the
Republican convention to nominate Taylor, would be followed by a refusal
of the Democrats to give him nomination.
Thus with the supporters of the prosecution overwhelmingly successful at
the Republican and Democratic primaries, there was grave danger that
their purposes 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 hastily formed a
non-partisan organization to uphold the hands of the prosecution.[326]
They called their organization 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 movement. What was practically a combination
between the two forces resulted. This insured the nomination of 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 Republican convention. The Republican convention
nominated Mr. Ryan for Mayor.
Mr. Ryan's nomination was not accomplished without 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 Francisco had been betrayed, and that they
would not be bound by the nomination nor support the nominee.[327]
The Union Labor party, following out its policy of opposition to the
prosecution, nominated P. H. McCarthy[328] 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 candidate for District
Attorney to prosecution of the Supervisors 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]
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 unqualified support to the prosecution "in any effort it may
make to convict any guilty person."[330]
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 logically turn for a mayoralty candidate, after his
nomination, described him as "a cheap politician itching for
office,"[331] whose candidacy was the one element which threw a doubt
upon the election of Mayor Taylor. Following the conventions, The Call
supported Taylor as against the field.
The Chronicle tactfully refrained from taking sides until after the
nominations were announced.[332] 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,[333] with
citizens 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 repudiated
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 supported the candidacy of his Union Labor party
opponent.
This was particularly astonishing in the case of the United Railroads,
whose president, Mr. Patrick Calhoun, was even then posing as a "labor
union buster," while the United Railroads was very effectively grinding
to pieces the San Francisco Carmen's Union.[334]
Nevertheless, there was certain consistency in the political course
taken by the United Railroads. Whatever 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. McCarthy.[335] 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 denunciation.
Indeed, Mr. McCarthy opened his campaign with an attack upon the graft
prosecution. Inasmuch as the one issue before the people was the
continuance of 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 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[336] should no longer be retained as special prosecutor, that the
Supervisors who had confessed to bribe-giving should be prosecuted[337]
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
immunity,[338] it was urged that Mr. Langdon should not be continued in
the District Attorney's office.
The election returns[339] 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
competitors, including the Socialist candidate, was 13,510, his
plurality over McGowan being 14,808. And with the election of Taylor
and Langdon[340] were elected all the Good Government League candidates
for Supervisors.
The Graft Prosecution had successfully passed another crisis. It had,
too, received overwhelming endorsement of The People at the polls.
FOOTNOTES:
[320] The outcome of the Republican primaries was looked upon as a
victory for good government. Said the Call, in discussing the
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 was 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 accomplishment 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. Ryan. 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
[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 working 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 sympathizers in
this city."
[323] Many Ryan Republican district tickets contained the following
printed statement:
"The candidates on this ticket are pledged to use all their
influence in the convention to secure the nomination of a
ticket of capable men and hope that they will be indorsed by
the conventions 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 themselves 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."
[324] The Examiner, in its issue of September 19, 1907, in
discussing Mr. Ryan's proposed candidacy said: "It is
generally understood 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 delegates to the Republican convention were chosen to
advance his personal political ambitions.
"The people do not mean that the accidental leaders of a
primary 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
nominations.
"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
politicians 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 piece 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."
[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.
[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 Spreckels, Edgar A.
Mathews.
[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
convention 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.
[329] Heney, on the eve of election, in reply to McGowan's argument
that the bribe-takers should be prosecuted, effectively
answered 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
Supervisor) 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
Supervisor 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
accepting 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 witnesses, will you
prove that Ruef gave the money to Gallagher? Will you 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 Ford 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 Fat Calhoun 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 immunity?
"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 money 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 they 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 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
Supervisors 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
recommend 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 Calhoun, president of the United Railroads of San
Francisco, or will you recommend that the court shall grant
immunity to the friendless 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 nominees
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 follows:
"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 officials, 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."
[331] "There never would have been doubt anywhere about Taylor'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 has 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."
[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
collapse 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 important scale that he shall have some record of honorable
achievement 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."
[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:
"Workingmen. Workingmen--Are you going to put a big 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.
[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
element that Calhoun was endeavoring to crush.
[337] In a political advertisement which appeared in the San
Francisco Call November 3, 1907, Mr. McGowan said: "If elected
District Attorney I will prosecute every man accused of crime,
regardless of his position in life. I will continue the
present graft prosecution with more vigor, and the District
Attorney's office will not 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 graft 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 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 protection;
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 weakness?
"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
unprofitable 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 follows:
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
[340] In commenting upon the outcome of the election, the Examiner,
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 observed that the number of Republicans recorded was
far in excess of the adherents of union labor. The story was
told then. Disgusted 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 organization.
"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 majority 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 Langdon 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 the
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.[341]
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 the clever
opposition of the best legal talent obtainable for money, forced trials
before juries and secured convictions; and finally, the prosecution had
met the defense 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 discharged as to the indictment.
In as much as Ruef, Schmitz's co-defendant, indicted 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 indictment, 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
committed.[342] 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 court went back of the trial to the
indictment, on points raised in the defendant's demurrer, found for the
defendant, 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
sufficient to show that any public offense had been committed.
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[343] 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
following[344] defines "Fear such as will constitute extortion may be
induced by a threat either: (1) to do an unlawful 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 business 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,[345] but a mere permission, and the license is but the evidence
that the permission has been given by the proper authorities. "There is
grave doubt,"[346] 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 insufficient "because it does not allege
nor show that the specific injury threatened was an unlawful
injury."[347]
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 with
Schmitz, had secured large sums of money from the enterprises thus
threatened, the crime of extortion had not been committed.
The decision was received with protest[348] and denunciation. 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 extortion."
"When," said Dr. William Rader of Calvary Presbyterian church, in a
sermon preached on the evening of the Sunday after the decision was made
public, January 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--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 dumbfounded 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
rendered its decision.[349]
The decision was against the prosecution.
"The (Supreme) court is unanimous in the opinion," the decision read,
"that the District Court of Appeal 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 threatened 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 and public, from one end of the State to the other,
join in expression of indignation.
The court in return insisted that it was misrepresented 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 Sacramento Bee of April 29,
1908.[350] Again was the omission from the indictment of the fact that
Schmitz was Mayor and Ruef a boss, emphasized.[351] And again, it may
be added, did the stupid man on the street fail to understand. In fact,
disapproval of the decision continued. Heney attacked it respectfully in
tone, but with sharp criticism.[352]
James M. Kerr,[353] in his Cyclopedia Penal Code of 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 contended, 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
persons in office and exercising official influence."
Dean John H. Wigmore of the Northwestern University School of Law, and
author of the standard work, Wigmore on Evidence, in a crushing
criticism of the decision and the various documents in the case,
charged the Chief Justice with being "plainly inconsistent."
"The truth is," said Dean Wigmore, "that the learned Chief Justice in
endeavoring to support his decision weaves a logical web and then
entangles himself in it."[354] The moral of the Schmitz decision is,
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 opposition to the prosecution, of its effect
upon the status of Schmitz and Ruef.
"Schmitz," said a writer in The Chronicle, "is now 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 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[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.
[342] The Appellate Court enumerated the following errors at the
trial:
(1) That the trial court erred in allowing the peremptory
challenge 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
witnesses, Loupe, Blanco, Malfanti, Debret and Rosenthal.
(4) That error was committed when Schmitz was required, under
cross-examination, to answer question as to whether he had
received 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.
[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
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 protest than a letter. Nevertheless, I think
you are right to reply, especially 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 consider 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 anything but emphatic protest against this decision so far
as it relates 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 330.
[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
defendants 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 reason that the threats were
made with intent to extort money. In other words, it is
claimed that even though the French-restaurant 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 was 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 injury 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 consequence 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 property 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."
[348] The Examiner, in its issue of January 11, 1908, said of the
decision:
"The District Court of Appeal has overturned the conviction of
Mayor Schmitz on the ground that threatening to prevent the
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 dissatisfaction 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, particularly 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 had
morals."
The decision was generally condemned by the interior press. The
Sacramento Bee denounced it as a "palpable evasion of justice."
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."
[349] See California Appellate Reports, in which the Supreme Court
decision is printed, Vol. No. 7, Page 369.
[350] The Bee prefaced the Chief Justice's article with the
following statement: "The decision of the Supreme Court of
California 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 the discussion, there remains a prevailing
ignorance as to WHAT WAS DECIDED; 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
Justice 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
explanation should be read by everybody, so that hereafter
those who discuss the matter can do so with a full and thorough
understanding 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
contended 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 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 had any official or
other influence over the Board of Police Commissioners greater
than, or different from, that of the humblest private
citizen), and one Abraham Ruef (without showing 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 sufficiency of the indictment."
[352] Heney's reply to Chief Justice Beatty was published in The
Sacramento Bee. Section 961 of the California Penal Code
expressly provides that no fact of which a court may take
judicial notice, need be alleged in any indictment. The Codes
enumerate 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 that 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 connection
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 charged, that the threat was made by Schmitz, acting in his
official 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
influence 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
withheld; 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
Supervisors--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 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 office, and exercising official
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, renders such person guilty of extortion, under the
weight of decision and the better doctrine; and taking the case
in that view, the indictment 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 follows:
"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 permitting 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 precedents 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 unquestioned election of
William H. Taft as President of the United 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
Procedure, in tellingto do the right thingto do the right thing
them (Section 1875) that 'the courts take judicial notice of the
following facts,' simply gave them a liberty of belief as to
those specified facts, and did not take away their liberty 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 Ruef's 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 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
therefore 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 adducing 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 private 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 immediately 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 Commissioner 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 allegation 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 allegation 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 hundred 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
substantial justice.
"We do not doubt that there are dozens of other Supreme
Justices 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 anachronistic jurists who are now there. The moral is
that our profession must be educated out of such vicious habits
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 demanding 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 Calhoun's attitude," said
the Examiner in its issue of January 28, 1908, "was not explained
yesterday. Tactics of evasion, motions of obstruction, and every other
artifice known to legal legerdemain to stay proceedings have heretofore
been the accepted etiquette of the graft defendants, and conspicuously
that of Patrick Calhoun."
The Call, supporting the prosecution, boldly charged that the graft
defendants were in treaty with Ruef.[356] 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 Rabbis besought the District Attorney day and night[357] not to
force the broken boss to remain behind the bars.[358]
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.[359]
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
prosecution. Ruef, when confronted with charges of holding back
evidence, shifted and evaded, until Langdon, losing patience, charged
him with falsehood.
About the middle of January, evidence came into Langdon's
possession[360] 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[361] at once called Ruef before him and notified him that the
immunity contract was canceled.[362]
The abrogation of the immunity contract brought open break between Ruef
and the prosecution. Ruef 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 agreement 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 clamorously 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.[363] When Ruef finally
broke with the prosecution, the two Rabbis were to the fore backing up
his contention that the prosecution was not keeping faith with him.[364]
Kaplan soon after filed an affidavit setting forth that under the
agreement with the prosecution, Ruef was to have had complete immunity,
and be allowed to withdraw 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 perjury 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 Lawlor, when the Judges stated their
confidence in the District Attorney and his assistants, which differed
from the accounts contained in the affidavit of Heney and the
judges.[365] This brought the trial judges as well as the assistant
prosecuting attorney into the controversy.
The members of the Grand Jury that had indicted the graft defendants had
already had their trials in open court;[366] petit jurors and witnesses
had, in effect, been on trial also. And now District Attorney and trial
judges were placed on their defense.[367]
Other graft defendants joined in the upholding of Ruef and the
denunciation of the prosecution. Adverse newspapers joined in the cry of
unfairness and hinted 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.[368]
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.[369] The same position 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.[370] And doggedly the prosecution proceeded to
justify the expressions of confidence in its singleness of purpose and
in its ability to cope with the tremendous odds brought against it.
The immediate indictments about which the controversy raised by Ruef's
claim for immunity centered were those in the United Railroad cases. The
prosecution 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, Nicholas and Coleman.
In these indictments every technical error which the ingenuity of the
defense had brought out was eliminated. The new indictments were not
secured because the prosecution regarded the objections as having merit,
but that the District Attorney's office might be prepared to meet any
emergency which might arise.[371]
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 Supervisor Jennings Phillips to vote for the Parkside street railroad
franchise.[372]
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.[373]
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 defendant, 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 Attorney had abrogated the immunity contract thirteen days
before, on January 18. Whatever technical advantage Ruef may have had
because of the immunity contract 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 Francisco bar--was without legal counsel when
he had entered his plea, and that he had therefore innocently foregone
his constitutional rights. This contention provoked a smile even from
Ruef's partisans. The point was not urged further.
Seeing that trial could not be warded off on technicalities, 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,[374] a Superior Court Judge from the interior, was called to
sit in Judge Dunne's stead. Ruef thereupon 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 banquet.
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 mentioned 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 prohibition 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
prosecution by agents of the defense,[375] 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 Ruef to the Supervisors. He supplied the link 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
necessary 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 testimony 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 explosion, 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 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,[376] stating that he had been
employed by a Greek, one Felix Pauduveris,[377] 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.[378]
Quite as extraordinary as the attempted assassination of Gallagher was
the indifference with which the outrage was received by the press that
was supporting the graft defense.[379] The Chronicle condemned the
outrage, but took occasion to denounce Gallagher.[380] The weekly
press, however, treated the affair as something of a joke on the
confessed bribe-taker.[381]
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 excused from service.[382] 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.[383] 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," replied Heney, "The People have no witness--no volunteer
witnesses. We merely produce them."
When J. E. Green, president of the Parkside Company, who had authorized
the payments to Ruef, refused to testify on the ground that he might
incriminate 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 indictments pending against Green.[384] Ach
objected, but the motion was granted. Green was left free to testify.
Green testified how he had sent his attorney,[385] Judge Walter C. Cope,
to Ruef 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[386] in which the company's books had been juggled to cover up
the transaction was shown by witnesses connected with the Parkside
Company.
Ruef's intimation through his attorney that the money had been paid as a
fee was offset by testimony that the books had been juggled to cover up
the payment to Ruef because Ruef was the political boss of the city, and
it was believed that it would do the company no good if the fact of his
employment were known.
Gallagher testified that he had been Ruef's representative on the board;
that Ruef 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 would be increased to $1,000;
that he (Gallagher) had conveyed this information to the Supervisors.
Supervisors testified to having been given the information by
Gallagher.
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.[387]
After the disagreement of the jury in the Ruef Parkside case, to judge
from most of the San Francisco 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 Superior
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 defense, 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.
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 practically a unit in urging Judge Dunne's return to
the bench.[388] 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 defense 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 District Attorney.
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. Action 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[356] When Calhoun returned to San Francisco demanding immediate
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 simply
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 dazed by the
extraordinary 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 dealings with the shifty boss
knows 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."
[357] The graft prisoners unquestionably suffered greatly from their
confinement.
"No matter," said Ruef, in an interview printed in The
Examiner 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.
[360] Langdon does not state in his affidavit what this evidence
was. But at the trial of Ruef for offering bribes to Jennings
Phillips 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 Prosecution 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
attitude 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 immunity
agreement, would have resigned his official position of
District Attorney 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
endeavoring 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."
[363] Heney, in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs.
Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823, states that he finally said
to Kaplan, "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
telephone. 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. Kaplan, 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.
[365] 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 admitting
that he had betrayed his city into the hands of the spoilers,
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
because 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. Ruef 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
distinguished services would have been put to a better use. I
am still sufficiently credulous as to believe that with proper
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
justified in his present attitude, and that the judges, who,
from your statement, were ready to go to the extreme of mercy
and consideration, 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 attorneys 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 influential 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, succeeded beyond our fondest
hopes; nine-tenths of its work has been accomplished, and in
the teeth of the most determined and desperate 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. PAYSON.
"San Francisco, January 30, 1908."
[368] District Attorney Langdon's statement in reply 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 behalf of other defendants in the graft cases with the
intention of discrediting the prosecution and attempting to
lead the public to believe that we 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 direct.
"Nothing that has occurred within the past few weeks has in
any way complicated the situation as far as the prosecution is
concerned 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 carry them out. The Ruef case will be tried
immediately, and every other defendant under indictment will
be brought to trial just 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 find men who are rated as
decent, law-abiding, intelligent, presumably high minded and
moral, condoning the sins of the bribe givers and deploring
their indictment and prosecution.
"Both the commercial and political bribe givers committed
serious crimes, but by far the more serious was the crime of
corrupting public officials, because the tendency of this crime
is to undermine the very foundation of the State, thus leading
to the ultimate destruction of democracy.
"If the spirit of the respectables, fighting and condemning the
graft prosecution, is to become the common spirit, then must we
bid farewell to civic virtue, farewell to public morality,
farewell to good government and in time farewell to our
republican institutions 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, Francis
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 motives 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 vindicated."
[371] Heney, in a published statement regarding these indictments,
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 citizens 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 gentleman 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
paying 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 dedicated as a boulevard for the use of the
people, which was substantially 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 now that they were
victims, tell you now that they could not get their franchise
any other way. They were glad because they were a part of the
system, a part of the 'other fellows' of the affiliated
interests. They were glad to pay their money, which was 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
extension, or a privilege or a franchise, or anything that
they wanted, by simply paying for it. It would be the simplest
form of government, 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 newspapers, it would save you the cost of
mailing a circular to every voter. It is indeed, a most
economical and direct method of getting 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
criminal 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?"
[374] Judge M. T. Dooling was at the time Superior Judge of San
Benito, one of the smaller of the interior counties. He had,
however, 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.
[375] 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.
[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 Claudianes 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:
"Pauduveris said the prosecution with Heney, Langdon, Burns
and Spreckels 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."
[377] Pauduveris had been employed by the United Railroads as a
"spotter." At the time of the explosion he was still in that
corporation'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 examination at which Gallagher testified against
him. Gallagher's testimony 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 mankind, 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
dynamiter--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 we hear of suspects any of them of having
resorted to that atrocious method of defense, in which six
persons besides Gallagher himself came near being murdered. In
the absence of any conceivable 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 prosecution's staff fell in with this theory of
the case. So far as the so-called graft 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 testimony 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. Furthermore,
there are other witnesses competent to testify to every vital
fact in the Gallagher story. So far as the immediate case is
concerned, 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 Gallagher 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 opportunities 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 in the
District 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.
[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.
[385] For additional data regarding this case, see Chapter XIV,
footnotes 180, 181, 198, 199, 200, 201.
[386] See footnote 199.
[387] Months after, when men had been indicted for endeavoring to
influence jurors to vote for Ruef's acquittal in the United
Railroads 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, September 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 one
answer--that jury was not an honest one."
Later, Penny gave sensational testimony along this line in
Judge Lawlor's court.
[388] From 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 the '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."
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
evidence, lent more or less color to these reports. But it was not until
Ruef's trial[389] for offering a bribe in the over-head trolley
transaction opened, that the jury-fixing scandal took definite shape.
Then, came sensational 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 August 27, 1908.[390] But nearly a
month before, on July 31, District Attorney Langdon had been given
definite information that an attempt had been made to bribe one of the
talesmen who had been called for jury service 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. Langdon received a telephone message from
Kelly requesting an interview, which was granted immediately.
Kelly told Langdon[391] that that afternoon he had 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.[392]
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 instructions. 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."
Frank J. Murphy, one of Ruef's attorneys, immediately jumped to his
feet, and claimed the court's attention.
"If your honor please," said Murphy, "if that completes 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[393] about the matter on the
1st of September. 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 informed indirectly that
Mr. Kelly solicited $1000 for his vote in this case, and the matter is
of so much importance, your Honor, that I think an investigation should
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 examination. Now, if your Honor please, I don't want to do
Mr. Kelly an injustice. I would 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 twice, 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 was more than duplicated
by the statement made by Heney the moment after.
"If the Court please," said Heney, "before Mr. Murphy 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 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 Mr.
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 District 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 anticipated 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 we might catch them in this act,
and it is only because they have had occasion to suspect we knew it,
that Mr. Murphy 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 $1000 from Murphy to vote
for Ruef's acquittal. Nevertheless, Mr. Murphy, as well as Mr. A. S.
Newburgh, another of Ruef's attorneys, admitted under oath that they had
suggested to Blake that he interview Kelly.[394]
Kelly took the stand and testified in a straightforward 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. Nevertheless, attorneys[395] came forward
to defend him; 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,[396] Mr. Ruef's attorneys, were indicted also, charged with
corruptly attempting to influence a juror.[397]
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
example, 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.
Blake was convicted. He was later sentenced to serve four years in the
penitentiary. After Blake's conviction, 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[398] of his participation in the jury-fixing transaction. In
his confession he involved Attorneys Murphy and Newburgh. Later, in open
court, he made public statement of his participation.[399]
Blake in his statement in court set forth that he had become acquainted
with Newburgh through having offices in the same building with him. He
had, he said, met Murphy in Newburgh's office. Newburgh had introduced
them. Murphy, he stated, had shown him a list 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 instructions from District Attorney Langdon and
Burns) had finally agreed to take $1000. Blake testified that he had
reported back to Murphy that Kelly would accept the money.
Following his arrest, Blake testified, his lawyers had come to him
without his solicitation,[400] with the statement 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. Murphy and
Newburgh, he claimed, had assured 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 convicted.[401]
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, "'when we get up
to the higher court, it will be thrown out,' or 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 imprisonment. Murphy, he said, showed him what purported to be
promissory notes[402] aggregating $7500. The notes, he alleged, were
made to Murphy and signed with 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.[403]
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.[404] Murphy was acquitted.
Newburgh's trial followed. The first jury failed to agree. It was stated
at the time that the jury stood six 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 progress of the trial, shot down in open
court.
FOOTNOTES:
[389] Of the "fixing of juries," The Chronicle in its issue of
September 19, 1908, said: "Every move made in the Ruef trials
gives moral evidence that systematic bribery of juries is
being practiced which is as convincing to the public as were
the signs of corruption during the entire Schmitz regime, but
before the explosion. Nobody doubted then that the Mayor, the
Supervisors and all officials appointed by Schmitz were
thieves. Nobody doubts now that all through these graft trials
there has been systematic 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."
[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
delaying 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
return to his office on the afternoon of July 31, he met Blake
leaving. Kelly had followed him into his private office. Of
the interview 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?' 'Well,' 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 foolishness.' 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 business any. I
firmly 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."
[392] Of Blake's negotiations Kelly testified: "Mr. Blake began
about this way: He 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
anything like that'; and he began to urge 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 instantly 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 what had occurred
to his employer, Snyder, and within an hour was in consultation
with District Attorney Langdon and Burns.
[393] Judge Sturtevant, at the investigation which followed, showed
himself not at all clear as to details. Finally Murphy 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 what 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."
[394] Murphy's testimony on this point was as follows: "On a day
between the 20th of July and the 1st day of August, I went 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 finished, and I stated
that a jury had been impaneled, or a jury had been 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
decision?"
"A. Yes--no, your Honor--I don't know--no, no. But having in
mind--I will state what I had in mind--a statement your Honor
had made at some previous time, that either side had the right
to find out how the jury stood; that is, if they used
legitimate means. I said to Mr. Blake, I said, 'How do you
think Mr. Kelly stands on the graft prosecution?' 'Well,' he
said, 'Mr. Kelly is a very liberal-minded fellow and I think he
would give Ruef a square deal.' So I then said, 'Well, I would
like to find out whether any of Mr. Burns' gumshoe men have
interviewed him, or whether he belongs to the Good Government
League or the League of Justice or any kindred organizations.'
He said he would find out the next time he met Mr. Kelly."
See printed transcript on appeal The People vs. Abraham Ruef,
Part II, Vol. II, p. 878. For Newburgh's statement see same
transcript, part and volume, pages 943 and 944.
[395] In this there was remarkable similarity to the legal
assistance given thugs who were from time to time arrested for
interfering with the work of the Prosecution.
[396] Murphy had figured in the Ruef trials, somewhat sensationally,
from the beginning. When, for instance, Ruef, early in March,
1907, was a fugitive from justice, Murphy was acting as one of
his attorneys. He was placed on the stand in Judge Dunne's
court. The Chronicle, in its issue of March 7, 1907, contained
the following account of his testimony:
"Frank J. Murphy, one of Ruef's lawyers, testified that he had
last seen Ruef just outside Hebbard's courtroom on Monday.
"Have you been doing any business with him since?"
"Murphy declined to answer this under his privilege as an
attorney. 'We are looking for an absconding and hostile
defendant, and the witness should not be allowed to draw
conclusions as to whether the business he is doing for him is
privileged,' declared Hiram Johnson.
"Heney suggested that it was the request to do this business
rather than the business itself, that was sought by the
Prosecution.
"A compromise was effected on an answer by the witness that he
had not communicated directly or indirectly with Ruef during
the past forty-eight hours."
[397] About the same time, Captain John J. West became involved 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 importance by
the Blake-Murphy-Newburgh proceedings that the public paid
comparatively little attention to it.
[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 Francisco 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 familiar 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
Supervisors 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
following 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,
realizing 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 continued 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.
[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 imprisonment.
[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. She was to
get $100 a month. The Court. How? A. To be taken care of when I
was convicted, you know.
"Q. During your incarceration? A. Yes, and I was to have the
$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
something of that kind. That $10,000 was to be turned over to
me immediately 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 the
$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
representative 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 sister.
"Q. His father?
"The Court--promissory notes to you from Abraham Ruef, and
indorsed? A. The promissory notes, your honor, were made 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. Murphy,' 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."
[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 Murphy'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.
CHAPTER XXV.
THE SHOOTING OF HENEY.
In spite of the sensational events following the trapping of Blake, the
work of impaneling a jury to try Ruef went steadily on. After months of
effort,[405] 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.[406] The shooting
occurred in open court during a brief recess.
Heney was seated at his place at the attorneys' table talking with an
assistant. The jury had left the courtroom. 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 resumed. There was the usual confusion which attends a
five-minute court recess. Court attaches, officials, attorneys, citizens
were passing to and fro without hindrance.
The man who shot Heney had no difficulty in gaining access to the
courtroom. He walked deliberately to the attorneys' table, and before he
was even noticed, 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.[407]
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 exposed him.[408] 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
assault. He was 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, who was 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,
November 13. The court adjourned until the following Monday.[409]
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,[410] but it had awakened the
community to tardy realization of its responsibility.[411] Men who had
laughed at the Examiner's "Mutt cartoons" ridiculing the Prosecution,
now threatened to mob The Examiner office. Patrons of the
defense-supporting Chronicle now voiced their utter condemnation of that
paper. Thousands withdrew their subscriptions 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 partisan 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 Prosecution 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 subsided when the Graft Prosecution opened,[412] that
the graft evil could not be corrected except by extra-legal means, was
to some degree revived.
In this emergency, the leaders of the Graft Prosecution, 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[413] called a mass meeting for the
Saturday evening following the shooting. 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 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 California 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]
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 Langdon, "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
punished, 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 stuffers, a
council was elected in the same way. Crime was rampant, nobody was
punished. 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 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 interpretations of
the statutes. They refused to lean on the side of order and justice, and
they have brought disgrace 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, while 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
responsible for the conditions which had been forced upon San Francisco
should be brought to justice. Whatever danger there was of violence to
members of the graft defense, vanished at that Citizens' League of
Justice mass meeting. At its conclusion, resolutions were adopted
condemning the methods of the defense, declaring unwavering allegiance
of those present to law, and pledging support in the cleansing of the
city of grafters and boodlers.[415]
Another crisis had passed in San Francisco. The situation was not unlike
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.[416]
But even as the citizens met in mass meeting 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 himself 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 practiced in
searching men. And yet, Haas had, before he was put in his cell, been
thoroughly searched both by Captain Duke[417] of the police force and
Detective 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 derringer 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 generally.
In the afternoon mass meetings were held in all parts of the State, at
which resolutions were adopted condemning the methods of the
defense,[418] and pledging support to the prosecution.
Telegrams[419] of condolence and of encouragement poured in from all
parts of the country.
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 commotion in the pews. Members of the congregation, by frown
and toss of head, indicated their profound disapproval of their pastor's
petition.[420] 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 struggle 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 opportunity 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 attorneys 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
newspapers, 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
admonish 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 in the trial were concerned was to stand as
though it had not occurred. This Judge Lawlor did.[421]
The trial itself was not unlike the other graft trials. The Supervisors
told the story of their bribery. Gallagher told how Ruef had given him
the money, and how he had given it to Supervisor Furey. Furey testified
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 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,[422] Lathem
repudiated important evidence which 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[405] Seventy-two days were required to impanel the 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 employed 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 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 similar 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 interview 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 jury. 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 reason 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
disqualified, 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.'"
[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.
[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
reason to doubt where the responsibility lies. A bare chance,
the momentary 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
cowering 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 Gallagher--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 heroic 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 transactions, or that he had 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 officials.
[411] "A great work," said Hiram W. Johnson, in an interview printed
in the San Francisco Call, November 14, 1908, "undertaken and
accomplished, though not yet wholly completed, has been
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, sacrificing 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 assurance 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
commonwealth have suffered the injury.
"We who were with him in the early days of the struggle, and
knew 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 attempted assassination. May God
speed his recovery."
[412] See Chapter IV.
[413] The Citizens' League of Justice was organized immediately
after the attempted assassination of Witness Gallagher by
means of dynamite. Those immediately connected with the
prosecution, it had been amply demonstrated, were risking
their lives. In the Citizens' League of Justice was proposed
an organization, entirely separate and apart from the graft
prosecution, to back the prosecution. The idea originated with
Bruce Porter, the artist. Rev. Charles N. Lathrop, of the
Church of the Advent, became interested. The initial meeting
was held at Father Lathrop's house. While the League had no
connection with the prosecution, it became most effective in
support of the prosecution group. Professor George H. Boke, of
the University of California Law School, accepted 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 president.
[414] Dr. Taylor's observations on this point were as follows: "Let
us see to it that no matter who 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
additional affliction of the assassination of one who stood
for the people'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
way, but in a resolute way, in a determined way. 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 who are guilty
are punished and are rightfully punished."
[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,
obtained 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
justice, 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 time 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 kidnapping; 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 prosecutors, 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 administration of the criminal law be due to
misinterpretation by judges, we shall see to it that 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
misrepresentation are perverting public opinion.
"Be it further resolved, that we solemnly assert our utmost
confidence in the law-abiding character 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 determination to indorse and to aid that
office to the end that all persons accused of crime shall be
fairly tried and their guilt or innocence 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
ourselves 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
sufferings 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
Chinaman, whom Policeman Helms, who was recently killed, and
myself had arrested. We found a dagger in his shoe, and since
then I have always 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 derringer 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 commit suicide.
"It would have been an 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."
[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. Wheeler, "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 follows:
"White House, Nov. 19, 1908.
"To Rudolph Spreckels, San Francisco.
"Am inexpressibly shocked at the attempted assassination of
Heney and most earnestly hope he will recover. The infamous
character of the would-be assassin no less than the infamous
character of the deed call attention in a striking way to the
true character of the forces against which Heney and you and
your associates 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 corrupt 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:
"White 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 morning 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
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 persecutions 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
powerful opposition to the prosecution of prominent
Episcopalian laymen, 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."
[421] Judge Lawlor's statement to the jury was as follows:
"Gentlemen 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, considered in connection with that
plea, puts in issue, for the determination 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 which 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
courtroom 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 Court desires the jurors to in every manner
relieve their minds of any impression or anything that they
have heard, or anything that has been said, or anything that
has been communicated, or that shall hereafter he 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
occurred, was declared.
"I may state to you generally, that on that occasion Mr.
Francis 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 person 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 would 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, where Ruef had obtained a shirt box. He had then
driven Ruef to the offices of the United Railroads. Ruef had
entered 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 with 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 was paid $150 a month.
The importance of Lathem's testimony lies in the fact that at
the time he took Ruef with the shirt-box to Ford's office,
Ford had just received from the Relief corporation officials
$50,000 in small currency, which made two large bundles, which
were carried 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 sufficient 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 XXVI.
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 was 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 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 McEnerney'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 inflicted but
a few months before, and worn out from 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. Calhoun, received as much in a day. Compared with the
army of lawyers for the defense, the representation of The People was
pitifully small.
Through the long, grueling contest of the trial, lasting for five months
and eight days,[423] Heney and O'Gara were kept under constant strain,
while the defendant'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 exasperated. Every
indication of impatience on his part, or of temper, was made subject of
attack in the opposing newspapers.[424] 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
believe had brought shame upon and injured the city. Some went so far as
to call the prosecution of Calhoun an outrage.[425] Others intimated
that the giving of bribe money might have been justifiable.[426] Such
expressions, 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.
Heney, in his opening statement to the jury, set forth the prosecution
expected to prove that Ruef authorized James L. Gallagher to offer the
bribe to Supervisor Nicholas; that Ruef afterwards gave the money to
Gallagher to pay Nicholas; that Calhoun authorized Ruef, either through
Tirey L. Ford, or personally, or both, to make the offer to Gallagher
and to authorize Gallagher to make the offer 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 overhead 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.[427]
But nobody could be found who had seen Ford pass $200,000 to Mr. Ruef.
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 weakness
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 sometime between May 22 and May 24, 1906.[428] Calhoun called,
Leach testified, to ascertain how $200,000, which had been transferred
from the East to his credit."[429] 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 Mint with an order from Mr. Calhoun for
$50,000,[430] which was paid to him. Later, Calhoun telegraphed to Leach
from Cleveland, Ohio, to pay Ford a second $50,000; and still later the
$100,000 remaining.[431]
The Mint officials paid Ford the money in accordance with Mr. Calhoun's
directions. Mr. Calhoun offered 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[432] in full for the amount.
But what was quite as extraordinary as this direct evidence against Mr.
Calhoun was the offer of the District Attorney to meet the defense's
charges and insinuations against the prosecution. Rudolph Spreckels 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 contributors to the fund.[433]
"Will you," broke in Heney addressing Calhoun's lawyers, "produce an
itemized account of moneys expended 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 itemized 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.[434]
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 preliminary
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
necessary for practical installation of the conduit electric system,
asking only that the unsightly poles and overhead wires be not inflicted
upon the city. It was only when Calhoun, dealing with a Board of
Supervisors suspected of corruption, showed conclusively that he
proposed to install an over-head trolley system, whether the people
wanted it or not, that Spreckels and his associates 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 incorporation under which the
company proposed to operate, provided for the transfer under equitable
arrangements 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.[435] As
a matter of fact, 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 expeditions in
which the defense indulged, brought the facts out convincingly that
Heney, far from being in Spreckels' 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 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 methods, was brought out. The graft
defense, free to question 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.[436]
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. Spreckels had inaugurated the graft prosecution
for the purpose 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.[437]
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 attorney) that as far as I am concerned the bars
are absolutely 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.[438]
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.[439]
The trial resulted in a disagreement. According to published statements,
purporting to come from members 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.[440]
Immediately after announcement of the verdict,[441] the District
Attorney attempted to bring Calhoun to trial for the alleged offering of
a bribe to Supervisor John J. Furey. This the defense resisted. The
community was filled with the suggestion that the Calhoun jury, having
failed to agree, the costly graft trials should be brought to an
end.[442]
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 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[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 advantage also, at the trial
of Clarence Darrow, 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 members 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."
[425] See footnote 269.
[426] The Chronicle, as early as July 10, 1907, punctured the theory
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.' Possibly he believes that this is true, but there is
absolutely no foundation 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
community 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 punishment, and utterly refuse to accept
the excuse that the corporations 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 shown a willingness to profit 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 infinitely more reason for striving to punish
offenders of that character 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.
[427] See Chapter XV, "The Ford Trials."
[428] The trolley-permit was granted May 21, 1906.
[429] The letter placing $200,000 to Calhoun's credit read as
follows:
"Treasury Department, Washington, May 22, 1906. Superintendent
of the United States Mint, San Francisco, Cal. Sir:
Confirmation is certified to a telegram sent you this day, in
substance as follows:
"'Pay to Patrick Calhoun, President United Railroads,
$200,000; to Lachman and Jacobi, $12,500; to Beech Thompson,
$20,000; to Canadian Bank of Commerce, $250,000; on account of
original certificates 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.' Respectfully,
"CHARLES H. TREAT,
"Treasurer of the United States."
[430] The telegrams directing the money to be paid Ford read:
"Cleveland, Ohio, July 28, 06. Hon. Frank A. Leach,
Superintendent 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,
Superintendent United States Mint, San Francisco. Please pay
to General 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."
[433] "I want to protect those (the contributors) whom I promised 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 The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, Page 3385.
[434] The statement in full of the expenditures of the Prosecution,
as shown in the transcript of the Calhoun trial, will be found
on page xxxiv of the Appendix.
[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
extraordinary situation.
"They, therefore, protest against the consideration by this
Grand Jury of any evidence whose legality and sufficiency
cannot be judicially determined from a full, complete and
correct transcript thereof.
"Second--The 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, representing 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
possess of any of the affairs of the United Railroads or of its
officers, 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
District Attorney's office in attendance before this Grand
Jury, 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."
[436] One of the most complete answers to the charges scattered
nation-wide by the Graft Defense, came from Dean John H.
Wigmore 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 Calhoun,
No. 1436, page 3723.
[438] Mr. Spreckels finally testified on this point as follows:
"Mr. Heney. Q. At the time that Mr. Phelan agreed to
contribute 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
prosecuting Mr. Calhoun? A. Absolutely no.
"Q. Or any person connected with the United Railroads Company?
A. The discussion was entirely confined to the administration,
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
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 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
Company? 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
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 Francisco 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 MULLALLY,
'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 succumbed to the pressure. I called upon him for his
reasons for changing his vote and he replied: 'Oh, these
corrupt conditions have always 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
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
contending 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 only as a fee. They acknowledged
right there that Calhoun had paid over the money but 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
suppression 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 why 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 agreement 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 jury 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
official: "There lies in the courtroom," said Calhoun, "forty
checks made by Mr. Rudolph Spreckels to Mr. Francis J. Heney
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 purpose 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 against 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 proclaim 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 promises have been fulfilled we
know. The mystery of that $200,000 remains as dark as ever. Not
even the stockholders of the company 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 Calhoun
and as long as he refuses to undergo cross examination and the
ordinary legal tests of proof, just so long will the whole
American public believe him guilty of bribery. As for his
threat of some sort of vague legal proceedings against the
prosecutors, that will merely provoke a laugh, as men do laugh
at a cheap and obvious 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."
CHAPTER XXVII.
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 following
January. His successor was to be elected in November.
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 grueling contest of the
Calhoun trial, coupled with the nerve-shattering effects 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 continue 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 California Legislature of 1909 had
adjourned after a session which had ended largely in disappointing
failure for the anti-machine element. The anti-machine element 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
progressive--measures. In other instances progressive measures were
before their passage,[443] 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 elimination 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 intended to restore the Australian ballot to its original
simplicity and effectiveness.[444]
Under the machine's tinkering of the State's election 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" invalidating 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
compelled to accept many undesirable provisions.[445]
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.[446]
But the machine element denounced these not unreasonable 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 judicial interpretation of
the partisan clause of the Direct Primary Act became necessary. The San
Francisco primary election was at hand, and the partisan provisions 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 Republican
appearing on the Democratic ticket, or of a Democrat on the Republican
ticket, provided the candidate 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 prosecution, 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 Attorney 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 element 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.[447] 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 were 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
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 committee 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 California Progressives, Heney had in
1908 supported Taft for the Presidency. His political affiliations were
therefore, under the provisions of the Direct Primary law, Republican.
His name could be placed on the Republican primary ticket, but not on
the Democratic. But it soon became evident that if his name went on the
Republican ticket he would be defeated at the primaries.
The registration of voters under their party designation to enable them
to vote at the partisan primaries showed an astonishing condition. The
machine, anti-prosecution element was discovered to be massing its
strength in the Republican 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,[448] while the Democratic 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 tremendous Republican registration indicated that the anti-machine
Republicans would be outvoted by "machine" members of all parties who
had registered as Republicans.
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 Democrats were striving to make him
their candidate.
Had the 1909 primary law prevailed in 1907, Langdon's re-election could
have been, and almost to a certainty would have been blocked, and the
Graft Prosecution brought to an end two years before it was.
At the 1909 Primary election, Heney's name, although he was the choice
of the anti-machine element of all parties, did not appear on any of the
primary ballots.[449] Nevertheless, 4594 Republicans wrote Heney's name
on their primary ballots. But this was not sufficient to give him the
nomination. Fickert, whose name appeared on the Republican ballot, as a
regular candidate, received 12,480 votes, which gave him the Republican
nomination.
On neither the Democratic nor Union Labor primary tickets did the name
of any candidate for District Attorney appear. The McCarthy element
urged that Fickert'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 effort was made to give Fickert the
Democratic nomination also. He received 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 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 District
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."[450]
Out of this confusing primary election, Fickert came with two party
nominations, the Union Labor and the Republican, while Heney had one
nomination, the Democratic. 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 Fickert had two.
The prosecution forces had supported Byron Mauzy for Republican
nomination for Mayor, but Mr. Mauzy[451] was defeated by William
Crocker, who received the Republican 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 Fickert; Democratic, Leland and Heney. But the issue before San
Francisco, continuance of the Graft Prosecution, had no partisan
significance at all. It was supported 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.[452]
Men with apparently unlimited means at their disposal, realized that
Heney's election would in all probability mean for them a term in the
State prison. They were fighting for their liberty. The commercial
interests were warned that, in the words of I. W. Hellman, Sr., the
banker, the Graft Prosecution was hurting business.[453] The anti-Graft
Prosecution press insisted day after day that bribery 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 Supervisors withdraw support given the District
Attorney's office in its efforts to land bribe-givers behind the
bars.[454] 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 prosecution.
Their votes had made Langdon's election sure 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 California
Law School, joined a group of working men who were discussing the merits
of the several candidates. 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 electricians' union. Well under thirty,
clear-eyed and forceful, 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 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
worker in the crowd was going to vote for Heney. The effect 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 aggregation 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 effective.
It at least scattered the crowd.
"Of course Calhoun is a grafter," he said in effect. "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 anyhow,
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 immediate. The electrician
lost the attention of his associates. The discussion came to an end with
murmurs of approval of the newcomer's position. That he should have
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 generation 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 was called upon to meet the "class" opposition of the
laborer and the magnate. On the other hand, the unafraid, intelligent
people of San Francisco, 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, but the country press, which had no circulation in San
Francisco, earnestly urged his election.[455]
Good citizens throughout the country wrote urging Heney's election. "To
rout the forces of the prosecution 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 always 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 voting places in the
districts in which the labor vote was 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 support 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 primary 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.[456]
The Graft Prosecution had been defeated at the polls.
FOOTNOTES:
[443] See "Story of the California Legislature of 1909," Chapters
VIII, IX, X, XI.
[444] This reform was accomplished at the Legislative session of
1911. The undesirable provisions were also stricken by
amendment from the Direct Primary law. See "Story of the
California Legislature of 1911."
[445] "Before voting on this matter," (the Direct Primary
provisions) said Senator Stetson, an anti-machine leader in
explaining 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 districts, 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,
denounce the very partisan clause which later contributed so
largely to Heney's defeat. Senators Campbell, Holohan and
Miller, for example, while voting for the bill, sent to the
clerk's desk the following explanation of their vote:
"We voted for the Direct Primary bill because it seems to be
the best law that can be obtained under existing political
conditions. 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 Legislature 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, 1909, and
Senate Journal for March 22, 1909, page 1976.
[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 situation here since I left six months ago,
but I had an interview with certain people In New York and I
found that they were unwilling to send capital here as long as
this 'graft persecution' was continued."
[448] Ryan did not receive his full party vote (see chapter XXI)
while Taylor received the anti-machine vote of all parties.
Nevertheless, this does not account for the extent of the
astonishing changes in registration.
[449] It is interesting to note that the politicians responsible for
this condition, and who regarded Heney's position at the 1909
primaries with no attempt to conceal their amusement, were in
1912, loudest in their insistence that they had been
disfranchised because the names of Taft electors did not
appear on the California election ballot at the 1912 election.
It is also to be noted that their representations were based
on misrepresentation. They could, under 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.
[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.
McCarthy'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.
[451] Mr. Mauzy had the active opposition of the anti-prosecution
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 convictions 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
administration of the law should be free from any and all
suspicion of private 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 pledge our
nominees."
The Democratic plank alone pledged support to the Graft
Prosecution. 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
before the law, which has secured convictions against
disheartening odds and has paved the way 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 abandonment; for or against not only a greater but a
better San Francisco.
"Francis J. Heney, our candidate for District Attorney,
embodies these issues, and we pledge him the vigorous and loyal
support of the Democratic party."
[453] The "hurt business" argument was ably combated by businessmen
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
replying 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 figures
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
business it would still be your duty and my duty and the duty
of every lover and well-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, 1909, gave figures which disproved the
Hellman idea.
"It is significant of San Francisco's credit standing in the
world at large," the letter read, "that the bonds of this city
command prices that compare favorably with the issues of other
large municipalities, as measured by the low interest return
which investors 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
bankers that the Prosecution is hurting business. They heard
the same talk in Boston when our Revolutionary sires threw tea
overboard. It would hurt business, they said, to have a war
with England. I can see the picture, when Thomas Jefferson was
signing the Declaration of Independence, of a large man, who
looked like the cartoonist's representation of a corporation
official, coming 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 San
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 discontinue the effort. Hitherto
no one has been willing to formally 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 apparent that
success is impossible, and that further effort would be not
only a waste of money and energy but serve to keep before 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 opportunities 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 business with the city must buy his
way in by some form of corruption.
"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,
however, was no legal proof against the higher officials of the
beneficiary 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 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 citizens are coming to resent secret efforts to
induce them to compromise 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 exhibitions 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 imprisonment 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. Everybody
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
intelligent citizen has been 'disqualified' by reading the
testimony before the Grand Jury.
"It is a most difficult situation. No reputable citizen is
willing to seem to impede the course of justice. But, now that
an organized body has formally raised before the Supervisors a
question which has long been a daily subject of discussion
whenever two men have met, it will be necessary to frankly face
the situation and decide where duty lies."
[455] The following from the Fresno Republican is very good example
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 you were with sneaking crime?
"You may stop these Prosecutions, if you so vote. But remember
the whole civilized world is looking on, and will judge 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 York' 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
officials of precisely these syndicates that you are now
prosecuting. Of course, Patrick Calhoun, of New York, wants the
prosecution 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 Banker Hellman should announce in New
York that he was going to discuss the San Francisco situation,
his audience 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 assemblage 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
before. 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."
[456] Heney on the day after the election issued the following
statement:
"The first battle for equality before the law has been fought
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
righteousness.
"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 the 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
equality 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 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
Francisco 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
success 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
frequently 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 harm at the hands of
the so-called Prosecution.
"Attempting to punish was an unpleasant and incidental portion
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
undiminished 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 [457] 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
February 7.
In the meantime former Supervisor James L. Gallagher, 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
December 1 he dropped out of sight. He was supposed to have gone to
Europe.[458]
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 evidence to warrant him submitting the case to a
jury.[459]
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. Fickert gave assurance that
diligent hunt was being made for the witness.
The questioning of the District Attorney was continued 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 weakened 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 Gallagher present he did not believe that the State could make out
a case.[460] 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 propose to proceed with the
trial of the action:
(1) If a material witness were without the jurisdiction 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.[461]
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 Mullally, 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 Judge Lawlor, but Mr.
Berry failed to sustain his chief's contention.[462]
"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,"[463] replied Judge
Lawlor, "the Court will not feel called upon to grant any application
looking to a dismissal 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 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 considerable 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 District
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]
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.[465]
On that date, Calhoun's attorneys moved for dismissal 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 Attorney's office would be justified in
asking continuance until Gallagher's return.
Judge Lawlor postponed determination of the motion until July 14.[466]
His ruling was announced on August 3.
Judge Lawlor went exhaustively into the situation presented.[467] He
pointed out that a material and indispensable witness was absent from
the State; he stated that the Court was called upon to intervene
"because 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 before 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
August 29.
Stanley Moore, one of Calhoun's attorneys, when Judge Lawlor had
concluded, demanded that he be permitted 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 Moore charged him with "doing politics from the bench that you
stultify in your occupancy." A. A. Moore, another of Calhoun's lawyers,
accused him of being "a 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 participated on April 29 amply
demonstrate."[468]
District Attorney Fickert, in the face of the Court's direction that he
take his seat, denounced "the statements 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 denunciation. 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 was 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."[469] 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 Francisco 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 Lawlor's courtroom.[470] The defendants
applied to the Supreme Court in habeas corpus proceedings, but failed to
secure interference. They then went to the State District Court of
Appeal, where they secured a writ of mandate directing Judge Lawlor to
dismiss the indictments in the cases of the trolley-graft
defendants.[471] The District Attorney's office announced to Judge
Lawlor that the District Attorney had no intention of prosecuting an
appeal from the judgment and order of the District Court.
Judge Lawlor thereupon dismissed the cases as directed. 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 influence 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 defense had shown greater staying qualities than either peace
officers or community. It had been pretty thoroughly demonstrated that
convictions could not be had.[472]
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 defendant, had been
convicted, but the Supreme Court had reversed the decision on
technicalities.[473] The absent 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 witnesses had disappeared. The
incident was taken by the papers, not as a reflection upon the
community, but as a joke on Judge Lawlor.[474] The Glass cases were
finally dismissed.
Former Mayor Schmitz in February, 1912, was brought to trial. Ruef was
brought over from San Quentin prison to testify against him. But Ruef
refused to testify unless the Ruef indictments were dismissed. This,
Judge Dunne,[475] 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[457] The second trial of Patrick Calhoun (No. 1437) was begun July
19, 1909. Owing to the illness of one of Mr. Calhoun's
counsel, the trial was suspended on August 16th, and resumed
September 30th. The following day the defendant secured
further continuance 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 was, by
agreement between the parties continued until January 10th,
when the new District Attorney should be in office.
[458] The motives which prompted Gallagher to flee the city are
among the undetermined elements of the graft cases. Perhaps
recollection of his attempted assassination had something to
do with it. It may be that the defense, which had done so many
extraordinary things during the course of the graft trials,
made it worth his while to go. Gallagher is known to have been
plentifully supplied with money while he was away. An attempt
was made to create the impression that agents of the
Prosecution had been instrumental in getting Gallagher out of
the State. But the attempt, while it confused the situation
somewhat, was not taken seriously. When in August, 1911, Judge
Lawlor dismissed the indictments against the alleged
bribe-givers in the trolley case, he took occasion 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 purpose. 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 situation upon any individual or set of individuals I
repeat that appropriate 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 intimation 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 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 tending to support the
charge of the District Attorney, nor is there any proof which
would justify such an inference."
[459] 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 evidence 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 examined 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 sufficient
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 furtherance of justice,' move the dismissal of
this indictment, on the grounds that the evidence is wholly
insufficient to warrant another trial of this case."
[460] Judge Lawlor was also careful to make clear that if the court
proceeded with the formation of a jury, jeopardy would attach
to the case. He also pointed out that the statute of
limitations 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
criminal 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 case 1436 against 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. Fickert that counsel would stipulate to nothing of
the kind.
[461] "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
concerned, 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, was not inviting a suggestion 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
allow the expenditure of public money for the mere purpose of
going 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 announcement 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
transferred 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 required to give your full attention to.
Your own statement in support 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
interfering with the due administration of Justice you will
have a full hearing before this Court in order that you shall
not be so hampered. Your 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."
[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 existed, any evidence against them. I allude to Mr.
Abbott and Mr. Mullally. And I so informed you 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
regard 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.
[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 conclusion 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 desire 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 District Attorney may be. Now, I have endeavored to make
it clear that there are two considerations that will affect
the Court in the final disposition of this business: First,
that it will not proceed 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 when the cases were
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 elsewhere, 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 covering 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."
[466] Judge Lawlor, in announcing this decision, said in part:
"Section 13 of Article I of the Constitution provides in
part: 'In criminal 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 dismissed 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 general
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
witness either to the former administration or to the present
administration in the District Attorney's office. The fact,
however, 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 public 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
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
continued 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.
[468] See Chapter XV.
[469] Calhoun's denunciation of Judge Lawlor 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 to
jail. Why? Because they have sought to express in terms of
respect, and yet in terms of strength, their protest against
injustice----
"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 Attorney'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 was a candidate for re-election.
The force of the influence of the graft defense was thrown
against him. Nevertheless, he was 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 January, 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.
[472] Assistant District Attorney Berry on the occasion of the
dismissal 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 breaking 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 prominence and where men of
wealth are concerned, and are brought before 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
opinion was written by Justice Henshaw, and concurred in by
Justices Melvin and Lorigan. 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 Henshaw. 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
warrant in the case of Louis Glass, indicted for bribery in
the telephone 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,
explaining 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 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 meantime.'
"'I will assist the Court in any way possible,' replied
Schlesinger. '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 Quentin,
the prison to which he had been sentenced to serve his fourteen-year
term. Indeed, the probabilities were 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
under 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.[476] 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 members were so inclined,
grant him a rehearing, and to the Supreme Court Ruef applied.
The California State Constitution provides that "the Supreme Court shall
have power to order any cause pending ... before a district court of
appeal to be heard and determined by the Supreme Court. The order last
mentioned may be made before judgment has been pronounced by a district
court of appeal, 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 paroled, would have
to go to State prison.
Ruef, on December 31, 1910, petitioned the Supreme Court for a
rehearing. On January 23, announcement 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.[478] The Legislature was in session at the time. Senator George
W. Cartwright 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 conduct.
And finally there came the rumor--at first not generally believed, but
later confirmed by the Supreme Justices themselves--that one of the
Justices at least had signed the order granting Ruef his rehearing
before the Attorney-General had filed his brief in answer to Ruef's
petition. The Justice who had thus acted 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.[480]
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 permission to file a brief in the
case as _Amicus Curiae_.
January 10--Justice Henshaw signed the order granting Ruef a rehearing.
January 11--Justice Henshaw left the State and was absent until after
the order granting Ruef a rehearing 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 granting Ruef's petition.
January 20--Attorney-General filed reply to Metson'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 declined to concur in such
order, and Chief Justice Beatty reserved his decision in the matter
until January 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 invoked to save him. Four of
the eleven judges, in a way which, to the lay mind at least, was
somewhat 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 conditions as they were at San Francisco, Ruef
would not for a second time be convicted.[481] As is usual in such
cases, the public was dissatisfied, suspicious, indignant, but without
plan or remedy. Some demanded investigation at the hands of the
Legislature; others wanted impeachment[482] 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 demanded 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 Legislature 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 Hastings to the present time have proved
unsatisfactory."
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 rehearing 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, declaring 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 before 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 required to make the order effective the Court declared it
to be worthless.[483]
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
questions involved had found that he had had a fair trial. Ruef went to
State prison when he did because a member 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. Johnson, as Governor of
California, sat at Sacramento. 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 California are appointed for ten-year
terms--continued for a time under the old order.
One of the five directors was Tirey L. Ford[484] 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 himself confined in a prison of which General Ford
was 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
discomfitures[485] 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.[486]
The suffering which his imprisonment has brought 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 securing his
release. But when Ruef was brought back from San Quentin prison to San
Francisco to testify at Schmitz's trial, the pathetic story was
published broadcast that these letter-writing relatives had been kept in
ignorance of his imprisonment, and thought him to be traveling in
Europe.[487]
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 circulation of the story.
A saner view, breathing of better citizenship, came from Rabbi Stephen
S. Wise of the New York Free Synagogue. "Israel," said Rabbi Wise, "is
not responsible 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
misdeeds 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 movement to free Ruef came
from the San Francisco Bulletin and Fremont Older, its managing editor.
Older was one of the strongest supporters of the graft prosecution, as
was the paper under his management. But once the graft prosecution was
concluded, Older and the Bulletin became the most persistent of the
supporters of the movement to secure Ruef his freedom.[488] Largely
through Older's influence, men of prominence throughout the
country--with apparently no very clear knowledge of the situation--have
been induced to express 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, while those who will not enroll themselves in
his interests are as extravagantly condemned.[489]
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 prisoner.[490] This
attitude was clearly presented by the Fresno Republican at the time Ruef
was found smuggling chocolate sweets into the prison.
In the attitude of prison officials toward Ruef, the Republican pointed
out, there are two alternatives. "One," the Republican 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 infraction
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 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 smuggles 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 corrupt 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 because 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[476] See Cal. App. Rpts., vol. 14, page 576.
[478] Said the Sacramento Bee 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
throughout 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 corporations, a
man with many indictments resting against him, but convicted
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
People of the State of California vs. Abraham Ruef, in which
the defendant is granted a rehearing; and
"Whereas, Various newspapers have published criticisms
condemning said decision, and intimating that the Justices
participating therein were controlled by corrupt and unworthy
motives; and
"Whereas, The integrity of our courts has been frequently
assailed 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
authorized, empowered and instructed to investigate the whole
subject 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 investigation, 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
subpoenaes and compel attendance of witnesses when necessary."
[480] See Chapter IV.
[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 Coffey'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 dismissed. Had the Supreme Court's
order for a rehearing of the Ruef case stood, the outcome
would have unquestionably been the same.
[482] Some of the ablest men in the State urged impeachment
proceedings. "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 commenced impeachment proceedings against him?
"The legislature has no right to shrink from this duty and
responsibility and relieve itself from taking such a step by
relegating that duty and responsibility to The People of the
State by the enactment of recall legislation. If Judge
Henshaw, or any other judge, has violated his duty to the
State and betrayed his office as the charges made against him
indicate, the duty of the legislature is imperative, and that
duty should be performed without hesitation and without
delay."
Justice Henshaw, in discussing Judge Works' letter, in an
interview 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
January 30th are true. The orders were signed in the manner
stated and I told him so when he visited my office. There was
nothing unusual about it. It was done in accordance with the
usual practice 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 involved. The practice never has been questioned
before."
[483] The following is from the Supreme Court decision revoking the
Ruef order for a rehearing (see 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 of 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 his 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 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 judicial 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 continued 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
accomplish. 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 Henshaw 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 four justices, it was
ineffectual for any purpose and void."
[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 with
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
feeling 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
temptation 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 consideration of the eternal fitness of things demands
that he should no longer remain a member of the State Board of
Prison Directors."
[485] The following is a fair sample of the articles descriptive of
Ruef's suffering in prison, which have been inflicted upon the
California 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
hurriedly, 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 regard it as
particularly unfortunate that he should be deprived of
visitors just at the time when a movement for his parole is
going 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."
[487] Commenting upon this the Sacramento Bee, in its issue of
February 9, 1912, said: "In an effort to create sympathy for
Abraham 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 come 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 ignorance 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 confinement. 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."
[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,
President 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 understand. 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 editor 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 could personally
command, and all that I could hire. I cartooned him in
stripes. I described him on his way to San Quentin; told how 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, unscrupulous, savage. I
went to Washington and enlisted Heney in the fight. Burns
came, and Spreckels joined in the chase. Then I pursued with
the same relentless spirit in the wake of these men. At last,
after eight years of a man-hunting and man-hating debauch,
Ruef crossed over and became what I had wanted him to 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 being governed more upon the lines of the Old
Testament than the New. I agree with 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 advanced 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 yours,
"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 States
prison. But what changes Time has wrought in that brief
period. The 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 comforts of his fellow unfortunates and
reading and rereading the letters 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,
snarling, 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-election, 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 statement of his position regarding Ruef.
That statement will be found in full on page xxviii of the
Appendix.
CHAPTER XXX.
CONCLUSION.
After the McCarthy-Fickert election there were rumors 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 indictments against Ruef and his associates, found
themselves marked men in business, political and social circles. 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 advances.
When the directorate of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition
Company was formed, financiers who had supported the prosecution found
themselves barred from directorships. It may be said, however, that the
graft defense was well represented, one of the Exposition directors at
least, Thornwall Mullally, having been one of those indicted in the
graft cases.
When the suggestion was made that James D. Phelan be made Pacific Coast
representative in President Wilson's cabinet, at once the graft defense
pack was on his track, openly naming Mr. Phelan's assistance to the
prosecution cause as reason sufficient why he should not be given the
cabinet appointment.[491]
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 together" 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.[492] The
graft defense does not stand well in California. The "vindication" that
was heralded throughout the country when the indictments 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 scandals, 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 readjustment of its bonded indebtedness. This
could be done only with the consent of the State Railroad Commission.
The Commission, willing to allow any proper adjustment upon competent
showing, asked that the corporation's books be produced. The books had,
during 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 financial affairs was withheld until the books
should be forthcoming. Unofficial assurance was given officials of the
corporation that investigation would not be made of its graft defense
expenditures,[493] nor of any expenditures 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.[494] The company'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 political 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 indictments. Four years after the defeat of the Graft
Prosecution, 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 Attorney-General of the State to this condition, and
has urged him to undertake the prosecution of these forgery cases.
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 public service
corporations.
When District Attorney Langdon announced in 1906 that public-spirited
citizens would assist in meeting the expenses of running to earth the
corruptionists that had San Francisco by the throat, prospect of
law-enforcement 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 protect 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 are 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.
The evil influence of the graft defense did not reach beyond the
metropolis. On the contrary, the success of the defense uncovered for
the whole State the actual political conditions under which all
California was laboring.
The registration of 47,945 Republicans at San Francisco to defeat Heney
at the primaries, and the Republican vote of 13,766 at the final
election, demonstrated 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 helplessness against
them, aroused the State. By overwhelming 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, 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 inadequate.
And the further fact was emphasized that while the weak points in the
methods of bringing an offender 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 technicalities 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 Legislature.[495] But the machine element controlled the
committee organization of both houses, and the measures were defeated.
At the 1911 session of the Legislature, after Johnson had been elected
Governor, measures for the reform 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 were aimed at Labor. This led to
opposition which resulted in the defeat of several of the proposed
reforms.
One important constitutional amendment was, however, presented to the
people that goes far toward correcting 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,
unless, after an examination of the entire cause including the evidence,
the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has
resulted in a miscarriage 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 convicted criminals which the graft cases had displayed
so glaringly, was shown in the popular vote on this amendment; 195,449
voted for the amendment, while only 53,958 voted against it.[496]
The San Francisco graft prosecution succeeded in sending but one of the
corrupters of the municipal government to State prison. He, too, would
in all probability have escaped imprisonment but for the absence 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 helplessness 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 would, 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 "System" 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[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 only 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
boosting 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.
What we do to the other fellow's hammer may not succeed, and if
it does, it is merely more knocking. 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 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,
commending 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 conceived than are contained in the suggestions
here offered."
[493] The machine-free press of the State, however, openly insisted
that it would be a good thing if full publicity of the United
Railroads expenditures could be had.
"What the missing books might contain of an interesting sort,"
said The Sacramento Bee in discussing the incident, "may be
gathered 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
Prosecutions 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 Progressive states are bringing them under strict
regulation and inspection by proper authority."
[494] The Railroad Commission of California, in its Decision 1536,
made May 22, 1914, held "that the methods pursued by the
former officials 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
money 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 promissory 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 this company so as to serve the community of San
Francisco, and at a time when this same company was urging upon
this Commission the necessity of issuing further bonds to pay
off maturing obligations, and also at a time when admittedly
the outstanding obligations 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.
[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."
[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 before the defendant pleads; and at any time
thereafter in the discretion 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.
APPENDIX
JUDGE LAWLOR'S RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS GRAFT CASES, AUGUST 3, 1910.
On April 25th, 1910, an application was made by Patrick Calhoun, Tirey
L. Ford, Thornwell Mullally and William M. Abbott to dismiss the
indictments against them. The application is before the Court at this
time for consideration.
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 November
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 defendants (Sec. 1385 Penal Code),
which motion was by the Court ordered denied. (Sec. 7, Art. I, and Sec.
19, Art. VI of the Constitution; Secs. 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 continued 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 attitude of the said District Attorney toward the remaining
indictments, and, second, the absence from the State of James L.
Gallagher, a material and indispensable witness in the said causes. The
second reason will now be considered.
It was the theory of the People in the five trials referred to that
Abraham Ruef represented the defendants in the alleged bribery of the
members of the Board of Supervisors, 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 testimony of this
witness is material, and now holds, as a matter of law, that unless
additional testimony is produced, it is indispensable 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 constitute 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 witness has been so
admonished to appear so far as the remaining indictments are concerned.
In the month of January, 1910, the Court directed that all persons who
could give testimony concerning the absence 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
subject. 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 witness, 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 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 Warner 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 District
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 involved 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 clippings 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 witness 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 jurisdiction 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, notwithstanding the testimony, 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 occasion comment. In other words,
that he did not believe there would be any further attempt to prosecute
the so-called graft cases. But from a study of the entire showing 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
influenced by this uncertainty, so when the exigencies of the situation
called for a definite showing as to the witness' intentions, he seems to
suddenly appear in Vancouver, where, under the treaty conditions, he
would be safe from extradition, and is promptly discovered by the
reporter 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 probabilities 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 assume any responsibility for his disappearance. Whether he
shall return or not I cannot say. Some of the witnesses 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 tending to
support so grave a charge, and upon sound reasoning 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 tending 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 complicity 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 witness 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 familiar 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 indictment is not brought to trial
within sixty days after the filing thereof."
More than sixty days have run in favor of this application, 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 interpreted so
that the rights of both parties shall be equally recognized. The absence
of a material and indispensable witness for the People would, under
proper circumstances, constitute good cause, provided that good faith
and diligence are shown in the effort to produce the witness. In re
Bergerow (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 eliminates from the pertinency 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 recognizing the rights of the defendants, is mindful
of the rights of the People and its own sense of responsibility, and is
anxious to avoid a decision which will serve as a mischievous 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 defendants. 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 developments 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 included 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
building, the property 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 is possible that these experiences and
not the suggested arrangement with the witness are responsible for his
absence. 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
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 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. Lonergan'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 office 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 see me. 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 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
where I met him was on the corner of Mason and Market 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 they 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 company 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 necessary 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 with 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 remember. The next time I saw Halsey to the best
of my recollection 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 accomplished, 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 workings 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. I 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 I saw no reason why he could
not. I 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 currency. 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 December 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
and in the drugstore in front of which I had my hackstand, and asked
me if the telephone service was satisfactory. 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 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 specifications 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 days prior to the presentation
of these charges the said William H. Langdon, District Attorney as
aforesaid, has absented himself 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, tending
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 performed 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 superintendence, 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 attempting 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 Francisco 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
possession 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 cognizance of said District Attorney,
and yet notwithstanding said knowledge and said purposes, the said
District Attorney 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:
="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
Commissioners and the Chief of Police, thereby tending to impair 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, Mayor 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 concerning said
conflagration to the home officials of said companies 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 City 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
weakening the standing and reputation of said Eugene E. Schmitz, in
order that his said attempts might be discredited and to destroy
whatever influence the Chief Executive of this city might have in
dealing with the said insurance companies 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 parties 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 Francisco; 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 accomplish 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 character and good name of a
prominent citizen of this community, 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 with 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 notwithstanding said knowledge
and within the month of October, 1906, the said William H. Langdon, in
order to enable said Heney to use public office, position and power to
gratify his spirit of revenge and malice, did appoint said Heney
Assistant District Attorney of said city and 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 District 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 between said corporation and its employes, 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.
"Specification 8:
"That prior to the turning over of said District Attorney'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 provide 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 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 supply to the City and County of San
Francisco on account of its present monopoly.
"Said Francis J. Heney has been and is attorney employed 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
interests 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 County 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 certain newspaper influences and individuals,
who have contributed 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 Supervisors
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 this city, and also for the purpose of attempting
to influence 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 office of District
Attorney as aforesaid to said Francis J. Heney with the intent and
purpose and with the understanding 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 gratify 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 evidence 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 offenses, and thus and thereby falsely and unlawfully procure
indictments against innocent citizens of said city 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 candidate 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.
"Dated, San Francisco, October 25, 1906.
"JAMES L. GALLAGHER,
"Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco."
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 statement 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
undersigned 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 otherwise indicted
with all and any others against whom indictments have heretofore been or
may hereafter be returned or found for or upon any crimes or offenses in
which said 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 December 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 indictments 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 understanding and agreement that each and every
indictment and charge now pending or hereafter to be brought against
said Ruef shall be absolutely dismissed.
"Provided, that said Ruef shall have fully performed 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 otherwise, shall be returned and found not
later than October 1st, 1907, unless hereafter otherwise 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 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 California 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 offense 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 Francisco, 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. Nicholas, 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. Coffey, 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 himself, 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, deeming 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
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
California, to again make a full and fair disclosure of such crimes and
offenses, together with the facts and circumstances surrounding the same
and the persons therein involved, 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
crimes or offenses, or his connection therewith.
"It is understood that the making or verifying 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 prosecuted 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. H. Langdon, District Attorney: Francis J. Heney, Asst. Dist.
Atty. Witness: James L. Gallagher."
The People vs. Ruef, page 1382.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY LANGDON'S PLAN FOR REORGANIZING
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
Commerce, the Board of Trade, the Real Estate Board and the Merchants'
Exchange: Gentlemen--We respectfully submit to your consideration and
ask your co-operation in the carrying out of the following proposed plan
for the selection of a Mayor 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 wit, of the crime of
extortion, by a jury in Department 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 understood that the selection of Dr. Charles Boxton is
merely temporary.
"The conditions surrounding the present Board of Supervisors 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 welfare, 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 conditions 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 Attorney and his associates, realizing that the selection
of a Mayor to fill the unexpired term in question should 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 whom 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 effort 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 Council, the Merchants' Association, the
Building Trades Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade,
the Real Estate Board and the Merchants' Exchange. We respectfully
request the foregoing associations to send delegates to the proposed
convention on the following basis of apportionment, 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 members 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, depends
absolutely upon the harmonious co-operation of all sections of our
people, who, we believe, are fairly represented by one or more of the
foregoing associations. Consequently 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
recognized and accepted as representative of the whole people, who will
bring to all industrial disputes a spirit of conciliation 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 you 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 falsehood 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 themselves 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 merely in the business
houses of the great financiers who directly profit by the wrongdoing,
but also in the clubs, in certain newspaper offices where business
interests exercise an unhealthy control and, I regret to add, in other
newspaper offices which 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 consequence 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, without 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 associates will keep
reasonably good-natured; but that above all things you 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 citizenship as a whole, for loyalty 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-American and, in a social sense, profoundly immoral, 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 mighty poor substitute if we replace these
ties by those that bind men together, whether they are good or bad,
simply because they follow a particular business, have a given social
standing 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 of the unions when they are against the laws of morality and
the interests of the whole people means ultimately the destruction of
the unions themselves, as an incident to the destruction of all good
citizenship.
"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 supporters 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 offenders 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 professional man, with the best kind of
business man, in putting 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 most extreme form for the so-called 'best citizens,' the men high
in business and social life, who 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 powerful ally of lawlessness and
mob violence is the man, whoever he may be, politician or business man,
judge or lawyer, capitalist or editor, who 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 contend. 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 you 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 man and man. Do not become disheartened. Keep up
the fight.
"Very sincerely yours,
"THEODORE ROOSEVELT.
"Rudolph Spreckels, Esq.,
"San Francisco, Cal."
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 sentiment for him has been done. His case has ever
been before 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 obtain his release to me.
In so far as I have expressed my views to certain members 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 ordinary 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 California, and that when
special privilege has been banished from every department of government,
it shall not be permitted, 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 offender 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 most be treated exactly alike.
Since the parole law went into effect, the Prison Directors 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 Roberts 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 determining
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 insist that in the
matter of granting paroles, although applications may be made after one
year, it is neither unjust 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 sentence 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 sentence.
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 decided. This is not true. The Supreme Court simply
determined 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 applied 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 considered, 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 and denounced;
not denounced or abused because 77 other men were not paroled (they are
unknown, poor, helpless, without friends), but abused and denounced
because one man, Ruef, was 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 because 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 bitterness 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 we 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 released 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 prosecution just as Ruef is.
Claudianes is serving a life sentence for dynamiting Gallagher's
residence and almost murdering seven people. Claudianes was 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 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
because 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 astounding, organized effort and publicity campaign
for Ruef alone?
The appointments that have been made by this administration include
Rabbi Meyer, H. Weinstock, Paul Sinsheimer, 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 young 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 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 challenge
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, opportunities for education, general
freedom consistent with discipline, 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 intelligently. As soon as
received, every newcomer is given a thorough physical examination and
his teeth are looked after by a dentist. It not infrequently 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 newcomer 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
Quentin, 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 correspondence are receiving their training from our
great institutions of learning. The State Use system, which was 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 newly constructed portions of the
prison and the best possible in the old construction.
In the last three years 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 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 who will
reflect that had Ruef been paroled and the other 77 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 FRANCISCO 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 Washington, 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 suggested 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
Supervisors to distribute relief, and that there was a trust
relationship existing between the donors and the finance committee of
the Relief and Red Cross Funds. After the luncheon, 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 Mayor of abandoning the city government to his enemies,
and insisted upon the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of
their office, and that the work of distributing relief at that time was
the principal business of the city.
RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS OF PROSECUTION FROM
JUNE, 1906, TO MAY 17, 1909
(As shown by testimony 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, personal, $12,357.45; office
expenses, $1,911.43; office furniture, $671.50; carriage hire, $27.25;
auto hire, $2,700.75; auto expense, $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
salaries, $778.55. Total, $123,250.80.
F. J. HENEY ACCOUNT: Rent, $3,186.25; office expense, $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;
stenographic 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 J. Cleary, $70.00;
L. Kavanaugh, $506.20; D. M. Duffy, $1,878.85; W. J. 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; telephone, P. S. T. &
T. Co., $398.93; light and heat--E. D. Feil, $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; stationery--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. Exchange,
$0.95; express charges, $8.40; keys, $3.25; paint, $1.00; tel.
directory, $1.50; stars (spec.), $5.25; city directories, $9.00; elect.
buzzer, $1.35; show cards (A. Unsworth), $18.50; show card frames (Young
& Rhodes), $2.00; whetstone, $0.70; hauling, $5.00; moving safe (Gorham
& Thomas), $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; Zimmerline 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 Rubber Co., $48.58; Chanslor Lyon, $30.88;
Harris 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. &
Lyon, $14.05; G. P. Moore, $26.90; G. P. Moore, $6.12; Arcade Garage,
$51.20; towing auto, $5.00; Irvine Mch. Wks., $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 & 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. Jose, $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; ferryage
auto, etc., $6.60; F. A. Leach, $230.00; B. A. Libby, $100.00; ferryage,
auto. etc., $1.90; ferryage auto, etc., $1.90; ferryage 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. Gallagher 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, witness, to cover expenses to S.
F., $250.00; less amount refunded 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. Spaulding, services $2,820.00, expenses $550.70; W. W. Farrell,
services $704.00, expenses $196.50; L. G. Carpenter, 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, services $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. McCarthy, 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. Hornberg, services
$44.00; E. W. Stow, services $342.00, expenses $216.60; G. M. Insley,
$1,417.00, expenses $414.45; B. F. Daman, services $1,148.00, expenses
$529.80; L. C. Caldwell, $896.00, expenses $360.25; R. N. Hamlin,
services $1,902.00, expenses $50.00; F. Kingsberg, services $90.00; W.
Bettiee, 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. Hamilton, services $26.00; R. C. Schindler, services
$1,483.00, expenses $706.85; W. S. Schindler, services, $1,161.00,
expenses $224.15; O. G. Schleicher, services $340.00, expenses $122.66;
E. A. Platt, 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. Madden, 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. Thompson,
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. Willer, services
$216.00; J. W. F. Jackson, services $384.00, expenses $178.50; D. L.
Chiles, services $20.00; Mrs. May Schindler, services $154.50, expenses
$3.50; L. Gold, services $805.00, expenses $58.65; J. M. Ullmache,
services $40.00, expenses $93.20; C. P. Snell, services $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, expenses $0.80; C. T. Oliver, Jr., services $236.00, expenses
$25.80; D. W. Armstrong, services $5.00; F. A. Neary, services $280.00,
expenses $42.50; P. D. Code, services $280.00, expenses $35.65; Martin
Judge, services $40.00; J. D. Silverthew, services $14.00, expenses
$1.71; G. Hague, services $68.00; W. J. Kelly, services $199.00,
expenses $3.75; S. G. Whitney, 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. J. Cass, services $155.00; L. Murphy,
services $230.00; Ed. Hornback, services $71.00; E. M. ----, services
$435.00, expenses $44.80; P. Berr, services $36.00; S. J. Rohan,
services $70.00; Geo. Yearaner, services $237.50, expenses $11.60; E.
Vetisarator, services $63.00; F. C. Boden, services $150.00; T. C.
McGiff, services $12.00; H. J. Loventzen, services $680.00, expenses
$471.25; A. H. Barr, services $748.00, expenses $2.00; P. M. McGee,
expenses $100.50; N. Komgold, services $525.00, expenses $37.35; E.
Gensler, services $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 $363.00; J.
M. Kelly, services $35.00; R. H. Schouatt, services $161.00, expenses
$2.25; D. S. Hutchins, services $80.00, expenses $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;
Cullen-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; D. 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; Newman &
Levinson, $2.55; Brittain & Co., $19.00; O'Connor, Moffatt, $3.00; W. T.
Wiley, $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. Johnson, $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; janitress, $156.25; voucher No. 1,
Jany. 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. Breuner Co., $28.50; O'Connor, Moffatt,
$91.65; Goodyear Rubber Co., $3.50; 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
Sawyer, $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. Jellison, $5.80; D. Young,
expert, $25.00; C. D. Stewart, expert, $189.00; G. W. Reynolds, expert,
$63.00. Total, $2,147.37.
=Detective Expense=: W. J. Burns, $2,416.95; I. Rittenhouse et al.,
$1,815.66. Total, $4,232.61.
Transcriber's Note
Footnotes 355 and 477 are missing. Footnote 301 has duplicate anchors.
The misnumbering is retained as printed. Footnote 427 refers to "Chapter
XV 'The Ford Trials'." Chapter XX is entitled "The Ford Trials and
Acquittals". The apparent reference, however, may be to a separate
volume, so it has been retained.
Some words are spelled multiple ways (e.g. 'indorse'/'endorse',
'employe'/'employee', 'Beaney'/'Beany'). These variants are retained.
Some words (e.g. 'increditably' for 'incredibly') are likely mistakes
and are corrected and noted. The author regularly elides the second 'l'
in words like 'wilfully' and 'skilfully'. Where the word (e.g.,
'subpoenaes') appears in quoted material, it appears as printed.
'Pittsburg' (PA), without the ending 'h' is left as printed, since the
letter had been officially removed in 1890, but was restored only in
1911 as this text was being written.
Hyphenation is also somewhat irregular. Occurrences of hyphens at line
breaks are resolved according to other instances in the text, or if
there are none, in accordance with modern usage.
The following list includes apparent errors found in the original text.
Where there is an obvious typographical error, as opposed to a spelling
variant, the correction has been made and appear in the text as like
this. Where the error occurs in a note, the page referred to is the
location of the page where the note begins, though the error may appear
in a continuation on a following page. The [] brackets are used to
denote the error, either by changing, omitting, adding or reversing
characters. A slash (/) denotes the change required to gain a correct
usage.
a[c]count (33 n30); proper[t]y-owners (39, n28); fi[r]st (103, n108);
any felony or [or/of] any misdemeanors (107, n113); Commis[s]ioner (112
n120); el[e]cting (127 n140); intere[r/s]ts (182 n204); convi[n]ction
(221 n239); bri[k/b]e-taking (231 n251); incredi[ta]bly (256);
assoc[i]ates (273); seriou[t/s] (276); I though[t] it was (291);
sta[u]nchly (305); dum[b]founded (326); hundr[e]d (351, n354);
offer[i]ng (338 n360); dir[e]ct (342 n368); kidnap[p]ing (379 n415);
advan[at/ta]ge (390 n424); embar[r]assment (426 n458); an[n]ouncement
(428 n461); parol[l]ed (441); poli[ti]cal (459); testimo[u/n]y (xxxiv);
station[a/e]ry (xxxv); [a/A] uto Livery (xxxv)
The following is a list of punctuation corrections, where the printed
image is ambiguous, or simply wrong, in favor of correct usage. Court
transcripts were not entirely consistent in the handling of quotations,
especially hear-say quotations.
p. 74 n77 The People vs. Patrick Calhoun[./,]
p. 75 n79 pages 3837 and on[,] 3746, 3743
p. 100 n107 ['/"]butt in['/"]
it was Ford who did it.[']"
p. 125 n136 a writ of habeas corpus (150 California, p. 665[.)/).]
p. 158 n171 He (Ruef) said, ["/']All right, if he comes around I
will talk with him.[']"
p. 174 a third telephone company[./,]
p. 222 n240 Ten per cent[.] of the amount subscribed
p. 245 n265 putting the United Railroads out of business.['/"]
p. 331 n354 notorious. [i/I]n not so doing
p. 339 n363 I don't want to hear anything more about Ruef's
testimony.[']"
p. 358 n391 he did telephone to Mr. Langdon.["]
p. 367 n402 have the $10,000.["]
["/']One year after date
The notes read, ["/']One year
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "'The System,' as uncovered by the San Francisco Graft Prosecution" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.