"The System" as Uncovered by The San Francisco Graft Prosecution

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.

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 Labor leaders asked not only that the police be withdrawn from the trucks, but from the waterfront.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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

Under amendments to the San Francisco Charter, ratified by the Legislature of 1911, the Mayor and Supervisors are now elected to four-year terms.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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?

“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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.)

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.”

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.)

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.)

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.)

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.”

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.

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.”

See Keane’s testimony in The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, Part 3, vol. 1, page 455.

See footnote 41, page 43.

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.

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.

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.”

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.)

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.”

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.

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.”

See statement printed in San Francisco Examiner, May 4, 1906.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.’”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

See decisions in Edson vs. The Southern Pacific Co., 133 Cal. Reports and 144 Cal. Reports.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

See address made by Heney before Citizens’ League of Justice in October, 1908.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

See testimony of Rudolph Spreckels at trial of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, No. 1436.

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.

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 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.” See transcript The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, No. 1436, page 3730.

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.”

See San Francisco newspapers, November 1, 1906.

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.”

Contained in a statement published May 18, 1907. See San Francisco papers of that date.

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.”

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?’”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

P. H. McCarthy and O. A. Tveitmoe, respectively president and secretary of the Building Trades Council.

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.

See Ruef’s statement as published in the San Francisco Chronicle, October 26, 1906.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.’”

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.’”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

See footnote 95, page 87.

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.”

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.”

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.

See Transcript on Appeal The People of the State of California vs. Eugene E. Schmitz, pp. 500 and 557.

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.)

Commissioner Harry W. Hutton.

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

Ruef and Schmitz were indicted November 15, 1906. The date of Ruef’s plea of “Not guilty” was February 18, 1907.

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.

See Heney’s affidavit in The People vs. Ruef, No. 823.

“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.”

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.

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.”

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.

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.

Biggy afterwards became Chief of Police of San Francisco.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

“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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.’”

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.

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.

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.

For description of this “dividing of the ways” scene, see testimony of Supervisor Wilson, Transcript on Appeal, The People vs. Ruef, page 2843.

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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.”

“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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

See Supervisors’ letter to the Examiner, footnote 64, page 62.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

See Heney’s affidavit in the matter of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.’”

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.

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.’”

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.

See Heney’s affidavit in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., No. 823.

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.

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.

The immunity contract signed by Ruef and the District Attorney will be found in full in the appendix.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

For fuller discussion of this testimony see Chapter “Ruef and Schmitz Indicted.”

“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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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!”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

See footnote 229, page 206.

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.

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.

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.”

The District Attorney’s statement of his plan to the various organizations concerned will be found in full on page xxii of the Appendix.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

“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.’”

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.

The Merchants’ Association banquet, April 18, 1907, the first anniversary of the great earthquake and fire.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

Some went so far when examined for jury service at the later graft trials as to say they would not vote to convict.

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.”

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.

The Cosmopolitan, issue of July, 1911.

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

After the failure of the Calkins syndicate its successors to the ownership of “The Globe,” purchased the Post and combined the two in one publication under the name of Post-Globe. The policy of the paper was not changed.

The 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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

See Chapter III.

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.

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.

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.”

See Rudolph Spreckels’ testimony in The People, etc., vs. Patrick Calhoun.

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.”

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.

See Chapter XIV and footnotes 189 and 190, page 171.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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?”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

Several who participated in this affair were later indicted for kidnaping. There were no convictions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

See transcript of testimony, trial of The People vs. Tirey L. Ford, No. 817, taken September 25, 1907, page 270.

Mr. Mullally, assistant to Mr. Calhoun, and also Mr. Calhoun were known to have enjoyed friendly relations with Mr. Ruef during this period.

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.

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.

See Chapter XVI, page 211, and footnote 119, page 111.

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.

For immunity contract see page xix of the Appendix. For the negotiations upon which Ach’s claim was based see Chapter XV.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

The primary vote was the largest up to that time cast in San Francisco. It was as follows:

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.”

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.”

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.”

It was anything to defeat Langdon, even though a pro-prosecution attorney be employed against him. Hiram W. Johnson, for example, was suggested as his opponent. But Johnson let it be understood, and with characteristic positiveness, that under no considerations would he be a candidate against Langdon.

The 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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

“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.”

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.”

The Call, in speaking of the Taylor-Langdon meeting said: “Young Mr. Ryan ought to have been at that meeting. We have nothing against Mr. Ryan except that he is not the man of the hour. We shall not even reproach him with his youth. That is not his fault and he will get over that. But he is not the man of the hour. The people have said it. Mr. Ryan embodies no principle. To the people of San Francisco he means nothing in particular at this critical time. He might have read that message in the mighty roar that went up from the meeting in welcome of Dr. Taylor. Mayor Taylor stands for something, stands for much. Mr. Ryan has only his own ambition and a certain command of language.”

The San Francisco 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?”

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

The vote for Mayor and for District Attorney was as follows:

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.”

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.

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.

California Penal Code, Sec. 518.

California Penal Code, Sec. 519.

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.”

See 7 Cal. App. Reports, page 330.

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.”

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.”

See California Appellate Reports, in which the Supreme Court decision is printed, Vol. No. 7, Page 369.

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.”

“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.”

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.

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.”

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 telling 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.”

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.”

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.

See affidavit filed by District Attorney Langdon in The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823.

See affidavits filed by District Attorney Langdon, and by Judge Dunne, in the case of Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.’”

See affidavits filed by Rabbis Nieto and Kaplan in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et al.

See Chapter XV.

See Chapter XV.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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?”

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

Heney’s exposure of Haas was unquestionably warranted and necessary. The incident, however, has been made subject of much misrepresentation and attacks upon Heney.

Heney in a speech made before Mayor and Supervisors showed how the prosecution was harassed by thugs.

See transcript in The People vs. Ruef (Parkside case) for dismissal of these indictments and of other indictments against Parkside officials.

For additional data regarding this case, see Chapter XIV, footnotes 180, 181, 198, 199, 200, 201.

See footnote 199.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

In this there was remarkable similarity to the legal assistance given thugs who were from time to time arrested for interfering with the work of the Prosecution.

Murphy had figured in the Ruef trials, somewhat sensationally, from the beginning. When, for instance, Ruef, early in March, 1907, was a fugitive from justice, Murphy was acting as one of his attorneys. He was placed on the stand in Judge Dunne’s court. The Chronicle, in its issue of March 7, 1907, contained the following account of his testimony:

“Frank J. Murphy, one of Ruef’s lawyers, testified that he had last seen Ruef just outside Hebbard’s courtroom on Monday.

“Have you been doing any business with him since?”

“Murphy declined to answer this under his privilege as an attorney. ‘We are looking for an absconding and hostile defendant, and the witness should not be allowed to draw conclusions as to whether the business he is doing for him is privileged,’ declared Hiram Johnson.

“Heney suggested that it was the request to do this business rather than the business itself, that was sought by the Prosecution.

“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.”

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.

“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.’”

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.

Similar testimony was given at Murphy’s trial.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.’”

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.

See Chapter XXIII.

“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.’”

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.

“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.”

See Chapter IV.

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.

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.”

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 kidnaping; plots to bribe juries, and actual jury bribing; plots to assassinate witnesses and an attempt to assassinate a witness by dynamite; and out of it also grew plots to assassinate the 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.”

See Chapter IV.

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.”

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.”

President Roosevelt’s telegram to Mr. Spreckels was as follows:

“White House, Nov. 19, 1908.

President Roosevelt telegraphed Mrs. Heney as follows:

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.”

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.”

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.

From January 12, 1909, to June 20, 1909.

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.”

See footnote 269.

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.

See Chapter XV, “The Ford Trials.”

The trolley-permit was granted May 21, 1906.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

“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.

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.

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.”

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.)

See transcript of testimony, The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, No. 1436, page 3723.

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.”

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.’”

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.”

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.”

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.”

See “Story of the California Legislature of 1909,” Chapters VIII, IX, X, XI.

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.”

“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.”

See files of Sacramento Bee for February and March, 1909, and Senate Journal for March 22, 1909, page 1976.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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:

“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.’”

“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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

“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 anouncement pertinent and proper. The Court has its own views as to what may be done within the exercise of its prerogative in the event that it does not feel that the people are represented, and will act upon its own judgment when that time arrives. At this time the witness being absent from the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court points out to the District Attorney his duty under Section 1052 of the Penal Code, to move for a proper continuance of this action until the Court can be advised as to whether or not that witness can be produced.”

Later, when Fickert suggested that all criminal causes be 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.”

“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.”

See footnote 459, page 426.

“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.”

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.”

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.”

Judge Lawlor’s decision will be found in full in the Appendix, page i.

See Chapter XV.

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

Judge Dunne, until the last, stood as staunchly for effective prosecution of the graft cases as had Judge Lawlor.

See Cal. App. Rpts., vol. 14, page 576.

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.”

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.”

See Chapter IV.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

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.