mm J^p/^lvl-i'. Wi r-n ,\WEUNIVERS/^ ^lOSANCElfj*^ o aMEUNIVERS//, '%a3AIN(l-3WV^ ^lOSANCElfx>. ^;i,OFCAtlF0% ^OFCALl -^t-llBRARYOc. 30 '%ojnv3-jo^ ^UIBR ^.!/ojm ^V^OSANCElfx^ ^OFCALIFO/?^ ^-OFCAl ^TjijDNVsoi^ "^/iaaAiNa-JWV ^(?Aavijaii# '-^oxm ^llIBRARYQc ^ILIBRARYQ^^ ^^ juiTi iiJiTl it^i ,^WEUNIVER% ^10S7\N ^WEUNIVERJ-//, ^lOSANCElfj^, o o "^■TilJONVSOl^ aweunivers-za -< ^vWSANCElfj-^ -5^H!BRARYQc. -s^HIBRARYQ^ '^(tfojiivDjo'^ %ojnv}jo=^ ^OFCAIIFO/?^ ^OFCAIIFO% £? 55. :lOSANCElfj> o ^OFCAIIFO% ^OFCAIIF0% «AWEl)NIVER% ^&AiivaaiH^ ^qijonvsoi^ ^lOSANCElfj> o ^Ail3AINn-3W^^ ,\\^EUNIVER% ^lOSANGElfj-^ s ^tUBRARYQ^;^ ^^^IIIBRARYQ^ ^TilJONVSOl^'^ %a3AINn-3WV^ ^(i/OJIlVD-JO"^ -^itfOJIlVD-JO^ aWEUNIVERS^^ vvlOSANCEl% &Aav}ian# ^^tllBRARYQ/^ A^^l•lIBRARYQ^ iJJiTi iJUlTi v^WEUNIVER% ^lOSANCElfj> "THE SYSTEM" AS UNCOVERED BY 1 he San r ranciscoCiraft Prosecution BY FP.ANKLIN HIGHBORN (Author of "The Story of the California Legislature of 1909"; "The Story of the California Legislature of 1911"; and "The Story of the California Legislature of 1913.") 'It is well enough, my fellow-citizens, to meet as we do to-night, and to applaud the sentiments of patriotism, and to echo the voice of indignation uttered upon this rostrum. But another and more imperative duty de- volves upon every one of us individually, and that is to give his and her moral support to the officers of the law. We must not content ourselves by merely adopt- ing a set of resolutions, and then going home and forgetting about it, placing all responsibility upon the constituted authorities. This is not a case of the con- stituted authorities. It is the case of the people of San Francisco. And unless the people of San Francisco do their individual duty in supporting the prosecution, the officials of the courts and of the law must fail in their efforts." — Walter Macarthur at the mass meetinj^ called at the time of the attempted assassination of Heney. 1 r c) 7 o 4 u >1 * J COPYRIGHT. 1915 by FRANKLIN HICHBORN San Francisco Press of The James H. Barry Company 1915 FRANKLIN HICHBORN'S BOOKS ON CALIFORNIA POLITICS Story of the California Legislature of 1909 - - $1.25 Story of the CaUfornia Legislature of 1911 - - 1.50 Story of the California Legislature of 1913 - - 1.50 "The System," as Uncovered by the San Francisco Graft Prosecution - - - - - . 1.50 V3 ?6^ CONTENTS 4 Chapter Page ■^ I. The Union Labor Party Movement... 11 Ov II. The Ruef Board of Supervisors 22 III. The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 30 IV. San Francisco After the Fire of 1906. . 49 V. Graft Pros-ecution Opens 73 VI. Ruef's Fight to Take the District Attor- ney's Office 87 VII. Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 96 VIII. Ruef Loses Fight for District Attor- ney's Office 107 IX. Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 110 X. Fight to Evade Trial 121 XI. Ruef a Fugitive 130 XII. The Trapping of the Supervisors 139 XIII. Confessions of the Bribe-taking Super- visors 154 XIV. The Source of the Bribe Money 168 XV. Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 186 XVI. Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 208 XVn. Schmitz Ousted from Office 215 XVIII. The Real Fight Begins 240 XIX. The Glass Trials and Conviction 269' XX. The Ford Trials and Acquittals 279 XXI. The San Francisco Election of 1907. . .300 XXII. Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef. 320 XXIII. The Defense Becomes Arrogant 335 XXIV. Jury Fixing L^ncovered 357 Chapter Page XXV. The Shootrng of Heney 370 XXVI. The Calhoun Trial 388 XXVII. The San Francisco Election of 1909. . .405 XXVIII. Dismissal of the Graft Cases 425 XXIX. Ruef's Last Refuge Fails 440 XXX. Conclusion 455 APPENDIX. Judge Lawlor's Ruling in Motion to Dismiss Graft Cases i How the Supervisors \^^ere Bribed vii Gallagher's Order Removing Langdon from Office of District Attorney xii The Ruef "Immunity Contract" xix "Immunity Contract" Given Supervisors xxi District Attorney Langdon's Plan for Reorgan- izing the Municipal Government xxii Roosevelt's Letter to Spreckels on the Graft Situation xxv Governor Johnson's Statement Regarding Ruef's Imprisonment xxviii Schmitz's A;.tempt to Control San Francisco's Relief Funds xxxiii Receipts and Disbursements of the Graft Prose- cution xxxiv PREFACE. A tethered bull does not know that he is tied until he attempts to go beyond the rope's limits. A community does not feel the grip of the "System" until it attempts resistance. Then it knows. San Francisco during the Ruef-Schmitz regime was no more under the heel of the "System" than when other "bosses" dominated ; no more so than to-day ; no more so than other communities have been and are. The political "boss" is merely the visible sign of the "System's" existence. However powerful he may ap- pear, he is, after all, but agent for the "System." The "boss" develops power, does the "System's" work until he is repudiated by the people, when another "boss," usually in the name of "reform," takes his place. But the second "boss" serves the same "System." Ruef entered San Francisco politics as a "reformer." He supplanted other "bosses." But Ruef in his tu.rn served the "System" they had served. San Francisco, when Ruef had reached his point of greatest possible power, rose against him. The ".Sys- tem" was not immediately concerned. Ruef had lived his day; the hour for another "boss" to succeed him had come. But San Francisco proposed to get at tliose back of the "boss" ; to get at the "System." And then San Francisco found the "System" more powerful than her- self; more powerful than the State of California. And San Francisco was beaten down, humiliated, made to understand that within her borders the laws could not be enforced against those to whom the "Sys- tem" granted immunity from punishment. To secure evidence against bribe-givers, the State granted immunity to bribe-takers who confessed their crimes and joined with the State to bring larger crim- inals to justice. And the "System's" agents cried out- rage that bribe-takers should go free of punishment. But the "System" granted immunity from punish- ment to those who had bribed. And the apologists for the "System" will tolerate no criticism of this sort of immunity. Other communities have risen against the "System's" agents, the "bosses," and the "bosses" have given place to other agents. But few commimities, if any, have at- tacked the "System" as did San Francisco. Had they done so, unquestionably they would have found them- selves as ineffective against corruption as San Francisco has been shown to be. The "System" is confined to no particular State or locality ; it permeates our entire public life. Judge Lindsey in Colorado calls it "The Beast." In California we call it "The Southern Pacific Machine," for in Cali- fornia the Southern Pacific Company was its chief bene- ficiary. Other communities call it the "Organization." The bull does not discover his rope until he strains at it ; the community knows little or nothing of the over- powering "System" until it resists. San Francisco re- sisted and discovered. The mere bribing of a board of supervisors was not extraordinary. Our newspapers furnish us daily with sorry recital of bribe-taking public officials discovered in other communities. But the effective, searching re- sistance to bribe-giving which San Francisco offered was extraordinary. It was a new thing in American politics. It compelled the "System" to show its real stiWgth, and that, too, was new in American politics, and extraordinary, also. The "System" at San Francisco had taken the usual precautions which ordinarily ensure it against successful opposition, or even question. It had, through its agents, selected the candidates for public office, including the District Attorney. With the District Attorney loyal to the "System" the "System" was secure against attack. And even were the District Attorney to resist the "Sys- tem," still was the "System" secure, for the "System" could deny the District Attorney, through the public officials it controlled, the funds necessary for successful opposition. But here again extraordinary circumstances worked for the "System's" confusion. Not only had the "Sys- tem" been mistaken in the caliber of the man whom it had permitted to be nominated for District Attorney, but patriotic citizens guaranteed the expenses of effect- ive attack through the District Attorney's office. Nevertheless, the "System" would ordinarily have been able to laugh at the attack, and render it abortive, by compelling the citizens who were backing the District Attorney to withdraw their support. Even at San Francisco, the supporters of the District Attorney felt the force of such attack. Those w^ho supported the Prosecution found themselves harassed in their business ventures, and snubbed in the social circles in which they had moved. When Heney, stricken down in the discharge of his duty, lay at the point of death, a minister of the gospel prayed for the wounded Prosecutor's recovery. Immediately from the pews came silent expression of disapproval. That pastor refused to be intimidated, refused to join with his fash- ionable congregation against the Prosecution. He Was eventually compelled to resign his pastorate. Rudolph Spreckels, while accounting for every dollar that the Graft Prosecution had expended, asked to be excused from naming those who had subscribed to the fund, lest they be attacked. Ordinarily, those citizens whose in- stincts had led them to guarantee the District Attorney their support, would have been forced to abandon him. But at San Francisco, a few citizens, in spite of ridicule, abuse, social ostracism and business opposition, stood firm for civic righteousness. This made San Fran- cisco's attack upon the "System" possible and stirred the "System" to extraordinary resistance. The "System," seeing itself threatened, went to the relief of the "boss," its agent, whom even its chief bene- ficiaries despised. The "boss," through his puppet in the Mayor's chair, declared the ofifice of the District Attorney vacant, and appointed himself to fill the va- cancy. The boldness of the move startled the whole community. But the act merely demonstrated the ex- tremes to which the "System" was prepared to go. It was not extraordinary in comparison with what was to follow. Later on, witnesses were to be concealed, intimi- dated, gotten out of the State ; their kidnaping even being attempted. The managing editor of a newspaper opposing the "System" was to be taken on the street in daylight, hurried across the country to a sv[)ur1)an town, forced into a stateroom of an outgoing train, and sent on his way to a distant city. The home of the pivotal witness against the "System"-protected defendants was to be dynamited, the witness and other inmates of the building miraculously escaping with their lives. A public prosecutor was, while conducting one of the **System"- attacking trials, to be shot down in open court. A pris- oner at the bar was to arise to denounce the judge on the bench as a partisan and a scoundrel. Thugs were to invade court-rooms v.hile trials were going on, to intimidate "System"-threatening prosecutors and wit- nesses ; men were to be trapped as they ofifered bribes to trial jurors; agents of the Prosecution were to be bribed to ttu-n over to the defending element the Prose- cution's papers and reports. An agent of the Prosecu- tion in the employ of the Defense, working in the inter- est of the Defense, was to sit at the Prosecutor's side during the selection of a trial jury, to advise the Prose- cutor of the character of the men under examination for jurors, and with such advice mislead and confuse. No ; bribe-giving at San Francisco was not so extra- ordinary as the events which grew out of attempt to punish for bribe-giving. And now, as we look upon San Francisco beaten, and retarded in her development because of that beat- ing, the hopelessness 'of her opposition to the "System" is the most startling thing of all. We see now, that with a District Attorney intent r.pon doing his duty, with funds ample for vigorous prosecution guaranteed, with trial judges of integrity and ability on the bench, none of the accused, so long as he remained loyal to the "System" — so long as he did not "snitch" — w^as in real danger of suffering the law-provided punishment for the crimes iincovered against him. Ruef carefully weighed the ability of the Prosecution to save him, against the power of the "System" to pun- ish or to save, and knowing the power of the "Sys- tern" as few other men knew it, Ruef betrayed the Prosecution and cast his lot with the "System." The outcome would have justified his judgment but for a series of unusual events which none could have foreseen. The most extraordinary incident of the whole Graft Prosecution, we can now, with the "System" uncovered before us, see, was that Abe Ruef went to the peniten- tiary. With full knowledge of the power, resources and methods of the "System," it is not at all extraordinary that guilty men under its protection should escape pun- ishment. But it is extraordinary — due only to a chain of extraordinary happenings — that one of its agents, who continued faithful, who didn't "snitch," finds him- self in prison and unable to get out. The San Francisco Graft Prosecution uncovered the "SN'stem" as it has been uncovered in no other American city, for San Francisco made the hardest, most per- sistent, and longest continued attack that a municipality has ever made upon it. California has profited greatly because of the uncovering, for while uncovered, the "System" may be proceeded against intelligently, not in the courts, but at the ballot-box. California has been quick to profit by the opportunity which the uncovering of the "System" has ofifered. In preparing this volume for the press it is my pur- pose — so far as lies in my power to do so — to keep the cover off. FRANKLIN HIGHBORN. Santa Clara, CaHf., Dec. 25, 1912. CHAPTER I. The Union Labor Party Movement. Eugene E. Schmitz ^ was elected Mayor of San Fran- cisco in November, 1901. He had been nominated by the Union-Labor party. This party was organized after labor disturbances which had divided San Francisco into miHtant factions, with organized labor on the one side and organized capital on the other.- The convention which had nominated Schmitz was made up in the main of delegates who had affiliations with labor unions and were in close sympathy with the labor-union movement. But this did not mean that the new party had the unanimous approval of the labor unions, or of the rank and file of organized labor. A considerable faction, v/ith P. H. McCarthy, president of the State Building Trades Council, even then a dominating figure in San Francisco labor circles, at its head, advised against the movement, and opposed the new party candidates not only in 1901, 1 Schmitz, previous to his election, was employed as a musi- cian in a San Francisco theater. His connection with organized labor came through membership in the Musicians' ITnion. He had no intention of aspiring to the Mayor's chair until Ruef suggested it to him. 2 The San Fran(^isco labor strike of 1901 arose out of the refusal of the organized teamsters to deliver goods to a non-union express agency. The Employers' Association refused to treat with the men collectively. Other organizations went out in sympathy. James D. Phelan, who was then Mayor, was the Intermediary between the teamsters and their employees. He advocated recog- nition. The negotiations failed. During the progress of the strike 12 The Union Labor Party Movement but in 1903 when Schmitz was a candidate for re-elec- tion. On the other hand, the new party had in the begin- ning the support of the Coast Seamen's Journal, pub- lished at San Francisco, and one of the most influential labor publications on the Pacific Coast. It had, too, the advocacy of several earnest Labor leaders. Very frankly, such leaders questioned the ultimate consequences of the movement, expressing fears which time was to justify. But to them the situation oflfered no alternative. Their support and influence went to the new party as an expedient of the times, not as the be- ginning of a permanent political organization. But the movement, once started, got beyond their control. During the first five years of Union-Labor party activities in San Francisco many of these original supporters were forced, first into silence and finally into there were constant disturbances. A steamship company, for ex- ample, employed prizefighters in the guise of workingmen to seek positions as strikebreakers, and when interfered with to belabor the pickets. Assaults were made upon non-union teamsters car- rying supplies to and from railway stations. The Chief of Police, in order to preserve peaceful traffic, placed two policemen upon each truck. Labor leaders asked not only that the police be with- drawn from the trucks, but from the waterfront. This action the Mayor refused to take, on the ground that it was his duty to pre- serve public order, and that it was in the interest of all to avert rather than suppress trouble. A meeting of representatives of the several factions was held at the Mayor's office, September 23, 1901. The story was circulated that the Mayor had said at the meeting that if the 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 .1. Dwyer and Peter J. Curtis, who were present, have set forth in affidavit that "Mayor Phelan did not say at said conference, as has been alleged, refer- ring to the workingrnen'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 extrav-agant stories were believed. Opponents of the administration — those representing capital as well as those advocating recognition of the unions — seized upon every opportunity to discredit. Crafty adventurers of the type of Abe Ruef lost no chance to work distrust and confusion. Out of the turmoil came the Union Labor party. The Union Labor Party Movement 13 open repudiation of the methods of the Union-Labor party administration. In the meantime, members of the McCarthy faction, which had resisted the organization of the party, and had opposed it at the 1901 and 1903 elections, became its strong partisans. This element supported the party ticket at the 1905 election ; and in 1907, and again in 1909, when McCarthy was himself the Union-Labor party candidate for Mayor. But the Union-Labor party ticket which McCarthy headed did not have the united support of labor leaders who had organized the movement. Indeed, labor leaders whom the McCarthy faction in 1901 called "scabs" for organizing the Union-Labor party, were, by the same men who had condemned them in 1901, denounced as "scabs" during the 1909 campaign for not supporting the Union-Labor party candidates. From the beginning, the Union-Labor party had the support of elements outside the labor-union movement. Much of this support came from citizens who, regard- less of their attitude on trade-unionism, were dissatisfied with the old parties. The situation offered exceptional opportunity for the political manipulator. But the one man with the political vision to see the possibilities of the third-party movement, was not a member of a labor union. He was a lawyer who had already attained some prominence in San Francisco politics — Abraham Ruef.^ s Rucf graduated from the University of California and from tlie University of California law school with exceptional honors. He was at twenty-one a practicing- attorney. With Franklin K. r 14 The Union Labor Party Movement Ruef was quick to see the potentialities of the politi- cal Frankenstein which groping" labor leaders had brought into being. He knew that they could not con- trol their creation ; he knew that he could. He did not overestimate his powers. He managed the new party's 1901 campaign.^ Under his direction, success was won for a cause that had been deemed hopeless. The genius of Abraham Ruef made Eugene E. Schmitz Mayor of San Francisco.^ Lane, tlie present Secretary of the Interior, Dean John H. Wig- more of the Northwestern University, and others, he organized a club for civic reform. His first political convention, he tells us in his Confessions, showed liim that representative government was a farce. He. resolved to devote himself to his law practice. But almost immediately we find him an "errand boy" for Martin Kelly and Phil Crimmins, powerful "bosses" in their day, but now prac- tically forgotten. Ruef continued with Kelly and Crimmins for ten years. He drifted with the machine, securing excellent train- ing for his future career. His opportunity came in 1901, when, in its effort to throw off the 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 power- ful. He tells us in his Confessions that during this period he was invited to dine at the homes of men of political and social importance, among them William F. Herrin. chief counsel of the Southern Pacific Company, and Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads. But as yet, Ruef had little real influence in the "organization." Then came the labor unrest, and the Union Labor party movement. Ruef managed to combine the Republican Pri- mary Ijeague with the LTnion Labor party movement. This com- bination was the basis of his campaign for the election of Schmitz. 4 Ruef also provided much of the funds employed in the first Schmitz campaign. In a statement published May 16, 1907, Ruef said: "When Schmitz first ran for Mayor I made his campaign for him, and put up $16,000. My friends told me I was a fool. I guess I was." 5 Out of the 52,168 votes cast for Mayor, at the 1901 election, Schmitz received 21,776. His opponents — Wells (Republican) and Tobin (Democrat) — divided 30,392 between them. Wells receiving 17,718 and Tobin 12,674. Up to the present time (1914) the Union- Labor party has four times been successful in San Francisco mayoralty elections. But only once, in 1905, has its candidate been elected by majority vote. Changes in the San Francisco Charter, ratified at the 1911 session of the State Legislature, place the elec- tion of municipal officials on a non-partisan basis, and prevent elec- tion by plurality vote. Plenceforth all officials must be elected by majority vote. The Union Labor Party Movement 15 In practical acknowledgment of Ruef's services, Schmitz issued an open letter, in which he stated him- self privileged to consider Ruef his friendly counsellor.® The issuance of that letter made Ruef the recognized political representative of the Union-Labor party ad- ministration, a position which he held until the estrange- ment of himself and Schmitz under the strain of the graft prosecution/ 6 Schmitz's letter announcing his obligation to Ruef was as fol- lows: "My 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 sup- ported my cause, my profound appreciation of the generous, whole- souled, substantial and effective support accorded me in the exciting campaign which has just closed. Viewed from your prominent position in the Republican party, I know the seriousness of the step which you took when you voluntarily and unconditionally offered me your valuable aid, and I cannot in words pi-operly give utter- ance to my deep feeling in this regard. I can only say that your action is worthy of yourself, and that no higher praise can be ac- corded you. "I have now for some fifteen years enjoyed your acquaintance and friendship and your services as my attorney in many capaci- ties, and I say without hesitation or flattery that I have yet to find a more honorable, a more loyal, a more able attorney, or a truer friend. "I feel that I owe a great deal of my success in this campaign to you and your friends, and I shall not permit myself at any time to forget it. "Though you liave 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 tlie solution of any of the perplexing and complicated questions whicli must necessarily arise in the conduct of so vast and im- portant an office. "I trust that you will not hesitate to say that I may do so. Again and again thanking you and your friends, 1 am, "Very sincerely yours, "E. E. SCHMITZ." 7 Ruef at once availed himself of the opportunities which his position offered. He accepted regular "retainers" from public-serv- ice corporations. He testified before the Grand Jury that he was employed by the United Railroads through Tirey L. Ford, just after the first election of Schmitz, at $500 per month, and that he gave receipts to Ford for this money, during Schmitz's first term of office, but received the money always in Ford's office in currency; but that .after the second election of Schmitz, he (Ruef) refused to give any more receipts for this money, although he continued to receive it from Ford the same as before with receipts, and that i6 The Union Labor Party Movement But the government of San Francisco did not pass entirely under control of the Union-Labor party until four years after Schmitz's elevation to the Mayoralty. During the era of Union-Labor party power in San Francisco, the Mayor and the eighteen members of the Board of Supervisors were elected every two years.^ Schmitz, under Ruef's management, was re-elected in 1903. But the Union-Labor party failed at that elec- after the third election 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 Hal- sey, and that he, Pillsbury, attended to all of the legal business of the company during the entire time Ruef was under employment. Pillsbury received only $1,000 per month for his own services, and testified that he would have objected to the payment to Ruef of a larger salary than lie was getting. Pillsbury was a stockholder to the amount of $500,000 in his own right, and was a member of the executive committee of the board of directors of the company. At the trial of The People vs. Tirey L.. Ford, No. 817, I. W. Hell- man, one of the most prominent of California bankers and at one time a director of the United Railroads, testified: "Some five years ago (the Ford trial was in 1907, which would make the date about 1902) Mr. Holland, who was then the president of the United Rail- ways, came to me to ask my advice whether Mr. Ruef should be employed as an attorney for the United 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, recog- nized as a good lawyer, and I said if that could be accomplished it would be for the benefit of the railway company as well as for the public, and I advised yes. Whether he has been employed or not I do not know, because I afterward sold my interest in the company and I never have inquired whether he had been employed or not." In this connection, it is interesting to note that Ruef in his latest confession, the publication of which was begun in the San Francisco Bulletin in May, 1912, states that his employment by corporations as attorney did not begin until after the second Schmitz election — that is to say, in 1903. Hellman's testimony would indicate that his employment by the United Railroads dates from 1902. Compare with footnote 77, page 74. 8 Under amendments to the San Francisco Charter, ratified by the Legislature of 1911, the Mayor and Supervisors are now elected to four-year terms. The Union Labor Party Movement 17 tion, as it had in 1901, to elect a majority of the Board of Supervisors. Many of the commissions, on the other hand, through appointments by the mayor, had, by 1903, passed completely under Union-Labor party control. Gradually, the opinion grew in San Francisco that the management of the departments was unsatisfactory, if not corrupt. This opinion, in 1905, when Schmitz was for a third time the Union-Labor party candidate for Mayor, found expression in fusion of the Republican and Democratic parties to bring about the defeat of the Union-Labor party nominees. This fusion was in the name of municipal reform. The organizers of the movement were in the main op- posed to machine political methods. When, however, the movement gave evidence of vitality and strength, the political agents of public service corporations be- came identified with its leadership.^ The new leaders were soon in practical control. Public-service corpora- tions were larg-ely instrumental in financing the move- ment. Testimony was brought out before the Grand Jury which conducted the graft investigations, that nearly every public-service corporation in San Francisco 9 George F. Hatton, Southern Pacific lobbyist and politician, and political manager for TJnited States Senator George C. Perkins, was one of the principal leaders of the 1905 "reform" movement. Tie was at one time retained as an attorney by the Empire Con- struction Company, affiliated with the Home Telephone Company, which was seeking a franchise to establish a telephone system in San Francisco in competition with the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company. The Home Telephone Company contrib- uted to the "reform" campaign fund. Through the "reform" Board of Supervisors, who were to be elected, and whose campaign was thus financed, the Home Company was to get its franchise. But the "reform" candidates were defeated, the Schmitz-Ruef Union- I^abor party candidates were elected. The Home Telephone Com- pany thereupon proceeded to secure its franchise by employing Ruef. 1 8 The Union Labor Party Movement contributed to the fusion fund, the average of the con- tributions being $2,500 for each corporation.^" -' On the other hand, the public-service corporations contributed Hberally toward the election of the Ruef- backed, Union-Labor party candidates. ^^ Ruef was already on the pay-roll of the law departments of many of them. Thus, generally speaking, it made little dif- ference to the corporations whether the "reform" fusion candidates or the Ruef Union-Labor party candidates were elected. jThe corporations had captained each side, and in a large measure had financed each side. ; The inevitable difificulties of a campaign, financed and officered by public-service corporations, to correct municipal ills for which the corporations were in large measure responsible, were encountered from the beginning. For the head of the reform or fusion ticket, men who had been prominent in the organization of the anti-Ruef crusade v/ere suggested, only to be rejected by the corporation allies who had after the reform 10 William Thomas, of the law firm of Thomas, Gerstle & Prick, attorneys for the Home Telephone Company, testified before the Grand Jury that his company had contributed $8,000 to the "re- form" campaign fund. The testimony indicated that this money was used at the primaries. Louis Sloss, one of the leaders of the "reform" movement, testified that after the lirimaries, Detweiler, who was at the head of the Home Telephone Company enterprise, sent his personal check for $800 additional. Fairfax H. Wheelan, one of the leaders of the "reform" movement, testified before the Grand Jury that the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Com- pany, in the name of T. V. Halsey, subscribed $2,000 to the fund; and the United Railroads, concealing its identity under the name "Cash," $2,000 more. 11 Dr. Charles Boxton was one of the Union-Labor party Super- visors elected in 1905. At the second trial of Louis Glass, vice- president of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company, for bribery, Boxton testified that during the campaign, T. V. Hal- sey, political agent for the company, met him on the street and gave him a sealed envelope, saying: "If that will be of any use to you use it." Boxton found the envelope to contain $1,000 in United States currency. The Union Labor Party Movement 19 group's preliminary successes become identified with the movement. Finally, after several names had been canvassed, John S. Partridge, an attorney of good ability, and repute, but scarcely known outside the immediate circle in which he moved, was agreed upon as Mr. Schmitz's opponent. IJoth the Democrat and the Republican party nominated Mr. Partridge, and with him a complete fusion ticket, including supervisors. / Partridge had a clear field against Schmitz, but his candidacy failed to carry the confidence, or to awake the enthusiasm which brings success at the polls. The Union-Labor administration was openly de- nounced as corrupt. Francis J. Heney,^" fresh from his success in prosecuting the Oregon land fraud cases, went so far as to declare in a speech before one of the largest political gatherings ever assembled in San Fran- cisco that he knew Ruef to be corrupt, ^^ and, given opportunity, could prove it. 12 Francis J. Heney when five years old went to San Francisco with his parents. He was educated at the public schools of that city, the University of California, and Hastings 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 ISO^'. he confined himself to civil practice until, at the solicita- tion of Ignited States Attorney-General Knox, he undertook the prosecution of the Oregon I^and Fraud cases. He was at the close of successful prosecution of these cases, when invited by Rudolph Spreckels, Phclan and others, to participate in the prosecution of the San Francisco graft cases. 13 Heney's statement was prophetic. The published account of his speech (see Chronicle, November 6, 1905) w.as as follows: "If I had control of the District Attorney's oflJice. 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 dutj'." Heney's charge brought caustic reply from Ruef. In an open letter to Heney, published November 7, 1905, Ruef said: "Francis J. Heney: — In the published reports of your speech at 20 The Union Labor Party Movement The public generally believed Heney's charges to be justified. But of approximately 98,000 registered voters only 68,878 voted for Mayor, and of these, 40,191 voted for Schmitz. Partridge received only 28,687 ^* votes, being defeated by a majority of 11,504. Mechanics Pavilion last Saturday night you are represented as saying: 'I say to you, moreover, that I personally know that Abra- ham Ruef is corrupt, and I say to you that whenever he wants me to prove it in court I will do so.' "I am not a candidate for office, but as a man I do not propose to leave your false statement undenied. "In the past I have paid little attention to anything said by hostile papers concerning myself, feeling that the public fully un- derstood the despicable motives underlying the utterances of their proprietors. In your case a different situation presents itself. You have recently acquired considerable repute as a prosecuting attor- ney for the United States Government. Your statements, if un- challenged, may be given some credence by those not familiar with the true condition of affairs. "In making the statement that you personally know that I am corrupt 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 Vou 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 sliould wait upon my desire, why you should depend upon my wish to proceed with the performance of what must be to every good citizen a public duty, I do not know. "But as you declare that you will proceed only with my con- sent, I give you here and now full consent and authority to pro- ceed, and I go further and ask that you do so. "I regret that your recent identification with the Citizens' Alli- ance and with the corporations anxious to encompass the defeat of a candidate in a political campaign should have made you so far forget the regard for truth, justice and decency which should characterize men in our profession, as to have induced you to take the chance of ruining for life the reputation and standing of one who is not rightfully amenable to your charge, and who has not otherwise heretofore given you the slightest private or personal provocation for your savage and mendacious attack. "A. RUEF. "San Francisco, November 6th." 14 To hold that only 28,687 electors of San Francisco wished a change in the administration of San Francisco would be imjust. Many v.-ho were opposed to Ruef's domination remained away from the polls, through dissatisfnction with the management of the fusion movement. Of the more than 40,000 who voted for the Union Labor ticket, were thousands of union men who were opposed to the The Union Labor Party Movement 21 Not only was Schmitz re-elected by overwhelming majority, but the entire Rnef-selected Union-Labor party ticket was elected with him. Ruef, as Mayor Schmitz's recognized political ad- viser, and political agent for the Union-Labor party, found himself in control of every branch and depart- ment of the San Francisco municipal government. Schmitz-Ruef element. But Ruef cleverly injected the Citizens' Alliance issue, and the organized labor element was, because of this, made to vote practically solidly for the Ruef-selected candi- dates. The fact that voting machines were used in every precinct In San Francisco for the first time contributed to this. Members of labor unions did not understand the working of the machines, and were afraid to attempt to vote anything but the straight ticket. This dissatisfied organized labor element, two years later, con- tributed in no small degree to the election of Mayor E. R. Taylor and the re-election of District Attorney William H. Langdon, there- by making possible continuation until 1910 of the graft prosecution. CHAPTER II. The Ruef Board of Supervisors. No observer of San Francisco politics, not even Ruef himself, had expected the entire Union-Labor party ticket to be elected. The election of the Super- visors was the greatest surprise of all. Ruef, with his political intimates, had selected the Supervisorial can- didates, but more with a view to hold the organized labor vote for Schmitz than with idea of the fitness of the candidates for the duties involved in managing the affairs of a municipality of 500,000 population. ^^ Not one of the eighteen elected was a man of strong char- acter.^* Several were of fair, but by no means excep- 15 At Ruef s trial for offering a bribe to Supervisor Furey, Supervisor James L. Gallagher testified that conferences for selecting the Union Labor party ticket, from Sheriff down, were held at Ruef's office. Gallagher testified of one of these conferences: "The matter of the nominees for Supervisors was mentioned, and all that I recollect about it is that it was stated that there should be a good representation of prominent Union-Labor men on the ticket, and Mr. Ruef stated that he had that in mind, and that that would be done, and it was also stated that the members on the Board of Supervisors that were Union-Labor adherents should be nominated." See The People vs. Abraham Ruef, No. 1437 — Transcript on Appeal, Part 3, Vol. 3, page 1278. 16 The eighteen members of the Ruef-Schmitz Board of Super- visors were James L. Gallagher, attorney at law; Cornelius J. Har- rigan, grocer; James T. Kelly, piano polisher: Thomas F. Loner-' gan, driver of a bakery delivery wagon; Max Mamlock, electrician; P. M. McGusliin, 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, W-'ilson had resigned his position as Supervisor to take up his v>ork as State Railroad Commissioner, an office to which he w^as elected in 1906; and Duffey to be president of the Municipal Commission of Public Works, to which office he was appointed by Mayor Schmitz. The Ruef Board of Supervisors 23 tional ability. Of this type were Gallagher, an attorney of some prominence who acted as go-between between Ruef and the Supervisors ; Wilson, who was a sort of second man to Gallagher, and Boxton, a dentist. But for the most part they were men who had led uneventful lives as drivers of delivery wagons, bartend- ers and clerks. Without an exception, they saw in their unexpected elevation to the Board of Supervisors op- portunity to better their condition. Some of them would not, perhaps, have sought bribes ; few of them knew just how they could employ their office to their best advantage ; but from the hour of their election the idea of personal advancement was uppermost in the minds of the majority of the members of the Schmitz-Ruef Board of Supervisors.^^ Their ignorance of the requirements of their office, their failure to appreciate their large responsibilities, and above all their ill-defined ambitions made them promise of easy prey for the agents of the public-service corporations, who were playing for spe- cial privileges worth millions. T~ Supervisor E. I. Walsh in a sworn statement made to Heney, March 8, 1907, testified: "Q. And what was agreed upon there (in caucus) as to pro- gramme? A. I couldn't say what was agreed upon with them. "Q. Wasn't it arranged that every man should he 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 troUej^ system. At a second meeting Wilson stated the amount would be $1000 only. Of the scene on this occa- sion, Lonergan testified at the trial in the case of the People vs. Ford. No. 817: "Q. What did he (W^ilson) say on that occasion? A. There was only $4000 in it for me. "Q. What did you say. A. I asked him what the hell kind of work that was and what did he mean by it. And he shook his head and said that if I didn't like it, all right; something to that effect." 24 The Ruef Board of Supervisors None realized this better than Ruef. From the be- ginning, he recognized that the Hkehhood of individual members of the board yielding to temptation to petty gain ^^ threatened his own larger purposes. He let it be known that he would himself personally prosecute any one of them whom he discovered to be "grafting." Ruef was emphatic in his position that the Supervisors should have no financial dealings with those seeking special-privilege advantages. He even defined regular procedure for dealing with persons and corporations that might elect to catch the easiest way to accomplish their purposes by the use of bribe money. To this end he arranged : (1) That Supervisor James L. Gallagher^® should represent him on the board. The Supervisors at once 18 Evidence of Ruef s distrust of his Supervisors was brought out at many points in the graft trials. When he discovered that individual Supervisors were, witliout his knowledge, taking bribes from the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company, he stated to Dr. Joseph S. Poheim: "I see they have been trying to take my Supervisors away from me, but I have fixed them; I would like to see one of them throw me down." (See Transcript, People vs. Ruef, 1437, Part 3, Vol. 9, p. 4018.) In the midst of the troubles brought upon him by the graft prosecution, Ruef complained that "These fellows (the Super- visors) would eat the paint off a house, and in order to hold them together I had to descend to their level and take them in with me." Ruef was also jealous of Schmitz's activity. When he learned that Schmitz had promised franchises independent of him, he di- rected Supervisor 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 ouglit to be made to come and see me." 19 Gallagher was by far the ablest member of the Ruef-Schmitz Board of Supervisors. He was by profession an attorney at law. In that capacity he had served first as Assistant City Attorney, and finally as City Attorney. For a time he was law partner with Hon. James G. Maguire. whose opposition, as member of Congress from California, to tlie 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 The Ruef Board of Supervisors 25 accepted Gallagher, and dealt with him as Riief's rec- og-nized agent. (2) Finally Ruef arranged for a regular weekly caucus -" to be held each Sunday night, on the eve of the regular meeting day of the board, Monday. The public was not admitted to these caucuses. Those who were admitted were Ruef, Mayor Schmitz, George B. Keane,^^ clerk of the Board of Supervisors, who also acted as secretary of the caucus, and the eighteen Supervisors. At these meetings, which were held every Sunday evening, Ruef was the dominating figure. Supervisor told him there would be a number of matters coming before the Board of Supervisors in wliich the corporations and other large concerns would be interested; that there would be a number of large deals coming before the board in which he wanted him (Gallagher) to represent him on the board. Gallagher accepted the agency. 20 Gallagher testified before the Oliver Grand Jury of the nature of these caucuses. From his testimony the following is taken: "Q. They (the Supervisors) voted in the caucus and you knew how the vote would be. A. Yes, sir. "Q. And they would be bound by the caucus vote. A. That was understood that a man would vote at the caucus in the way he would vote at the meeting. "Q. You were understood to represent Mr. Ruef and Mr. Ruef's views. A. That was generally understood by members of the board. "Q. And whatever way you went meant programme. A. I believe Mr. Ruef told a number of them so. and that circulated among the others; it was generally understood by them." 21 Keane's lasting loyalty to Ruef makes him one of the most interesting characters of the graft cases. He entered Ruef's employ in 189S as a law clerk. He remained in Ruef's office until January, 1002, when Mayor Schmitz took office. Keane was then made sec- retary to the Mayor. He served in that capacity until January, 1!>06, 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 Sup'nvisor Furey, Gallagher testified that Ruef told him that Keane should be clerk. Gallagher notified the other inembers of Ruef's decision, and that closed the incident. Keane was. how- ever, much more than a mere clerk. Supervisor Wilson testified at the Ruef trial for offering a bribe to Furey, that he (Wilson) owed his nomination to Keane. Keane was elected to the State Senate where his loyalty to Ruef in foul as well as fair weather made him a conspicuous and somewhat notorious character. At present writing, Keane is foremost in the movement to bring about Ruef's release from State prison. 26 The Ruef Board of Supervisors Wilson, testifying at the graft trials, stated that Ruef took the position of "chief, counsel and adviser for the board in matters that were to come before the board." Keane, as secretary of the caucus, took full notes ^^ of the proceedings and sent written notices ^^ of the meetings to each of those who were admitted. The first of these caucuses was held shortly before the Schmitz-Ruef board took office. The organization of the board was provided by the Supervisors authorizing Ruef and Schmitz to make up the committees. Ruef undertook the task. He prepared the committee lists, and submitted his selections to Schmitz and Gallagher. Schmitz and Gallagher suggested unimportant changes. The committees were then announced to the Super- visors at the next caucus. There were objections raised, but these objections, with one exception, were denied in all important particulars. The organization of the Schmitz-Ruef Board of Supervisors was thus perfected. Ruef's way seemed clear. The committee organ- ization of the Board of Supervisors was his own. The Supervisors were to hold no open meeting until they had met with him in secret caucus to ascertain his 22 At Ruef's trial on the charge of offering a bribe to Super- visor Furey, Keane testified that these notes had been destroyed in the great fire of April 18-19-20, 1906. Keane testified further that Ruef was a constant attendant at the caucuses; that Schmitz was an occasional visitor; that Supervisor Gallagher presided. 23 Notices of the caucus meetings were sent to Ruef precisely as though he had been a member of the Board of Supervisors. At Ruef's trial for offering a bribe to Supervisor Furey, the following letter of notification was introduced as evidence: "San Francisco, June 21st, 1906. "Hon. A. Ruef, San Francisco — Dear Sir: I respectfully beg leave to notify you that the Board of Supervisors will meet in caucus on Sunday evening, June 24th, at 8 o'clock p. m., at Hamil- ton Hall, Steiner street, near Geary. Your attendance is respect- fully requested. "Yours truly, GEORGE B. KEANE, Clerk." The Ruef Board of Supervisors 27 wishes. The official clerk of the hoard, who was also secretary of the caucus, was his tried henchman. Gal- lagher, the ablest of the Supervisors, flattered at being made his representative, and further bound by mer- cenary ties, was ready to do his slightest bidding. And never had entrenched boss more fruitful field for ex- ploitation. But scarcely had the new administration been in- stalled, than a weak point developed in Ruef's position. District_^Attoriiey- WiUiam H,^ L^^ who had been elected on the Ruef ticket, gave evidence that he pro- posed to enforce the law, regardless of the efifect upon the administration of which he was a part, or upon Ruef's plans and interests. The first intimation the public had of Langdon's independent attitude came when gambling games in which Ruef was popularly supposed to be interested were raided under the personal direction of the District Attorney. Langdon had first attempted to close the places through the police department. Failing, he had attended to the matter himself.-* The gamblers ap- 24 The San Francisco Chronicle In its issue of March 8, 1906, said of the District Attorney's raids on tlie 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 obtahiing money under false pretenses. The District Attorney is the one official for whose friendship the law- breakers have the most earnest longings, and behind their cloced doors the idle gamblers are trying to figure out what 'lay' this 28 The Ruef Board of Supervisors pealed to Ruef, but Ruef was helpless. Langdon would not be turned from his purpose. The gamblers and capitalists interested in gambling establishments charged Langdon with political ingratitude. But those who were laboring for the development, and were opposing the exploitation of San Francisco, saw in Langdon 's course the first sign that Abraham Ruef was not to have undisputed sway in San Fran- cisco.^^ With Langdon in the District Attorney's office it was still possible that the laws could be enforced — even against Abraham Ruef. The raiding of the gam- bling dens marked the beginning of the division in San dreadful Langdon is really on, and by what trade he has been In- duced to ignore all the promises expressed or implied, which those assumed to be able to speak for him dispersed so freely when votes were in demand. "As for the public, it was for none of these things. Among the decent portion of society the 'motives' of the District Attorney do not arouse even passing curiosity. What does interest them is the present vigor of his work, and the probability of his keeping it up." 25 Ruef had consented to Langdon's nomination for District At- torney, because he considered that Langdon's intimate acquaint- ance with the teachers and pupils of the San Francisco public schools would help the ticket. For the tliree 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 At- torney, Ruef sent him a check for $200 for "campaign expenses," saying that the money had been contributed by Tirey L. Ford of the United Railroads. Langdon returned the check to Ruef with the statement that he preferred to pay his own campaign ex- penses. During the campaign at every meeting he addressed, Langdon made the statement: "The laws are on the statute books; all may know them. I pledge myself to the enforcement of these laws." To be sure, few if any paid much attention to what Langdon meant, but that was no fault of Langdon's. Every- body was to learn from the hour that he assumed the duties of his office that he meant just what he said. Rudolph Spreckels testified at the Calhoun trial that when Langdon's raids on the gambling dens were made public he felt that "we had a District Attorney who was desirous of doing his duty." The raids were made in February, 1906. Spreckels, Heney, Phelan, Older and others were already considering plans for the exposure and check of the reign of Ruef. The Ruef Board of Supervisors 29 Francisco, with those who approached the Ruef admin- istration with bribe money on the one side, and those who resisted with the check of law enforcement on the other. CHAPTER III. The San Francisco Ruef Ruled. The decade ending 1910 was for California an era of extraordinary enterprise and development. A third transcontinental railroad, the Western Pacific, was com- pleted ; vast land-holdings as large as 40,000 acres in a body were cut up into small tracts and sold to settlers ; waters brought to the land by vast irrigation enter- prises increased the land's productiveness three and even ten fold ; petroleum fields, enormously rich, were opened up and developed ; the utilization of the falling waters of mountain streams to generate electric power, brought cheap light and power and heat to farm as well as to city factory. The Spanish war had brought thousands of troops to the coast. Practically all of them passed through San Francisco. This particular activity had its influence on local conditions. The State's population increased from 1,485,053 in 1900 to 2,377,549 in 1910. Up to the time of the San Francisco fire, April 18, 1906, San Francisco, of the cities of the State, profited most by this development. San Francisco bank clear- ances, for example, increased from $1,029,582,594.78 for the year ending December 31, 1900, to $1,834,549,788.51 for the year ending December 31, 1905, a gain of 80 per cent. San Francisco's increase in population during those five years, can, of course, only be estimated. On the The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 31 basis of the registration for the 1905 municipal election, approximately 98,000, San Francisco had, at the time of the 1906 disaster, a population of about 500,000, an increase from the population of 342,782 shown by the 1900 census of practically 50 per cent, in five years."^ The rapid increase in population, the sustained pros- perity of the community, and its prospective develop- ment made San Francisco one of the most promising fields for investment in the country. The public service corporations were quick to take advantage of the San Francisco opportunity. Those corporations already established sought to strengthen their position ; new corporations strove for foothold in the promising field. Thus, we find the Home Telephone Company, financed by Ohio and Southern California capitalists, seeking a franchise to operate a telephone system in opposition to the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company, which was already established. And we find the Pacific States Company taking active part in municipal politics to prevent the Home fran- chise or any other opposition telephone franchise being granted. The corporation holding the light and power monopoly, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, had by the time of the third Schmitz inaugural, practical control of the San Francisco field. But it was face to face with a clamor for reduction of gas rates. The company was charging one dollar a thousand for gas. The Union-Labor party platform of 1905 pledged the 26 Patrick Calhoun, in a letter to the press, dated March 21, 1906 — less than a month before the great fire — stated that the time was near when the San Francisco street-car system would have to serve a million people. The 1910 census, taken four years after the fire, gave San Francisco a population of 416,912. 32 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled Board of Supervisors to a seventy-five-cents-per-thou- sand rate. Another matter of tremendous importance to the growing municipality was that of the supply of water. The Spring Valley Water Company had a monopoly of this necessity, but demand for municipal water to be brought from the Sierras was strong. A committee of experts had been appointed to pass upon the various sources of supply. Ruef appeared before them as spokesman for the Supervisors. The experts resigned when it was made clear to them that instead of being permitted to make an adequate study of all available sources of supply they were to report upon the Bay Cities project alone. -^ After the ousting of the Schmitz- Ruef administration the Bay Cities project was ignored and bonds authorized to bring water from Hetch- Hetchy valley. The Spring Valley Water Company, however, has been successful in blocking this project, and in 1914, San Francisco seems almost as far away from realizing her ambition for a supply of pure water as in 1905-6 when Ruef and his followers were at the height of their power. The public-service problem which was attracting the most attention at the time of the great fire, was that of street-car transportation. The principal lines had passed into the hands of the United Railroads.-^ The corporation 27 Ruef testified before the Grand Jury that the water deal would have been the most important pulled off by the Board of Supervisors. He testified that he had told Gallagher to tell the members of the Board there would be more money in it than had been received in any other deal. Ruef gave Gallagher to under- stand that the amount to be divided would be as much as $1,000,000. 28 The United Railroads was controlled by Eastern capital. Be- fore the entrance of the United Railroads into the San Francisco field, California capital had dominated in purely local public utilities. The San Francisco Rucf Ruled 33 had, at tlie time of Schmitz's election in 1905, practically a inonopoly of the San Francisco street-car service. The company's principal lines were operated by the cable system. But fully five years before the fire, all traction officials as well as the general public, recog- nized that San Francisco had outgrown the cable road. It was admitted that electric lines must be substituted for the cable, but there was sharp division as to the character of the electric lines which should be installed. The officials of the United Railroads proposed the over- head trolley method of propulsion : the public, so far as it could find expression, declared for the underground conduit system.-^ In taking this position, the public was in realit}^ backing up the municipal engineers, who had been sent to Eastern States to investigate electric transportation systems, and who had found in favor of the conduit and against the trolley.^" 29 The public's opposition to tlie 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 tlie v,ork of firemen in fighting fires; that San Francisco was as mu^'li entitled as Washington and New York to the best system. Rudolph Spreckels at the trial of Patrick Cal- houn for offering a bribe, testified as to his own opposition: "I believed that the overhead trolley was unsightly; that it in- creased the risk of fire; that it was dangerous; that it was noisy and unsightly. I believed from my own observation of the opera- tion of the underground conduit system in other cities that it was preferable, that it was more sightly, just as rapid, and in every way more in keeping witli a city of thei size and importance of San Francisco. Having been born here, and having large property in- terests I felt it my duty, as I always have, and liope I always shall, to protect the interests of this community and to protect the inter- ests of its citizens and its property owners. That was my purpose in opposing that franchise and that grant." 30 As early as 1901, C. E. flrunsky, at that time City Engineer, was directed by the Board of Supervisors to gatlier 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, 34 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled The San Francisco Merchants' Association, however, apparently dissatisfied with the reports of the engineers employed by the municipaUty, employed Mr. William Barclay Parsons to report on the relative merits of the trolley and the conduit systems. Mr. Parsons took issue with the city's engineers, and recommended the trolley as against the conduit. ^^ The directors of the Merchants' Association thereupon de- clared for the trolley system. Criticism of this action of the directors was followed by submission of the question to a referendum vote of the Association membership. The members voted in opposition to the directors, declaring against the trolley and for the conduit. ^^ and sent him to New York and Washington to inspect and report upon tlie conduit systems in operation in those cities. He reported tliat 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 tlie conduit-electric sys- tem, it is natural for private corporations to prefer the overhead trolley system on acount of the first cost of roadbed construction, which is more than twice as great for the conduit system. The conduit system leaves the street open with the view unobstructed by poles, conductors, feed, guard and supporting wires and without the menace to the public and especially to the firemen, always in- herent in the bare overhead electric conductor." This report was widely quoted during the overhead-trolley- conduit agitation that was a feature of a greater part of Mayor Schmitz's administrations. 31 Mr. Parsons found for the overhead trolley on the following general grounds: (1) That a uniform system was necessary. (2) That the lines must be extended to the suburbs. (3) That operation by overhead trolley is more satisfactory than by the conduit system. (4) That the greater part of the roads could be operated under trolley only. 32 Several questions were presented. The following is the vote as given in the Merchants' Association Review, the organization's official publication, for February, 1906: "TOTAL VOTE OF MEMBERS, 364. "1— Do you favor Mr. Parsons's view of a uniform system of over- head trolley lines throughout the entire city, including a central line of ornamental trolley poles, with lights furnished by the Railroad company between the tracks on Market Street, and a The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 35 But the most determined opposition to the installa- tion of the trolley system came from improvement clubs, whose purpose was to promote the best development of San Francisco. Prominent among these organizations were the Im- provement and Adornment Association,^^ the Sutter Street Improvement Club^* and the Pacific Avenue Im- trolley line with ornamental poles and lights furnished by the Railroad upon Sutter Street? "Votes received— Yes. 121; No, 204. "2 — Do you favor an overhead trolley system throughout the city except on Market Street? "Votes received — Yes, 67; No, 212. "3 — Do you favor an underground conduit system for Market Street and for the streets with cable lines leading into Market Street in the central downtown district and in the adjacent residence district, the remainder of the system to be overhead trolley? "Votes received — Yes, 198; No, 84. "4 — Irrespective of what shall be done on any other streets, which system do you favor for Sutter Street: (a) an underground con- duit, or (b) an overhead trolley line if equipped with ornamental poles and lights furnished free by the Railroad company, or (c) an improved cable system? "Underground Conduit Trolley Cable "First Choice 217 93 5 "Second Choice 42 83 62 "Third Choice 7 14 94 "5 — Do you favor changing the cable lines on Nob Hill to electric lines by tunneling the hill and constructing a winding driveway with parks on California Street, as proposed in Mr. Parsons's report? "Votes received — Yes, 158; No, 140." This vote was taken after an extended debate at a banquet given by the Association in which Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads, argued for the trollej' system, and Frank .J. Sullivan, president of the Sutter Street Improvement Club, spoke for the conduit. 33 The Improvement and Adornment Association employed D. H. Burnham to draw plans for the development of San Francisco. These plans, while drawn to attain a maximum of utility, were in- tended to secure a maximum of beauty as well. Streets were to be widened, boulevards built, parks established. The carrying out of these plans would have made San Francisco one of the most beau- tiful cities of the world. Their preparation cost the association $17,500. Mr. Burnham volunteered his own services. 34 The objection of the Sutter-Street Improvement Club to the overhead trolley was set forth in the following statement, issued less than a month before the great fire of inoO: "The Sutter Street Improvement Club is un.Tlterably opposed to the construi'-tion of an overhead trolley line on the Sutter Street system. We desire that the public should have no misconception of our position. We propose to contest to the end any attempt to get 36 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled provement Club. The membership of these organiza- tions consisted of some of the largest owners of San Francisco properties. The leaders were comparatively young men, natives of San Francisco, whose interests an overhead ti-olley 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 con- duit electric system was impracticable on account of the accumu- lation of rain water in its conduits. This claim it has been forced to abandon. "Second: It proclaimed loudlj' that the added cost of construc- tion of an electric conduit was such that the life of its franchise would not justify the outlay. Now. they have abandoned this claim, and assert that it is not the cost of construction, but that there are other reasons. "Third: They have declared that a uniform system was de- sirable. They now admit that a completely uniform system is impracticable, owing to grades, making It necessary to operate some lines by cable. Their only contention now is that the overhead trolley system is more efficient than either the cable or conduit electric system. "Mr. C. E. Grunsky is our authority for the statement that in making the change from the conduit electric to the trollej'. 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 under- ground (conduit) and partly overhead.' "We would suggest that the public compare the present over- head ti.olley system, operated by the United Railroads these many years in this city and county, with the service rendered by the Call- The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 37 were inseparably wrapped up in the community, and who aimed to promote the best possible development of the city of their birth and fortunes. Prominent in this group were Rudolph Spreckels ^^ fornia Cable Railway. There is no overhead trolley system in San Francisco to-day which surpasses the service given by the Cali- fornia Street Company. "It is claimed that the public will be given a speedier and 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 passen- gers. The only advantage which thus far has come from the sys- tem 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 sys- tem throughout the whole city, the United Railroads would do well to show on some one of their overhead trolley lines now in opera- tion a frequent, efficient and satisfactory service to the public. We do not want for San Francisco an extension and perpetuation of the unsighUy, noisy, dangerous, uncomfortable and inefficient sys- tem of overhead trolleys as operated by the United Railroads to-day. "Citizens of San Francisco: Be not deceived by the selfish and specious arguments put forward by the United Railroads. If the public will stand together, we W'ill win out in this fight; and. if it should be necessary to that end, the supporters of our organiza- tion will put before our citizens a plan for building a complete con- duit electric system of railroads for San Francisco, to be built, in the first instance, by our people, but with a provision giving to the city an option to purchase the same at any time in the future at actual cost and interest, so that municipal ownership of the said system may result just as soon as the city is ready for it. "All that we ask is that the people stand fast, and save their city from what we believe would be a calamity from which it would not recover in the next twenty-five years. "Respectfully. "Frank J. Sullivan, Rudolph Spreckels, Julius Rosenstirn. Geo. W. Merritt, W. D. McCann. Houghton Sawyer. Edward P. E. Troy, Secretary." 35 Rudolph Spreckels is a native of San Francisco. At seven- teen he was employed in his father's (Claus Spreckels) sugar re- finery at Philadelphia. The Spreckels refinery was at the time in a llfe-and-death stiuggle 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 Ha- waiian Commercial and Sugar Company, owners of one of the largest sugar plantations of the Hawaiian Islands. The venture had been a losing one. Spreckels put It on a paying basis within 4G'rn^ 38 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled and James D. Phelan,^" rated among the heaviest prop- erty-owners of San Francisco. These men were ready to join with the United Railroads in any plan which proposed the highest development of the street-car serv- ice.^'' On the other hand, they were prepared to oppose a year, and sold it at large profit. Before he was twenty-five he had become a millionaire in his own right. He has been engaged in business at San Francisco for many years, but only when moved by corrupt conditions to take up the fight for lionest government did he become active in politics. He financed the graft prosecu- tion. He has since taken active part in California politics, but has steadfastly refused to accept public office, preferring to do his work as a private citizen. 36 James D. Phelan is a native of San Francisco. He is one of the largest owners of real estate in San Francisco and in Cali- fornia. From his youth he has taken keen interest in public af- fairs. He was chairman of the Charter convention of 1900 wliich framed San Francisco's present municipal Charter. He was Mayor of San Francisco from 1896 to 1902. After the San Francisco fire he headed the Relief Committee and was largely instrumental in directing the work of rehabilitation. President Roosevelt desig- nated him by proclamation to receive funds for the relief work, and to use the United States Mint as depository. In 1900 the Democi-atic minority in tiie State Legislature gave him compli- mentary vote for TTnited States Senator. In 1914 he was elected to the United States Senate, being the first F^ederal Senator from California to be elected by direct vote of The People. Senator Phelan has for many years been close friend and business asso- ciate of Rudolph Spreckels. He was one of the heaviest backers of the graft prosecution. 37 Rudolph Spreckels testified at the trial of Patrick Calhoun: "I suggested to Mr. Calhoun one thing, that if it was a question of the length of the franchise, of the length of life of the present franchise, standing between the people getting the system which I believed it was entitled to, I would personally be glad to do what- ever was in my power to have the Charter amended so that they might enjoy a longer term of francliise, 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 sug- gested that property owners agree to drain the conduits without expen.se to the United Railroads, thus demonstrating their prac- ticability, on the understanding that if the conduit system were found to be practical it should be installed. But in this the United Railroad ofHcials would not acquiesce. (See testimony taken at the Calhoun trial.) The following is taken from Charles S. Wheeler's testimony given at the Calhoun trial: "Mr. Heney: Q. Did not the property owners on Sutter street and the property owners on Pacific avenue, Mr. Rudolph Spreckels and Mr. Phelan in particular, state that they would not oppose the United Railroads obtaining a franchise or permit for the under- ground conduit on Sutter street? "Mr. Stanley Moore: That is objected to, if your Honor please, The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 39 any attempt to exploit the service to the detriment of San Francisco.^** as calling- for the conclusion of tlie 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 tiie 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 Ijave heard Mr. Spreckels make it in the Supervisors' chambers." (See 'I'ranscript of Testimony, page 3197.) 38 Patiick Calhoun, president of tlie United Railroads, had sev- eral conferences with Rudolph Spreckels on the questions involved in the street-car situation. Of these conferences Spreckels testified at the Calhoun trial: "Mr. Callioun stated that he was very anxious to obtain the overhead trolley privilege, that he understood that I was actively opposing it, and he wanted to know whether I was open to convic- tion on the subject. I told him that my mind was entirely free, that if he could prove to my satisfaction that the underground conduit was not feasible that I would have no objection. I told him that the arguments that 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 tliat I had questioned Mr. Chapman and Mr. Holland at length in regard to it and liad 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 a.=.sured me that the only reason was the fact that it was an engineering Impossibility; that the accumula- tion of water in tlie conduits during the rainy season would pre- \'ent the successful operation of the cars, tliat 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 I>oints 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 under- ground system, will you then agree to Install that system?' Mr. Holland and Mr. Chapman looked at one another and finally said 'Well, no, we cannot do that.' Then I said: 'Gentlemen, you are wasting my time and your own because your 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 T was not an engineer, but that 40 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled A conference of the directors of the Improvement and Adornment Association with officials of the United common sense told me and indicated to me that it miglit be pos- sible to carry off the water at tliose points tlirough an ordinary stone sewer-pipe and distribute tlie accumulated waters to the various streets running parallel to Sutter street, and in that way carrying it off and keeping the conduits free from water. Mr. Cal- houn said: 'Well, there are other reasons — the question of a uni- form system.' He urged very strongly that it would be a very de- sirable thing to avoid transferring, or it would be an exceedingly nice thing if a, man could go to his home w^ithout 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 JFrancisco, 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 tha.t had been urged against the granting of an over- head trolley — that it was unsightly, dangerous and noisy and not the most modern system, was my objection, and that it liekl good for the entile city and not alone on the streets in wiiich I was interested as a property owner. Mr. Calhoun urged further the desirability of the overhead trolley, that it had given satisfaction elsewhere, and I suggested that he might first make the street cars then operated by the overhead trolley in San Francisco a success and satisfactory to the people; that I felt that it was far from a success, and personally, as one of the largest propery-owners on Ellis street, I would emphatically prefer the ordinary cable system to the electric lines that they were then operating. Mr. Calhoun asked for another appointment and it was had I think on the following morning, a meeting at the same place, at the Canadian Bank of Commerce; I think our meeting on that occasion w^as 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 to- gether, and the subjects that I will relate may have occurred, some of them in the previous meeting and some in the latter. Mr. Cal- houn proceeded to ask me about Pacific avenue. He said: 'Would you be satisfied if we agreed to operate the underground conduit system on Sutter to Powell, on Market to Valencia, running it, if 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 BroadM'ay 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 clrcum- The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 41 Railroads was finally arranged. ^^ The meetings were held in March, 1906, less than a month before the great fire. There were, before the attempted adjustment was abandoned, several sessions. The citizens urged Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads, to give up his trolley design for Market and Sutter streets. As a compromise, he sub- stantially agreed to build the underground conduit as far as Powell on Sutter, and as far as Valencia on Market, picking up the trolley on Valencia, McAllister, Hayes and Haight streets. The Adornment Committee directors wanted the conduit system on Sutter street extended as far as possible, and held out for Van Ness stances on a boulevard than on a street having a street-car service with tlie attending objections.' I told Mr. Calhoun that my fight v/as not a selfish one, that I did have carriages and automobiles, that I did not use the street-cars and had no need for them, but that I had in mind the rights of other people living on the street — that there were many people living on the street who were not so for- tunate as I, who did not own carriages and did not own auto- mobiles and had undoubtedly been brought to buy their property on Pacific avenue because of the fact that it had a street-car service there. Mr. 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 con- versation as I remember it." 39 Patrick Calhoun, Tirey L. Foi-d and Thornwell Mullally were among the oflScials representing the United Railroads at the con- ference. At the meeting, first mention of $200,000 in connection with the proposed change in the street-car system was made. Citizens had contended that the objection of the United Railroads in opposing the conduit system was the difference in the initial cost of installation. This point came up, and President Calhoun stated that he would, if the trolley system were allowed, give the difference between the cost of installing the two systems, for any public purpose. This difference, Calhoun stated, would be about $200,000. Tuining to .Tamos T). Phelan, of the Adornment Com- mittee, Calhoun stated tli.it the money could bo 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 I'ltrpose. and was able to construct the Park Panh.andle if the people wanted it. (See testimony of .Tames D. Phelan at the trial of The T'eople vs. Patiick Calhoun for offeiing a l>ribe, page ?750.) 42 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled avenue. Calhoun would not consent to install the con- duit beyond Powell. In the midst of this deadlock, the San Francisco Chronicle published what purported to be reports of the several conferences. Up to that time there had been no publication of the meetings. Following the Chronicle publication, Calhoun, in a letter to members of the Adornment Association, de- clared the information contained in the Chronicle article to be inaccurate,*" and offered to let the people decide whether they wanted a conduit system on Market street to Valencia, and on Sutter street to Powell, or a uni- form all-trolley system throughout the city. Mr. Calhoun's suggestion seemed reasonable until he stated in an interview that by the people he meant the Board of Supervisors. He was asked how he proposed to ascertain the wishes of the people. "I should suggest," he is reported as replying, "that the matter be referred to the decision of the Board of 40 The Chronicle in Its Issue of March 23, in referring to Mr. Calhoun's letter practically charged him with lack of good faith. The Chronicle said: "The alleged 'inaccuracy' of the Chronicle's interesting report of the compromise reached by the United Railroads and the Society for the Adornment of the City proves to be that the electric con- duit in Sutter street is to stop at Powell street instead of extending to Polk street, as proposed, and which is the least which should have been accepted if any compromise whatever was to be made. We shall be greatly surprised if when the changes are finally made there is not a great deal less conduit than Mr. Calhoun now seems to agree to. We gravely doubt whether Mr. Calhoun expects to construct a foot of conduit in this city. However, he does agree to do so under certain conditions and we shall see what we shall see. ... It does look as though some settlement of the matter would be reached, as the 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 liorse-car a onarter of a century ago." The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 43 Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors is a public body selected by the people, and represents the ideas and wishes of the people of the city." The reply was not well received. The Supervisors were even then under suspicion of corruption. Less than a fortnight before, March 10, the Examiner had called the board's action on an ordinance which was sup- ported by the Home Telephone Company "suspicious," and had stated that the board had "made the mistake of acting as a bribed Board of Supervisors would have acted." *^ 41 It was openly charged that money had been used to put this franchise through the preliminary steps necessary for its granting. The Examiner in its issue of March 10, some five weeks before the fire, said: "The Supervisors owe it to themselves to bring back the tele- phone franchise order for further consideration. Since the hasty vote on the ordinance last Monday ugly rumors have been the measure. The regard of the Supervisors for the good name of the Board demands that they should clear the record of the SUS- PICIOT'S CIRCT^MSTANCES 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 bv the citv. "Yet the FIRST ACT OF THE BOARD in dealing with a pub- lic utility question is to favor an ordinance granting a franchise for fifty years to a private corporation without proper compensa- tion to the city and 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 tlie Board of Super\Msors without discussion. One of the members of tlie Board who rose to explain his vote was shut off with such indignity that he left the Supervisors' chamber. Nor. indeed, did all thf> members know what they were voting on; for one of the Supoi-^'isors later in the session asked if the te'i^- phone franchise was not to be called up, and was surprised to be told that it had already been passed upon. "This sort of 'gum-slioe' legislation will not do for San Fran- cisco. It inevitably rouses the suspicions of crookedness that have been hawked about the streets since Monday last. "A telephone franchise is not a matter to be treated lightly. It Is an affair of more moment than passing a street or even of fixing a water rate. It deserves the deepest consideration, for the division of service between two companies creates a confusion in business that should be taken carefully into account. It is only fhp wretched service given by the old company that has brought the backing of a certain popular support to the advent of a new 44 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled Later on, the Supervisors themselves confessed to having been bribed to grant the telephone franchise. The public, not at all blind to what was going on, be- lieved, even at the time Mr. Calhoun made his sugges- tion, although there was no proof, that the Supervisors had been bribed. San Francisco was opposed to any plan that would put trolley cars on the city's best streets. Submission of the issue to the people would have been popular. Mr. Calhoun's proposal that it be left to the Supervisors was met with suspicion, and open distrust of Mr. Cal- houn's motives. In answer to the criticism which Mr. Calhoun's sug- gestion had aroused, Mr. Calhoun, in a second letter to the Adornment Association, withdrew his oflfer to sub- mit the question to the people, and announced the in- tention of his company to proceed with preparation of a plan for a uniform trolley system to be installed wherever the grades would permit.*^ company. The manner in which the obvious evils of a division of service can be lessened requires much more thought than has yet been given, and 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 riimors 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. "W^e do not wish to believe that any undue inflvience was used, but the Supervisors must have heard the ruinors that are frequent in the streets, and they must realize that they have made the mistake of acting as a bribed Board of Supervisors would have acted. They have broken their pledge, but happily It is not too late for them to correct the gross error." 42 Mr. Calhoun's second letter, as introduced as evidence at his trial for offering a bribe (page 2775, Transcript, The People vs. Cal- houn), was as follows: ".San Francisco, March 23.— Messrs. James D. Phelan, R. B. Hale, Herbert E. Lav^', Rufus P. Jennings and others — My dear Sirs: You will recall that the only condition on whlcli I consented The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 45 This second letter was made public in March. 1906, less than a month before the fire. The position taken by the United Railroads was generally condemned.*^ to even consider the introduction of an underground conduit on Market street from tlie ferries to Valencia, and on Sutter from Market to Powell, was to secure harmony and unaniinity of action in the development of San Francisco. You will further recall that I distinctly stated that 'if all sides to this controversy are not willing to faithfully and loyally abide by what the people of San Francisco may determine on this subject, the United Railroads prefers to urge, in the interest of the development of San Fran- cisco, a uniform system of overhead trolley operation.' "The development of the last few days, the threatened litiga- tion against my company, and the action of the Sutter-Street Im- provement Club, demonstrate that harmony and unanimity of action, so much to be desired, cannot be obtained, and that the United Railroads cannot expect all parties to the controversy 'to faithfully' and loyally abide by what the people of San Francisco may determine on this subject.' On the contrary, if the people should elect to put an overhead on Sutter street, the address of the Sutter-Street Improvement Club distinctly states 'we pledge ourselves and promise to provide the necessary counsel to maintain our position in the courts.' "In view of these facts, I desire to inform you that the United Railroads will proceed to prepare a plan for the improvement of the transportation of San Francisco. The essential feature of which plan will be a inodern, up-to-date, efficient and uniform sys- tem 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 confer- ence to reach a basis of harmonious action in order that the de- velopment of San Francisco might not be obstructed and delayed. "Very truly yours, PATRICK CALHOUN. President." 43 The Chronicle commented upon Mr. Calhoun's new position as follows: "The letter written by Patrick Calhoun of the United Railroads to the committee of citizens who have sought to induce him to change his attitude on the subject of overhead trolleys was not in good taste. It exhibited corporative arrogance in its most exas- perating 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. Vanderbllt, 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 tlie 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 tlie overhead trolley system wherever the grades 46 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled But the opposition took more practical form than mere denunciation. A group of capitalists, headed by Claus Spreckels, father of Rudolph Spreckels, Rudolph Spreck- els and James D. Phelan, announced their intention to organize a street-railroad company, to demonstrate the practicability of operating electric cars in San Francisco, under the conduit system. The plan was given immediate endorsement both by press and general public. The project was explained in detail to Mayor Schmitz, who in a published statement gave the enterprise his unqualified approval.** But of the city will permit,' the announcement is equivalent to a notification that 'the proper authorities of the city' will be appealed to for permission to carry out such a scheme, whether the people like it or not. His defiant attitude suggests that he feels pretty sure that the authorities will be on the side of the United Rail- roads against the people, but he may be mistaken on tliat 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.) 4-4 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 tlae past, as the greatest public benefactor of the West. I will say, if he can see his way clear, reservedly, for I doubt that any citizen of this city or State can point to any understanding that he has announced he would accomplish, that he has failed to accomplish. Not only is his determination, but within his control Is the money to carry out his determination, and I have yet failed to find the man that can say that any object can fail of accomplishment when determination and money walk hand in hand. "If Mr. Spreckels can carry out his announced desire to network San Francisco with railroads operated by the underground con- duit system, I can only say that through his wonderful ambitions of purpose San Francisco will take a stride forward that is won- derful to contemplate. Such action upon the part of Mr. Spreckels would place San Francisco not only in advance of any city in America, but would place it in advance of any city in the world in the battle for public control of utilities operated for the public benefit. The offer of Mr. Spreckels is not only one that must 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 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 47 when the incorporators sought further interview with Mayor Schmitz, they found themselves unable to secure a hearing. The company, under the name of the Municipal Street Railways of San Francisco, was formed with Claus Spreckels, James D. Phelan, George Whittell, Rudolph Spreckels and Charles S. Wheeler as incorpora- tors. The capital stock of the company was fixed at $14,000,000. Of this. $4,500,000 was subscribed, ten per cent, of which, $450,000, was paid over to the treasurer.*^ beauty of San Francisco be not sacrificed, but that the public desire for rapid transit shall be fulfilled. Backed with the mil- lions he controls, his offer is significant, and is one that we cannot contemplate lightly. "As Chief Executive of the city I can only express the hope that something will happen that will permit Mr. Spreckels to carry out his object. At one stride this would place San Francisco at the head of the world in the titanic struggle now waging between the people and the corporations for the control of those utilities in which the people are interested for comfort and the corporations for profit. Great as is his offer, it adds not only enthusiasm, but rekindles hope in my always expressed desire that my administra- tion would mark the first victory of the municipality in its fight to control those things that are theirs. "The people are on the eve of winning for themselves those things that are theirs. If the offer of Mr. Spreckels can be carried out, and I see no reason why it cannot, the battle is ended. Not only will San Francisco be the victor, but from the battle she will emerge, her beauty unmarred and her railways standing as exemplifications of the fact that what in science is possible is capable of actual and practical accomplishment." (See San Fran- cisco Call, March 24. 1906.) But in spite of this approval, aPfter the organization of the new company was assured, Rudolph Spreckels found the Mayor's door closed to him when he attempted to secure an interview. (See Rudolph Spreckels' testimony at the Calhoun trial.) 45 The purposes of the incorporators were brought out at the graft trials. At the Calhoun trial, when James D. Phelan, former Mayor of San Francisco, and one of the incorporators, was under cross-examination, Calhoun's attorney referred to other public utility ventures in which Claus Spreckels had been interested, and asked: "Q. You knew of the matter of the rival gas or competing gas lines, and the rival and competing electric lines, and the rival and competing steam railroads down the valley at the time you went into the corporation to put in the People's Street Railroad? A. I knew, and I know the effect they had; they reduced rates in both oases; 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 48 The San Francisco Ruef Ruled With this $450,000 an experimental Hne, under the conduit system, was to be built on Bush street.*® The articles of incorporation provided that the fran- chises acquired under them should contain provisions for the acc|uisition by the City and County of San Francisco of the roads thus built.*" The new company filed its articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State at Sacramento on April 17, 1906. In the early morning of the day following, April 18, came the San Francisco earthquake and fire. For the moment the public forgot all differences in the common disaster. Cut the lines of division between- exploiter and builder could not be wiped out, not even by the destruction of the city. The contest, which had, without any one realizing its full significance, been fast coming to a head before the fire, was to take definite shape after the disaster. 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 heen made by Mr. Calhoun with the city admin- istration, and the only resort left to us to do was to build a road of our own to demonstrate that it was practicable and possibly profitable — a conduit system." 40 As early as April 3, 1906, a petition was circulated for sigria- tures among residents and property owners on Bush street, asking the Board of Supervisors to grant a franchise to operate street-cars on Bush street under the electric-conduit system. 47 Tlie 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 in- corporation the following: "To accept and acquire franchises for street railroads, elevated railroads and subways, containing provi- sions for the acquisition thereof by the City and County of San Francisco, or such other conditions as may be lawfully inserted therein." CHAPTER IV. San Francisco After the Fire. The great San Francisco fire was brought under control Friday, April 20, 1906. The Sunday following, the first step was taken toward getting the scattered Board of Supervisors together. George B. Keane, clerk of the board, is authority for the statement that the meeting place was in a room back of Supervisor Mc- Gushin's saloon.*^ The ashes of the burned city were still hot ; the average citizen was thinking only of the next meal and shelter for the night for himself and dependents. But the public-service corporations were even then active in furthering plans which had been temporarily dropped while San Francisco was burning. At the McGushin-saloon meeting, Keane found with the Supervisors Mr. Frick of the law firm of Thomas, Gerstle & Frick. Mr. Frick was on hand to represent the petitioners for the Home Telephone franchise, which, at the time of the disaster was pending before the board. For months previous to the fire, no subject affecting a San Francisco public-service corporation had, with the single exception of the United Railroads' scheme for substituting electric for cable service, created more discussion than the Home Telephone application for 48 See Keane's testimony in The People vs. Ruef. No. 1437. Part 3, vol. 1, page 455. 50 San Francisco After the Fire franchise. There had been allegations that the progress which, previous to the fire, the Home Company had made toward securing its franchise, had been paid for,*^ but for weeks after the fire few citizens had time to think about it. The people forgot for the time the issues which had before the disaster divided the city. But the agents for the public-service corporations did not forget. We find a representative of the Home Telephone Company picking his way over the hot ashes of the burned city to McGushin's saloon to meet the Supervisors that the interests of his company might be preserved. The developments of the graft prosecution indicate that even as the Home Company was seeking out the Supervisors, the United Railroads was getting into touch with Ruef.^° But if the corporations were quick to avail them- selves of the situation to secure privileges denied them 49 See footnote 41, page 43. 50 Supervisor Gallagher testified in the case of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, that about a week before the fire "Mr. Ruef stated that the United Railroads wanted to secure a permit to use elec- tricity upon their lines and asked me to speak to the members of tlie Board of Supervisors about it and let him know whether it could go through the Board, and about what amount of money it would take. I told him that I would do so." (See Transcript on Appeal, page 850.) Similar testimony, to show that the United Railroads was dealing with Ruef during the month preceding the fire, was brought out at trials of other defendants in the "graft" cases. This would make the date of Ruef's activity on behalf of the United Railroads about the time of Mr. Calhoun's announce- ment that he would proceed to present plans for the trolley system, to the "proper representatives" of the People (the Supervisors), who were even then, through Ruef, receiving bribe money from public-service corporations. Gallagher testified further (see same transcript, page 853) that within a week after the fire Ruef stated to him that the IJnlted Railroads still wanted its electric permit, and directed that Galla- gher find out whether such a permit could be put through the Board. Gallagher testified that he saw members, put the question to them, and reported back to Ruef that in his judgment the per- mit could be put through by paying each member of the Board the amount which Ruef had specified, $4,000. San Francisco After the Fire 51. before the fire, they were also active in the work of rehabilitation — so far as such activity served their plans and purposes. This was well illustrated by the course of the United Railroads. Within a fortnight after the fire, that cor- poration had established efficient service over a number of its electric lines. For a time, passengers were car- ried without charge. On April 29 and 30, however, fares were collected from men, but not from women and children. With the beginning of May, fares were col- lected from all persons. For a time, in a glare of much publicity, the United Railroads contributed these col- lections to the fund for the relief of the stricken city. The Home Telephone Company had no plant to re- store nor authority to establish one ; but on Ruef's sug- gestion it, too, contributed to the fund for the relief of the stricken city— $75,000.^' The United Railroads' activity in restoring its elec- tric roads, was in curious contrast to its failure to take advantage of the possibilities offered by its cable sys- tems. As some excuse for this inactivity, the corpora- tion's representatives alleged that the cable slots had been closed by the earthquake, making restoration of the cable roads impractical. The alleged closing of the slots was even used as argument against the conduit electric system. ^^ But 51 Supervisor Gallagher testified at graft trials that Ruef had told him the payment of this $75,000 to the Relief Fund was a good thing, as it would tend to shut off adverse criticism. But the Home Company people had asked that the money be not turned over to the Relief Fund until such time as the ordinance granting the franchise had been approved or the matter definitely deter- mined. 52 As early as May 5, C. E. Loss, a railroad contractor, came out with the proposition that the city should abandon all idea of 52 San Francisco After the Fire as a matter of fact, there were many to testify that the damage done the cable slots was not from the earth- quake, although the slots in the burned district had been warped more or less by the heat of the fire. But this damage was easily remedied. On the Geary-street road, for example, cars were run for an hour or more after the earthquake. The fire warped the Geary-street cable slot, but this was easily and cheaply remedied by a force of men with cold chisels and hammers.''^ conduit systems, because the cable slots had been closed by the earthquake. In this, Loss was disputed by City Engineer Thomas P. Woodward. Woodward, in an interview printed in the Exam- iner on May 5, 1906, said: "I think Mr. Loss was mistaken when he said the earthquake closed the cable slots. I have not made a careful examination of the various roadbeds In San Francisco, but from what I have seen as I have gone about the city, I am inclined to think that no In- jury was done the cable slots by the earthquake. "The lines on Sacramento, California, Geary, Sutter and Haight streets appear to be all right outside the burned district. Where the metal was subjected to the intense heat, the slots are warped out of shape, and in some places closed." Loss's allegations called forth the following editorial comment In the Examiner of May 5th: "Even an earthquake shock and a conflagration do not long obscure the vision of certain wealthy gentlemen where there is a chance to turn a calamity to their individual account. "Before the catastrophe, San Francisco had indicated with great emphasis to the United Railroads that it would not permit the reconstruction of the cable system into an overhead trolley, but would insist upon a modern up-to-date conduit electric rail- road, the safety, utility and efficiency of which had been demon- strated in New York and other Eastern cities. "The emergency created by the destruction of the traffic sys- tems in the city has compelled permission for a temporary trolley line because it could be constructed more quickly than any other. "It is not intended, and the United Railroads must be made to realize that it will not be permitted, that the unsightly poles and dangerous wires will be allowed to cumber the new and more beautiful San Francisco, any more than it will be permitted that the rough shacks and sheds which temporarily shelter the people in parks and streets and otherwise vacant lots shall remain after the emergency which called them into being has ceased." 53 A. D. Shepard, vice-president and secretary of the Geary- street Railroad Company, gave the following statement to the Examiner as to the condition of the Geary-stceet roadbed: "We can run cars as far as the road goes, but the power-house is not ready for business. The smokestack at Geary and Bu- chanan streets must be built up to comply with the ordinance of the 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 San Francisco After the Fire 53 Statements from officials of the United Railroads, now of record, indicate that the company's cable lines suffered no greater damage than did other cable sys- tems. An affidavit of Frank E. Sharon, for example, who before the fire was superintendent of cables and stables belonging to the United Railroads, made in the adjustment of fire losses sustained by that corporation, sets forth that the company's principal cable power house and repair shops situate on Valencia street were damaged but little by the earthquake.^'* Although the what day we will begin to run cars. All depends upon the smoke- stack and the Board of Public Works. "Our line was not injured by the earthquake, and we ran cars for some time after the shake. It was the fire that drove us out of business. The heat warped the slot, making it narrow in places and wide in other spots, but this is easily remedied." (See Exam- iner, May 30, 1906.) 54 Sharon's affidavit was introduced at the graft trials. It was as follows: "State of California, City and County of San Francisco — ss. "Frank E. Sharon, being first duly sworn according to law, de- poses and says: That he was for many years prior to April 18, 1906, the superintendent of cables and stables belonging to the United Railroads of San Francisco, and situate at the corner of Market and Valencia streets; that on the property situate at said Market and Valencia streets were located what is known as the Market and Valencia Power House and Shops, consisting of power- house, stables, machine shops, special machine shops, mill, offices, store-rooms, sheds, etc.; that he was such superintendent on April 18, 1906; that on the morning of April 18, 1906, immediately follow- ing the earthquake he proceeded to the above described premises, arriving there at about 8 a. m. ; that none of the buildings above described were materially damaged by the earthquake; that the walls of all the buildings were standing and intact; that the roofs of all the buildings were on and uninjured by the earthquake, with the exception of the roof of a portion of what is known as the power-house, which was damaged by reason of a small portion of the chimney adjoining the power-house on the west falling thereon; that the greater portion of said brick from the top of said chimney fell toward the south or east into the driveway; that extending from the base of said chimney to the crown thereof and on the east and west side tjiereof 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 >)ollers f(ir some time after the earthquake; that In his judgment the })ullding as a whole was Intact and the machinery not Injm-ed In any material part of the earthquake; that the building cauKht tlif ironi tlip adjoining buildings on the east 54 San Francisco After the Fire buildings were damaged by the fire, the damage to the contents, including the machinery by which the cable cars were operated, was, according to statements made by the United Railroads in fire-loss adjustment, com- paratively small. The company placed the sound value upon this machinery and contents, after the earthquake, but preceding the fire, at $70,308.80. The salvage was placed at $60,933.80, leaving a total fire loss of $9.375. '•' The cable cars, with few exceptions, were saved. The most serious loss of cars was on the Powell-street system, where sixty-four were destroyed. Only one Valencia-street car was burned. After both earthquake and fire, the United Railroads had available at least 150 cable cars for its Market and Powell-street systems. This does not include the cable cars available on the Hayes and McAllister roads. The power-houses of these two last-named systems were not destroyed by fire. The allegation has been made that the McAllister- street cable was kept running for several hours after the earthquake. But whatever the possibilities for the restoration of and southeast late in the afternoon of April 18, 1906; said buildings were not dynamited nor backfired for any purpose. "F. E. SHARON. "Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of August, A. D. 1906. "CHARLES R. HOLTON, "Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco, State of California." 55 The loss included $25 damage to two engines which cost new $24,000; $2,000 damage to six boilers, new cost $30,000; $210 water- tank, cost new $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, de- ducted from the total of $9,375, leaves a total loss of $2,575 to the nuifhinery of a plant estimated to have cost $115,848. San Francisco After the Fire 55 the United Railroads' cable properties, no steps were taken toward that end. Instead, trolley wires were strung over the tracks of cable systems. Street-car service was one of the greatest needs of the first few weeks following the fire. Statements that cable prop- erties could not be restored were generally believed ; the trolley service was accepted as a matter of expediency ; few thought, however, that it was to be permanent.^® 06 As late as November 13, 1906, seven months after the flre, 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 rig-hts in the streets by the United Railroads is inspired, of course, by ulterior purpose to en- trench the corporation In the possession of privileges, permits or franchises granted at a time of stress and confusion whose legality may and probably will be questioned later. "The Call does not desire to assume an attitude of hindering or hampering progress. We recognize fully that every new street- car line adds materially to the value of property within its tribu- tary territory. In a word, the growth of a city or a neighborhood is, to a considerable degree, dependent on facilities for urban transit. "But it does not follow from these considerations that fran- chises should be granted for nothing to any and every applicant who is able to construct a street railway. The right to use the streets is the most valuable privilege possessed by a municipality. It should be made to yield a corresponding revenue. "All this might seem so obvious as scarcely to require state- ment, but in practice the principles here laid down have been vir- tually disregarded in San Francisco. In no instance was there more flagrant disregard of public rights than in the wholesale grants of permits or franchises to construct overhead trolley lines 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. Thnt is the ex- planation of the outrageous disregard of public rights shown in tearing up some five or six miles of streets at once and in different parts of town. This process is obviously wasteful as a financial proposition, and is calculated besides to arouse general indignation. We find these weighty considerations disregarded on the advice of the corporation's lawyers, to bolster up an invalid claim to the possession of franchises obtained by trick and device in an hour of public confusion. "What the extent of the corporation's claim under these per- mits may be we are not advised, and there is no immediate means of finding out as long as the administration which granted these hole-and-corner permits remains in power. The same influences thnt made the Mayor and Supet^-i.aors so complaisant to the will S6 San Francisco After the Fire Within two weeks after the fire, the United Rail- roads had trolley wires strung over the cable tracks on Market street. The little objection made to this course went unheeded. The Market-street trolley cars, two weeks after the fire, were as welcome to The People of San Francisco as were the temporary shacks which were being erected upon the sites of the old city's finest buildings. Market-street trolley cars gave as sorely- needed transportation as the shacks gave needed shelter. The opening of the Market-street trolley line was made subject for rejoicing throughout the city. In the midst of this good feeling toward his company. Presi- dent Calhoun gave out that if allowed to place over- head wires on Sutter and Larkin streets, he would place 2,000 men at work and have both these lines in operation within thirty days.^^ But the era of good feeling was not of long dura- of the Ignited Railroads are still operative. It was only the other day that another permit for a street-car line was granted, and granted illegallj'. This administration stays bought. "Therefore, the streets are torn up in a dozen different parts of town and left in tliat 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 wilt 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 con- scienceless boodlers, and if it should prove that the United Rail- roads has been able to make two wrongs constitute one right, it is very certain that a movement of irresistible force will follow for a reduction of street-car fares. "We are convinced that it will pay the United Railroads to be fair and decent with the people of San Francisco. The present policy is neither fair nor decent. The service is bad, public rights in the streets are outraged, and, worst of all, the corporation is the most malign, corrupting influence in the politics of our munic- ipal government. There will come a reckoning." 57 See statement pi-lnted In .San Francisco Examiner, May 4. 1906. San Francisco After the Fire 57 tion. On May 14, less than a month after the fire, the Supervisors received a communication signed by President Calhoun as President of the United Rail- roads, setting forth that if the board would permit the use on the cable Hnes of the standard electric system in use on the company's other lines, the United Rail- roads would be glad to put all of their lines in com- mission as rapidly as could be accomplished by the most liberal expenditure of money and the largest possible employment of men.^* That very day, the Supervisors took the initial step toward granting to the United Railroads a blanket per- 58 Calhoun's letter to the Supervisors read; "United Railroads of San 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 re- spectfully 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 innu- merable requests are being presented to it to increase its trans- portation facilities. "The company is anxious to please the people, and is willing to do its part in the immediate upbuilding of the Greater San Fran- cisco, but owing to the unavailability of material and machinery for operating its cable systems, as well as the great length of time necessary to rebuild destroyed power-houses and reconstruct its cable conduits, a long time would necessarily elapse before the cable systems could be operated so as to give the required relief to trafflc congestion. "If your Honorable Board will permit the use on the cable lines of a standard electric system such as is now used on the com- pany's other lines, we will be glad to put all of our lines in com- mission, and will agree to have them in complete operation wher- ever grades will permit as rapidly as the most liberal expenditure of money and the largest possible employment of men will accom- plish. The necessary expenditure for labor and materials to do this work will run into the millions, and will afford much-needed cinployment to several thousand deserving men. "We believe the prompt reconstruction of your lines of trans- portation will inspire confidence in all investing capital and greatly aid In the prompt rebuilding of your city. "We submit these suggestions for your consideration at the request of many of our citizens from every walk of life. "Respectfully, "PAT. C.A.LHOUN, President." S8 San Francisco After the Fire mit, authorizing that corporation to substitute the trol- ley system for all its cable lines. Immediately, San Francisco's opposition to the trol- ley system was revived. All classes joined in con- demning the action of the board. The Sutter Street Improvement Club, representing large down-town in- terests and property holders, adopted resolutions de- manding that the Supervisors refuse to grant the per- mit. The San Francisco Labor Council, representing over 100 affiliated unions, with a membership of more than 30,000 wage earners, declared as strongly against such action. The press charged the United Railroads with taking advantage of the city's distress to force the trolley upon her.'^'^ 59 The trolley permit was passed to print on May 14. The Ex- aminer, in its issue of May 15, said: "The United Railroads, with the rapacity for which it has ever been noted, is seeking to capitalize the city's woe to its own ad- vantage. "Before the disaster of April 18 it had been balked in its pur- pose to make San Francisco a trolley town. The protests of citi- zens who knew that the 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 estab- lishment of a transportation system, gave the United Railroads its opportunity to revive the discreditable scheme. As an emergency service nobody could object to the overhead trolleys. But it was understood that the service was absolutely temporary in its char- acter and should only obtain during the pendency of present con- ditions. "Yesterday, however, there appeared out of the void of forbidden things an ordinance that was hastily passed to print, granting a franchise to the United Railroads to trolleyize its whole system. "It was expected evidently that this iniquitous measure could be sneaked through under cover of the present stress and excite- ment without people realizing until it was too late what had been done. "When the scheme was flushed it was still attempted to make it appear that this was a temporary measure, a representation ab- solutely varying with the language of the ordinance. "But the scheme has not succeeded yet. "It was to be expected that, like the looters who have to be kept from other people's property by soldiers and police, San Fran- cisco's misfortune would bring out a horde of corporate ghouls San Francisco After the Fire 59 Then came explanations and defense. Mayor Schmitz in public interviews set forth that the proposed permit was not a permanent measure, nor under its provisions could the United Railroads indefinitely oper- ate trolley cars in Market street.*^'^ The Labor Council which had at first adopted resolutions condemning the policy of granting" the permit, adopted resolutions of confidence in the "present city administration." Presi- dent Calhoun himself solicited citizens to attend the meeting of the board at which a vote was to be taken on the proposed permit, to urge action favorable to the United Railroads.^^ eager to snatch privileges during the time of disorder. But it was hkewise to be expected that the city administration, which has been so alert to protect private property, would be equally alert to protect the prefious possessions of the city. "The railroads can only do what the city permits, and a sti'ong 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 know-n as the administration that put trolley poles on Market street." 60 The day that the ordinance granting the trolley permit was ordered printed, Mayor Schmitz stated in an interview as published in the Examiner: "The proposed franchise is merely a temporary measure. It does not mean that the United Railroads can indefinitely operate their cars by the overhead trolley in Market street, or in the streets formerly occupied by cable roads. It is necessary now to liave transportation. The cable roads cannot be repaired, I am told, for some time. Meanwhile, the franchise to string overhead wires has been granted. It can be revoked." 61 At the Calhoun trial, William H. Sanderson testified to hav- ing been introduced to Calhoun by Ruef at a public meeting, a few days before the trolley permit was granted. He was then asked: "Q. What, if any, conversation then ensued between yourself, Mr. Ruef and Mr. Calhoun? A. Well, I stated — Mr. Calhoun was at that time sitting at a large table in the room, where the com- mittee had held its session, and he rose out of his seat, and the three of us held a conversation following that introduction. I stated to Mr. Calhoun — I asked him when the people of North Beach were or might expect railroad facilities, that the population was coming back to that portion of the city, and that other por- tions of the city were provided with facilities, and that we were compelled to walk through miles of burned district in order to get anywhere; and Mr. Calhoun said in reply, that if the people of 6o San Francisco After the Fire Long before the board met to take final action it was recognized that in spite of opposition the permit San Francisco desired railroad facilities, they should co-operate with the railroad company that was here to provide them with the same; and I said to Mr. Calhoun that I thought that we were ready to do anything that the company desired us to do, and asked him what in particular he wished us to do, and he said: 'There is that trolley privilege matter before the Supervisors; that comes up next Monday, and you people of San Francisco ought to come down before that Board, that the people of San Francisco, or you, are vitally interested in the matter of this trolley permit.' Mr. Ruef tlien said: 'Come down before the Board next Monday, Sanderson, and make a talk on behalf of your organization in favor of the trolley permit. We will see that you get the privilege of the floor. A number of citizens of San Francisco will be there, and we pro- pose to show the press that the people of San Francisco are behind this permit.' I said to Mr. Calhoun: 'The papers tell me that this is a very valuable franchise and you ought to pay the city something for it.' And Mr. Calhoun said in 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 per- haps 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 im- mediate work for 5,000 men. We will be able to take them out of tiie 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 Fran- cisco are at last all behind your administration. What they need in this crisis is leadership, and we will have to take such leader- ship as you give us; and now that everybody is with you, and even the Bulletin has quit, it is not good policy on your part to stir up another newspaper war. The Examiner has been your friend ever since Schmitz was first elected, and it will not swallow the trolley proposition in its present form, and it is charging your administration with corruption. If it persists in its fight it will eventually break your back. It seems to me that it would be a comparatively easy matter^ to placate this opposition by exacting soine compensation for this permit, either in the way of cash or by way of a percentage of the proceeds of the road, or you might limit it as to time; give them a permit for five or ten years. You have them at your mercy and they are bound to accept whatever terms you prescribe.' Mr. Ruef then said: 'To hell with the Ex- aminer, no public man can afford to swallow that paper. This thing will go through on Monday. It is all settled.' And then I said: 'You don't need me then,' and Mr. Calhoun said: 'I don't think we do, Mr. Sanderson.' That is all the conversation, or that is substantially all the conversation that took place In regard to that matter." San Francisco After the Fire 6i would be granted."- And it was granted. On j\Iay 21, the Supervisors passed the ordinance which gave the United Railroads authority to convert its cable systems. wherever grades would permit, into trolley lines. For this privilege, no money compensation, nor promise of compensation, was made the city."^ Demand that Mayor Schmitz veto the ordinance granting these extraordinary privileges followed. Nev- ertheless, the Mayor affixed his signature to the trolley permit-granting ordinance. Fair expression of the feeling this action engendered will be found in the San Francisco papers of the latter part of May, 1906. "Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz." said the Examiner, for example, "has betrayed the trust reposed in him by the people, violated his solemn pledge in favor of an underground conduit system, and joined Abe Ruef and the United Railroads in the shameless work of looting the city at the time of her greatest need." The Ruef-Schmitz administration protested at the 02 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 earthfiuake and conflagration. In the Ruise 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 la.sting bronze, a group of everlasting infamy, with the inscription: 'THESE MEN LOOTED SAN FRAN- CISCO AT THE TIME OF THE GREAT FIRE OF 1906.' " 03 Of the failure to exact pay for the franchise, the E.\aminer of May 17. 1906, said: "Mayor Schmitz and the Boai'd of Supervisors must know, and If they do not knov/ they are now informed, that the franchises they propose to give away to the United Railroads are worth a great deal of money to the city of San Francisco, and they cer- tainly do know tliat the city never was so greatly in need of money as now. To gi\'e away so much of value at such a time is so liideous a crime that it will leave a scar upon the reputation of everybody concerned in it, no matter what that reputation has been up to the time of the infamy." 62 San Francisco After the Fire criticism. The eighteen Supervisors, seventeen of whom were within a year to confess that they had accepted bribes and all of whom were to be involved in the scandal, joined in a letter '^* to the Examiner, announc- ing that such criticism was unwarranted, and injured the city. The letter contained veiled threat that ques- tioning of the Supervisors' motives would not be tol- erated. The threat, however, intimidated nobody. Crit- icism of Ruef and the administration continued. But in spite of the hostility toward him, Ruef con- trolled the San Francisco delegates who were named that year to attend the Republican State convention. The convention met at Santa Cruz. Ruef held the bal- ance of power. He was the most sought man there. r.4 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, re- gretting the hostile stand wliich your journal has in these dis- tressing times assumed toward the rebuilding of our destroyed city, by indiscriminately attacking every vested interest and all intend- ing investments of capital in this city, respectfully submits for your consideration the propriety of joining with instead of assailing those who are in good faith and with their energy and ability striv- ing to restore and rebuild our beloved city. "Irrespective of any personal feeling caused by 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 in- tention to assist in our rebuilding and which has manifested a practical confidence in our future. Otherwise, the day will cer- tainly not be far distant when the people, realizing the result of your course, will seek to protect the city against its further con- tinuance. "In all good faith for the city's interests and without any per- sonal rancor, these suggestions are submitted to your careful at- tention. "Respectfully, James L. Gallagher, Max Mamlock. Chas. Boxton, Li. A. Rea, F. P. Nicholas, Andrew M. Wilson, Geo. F. Duffey, J. J. Furey. M. W. Coffey, Daniel G. Coleman, C. J. Harrigan, J. .T. Phil- lips, P. M. McGushin, E. I. Walsh, Sam Davis, Jas. T. Kelly, Thomas F. Lonergan, W. W. Sanderson." San Francisco After the Fire 63 He had the nomination for Governor in -his hands. He gave it to James N. Gillett.®^ While the convention was in session, a dinner was given the State leaders of the Republican party at the home of Major F>ank McLaughlin, then Chairman of the Republican State Central Committee. Ruef was one of the select few present. A flash-light picture of that banquet board shows him seated in the place of honor at the center of the table, the remaining guests with the exception of the host, McLaughlin, who is seated at Ruef's side, standing. At Ruef's back stands James N. Gillett, who had just received, with Ruef's assistance, the party nomina- tion for Governor, his hand resting upon Ruef's shoul- der. Others in this flash-light group are George Hatton, political manipulator, whose connection with the 1905 mayoralty campaign in San Francisco has already been noted ; J. W. McKinley, head of the Southern Pacific Law Department at Los Angeles, who w^as chairman of the convention ; Rudolph Herold, a politician prominent in the counsels of the old "Southern Pacific machine" ; Justice F. W. Henshaw of the California Supreme Bench, who was nominated at the convention for re- election f'^ Walter F. Parker, political agent for the 65 Ruef, in his story of his political career. "The Road I Trav- eled," states that in an interview with William F. Herrin, chief of the Southern Pacific law department, previous to the primary campaign, the necessary expenses of the primary campaign and of the primary election 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: "Her- rin paid me $14,000 for the purpose of securing for his organization the certainty of the votes of the San Francisco delegation." See San Francisco Bulletin, August 31, 1912. 66 Henshaw was re-elected, .\fter Ruef had been convicted and the Appellate Court had refused to grant him a new trial, Hen- shaw, before the briefs had been filed in the matter of the appeal 64 San Francisco After the Fire Southern Pacific Company; Warren R. Porter, who had just received the nomination for Lieutenant-Governor; Congressman J. R. Knovvland, prominent in the counsels of the "machine" that at the time dominated the State, and Judge F. H. Kerrigan of the Appellate Bench, whose decision in favor of the Southern Pacific Com- pany while on the Superior Bench, in the so-called San Joaquin Valley railroad rate case, made him a con- spicuous figure in California public life.*^ The group represented the most efifective forces at the time in California politics. Ruef, at the Santa Cruz convention, reached the height of his power. He left Santa Cruz planning a State organization that would make him as great a factor in State politics as he was at the metropolis. But on his return to San Francisco, Ruef found him- self harassed by criticism and beset by opposition. At every point in the municipal administration, with the exception of the District Attorney's offtce, was sugges- tion of graft and incompetency. The police department could not, or would not, control the criminal element. Merchants, in the middle of the day, were struck down at their places of business and robbed. Several were fatally injured in such attacks, being found dying and even dead behind their counters. Street robberies were of daily occurrence. In the acres of ash-strewn ruins, was junk worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. The police seemed from the Appellate to the Supreme Court, signed an order granting Ruef a new hearing. See Chapter XXIX. 67 See decisions in Edson vs. The Southern Pacific Co., 133 Cal. Reports and 144 Cal. Reports. San Francisco After the Fire 65 utterly powerless to protect this property. It became the loot of unchecked bands of thieves. A reign of terror prevailed. Citizens feared to ap- pear on the streets at night. Merchants charged that their business was seriously injured by these conditions. On all sides, blame was placed upon the Schmitz adminis- tration which Ruef was known to control.*'® Then again, Ruef's toll from the tolerated gambling, saloon and social evil interests was getting too heavy for his own safety.**^ The public was given hint of this when the newspapers quoted George Renner, a promi- nent businessman, as asserting that a liquor license could be secured if the applicant "put the matter into Ruef's liands and paid a fat little fee." Ruef, in his reply, stated that the liquor people were nuisances anyhow. Ruef had long acted as attorney for the California Liquor Dealers' Association. The Association, after 68 Nor was this critici.sm confined to San Francisco; it was gen- eral throughout the Stat*^. 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 tlie citizens ai-e 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." I'S Definite figures, alleged to be the graft schedule enforced in tlic San Francisco tenderloin after the fire, were published. The Chronicle of April 24, 1907, said on this score: ^ *'After the great disaster of last April, or so soon as the new tenderloin began to build up and the Barbary Coast district began to establish itself, a schedule of prices for protected vice was for- mulated. This schedule has been rigidly adhered to. In the case of houses of ill-fame, the proprietors were required to pay the po- licemen on the beat the sum of .$5, the sergeants $15, the captains $25, and the chief of police .$75 to ?100 every week for the privilege of conducting their nefarious business. The gambling houses were assessed according to their ability to pay, but the average price for police protection, according to Heney, was about the same as the houses of i)rostitution. The dives along Pacific street and in the Barbary Coast diftiict 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 .'■■imilar amount." 66 San Francisco After the Fire Ruef's flippant characterization of the liquor people, boldly dispensed with his services and employed another attorney, Herbert Choynski, in his stead. Choynski made no effort to placate Rnef. On the contrary, he gave out interviews to the press charging that Ruef had received $500,000 for the trolley permit, and that each Supervisor had been given $4000 or $5000 for his vote. This story was given some credit, although few real- ized the amount of truth it contained. The Supervisors were spending money freely. Men. who in private life had earned less than $100 a month, and as Supervisors were receiving only that amount. gave evidence of being generously supplied with funds. Supervisor Coffey, a hack driver, took a trip to Chicago. Lonergan, driver of a delivery wagon, announced plans for a tour of Ireland with his wife and children. Wil- son planned a trip through the Eastern States. The official head of the administration, IMayor Schmitz, left on a trip to Europe, leaving Supervisor Gallagher as acting Mayor."" Reports printed in San Francisco pa- pers of Schmitz, the orchestra player, as guest of the most expensive European hotels, did not tend to lessen the opposition to the administration. ■n 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 a.s one of ttie crowned heads. He thought his fame would spread throughout the v.orld 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 lion.r'. He persisted, and all my pleadings were in vain." San Francisco After the Fire 67 The general dissatisfaction with the administration finally found expression in a mass meeting intended to inaugurate a movement to rid the community of Ruef's influence. ^^ The meeting was called in the name of various promotion associations and improvement clubs. It was to have been held in the rooms of the California Promotion Association, a temporary shack that had been erected in Union Square, a public i^ark in the business district. But the crowd which gathered was so great that the meeting had to be held in the park itself. When the committee in charge met to complete final preparations, preliminary to calling the meeting to order, Ruef and Acting ]\[ayor Gallagher, with astonishing assurance, appeared before the committee and ofifered their co-operation in the work in hand. Their presence does not appear to have been welcome. Nevertheless, before the resolutions which the committee had under consideration were read before the crowd, all harsh references to Ruef and the municipal administration had been expurgated. In effect, the expurgated resolutions called upon commercial organizations, clubs, labor unions and similar bodies to form a committee of 100 for public safety. In the meeting which followed the expurgation of the resolutions, the organizers of the movement lo'-t control. Their counsel was for moderation in a situa- tion where all elements were at work. "1 At a prc-liniinary mefting of the organizp-is of this irio\onient. held in thf office of the Californiti Canners. October 10. 1906, re- sponsii)ilitv for the state of affairs in San Francisco was charged to Ruef. Tt was stated at this meeting-, and given out to the press, that convincins' evidence had been secured against Ruef wliich warranted his prosecution. 68 San Francisco After the Fire The crowd was made up of Riief claqtiers who shouted everybody down ; members of Labor Unions who had been led to believe that the purpose of the gathering was to break down the unions ; and of radi- cals who were for proceeding immediately to clean up the town. Those responsible for the gathering appeared appalled at its magnitude, and showed themselves unable to cope with the situation. William A. Doble presided. Samuel M. Shortridge, an attorney who was to play a prominent part in the graft trials, stood at Doble's side and acted as a sort of director of the proceedings. The expurgated resolutions were read by the President of the Merchants' Associa- tion, E. R. Lillienthal. The ayes were called for and the resolutions declared to have been adopted. The next moment announcement was made that the meeting stood adjourned. An angry demonstration followed. The people had met to discuss lawlessness. They refused to be put oflf. The adjourned meeting refused to adjourn. There were cries of Drive Ruef out of Town. One speaker, A. B. Truman, denounced Ruef as a grafter. For the moment an outbreak seemed imminent. At this crisis, Acting Mayor Gallagher appeared. 'T would suggest," he announced,''^ "that you dis- perse to your respective homes." 72 Acting Mayor Gallagher was emphatic in declaring that no vigilance committee should disgrace San Francisco. The interior press, which was following the San Francisco situation closely and from an independent standpoint, advised Mayor Gallagher that the best way to prevent organization of such a committee would be to enforce the laws. Said the Stockton Record: "If Acting Mayor Gallagher and his associates wish to abate the agitation in favor of a committee of safety for San Francisco. they should do less talking and take more energetic action against San Francisco After the Fire 69 Citizens who did not care to participate in what threatened to become a riot began leaving the park. But Ruef s henchmen did not leave. Ruef, who had cowered in fright when the crowd was denouncing him, was concealed in a room in the so- called Little St. Francis Hotel, which after the fire had been erected in Union Square Park. From his hiding place he could see the crowd without being seen. At the right time, he appeared on the steps of the building which were used for the speaker's stand. His followers, now in a majority, cheered him wildly. The next moment, Ruef was in control of the meeting which had been called to protest against the conditions in San Francisco, for which the administration, of which he was the recognized head, was held to be accountable/^ the thug element. The police department of the afflicted city is now virtually on trial. It is even iinder 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 con- fronting respectable citizenry." The Stockton Independent went even further. Said that paper of the San Francisco situation: "Acting Mayor Gallagher of San Francisco declares there shall be no vigilance committee and no lynching in San Francisco. If lie and the police are unable to prevent daily murders, or attempted murders, by single criminals, how can he prevent good citizens in liundreds of thousands from lynching those criminals if they catch them? Perhaps some of the purblind members of the police force may be among the first to be lynched." 73 After Ruef's capture of the Union Square meeting, Rev. P. C. Macfarlane, pastor of the First Christian Church at Alameda. said in a sermon (October 21, 1906) of the San Francisco situation: "Let a few resolute, clean-handed business men of San Fran- cisco who are not cowards, who are not quitters or grafters, get together and make a purse of twenty, fifty or a hundred thousand dollars, then employ the ablest attorney to be had and set quietly to work to find the graft and pimish 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. Schmltz 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 with- out country, expatriated by his own cowardice. This is Dr. Jekyll. "But there are some who see in Schmltz Mr. Hyde. These do 70 San Francisco After the Fire The first serious attempt to oust Ruef from his dictator- ship had failed. But while the protestants against prevailing condi- tions were hot with the disappointments of this failure. District Attorney Langdon issued a statement that he had determined to seize the opportunity presented by the impanelment of a new Grand Jury to inaugurate a systematic and thorough investigation into charges of official graft and malfeasance in office. To assist in this work, he announced. Francis J. Heney had been requested to become a regular deputy in the District Attorney's office, and had accepted. That the investi- gation might not be handicapped by lack of funds, Mr. Langdon stated Rudolph Spreckels had guaranteed that he would personally undertake the collection from pub- lic-spirited citizens of a fund to provide for the expenses necessary to make the investigation thorough.'^* It be- not give the Mayor credit for even a spasm of virtue and say tliat the great work of the morning of April 18 was done by General Funston and prominent citizens of tlieir own volition. These peo- ple say that he has now gone from San Francisco, taking with him vast sums of money gained through the granting of the trolley franchise, plotted even while the embers smoldered, and that he will never return. "The United Railroads is universally believed to have acquired its trolley franchises 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 Califor- nia. Ruef owns the Board of Supervisors. The Police Commission- ers belong to him. The saloon-keeper who wants a license, a cor- poration 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. 7* 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 im- panelment of a new grand jury, which has been set down for next San Francisco After the Fire 71 came known that William J. Burns, who had been associated with Heney in the Oregon land-fraud cases, had been retained to direct the investigation, and that for several months his agents had been quietly at work. The effect of these announcements was immediate. Wednesday by Hon. Tlionias F. Graham, the Presiding^ .Judge of the Superior Court in tlie City and County of San Francisco, to inau- gurate a systematic and thorough investigation into these condi- tions. It is my official duty to do so, and in pursuance of that duty and in view of the magnitude of the task, I liave decided to seek the best assistance obtainable. It is my purpose to set at rest these charges of official graft by either proving thein false or con- victing those who are guilty. If the charges be untrue, their falsity should be demonstrated to the world, so as to remove the impres- sions which have been circulated to the injury of tlie credit and fair jiame of the city. If they be true we should show to the coun- try that tliere is enough strength, virtue and civic pride in our people to enable the regularly constituted ma'^liinery of justice to re-establish conditions on a clean, righteous and just basis, without resort to any extraordinary expedients outside the law. This is to be an honest, fair, thorough and searching investigation. We shall protect no man. We shall persecute no man. but we shall prose- cute evei-y man who is guilty, i-egardless of position or standing in tlic city. In order that we may have the benefit of expert services hi 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 com- menced during a political campaign, but the conditions in San Francisco to-day require that radical action be taken at once, and though I may be charged with instituting this investigation at this particular juncture for political advantage. I must ask the public to judge me I)y 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 laliorious and costly. The money available under tlie appropriations made to the District Attorney's office and tlie grand jury is. of course, utterly inadequate. Often previous investigations by other grand juries have been made abor- tive because of this lack of necessary funds to meet expenses. In the present instance we shall not suffer this severe handicap. I am authorized to announce that Mr. Rudolpli 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 calami- ties of last spring; it is in danger from certainly increasing inva- sion of desperate criminals from all over the world; some of the public departments are undoubtedly in bad hands, and I appeal to my fellow-citizens to give this investigation their moral support, so that the innocent may be protected, so that the guilty may be punished, and so that San Francisco may be helped to her feet and started again on the high road of prosperity in her material condi- tions, and have restored decency, efficiency, honesty and honor in her public affairs. "W[I.I.T.\M H. LAXODON. District Attornev." 72 San Francisco After the Fire All talk of "vigilante committee" and "lynching" ceased. The case of The People of San Francisco vs. the Schmitz-Ruef Administration was to be presented in an orderly way in the courts. And the united press of San Francisco, legitimate business interests, and a great majority of the people welcomed the alternative. CHAPTER V. Graft Prosecution Opens. Three days after the announcement of his plans, District Attorney Langdon appointed Heney to a regu- lar deputyship. But even before Langdon had taken office, as early as December, 1905, Fremont Older, editor of the San Francisco Bulletin, had suggested to Heney that he undertake the prosecution of those re- sponsible for conditions in San Francisco. The Bulletin had been the most fearless and con- sistent of the opponents of the Schmitz-Ruef regime.''^ After Ruef's complete triumph at the November elec- tion in 1905, he boasted that he would break the Bulletin with libel suits. With every department of government in his control, Ruef appeared to be in a position where, even though he might not be able to make good his threat, he could cause the Bulletin much annoyance if not great financial loss. Older went on to Washington to engage Heney to 75 The persecution of the Bulletin during this period was char- acteristic of Ruef's methods and reflected the state of lawlessness which prevailed in San Francisco. R. A. Crothers, proprietor of the paper, was assaulted and badly beaten. The newsboys organ- ized into a union. The boys were sincere enough, but the move- ment was in reality engineered from the tenderloin. Soon a strike of newsboys against the Bulletin was inaugurated. Copies of the paper were snatched from the hands of citizens who purchased it. Bulletin carrier.*! 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 Bultetin. Business boycotts were at- tempted against It. 74 Graft Prosecution Opens defend the paper, should Rnef attempt to make his boast good. Heney gave Ruef's threats little credence. "I would be very glad to defend you," he told Older, "but I am afraid I'll never get a chance to earn that fee." ^« Incidentally Older stated that he believed a fund could be raised to prosecute the corrupters of the San I'^^ancisco municipal government, and asked Heney if he would undertake the prosecution, if such a fund could be secured. Heney replied that he wcnild be glad to undertake it. but stated that at least $100,000 would be required. And even with this amount. Heney pointed out to Older, all efforts would be futile, unless the District Attorney were genuinely in sympathy with the movement to better conditions. On Heney 's return to California early in 1906, Older brought him and Rudolph Spreckels '^^ and James "8 See address made by Heney before Citizens' League of .Tus- tice in October. 1908. 77 Rudolpli Spreckels, altliough connected witli large enterprises, had steadfastly refused to employ Ruef as an attorney, or to .loin witli him in any way. Given control of the San Francisco Gas Company, for example, although he was importuned to do so, Spreckels refu.«ed 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 pui-pose 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 v.'ith the T.abor Unions and the I..abor Union party. Just at the time that the bids are about to come in, T will arrange to tie up this town; we will have the biggest strike that the community has ever known. Graft Prosecution Opens 75 D. Phelan together. Heney and Spreckels met for the first time. Phelan vouched for Langdon's ^* integrity and honesty of purpose. Indeed, Langdon was already giving evidence of his independence of the Ruef organ- ization. Up to that time no attempt had been made to raise the funds necessary to conduct a practical investi- gation. Phelan stated that he would subscribe $10,000 and Spreckels agreed to give a like amount. Spreckels undertook to look the field over and expressed confi- dence that he could get twenty men who would sub- scribe $5000 each, making the $100,000 which Heney had declared to be necessary for the undertaking. The question of Heney's fee was then raised. '^^ and I would like to see any of your bankers or your capitalistic friends bid on the bonds under those circumstances, excepting yourself, those that are in the know' — words to that effect, was his expression. I said to Mr. Ruef: 'Do you mean to say, Mr. Ruef, that for the purpose of making money you would bring about a strike whicli 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 offlce." It is interesting to compare Spreckels' attitude toward Ruof with that of I. W. Hellman, as shown by Hellman's testimony at the trial of Tirey L. Ford. See footnote 7, page 15. 78 Heney. in his address on the work of the Graft Prosecution, October, 1908, paid Langdon the following high tribute: "Mr. Langdon, as soon as we laid the matter before him and convinced him it was in good faith and not to serve private inter- ests, said: 'Yes. I will appoint Mr. Heney assistant in my offlce and give him full sway to make a thorough investigation, on one abor party in the hope that they may thereby themselves secure control of the municipal administration 8o Graft Prosecution Opens From another angle, officials of public service cor- porations charged those identified with the investigation with being in league with the labor unions. In one of his statements to the public, Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads, set forth that, "I confidently expect to defeat alike the machinations of Rudolph Spreckels, his private prosecutor, with his corps of hired detectives, and Mr. Cornelius, president of the Carmen's Union, the leader of anarchy and lawlessness, and to see fairly established in this community the principles of American liberty, and the triumphs of truth and jus- tice." ^^ Then, too, there were points at which the two sup- posed extremes, corporation magnates and Labor-Union politicians, touched in their opposition to the prosecu- tion. At a meeting held on November 2, 1906, less than two weeks after Heney's appointment, John E. Bennett, representing the Bay Cities Water Company, read a paper in which Heney and Langdon were de- nounced as the agents of the Spring Valley Water Company. The Chronicle, in its issue of November 3, charged that the paper read by Mr. Bennett was type and thus work out their own will in the matter of the conditions under which lahor shall perform the task of rebuilding this city. "So far as I am concerned personally, I consider that the dis- ruption of the labor organization would be a great sacrifice of the interests of all of the people. The city must be built up; but the Citizens' Alliance and all organizations and individuals in sympathy with it may as well understand, first as last, that the work will only be done through organized labor, and not by the employment of pauper labor in competition with the mechanics and artisans of the labor unions. "That this view of the situation is well recognized by the labor organizations of the city is shown by the action of the Building Trades Council last night in approving and indorsing my action in removing Mr. Langdon." 87 Contained in a statement published May 18, 1907. See San Francisco papers of that date. Graft Prosecution Opens 8i proof of a pamphlet that was to be widely distributed, and that the proof sheets had been taken to the meeting by George B. Keane, secretary of the Board of Super- visors.*^ On the other hand, practically the entire press of the city,^^ the general public and many of the labor 88 The nature of the attacks upon the supporters of the Prosecu- tion is shown by the proceedings in the libel suit brought by the San Francisco First National Bank against the Oakland Tribune. Rudolph Spreckels was president of the bank; the Tribune was one of the stanchest of the opponents of the prosecution. The Tribune charged that the Graft Prosecution had for one of its objects the unloading of the Spring Valley Water Company's plant upon San Francisco, and that the First National Bank was burdened with Spring Valley securities. Among other things the article set forth: "The recent disclosures of the methods by which it was sought to unload Spring Valley's old junk, called a distributing system, together with its inadequate supply of inferior water, on the city at an outrageous figure by the swinging of the 'big stick' has not enhanced the value of the securities of the corporation in the view of the national examiners. Even the efforts to cloud the real pur- poses of the promoters of the Spring Valley job by calling it a civic uprising to stamp out municipal graft is said to have failed to mis- lead the Federal experts. The suggestion that the 'big stick' would force the city to purchase the plant of the decrepit corporation for $28,000,000 after its real estimate was appraised by an expert at $5,000,000 and held by the bondholders to be worth, as realty specu- lation, $15,000,000, has not enthused the Federal bank examiners in relation to the value of Spring Valley bonds as security for a national bank." The First National Bank did not hold Spring Valley Company securities. As the Tribune's charges were calculated to injure the bank, action for libel followed. At the hearings, it developed that the articles had been furnished the Tribune by the political editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, who testified that he was paid fifty dollars a week for his Tribune articles. This was more than his salary as political editor of the Chronicle. He admitted on the stand that he had heard what he stated in his article, "only as a matter of gossip." 89 The San Francisco Call, in an editorial article, printed October 22, expressed the general sentiment in San Fi'ancisco. The Call said: "San Francisco wiil 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 veri- fication or refutation. The sudden affluence of certain members of tlie Board of Supervisors, the current and generally credited reports that the United Railroads paid upward of $500,000 in bribes to prease the way of its overliend trolley franchise, the appearance of 82 Graft Prosecution Opens unions gave the prosecution unqualified endorsement, welcoming it as opportunity, in an orderly way, either to establish beyond question, or to disprove, the charges against the administration of incompetency and cor- ruption. ^° Rudolph Spreckels's statement, that "this is public 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 dis- honesty 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 prose- cutor 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 be- lieved it would ever come to anything. It was a slow business, even as the mills of the gods grind slowly, but if fine the grist of the criminal courts of Oregon is large and satisfying. "The people of San Francisco have been sorely tried. Fire and earthquake we cannot help, but the unhappy city has been made the prey of a set of conscienceless thieves who have done nothing since our great calamity beyond promoting schemes to fill their own pockets. Our streets, our sewers, our schools and our public buildings have been neglected, but the sale of permits and fran- chises, the working of real estate jobs and the market for privileges of every varietj' have been brisk and incessant. Officials have grown rich: Some of them are spending money like a drunken sailor. It is time for housecleaning and a day of reckoning. Heney and Burns will put the question: 'Where did they get it?' " 90 Bishop Montgomery, of the Roman Catholic Church, in an interview in the San Francisco Call, October 20, 1906, said in ref- erence to the San Francisco graft prosecution: "Mere accusations have been so long and so persistently made that the public has a right to know the truth; and, above all, those who are innocently so charged have a right to a public and complete vindication. 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 inan has any just right to complain. "1 believe the investigation has been undertaken in good faith for the best interests of the city, and that it will be conducted thoroughly and honestly." Graft Prosecution Opens 83 no question of capital and labor, hut of dishonesty and justice," •'' was f^cnerally accejited as true expression of the situation. Those directly connected with allegations or sug- gestion of irregular practices, issued statements dis- claiming any knowledge of irregularity or corruption. General Tirey L. Ford, chief counsel of the United Rail- roads, in a published interview,^" stated that no political boss nor any person connected with the municipal ad- 91 Mr. Spreckels' statement was contained in an interview printed in the San Francisco Call, October 28, 1906. It was as fol- lows : "This Is no question of capital and labor," he said, "but of dis- honesty and justice. There is no association of men, capitalists oi others, behind what we have undertaken, and it cannot be made a class question. No one knows that better than Ruef. And it will bo 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. "Xow. who was it that originated that meeting? Sam Short- ridge. Who was it who drew the resolutions; who was it who prompted the speakers and the chairman? It was Sam Shortridge. "Mr. Ruef says that meeting was dominated and arranged by the Citizens' Alliance. A'ery 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 beliind this movement but the desire for a clean city. It is absolutely regardless of class. Every man who owns a home, who has a family, is as much interested in what we have under- taken as is the wealthiest citizen." '.'2 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 nmnicipal 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 ofificial capacity, would undoubtedly be aware of it, would you not? A. I am certain that I would; I am. therefore, equally certain that no such thing was ever done or contemplated." 84 Graft Prosecution Opens ministration had benefited financially to the extent of one dollar in the trolley permit transaction, and that had any one profited thereby, he (Ford) in his official capacity would have known of it. Those connected with the administration were as vigorous in their de- nials.®^ Many of them expressed satisfaction at the prospect of an investigation. Supervisor Kelly went so far as to suggest that the municipality give $5000 to 93 The following are excerpts from interviews published in the San Francisco Examiner, October 23, 1906: Abraham Ruef : "I am satisfied that if Mayor Schmitz had known that this investigation was afoot he would have postponed his trip abroad and would have remained here to disprove all allegations of graft." Supervisor Andrew Wilson: "I shall be glad to welcome any in- vestigation as to my official acts or as to my official conduct. I never took a dishonest dollar in my life." Supervisor Patrick McGushin: "The more they investigate, the better I shall like it. I do not believe Mr. Heney has any evidence of graft. Speaking for myself, he can investigate me or my bank account if he likes." Acting Mayor James L. Gallagher: "So far as the administra- tion is concerned from the statements I have received, everything is straight. So far as the Police Department is concerned no one can tell. I can not tell." Supervisor Jennings Phillips: "This investigation will be a good thing. There has been so much talk of graft and so many accusa- tions that it all will be settled once and for all. If Mr. Heney has any evidence I know nothing of its nature nor against what part of the administration it is directed." Supervisor Edward Walsh: "As a Supervisor I have tried to do my best. I court an investigation. I do not pay much attention to Mr. Heney's statements. I have been here thirty-seven years and I can hold up my head, as can every other member of this Board." Supervisor Michael Coffey: "Nothing would afford me more pleasure than to have them investigate my integrity and my official acts. I hope they'll make a full and thorough investigation and clear us all of the slurs that have been cast upon us." Supervisor S. Davis: "I think there is nothing to this whole thing. If Mr. Heney can find out anything let him do it. It is hard to have insinuations cast at you. My personal connection with the administration has been straight." Supervisor F. P. Nicholas: "There has been so much noise about graft that it will be a good thing to go thoroughly into the matter. Personally I court an investigation of my official acts. If Mr. Heney has any evidence of corruption I know nothing of it." Supervisor Daniel Coleman: "These loud cries of graft that have been current of late will be silenced through this investigation. It should be thoroughly gone into so that the purity of the adminis- tration cannot hereafter be questioned." Supervisor Max Mamlock: "I do not think it is worth my while to think about this investigation. I do not see where Mr. Burns or Mr. Heney could get any evidence of graft." Graft Prosecution Opens 85 assist in the inquiry. "Let us," said Supervisor Loner- gan, "get to the bottom of this thing. These cracks about graft have been made right along, and we should have them proved or disproved at once." But in spite of this brave front, the developments of the years of resistance of the graft prosecution show the few days following Heney's appointment as Assistant District Attorney to have been a period of intense anxiety to Ruef and his immediate advisers. Ruef held daily consultations with Acting Mayor Gal- lagher, Clerk Keane. and his attorney. Henry Ach. The public knew little of these consultations, but a rumor became current that Mayor Gallagher would sus- pend District Attorney Langdon from office. Little credence was given this, however. Nevertheless, on the night of October 25 Acting Mayor Gallagher suspended Langdon from office, and appointed A.braham Ruef to be District Attorney to conduct the graft investigation.^* 94 Acting-Mayor Gallagher's order removing Langdon is printed in full in the appendix. One of the charges alleged against Langdon was that he had appointed Francis J. Heney to be his deputy for ulterior purposes. Of Heney it was alleged that he had "in a public speech in said city and county (San Francisco), aspersed the character and good name of a prominent citizen of this community (Abe Ruef), and stated that he knew him to be cor- rupt, etc." Acting-Mayor Gallagher's order of removal was made in per- suance of Sections 18 and 19 of Article XVI of the San Francisco Charter, which read as follows: "Sec. 18. Any elected officer, except Supervisor, may be sus- pended by the Mayor and removed by the Supervisors for cause; and any appointed officer may be removed by the Mayor for cause. The Mayor shall appoint some person to 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 surh suspended officer to the Board and furnish a copy of the same to said officer, who shall have the right to appear with counsel before the Bo.nrd in his defense. If liy an afflrm.itlve vote of not li^ss than 86 Graft Prosecution Opens The following morning the San Francisco Call, under a large picture of Ruef, ])rintefl the words: "THI.S MAN'S HAND GRIPS THE THROAT OF SAN FRANCISCO." fourteen members of the Board of Supervisors, taken by ayes mid noes and entered on Its record, the a^'tion of the Mayor is approved, then the suspended ofRcer shall thereby be removed from office; but if the action of the Mayor is not so approved such suspended «fflcer shall be immediately reinstated." ■--.CHAPTER VI. Ruef's Fight to Takk the District Attorney's Office. The fmpanelinjT of the Grand Jury was to have been cc)in])leted on Octo1)er 26. Heney was appointed As- sistant District Attorney on October 24. Riief. to secure control of the District Attorney's office liefore the Grand Jury could be sworn, had little time to act. But he was equal to the emergency. Gallagher removed Langdon and named Ruef as District Attorney the day after Heney 's appointment and the day before the impaneling of the Grand Jury was to have been completed. Ruef had, however, considered Langdon's suspension from the day of the District Attorney's announcement of his plans for investigating graft charges. Gallagher te.stified at the graft trials that Ruef had. several days before Langdon's suspension, notified him it might be necessary to remove Langdon from office.''^ The Act- ing Mavor expressed himself as ready to carry out whatever Ruef might want done. Gallagher testified that the names of several attor- ns Gallagher testified at the ti'ial of The People vs. Ruef. No. 14.'?7, to the conversation at Ruef's law offloes when Ruef first broached the matter of Langdon's removal, as follows: "Tlie sub- stance of the conversation was that Mr. Ruef stated that It might become necessary to remove Mr. Langdon from the office of Dis- trict Attorney, and to appoint somebody else. I replied that that was a matter for liim to make up his mind on; if he determined it bad to be done, T would do it: woids to tliat effect, I cannot give tlie exact language." 88 Fight for District Attorney's Office neys, including that of Henry Ach, Ruef's attorney and close associate, were canvassed as eligible for appoint- ment as Langdon's successor. Nothing definite was decided upon, however, until the day that Langdon's position was declared vacant. On that day, Gallagher received word from Ruef to call at his ofifice. There, according to Gallagher's statement, he found Thomas V. Gator, a member of the municipal Board of Election Commissioners. Henry Ach came in later. Ruef told Gallagher that he had decided it was nec- essary to remove Langdon, and that he had decided to take the place himself. Gallagher assured Ruef that whatever Ruef decided in the matter he, the Acting Mayor, would stand by. The papers removing Langdon had already been prepared. Gallagher read them over, for typographical errors, he states in his testimony, and signed them. The Board of Supervisors was to have met that day at 2:30 P. M. in regular weekly session. Gallagher, as Acting Mayor, was to preside. But it was well after 6 P. M. when Gallagher arrived, from Ruef's ofifice, at the council chamber. He appeared worried and disturbed. The Supervis- ors, who had been waiting for him for nearly four hours, were called to order. The communication remov- ing Langdon was read and adopted without debate or opposition.®^ Gallagher then announced that he had appointed Ruef to be Langdon's successor. 36 The San Francisco Chronicle, In Its Issue of October 26, thus describes tlie proceedings attending Langdon's removal: "Gallagher took the chair at 6:30 p. m. and there was ten min- utes' perfunctory business. "Hl.s honor .<;ppirip(l unen.'iX', lint n f (he onrct'iil pioniptins' i)f Fight for District Attorney's Ofiice 89 How completely Rnet dominated the municipal de- partments was shown by the fact that he filed his bond, his oath of office, and his certificate of appointment at the various municipal offices without hint of what was going" on reaching the public. Ruef had commanded secrecy, and secrecy was observed. After Gallagher had announced Ruef's appointment in open meeting of the Supervisors, the filing of the papers was made public. Although the Supervisors, in open board meeting, endorsed Gallagher's action without apparent hesitation, nevertheless the abler among them did so with misgiv- ings. Supervisor Wilson went straight from the meeting of the board to Ruef's office. He told Ruef that in his judgment a mistake had been made ; that the papers would call the removal of Langdon confession of guilt. ^" Secretary Keane, he called for 'communications from executive officers.' "Keane then announced, 'From his honor, the Mayor,' and read Gallagher's letter suspending District Attorney Langdon 'for neglect of duty' and sundry other 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 oppor- tunity next Thursday afternoon at 2:.'?0 o'clock to appear before the board and defend himself against the charges.' "He then recognized Sanderson, who offered a motion accepting the communication from the Mayor and directing that Langdon be directed to appear to answer. "Supervisor Wilson seconded the motion. "Upon the call for the 'ayes,' although the Supervisors usually let silence indicate their consent, there was a chorus of approval, and upon the call for the 'noes' there was dead silence. "Supervisors L. A. Rea and J. J. Furey were not present." 97 At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, page of Tran- script 2654, Wilson testified: "I told him (Ruef) that I thought it was a bad move at this time and that the papers in the morning would state it was simply a confession of guilt; and I said that I had stood there and taken my program on the matter, but I felt it would ruin my chances in the face of an election, running for Rail- road Commissioner, and he said I would feel better after I had something to eat, and we went over to Tait's and had supper. On the way over he (Ruef) sent Charlie Hagerty in to notify Mr. Heney of his removal." 90 Fight for District Attorney's Office But Rnef laughed at his fears, and to cheer him up. took him to a popular restaurant for dinner. But before leaving his ofifice. Ruef performed his first act as District Attorney. He wrote a curt note to Heney, dismissing him from the position of assistant.®^ Later in the evening he appointed as Heney's successor Marshall B. Woodworth, The order of dismissal was delivered to Heney within ten minutes. Heney's answer reached Ruef as he sat at dinner with Supervisor Wilson and Henry Ach, who had joined the group. Heney's reply was quite as pointed as Ruef's letter of dismissal. Heney stated he did not recognize Ruef as District Attorney. The battle between the two forces was fairly on. Ruef and his associates, as they sat at dinner, discussed the advisability of taking possession of the District At- torney's office that night, but concluded to wait until morning. In this Ruef sufifered the fate of many a general who has consented to delay. When morning came, District Attorney Langdon had his office under guard, and San Francisco was aroused as it had not been in a generation. Supervisor Wilson had not misjudged the interpreta- tion that would be placed upon Langdon's suspension. The Call the following morning denounced Ruef as "District Attorney by usurpation ; a prosecuting officer to save himself from prosecution." The Chronicle set forth. 98 Ruef's order dismissing- Heney was as follows: "Mr. Francis J. Heney: You are hereby removed from the posi- tion of Assistant District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco. "Dated, Ortnber 25. 1906. (Signed) A. RUEF, "Acting District Attorney." Fight for District Attorney's Office 91 in a biting" editorial article, that "as long" as they (the Riief-Schmitz combine) felt safe from prosecution, they jauntily declared that they would like to see the accusa- tions fully justified, but the instant they began to realize the possibility of being sent to San Quentin, they turned tail and resorted to a trick which every man in the community with gumption enough to form a judgment in such matters will recognize as a confession of guilt." The Examiner called the removal of Langdon and the appointment of Ruef, "the last stand of criminals hunted and driven to bay." "They have." said the Examiner, "come to a point where they will stop at nothing. . . . William H. Langre and there in the srreat concourse of peo- ple were scattered little .groups of men of the tjT>e that may be seen hangln,*>rvi.«iors at the various graft trials. 114 See footnote 95, page 87. 11.^ The passage between Heney and Ruef's lawyers which fol- Ruef Loses District Attorney's Office 109 The outcome of the proceedings was a second victory for the prosecution. The injunction against Ruef was granted ; ^^® Langdon was left in peaceful possession of the District Attorney's office. ^^^ Later, Judge Seawell issued a permanent writ of prohibition against the Board of Supervisors restraining that body from removing Langdon from office. Langdon and his deputies, after a three-weeks fight, were free to proceed with the graft investigation. lowed Judge Seawell's ruling- is thus set forth in the San Francisco Chronicle of November 3rd: " 'You can ask Mr. Ruef if he is guilty of any crimes or felonies,' Ach suggested to Heney. " 'I suppose he'll plead guilty here?' responded Heney skepti- cally. "Samuel M. Shortridge, of Ruef's legal staff, took this remark to heart and hotly said to Heney, 'You'll plead guilty before he does.' The Judge informed Shortridge that Heney obviously spoke in jest, but Shortridge thought It a poor joke. Ruef considered Heney's whole proceeding a joke." 116 Judge Seawell in his decision said: "I am clearly of the opinion that the Charter, in so far as it relates to removal and suspension, does not apply to the District Attorney. I am firmly convinced that neither the Mayor nor the Board of Supervisors has any power to remove or suspend him. The District Attorney should not be left to the investigation of the municipal authorities. I can conceive how he might be com- pelled to proceed against the very persons who might be conduct- ing an inquiry. I will grant the injunction as prayed for against Mr. Ruef." 117 A movement to secure Heney's dismissal from the District Attorney's office, on the ground that he had accepted a fee in addition to his salary as Assistant District Attorney, to act as prosecutor was started. But the allegation was not sustained and another failure was scored by the defense. CHAPTER IX. RUEF AND SCHMITZ InDICTED. Within twenty-four hours after organizing, the Grand Jury had begun investigation into graft charges. Ten- derloin extortion, especially in connection with the so- called "French Restaurants," was the first matter taken up. The inquiry involved both Schmitz and Ruef. The term "French Restaurant" in San Francisco is used in connection with a particular type of assigna- tion house. These establishments contain a restaurant on the ground floor, and sometimes banquet hall and private rooms without assignation accompaniments. The stories overhead are devoted to private supper bedrooms. Some of these assignation places are several stories in height. Before the fire, among the establishments al- leged to be "French Restaurants" were Marchand's, Delmonico's. the New Poodle Dog, the Bay State and the Pup. The extent of the business conducted by these places is indicated by the testimony of A. B. Blanco, who stated under oath at the graft trials that he had $2CX),000 invested in the New Poodle Dog. while Joe Malfanti testified that he had about $400,000 invested in Delmonico's.^" French Restaurants had long been a scandal in San Francisco. Toward the close of 1904, the Police Com- 118 See Transcript on Appeal The People of the State of Cali- fornia vs. Eugene B. Schmitz, pp. 500 and 557. Ruet and Schniitz Indicted 1 1 1 mission, then absolutely under domination of Schmitz and Ruef, gave evidence of proceeding against such places. The commission, as a beginning, revoked the liquor license of a "French Restaurant" known as Tor- toni's. Without a license to sell liquor a "French Res- taurant" could not continue in business. These licenses had to be renewed once every three months. The Police Commission had arbitrary power to grant, or to refuse, application for renewal. One by one renewal applica- tions of other French Restaurants were held up. It became a matter of common report that all the "French Restaurants" were to be treated as Tortoni's had been, namely, driven out of business by having their licenses to sell liquors revoked. And then Abe Ruef appeared before the Police Com- missioners as attorney for the "French Restaurant" keepers."'' Ruef asked that consideration of the French Restaurant cases be postponed for two weeks. This was accorded him. Rut his request that during those two weeks the places be permitted to conduct their business as before, namely, that they be allowed to sell liquors 119 Ruef stated that he appeared as attorney for the French Restaurant Keepers' Association. But tliose who paid him the money for his efforts in this instance testified at the trial of The People vs. Kug'ene 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 .TANl'ARY 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 Fran- cisco 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 tim« 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. 190f). (See Honev's affidavit in the c^se of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, et als.. No. S23, pp. 141 to 143, inclusive.) 112 Ruef and Schmitz Indicted in the private supper bedrooms, was denied by a tie vote, two commissioners of the four voting for Ruef and two against him. Before the two weeks' extension of time which Ruef had secured had expired, Mayor Schmitz had removed from office one of the commissioners who had opposed ^^° Ruef's request that the sale of hquors in "French Res- taurant" bedrooms be continued. The opposing commissioner out of the way, the board by a vote of two to one, adopted certain rules submitted by Ruef for the management of French Restaurants.^^^ By the same vote, the commission then granted the French-Restaurant licenses, action upon which had so long been delayed. All this was done before the public. There were, of course, charges of graft and extortion, which most peo- ple, although without definite proof, believed. Heney, nearly a year later, in his speech in the Partridge campaign, referred to in a previous chapter, charged graft. A Grand Jury had made ^"^ an honest attempt to get to the bottom of the scandal. The efforts of this early Grand Jury came to nothing. 120 Commisioner Harry W. Hutton. 121 These Ruef-provided rules directed that no liquors be served in supper bedrooms on the first and second floors of tlie establish- ments, and required tlie French restaurants to take out hotel licenses and to keep registers the same as hotels. What the keepers of the places thought of the regulations came out at the Schmitz trial. Joe Malfanti of Delmonico's, for example, testified: "They (the Ruef rules) made no change in the running of my business — not a single change. I had a hotel license for years before and I always had a register, so there was no change in my place whatever." 122 The Andrews Grand Jury, named from its foreman, T. P. Andrews. The work of the Andrews Grand Jury was not lost, however. It served as basis for much of the investigation con- ducted by the Oliver Grand Jury. Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 113 The Oliver Grand Jury had not been in session a fortnight, however, before the whole miserable story of Ruef's connection with the French Restaurant cases had been spread before it. Thomas Regan, who had served as Police Commis- sioner during the Schmitz administration, testified that as early as the summer of 1904 Schmitz had told him that the "French Restaurants" were bad places and should not be permitted to exist. When Tortoni's was closed, Schmitz stated to Regan, according to Regan's testimony, that the French Restaurants were all run alike, and should all be closed. Acting upon the Mayor's suggestion, the Police Commission ordered the investi- gation into the methods of the French Restaurants which created such a sensation in San Francisco during the closing months of 1904. Licenses were denied in some cases. In others, hearings of applications for renewals were postponed from time to time. Some proprietors were called upon to show cause why their licenses should not be revoked. Of all of which, Commissioner Regan testified, he kept Mayor Schmitz informed. The course of the commission threw the keepers of the French Restaurants into a panic. Their attorneys found themselves helpless and could give their clients no encouragement. Marcus Rosenthal, for example, who ap- peared before the commission on January 3, 1905, on be- half of the Bay State Restaurant, testified at the Schmitz trial, that he was not permitted to say anything ; that the commissioners would not listen to him, nor hear testi- mony. After that meeting he had advised his client, and a little group of "French Restaurant" keepers who 114 Ruef and Schmitz Indicted had gathered about him, that it would be useless for them to appeal to any court, because under the law there could be no review of the action of the Police Commissioners ; that the commission could arbitrarily dispose of any saloon-keeper, and he could not seek remedy in the courts. And then, having explained the situation fully, Rosen- thal told them, what every observer in San Francisco knew, "There is only one man who could help you, and that is Mr. Ruef." ^^^ The French Restaurant keepers received this advice from all sides. Joe Malfanti testi- fied at the Schmitz trial that "numerous friends advised me to see Ruef." And to Mr. Ruef the "French Restaurant" keepers finally found themselves compelled to go — at the virgent suggestion of a fellow French Restaurant keeper, Jean Loupy. Loupy was proprietor of the French Restaurant known as the "Pup." At Loupy's place Ruef maintained a sort of headquarters. There he took his dinner prac- tically every night, entertained friends and received his henchmen. Ruef had from time to time acted as Loupy's attor- ney. He had also loaned Loupy money. At the time 123 Rosenthal testified at the Schmitz trial: "I told them from my observations and how things were going- in the city and had been going for some years, that there was only one man who could help them — it was a question of life and death with them— and I said there is 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. Ruct and Schmitz Indicted 115 of the French Restaurant troubles, Loupy, according to his testimony, owed Ruef $1000. When the closing of the French Restaurants seemed inevitable, this Loupy brought word to the French Res- taurant proprietors that Ruef would represent them all before the Police Commission for $7000 a year,^^* on a contract for two years. The sum was finally cut to $5000/==^ $10,000 for the two years. For the first year "Marchand's," "Delmonico's," "The New Poodle Dog" and the "Bay State" paid $1175 each. Loupy for the "Pup," on the grounds that he had been put to considera- ble expense and was a poorer man than the others, paid only $300.^26 124 N. M. Adler, proprietor of the Bay State Restaurant, testified at tlie Schmitz trial as to Loupy's negotiations. Loupy called upon him twice. "The first time he came." Adler testified, "he told me that things were very serious, and we would have to put up some money and hire Mr. Ruef; that he was the only man that could help us. I told him that I could not understand the proposition; that I had run my business for twenty years, and didn't think that they could do me any harm. At that time Ruef was making his headquarters at the Pup restaurant. I could see that from my place across the street. He went there regularly." Then Adler testified to the meeting before the Police Commis- sioners at which his attorney, Rosenthal, had not been permitted to speak, and continued: "Afterwards, Loupy came to me again, and told me that Tortoni had closed up, and that we should put up the money or we would be all closed. This was after we had been to the meeting of the Police Commissioners." 125 The testimony 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 addi- tional from Cam.ille Mailhebeau. Ruef stated to Henev later and so testified at the Schmitz trial, that half of the $8000 received from the combine he turned over to Schmitz. 120 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 Vtoss we thought he had infiuence enough to get our licenses." N. M. Adler, of the "Bay State"— "Well, the way I took it, Mr. Ruef is a boss. ITe had an influence over the commission. He was the only man who could help us." On cross-examination: "I understood that if I did not employ Ruef I would not get my ii6 Ruef and Schmitz Indicted The money being paid over to Ruef,"^ Ruef ap- peared before the PoHce Commissioners, as has already been told, with his plan for regulating the French Res- taurant business in San Francisco. Ruef's arrangements with the French Restaurant license. I understood that Mr. Ruef was the only man who could get my license." Michel Debret of "Marchand's" — "Well, I agreed to (pay the money to Ruef) because having consulted we saw we had no way to get out of it unless we paid Ruef, as he was a political boss, to protect ourselves." "Because we thought^we thought if we didn't pay the money we would be treated like Tortoni's, we would be closed; we had no way to get out of it." "I believed that Ruef and the Mayor controlled the Police Commissioners." Joe Malfanti of "Delmonlco'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 thi-ough with it and I did it as a favor. If I was alone I would close. I would not make any fight. Numerous friends advised me to see Ruef." "I went to Ruef — Ruef was the man that controlled the administra- tion — Ruef was the one that could do the thing. His relation with the Mayor was so he could do what he pleased." Jean Loupy was asked by Heney: "Did you go to him (Ruef) because he was a lawyer or because he was a political boss?" "Because he was a political boss," replied Loupy. 127 Ruef would not take a check, neither would he accept gold — he insisted upon having currency — neither would he give a re- ceipt. The money was taken to him by Pierre Prlet, 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 — Prlet said the money should be brought there In currency and paid with two people. "Q. Did Priet get you a receipt? A. I don't think he ever looked for any. I asked him about that when he came back. He said: 'Well, you should be glad to get his word of honor.' That is what I got from Priet." Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 117 keepers were concluded during the first week jn January. Police Commissioner Regan testified that sometime after January 3, Mayor Schmitz asked him to vote to restore the French Restaurant licenses. ^^^ Regan objected on the ground that it was not right to ask him to vote first one way and then another. With Commissioners Regan and Hutton voting against issuing the licenses, the li- censes could not be granted. Either Hutton or Regan had to change their attitude, or one of them had to be removed from office. Police Commissioner F. F. Poheim testified at the Schmitz trial that at a conference on the. French Restaurant problem held early in January. 1905, which he and Schmitz attended. Schmitz announced : "We will have to give these people (the French Res- taurant proprietors) their licenses if we can. If we cannot do anything else we will have to remove Hutton." And during the week following Ruef's first appear- ance before the commissioners as representative of the French Restaurants, Mayor Schmitz removed Hutton.^^^ 128 Regan testified at the Schmitz trial: "The Mayor asked me to vote for the French liquor licenses. The first time he did so he put it on political grounds. He re- quested me to vote for them, saying it would hurt him politically if the license was not granted; and that they had so many friends and so many rich people frequented those places that it would be a very unpopular thing to take the licenses away, and he re- quested me to vote for them. That it would be unpopular to take them, the licenses, away, as they, the restaurants, had so many friends and so many rich people frequented the places. I said I didn't think it was right, that he knew he got me to close those places up. That I could not vote for them, as they were immoral and should be closed. The second conversation was all of the same tenor." 129 Commissioner Poheim took papers from Ruef's oflfice to the Mayor on the day of Hutton's removal. Poheim testified at the Scl'.mltz trial: "I took papers from Mr. Ruef's ofRce that I believe were th« pnpers of removal. TTe told me that they were. That was the day of Ifiiitiin's removal." ii8 Ruef and Schmitz Indicted The licenses were then issued to the "French Restaurant" keepers. ^^^ Much of the story of these transactions was presented to the Grand Jury. But the evidence was not secured without effort. Many of the witnesses were unfriendly; others afraid of the consequences of frank statement of facts. Witnesses disappeared and could not be found. Several known to have testified were threatened and even assaulted. One French Restaurant keeper, before the investigation had been concluded, had been indicted for perjury. Three attorneys who were more or less in touch with the tenderloin situation had been cited for contempt for refusing to answer questions put to them in the Grand Jury room. But point by point the evi- dence was presented. 130 The Chronicle in its issue of February 1, 1907, thus sum- marized the evidence against Schmitz and Ruef, and the nature of their defense: "Those operations are these: Tliere are in this as in all other cities certain dens of vice, rang^ing 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 covild not have continued business. The reve- nues thus obtained were evidently the sources of Schmitz's sud- denly acquired wealth. Presumably some small share was paid to the subordinates. "Certainly that is extortion, and extortion of the most villainous kind. To the ordinary reader it Is completely covered by the lan- guage of the statute. The contention of Ruef and Schmitz is not that they did not get the money, or that it was not a villainous thing, but merely that It was not a villainy expressly forbidden by statute, and that therefore to indict them for it is 'persecution.' If there are any people in the city who uphold or condone such things they are no better than Ruef or Schmitz themselves." Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 119 The Grand Jury, on the evidence, indicted Schmitz and Ruef on five counts for extortion. ^^^ Bonds were fixed at $10,000 on each charge, $50,000 for each de- fendant. Ruef '^- was released on $50,000 bail. 131 The press throug-liout the State was a unit in approving the Grand .Iiirv"s action. Tl.e 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 tiiat there was an uneasy feeling in the community that the machinations of the boss would again se- cure immunity for himself and those who were with him in the 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 apprehen- sion and converts it into confidence that the body now in session is in deadly earnest and that it will earn the gratitude of its fel- low citizens and cover itself with glory by striking an effective blow which will put an end to flagrant venality in offlce and re- store the good name of San Francisco." The San Francisco Examiner said of the Indictment of Schmitz and Ruef: "The light breaks, the reign of political terror seems at an end. Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz and Abe Ruef, his mentor and master, have been indicted for extortion. The move of polit- ical regeneration and civic reform that has been sweeping the country has hit San Francisco with the force of all the other suc- cesses behind it. In other cities and other States the powerful rascols as well as their satellites have been sent to prison. Evi- dently San Francisco and California are to rid themselves of the arch political criminals. . . . Thursday, November 15, 1906 (the day on which Ruef and Schmitz were indicted), is a day to be re- membered. It marks the beginning of San Francisco's regenera- tion. It is a day of heroic events to be told to children and grandchildren. It is the day of the declaration of independence of California's great metropolis." 132 Ruef denounced his indictment as absurd, insisting that he had merely taken fees for services rendered. In an interview pub- lished in the San Francisco Chronicle of November 16, 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 base- less. 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 i)UPstlon is about to be settled." I20 Ruef and Schmitz Indicted Schmitz, the day after the indictments were brought, was reported to have started for home from Europe. Schmitz's probable reception on his arrival at New York apparently gave keen anxiety at San Francisco. Heney states that Justice F. W. Henshaw called at his ( Heney 's) office and asked Heney, as a favor, to tell him whether Schmitz would be arrested upon his arrival in New York, as William J. Dingee of the Contra Costa Water Company, wanted to arrange for Schmitz's bail in New York City. William F. Herrin of the Southern Pacific Company is credited with interesting himself in Schmitz's behalf in arranging for the bond that was furnished when Schmitz reached San Francisco. Schmitz's bond was furnished by Dingee and Thomas Williams, president of the New California Jockey Club. The New California Jockey Club operated the notorious Emeryville racing and gambling establishment. Mr. Dingee was at the time one of California's most promi- nent capitalists. CHAPTER X. Fight to Evade Trial. The indictments against Schmitz and Ruef were re- turned November 15. Schmitz reached San Francisco on his return from Europe on November 29.^^^ He at once joined with Ruef in the fight to prevent the issue raised by his indictment being presented to a trial jury. 133 On his arrival in New York after being Indicted for extortion In the French Restaurant cases, Mayor Schmitz in an interview widely published at the time gave his attitude toward the French Restaurants. The Mayor explained that these restaurants had ex- isted so long- in the city that they had become a recognized adjunct of a gay life of a gay town. He had not favored their suppression, and whenever the Police Commissioners agitated the revoking of their liquor licenses, he had opposed them. "The French restaurants did no great harm," he is quoted as saying, "and to destroy them would be to ruin the men who had invested money in them." The character of some of the heavy in- vestors in these establishments was brought out in the report of the commission appointed by Mayor E. R. Taylor to ascertain causes of municipal corruption in San Francisco, as disclosed by the investigations of the Oliver Grand Jury. The report set forth: "The business (of the French restaurants) is very prosperous, and, as is usual, the landlord shares in its prosperity. People of social prominence were known to accept a portion of the profits of such establishments, througli the extremely liberal rentals paid, and the system is received with easy toleration. One of tlie 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 tlie private supper bedrooms. The land was owned in trust by one of the largest, if not the largest, trust com- pany in the West. A lease was sought and obtained by a man no- torious in the line of business above described; the building was constructed by the trust company according to plans satisfactory to him for this purpose, and the enterprise was conducted there for seven years until the building was destroyed by fire. The signifi- cant thing about such a transaction is, not that there are people wh» are willing to accept money from sucli 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 sliare of the profits, while the ofllcer of the trust company whicli made the lease of that particular house situated in the shopping district, was appointed a regent of the State University." 122 Fight to Evade 7>ial The two defendants were to have been arraigned on December 3, but at their earnest solicitation arraign- ment ^^* was continued until December 6. On that day the plans of the defendants became ap- parent. It was seen that they would divide the defense, demanding separate trials ; and it was quite as evident that their first move would be an attack upon the validity of the Grand Jury. Attorneys Frank C. Drew and John J. Barrett ap- peared for Schmitz, while Ruef was represented by Samuel M. Shortridge and Henry Ach. At the close of the proceedings, Ach asked that subpoenas be issued for the members of the Grand Jury to appear in court the following Monday to testify for the defendants. This meant the examination of the Grand Jurors for bias. 134 During the reading of the first of the five indictments, Schmitz stood, but Ruef remained seated. When the second indict- ment was read, both the defendants Icept their seats. Heney de- manded to know what was going on. Judge Dunne announced that the arraignment must proceed as in ordinary cases. During the reading of the remaining indictments both defendants remained standing, but Ruef kept his back turned toward the coxirt. Com- menting upon this incident, the Chronicle, in its issue of December 8, 1906, said in an editorial article: "In Judge Dunne's court a rogue on trial insolently refused to stand and be arraigned like any other criminal, apparently on the assumption that a political boss was above the courts. He was finally compelled to stand and let his shame be seen. He sat, how- ever, through one arraignment, and the people have reason to com- plain that the trial Judge did not earlier enforce the respect due to the majestj' of the law. In another instance there is a more grave offense. A lawyer presumed to bandy words with the Judge on the bench, and is reported to have said to the Court in a loud and insolent tone, evincing evident disrespect, 'And I have heard con- siderable oratory from you.' Nothing was done about it, and Judge Dunne owes it to the people to explain why he did not promptly commit the insolent fellow to jail. The Judge on the bench repre- sents the 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." Fight to Evade Trial 123 The long technical fight to disqualify the Grand Jury had opened. ^^' In the attack upon the Grand Jury, Joseph C. Camp- bell joined with Schmitz's attorneys, Drew and Barrett, while Frank J. Murphy and Charles H. Fairall appeared with Shortridge and Ach for Ruef. Ach, in moving to set aside or quash the indictments, stated that the motion was made for Schmitz and Ruef jointly, but that the defendants reserved the right to plead and to be tried separately. 135 The attack upon the Grand Jury had, however, been begun the day before, and was progressing in another department of the court even as Ruef and Schmitz were arraigned. Investigation into graft conditions had by this time got beyond the tenderloin. Sev- eral minor indictments had been brought. Supervisor Fred P. Nicholas had been indicted for accepting a bribe of $26.10. As chairman of the Public Building and Grounds Committee, the Grand Jury found he had accepted a 10 per cent, commission on $261 worth of furniture purchased for the city. Several witnesses had been indicted for perjury in connection with the graft in- vestigation. That the investigation was going far was now con- ceded. The defense concentrated to disqualify the Grand Jury. On behalf of Nicholas and Duffy, the Grand Jurors were haled into Judge William P. Lawlor's court December 5, the day before Schmitz and Ruef were arraigned. The defendants were repre- sented by Frank J. Murphy, who was to play a prominent part in the graft defense. The following taken from the examination of Foreman B. P. Oliver, as printed in the San Francisco Chronicle of December 7, is a fair sample of the nature of the inquiry: "Did you say to anyone that this is just the beginning of the investigation of municipal corruption?" "I have said that from the statements I have heard in the Grand Jury room that the corruption of the municipal administration was so great that the present Grand Jury could hardly expect to make any impression upon it. As to when and where I made that state- ment I cannot tell," replied Oliver, who proceeded: "As to myself, the mere testimony I have heard in the Grand Jury room has filled me with horror and disgust." "Does it fill you with such horror that you believe everyone con- nected with tlie 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, abso- lutely so, for I have a conscience." "You feel that your conscience would enable you to act fairly?" "I do. If I erred at all it would be on the other side, so as to be sure that I did tlie accused no injustice." This examination went on for several days. The ."ame examina- tion of the Grand Jurors followed in the case of Ruef and Schmitz, and was repeated for the third time on behalf of public-service cor- poration agents who were indicted later. 124 Fight to Evade Trial Ach's motion was based on nineteen counts. The point most insisted upon was that Grand Juror Wallace Wise was disqualified because, of his having been on a petty trial jury panel during the current year. Wise, being thus disqualified, Ach argued, the whole indict- ment failed as much as though the whole nineteen Grand Jurors were disqualified.^^* Judge Dunne, after a three days' hearing, swept aside the multitude of technical objections which the va- rious attorneys for the defense had advanced. In par- ticular did he refuse to declare the whole nineteen Grand Jurors disqualified, because of the alleged dis- qualification of Juror Wise. The prosecution had gained another point in its fight to bring the defendants to trial on the merits of their cases. But the attack upon the Grand Jury had scarcely begun. After Judge Dunne's ruling, the nineteen Grand Jurors were to be put on the stand and examined one by one for bias.^^^ The defense went further, and had 136 The question of the eligibility of Grand Juror Wise was finally decided by the State Supreme Court in the matter of the application of A. Ruef for a writ of habeas corpus (150 California, p. 665.) The Court held that the presence on the Grand Jury of a member who had served and been discharged as a juror by a court of record within a year of the time that he had been summoned and impaneled to act as a grand juror does not affect the validity of an indictment found by the Grand Jury. 137 The Chi-onicle, in its issue of December 18, 1906, said of the attack upon the Grand Jury: "The fact that the felons whom we are trying to convict are officials has nothing to do with their demonstration of the fact that it is impossible, under the laws, to put thieves in the penitentiary, when there is a large band rounded up at one time and they all fight. Under our laws the half-dozen rascals who have already been Indicted for their share in the orgy of official plunder in this city can block our criminal courts. The disgraceful farce of putting the Grand Jurors and the District Attorney on trial instead of the scoundrels who have been indicted can apparently be protracted for weeks. Happily the Legislature meets early next month, and If Fight to Evade Trial 125 Rudolph Spreckels up to question him as to his motives in guaranteeing a fund for the investigation of graft conditions. ^^^ District Attorney Langdon was also placed on the stand to be examined as to his motive in appointing Heney his assistant. He denied most em- phatically that he had appointed Heney for the sole pur- pose of instituting criminal proceedings against Ruef and Schmitz. The examination of Grand Jurors, prosecutors and citizens lasted from December 17 until January 22. On the last named date, Judge Dunne denied the motion to set aside the indictments for bias. The prosecution had gained another step toward bringing the defendants to trial. Judge Dunne stated that he was ready to set the cases for trial the next day. But the defendants had it does not pvit a speedy end to it we are mistalcen. We are get- ting an object lesson whicli, perhaps, was needed. The whole mis- erable machinery of obstruction must be swept away. Whoever is indicted by a Grand Jury must go to trial, unless, in the opinion of the trial Judge, extraordinary conditions indicate that some Inquiry .•should be made to be conducted solely by himself. The public will be satisfied with nothing short of that, nor will it be satisfied with that. The abuses of appeal must be ended." 138 Mr. Spreckels testified in part as follows: "I am not inter- ested in the downfall of any man. either Eugene E. Schmitz or Abraham Ruef. I did guarantee the sum of ?100,000 to detect any wrongdoing whatsoever in the city of San Francisco. I indicated that to Mr. Heney. I cannot recollect ns to dates, but I think it was a short while before ttie commencement of these proceedings. It was since the calamity of April IS. 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 be'^n generally stated. Some of the things I had known of myself. I knew there was an effort made in tlie city here of doing things in the past. JTr. Ruef. himself, had had a conversation with me which indicated that he was in a position to do certain things, and knowing these things I was willing that an investigation should proceed to the bottom, and to furnish the money necessary to col- lect the evidence. I have stated publicly relative to this fund of ?100,000." 126 Fight to Evade Trial another delaying play. They demurred to the indict- ments. The demurrers were not disposed of until Feb- ruary 18. In the meantime, the defense had made several com- plicating moves. The first of these was an application to Judge Graham to have the case against Schmitz transferred from Judge Dunne's court. At the same time Schmitz surrendered himself to the SheriflF, and applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas cor- pus, and a writ of prohibition, setting up the points already raised in Judge Dunne's court against the indict- ments. The Supreme Court finally decided against Schmitz. But there remained another way of having the case transferred from Judge Dunne's court. The law gov- erning changes of venue could be changed by the Legis- lature. The 1907 Legislature had convened early in Jan- uary. A measure was introduced in both Senate and Assembly under the terms of which a defendant in a criminal action was permitted to secure a transfer of his case from one court to another by merely filing affidavit of his belief that he could not get fair trial in the court in which his case was pending.^^" The measure was isn The San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of January 17, 1907, said of the Change of Venue hill: "Assemblyman Grove L. Johnson of Sacramento, and Senator L. A. "Wright of San Diego, have introduced identical bills which pro- vide in brief, that in any criminal trial the accused may displace the Judge upon his mere affidavit that he 'believes he cannot have a fair and impartial trial.' Upon the filing of such an affidavit the services of some other Judge must be secured, provided that in counties having more than one department of the Superior Court the case shall be transferred to some other department of the same county. The bill provides that the act shall take effect immediately upon its passage. The obvious intent of the law is to enable the indicted boodlers of this city to select the Judge who shall try them, to set aside all that has thus far been done to get them before a jury and have their cases retried from the beginning." Fight to Evade Trial 127 known as the "Change of Venue Bill." Its chief sup- porter in the Legislature was George B. Keane. Keane was not only clerk of the Board of Supervis- ors, but he was a member of the State Senate represent- ing a San Francisco district. Keane championed the "Change of Venue Bill." ^■'^ The measure passed the Assembly, but failed of passage in the Senate. Ruef in his efforts to escape trial before Judge Dunne had lost again. Early in February, when the efforts of Schmitz and Ruef to evade trial were being pressed the hardest, agita- tion against the Japanese gave Schmitz opportunity not 140 Ruef had, as early as 1904, secured a hold on the State Leg- islature, by putting up and elcting a Union Labor 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 ques- tions 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, Julv 6, 1912. Keane, at the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, admitted that he had supported "The Assembly bill providing for changes of place of trial In certain cases," at the special request of Ruef. See transcript on appeal, part 3, book 1, pages 442-3. Keane was also active in the advocacy of other measures changing the law govern- ing criminal cases. One of these practically forbade public comment on a criminal trial from the impaneling of the Grand Jury until the rendering of the verdict. Commenting upon this anti-publicity bill, E. H. Hamilton, in a dispatch from Sacramento to the San Francisco Examiner, published in that paper March 5,' 1907, said: "This hill 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 v.'as passed, and brought up the matter to-day, asking that the bill be given a free discussion before it was acted Tipon. He showed that it was directly in opposition to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State, because it was aimed directly at the freedom of the press and in- tended to prevent newspapers from publishing accounts of criminal trials. "Senator Sanford of Mendocino said that it was an attempt to muzzle the press and to prevent people from ascertaining what was going on in criminal lawsuits, but the Senate refused to reconsider the vote by which it had passed the unconstitutional bill." Keane also pressed an amendment to the codes to prevent sten- ographers and bookkeepers testifying against their employers. Dur- ing the discussion in the Senate Committee on the Change of Venue bill, Keane offered an amendment to make this measure take effect immediately. 128 Fight to Evade Trial only to absent himself from the State, thus bringing the proceedings so far as they applied to him, to a standstill, but to restore his prestige. Schmitz was quick to avail himself of the situation. The question of admitting Japanese to California schools was then under consideration at Washington. A request was extended the San Francisco Board of Education, through California Congressmen, that the members of the board go to Washington for confer- ence with the government authorities. Members of the board held consultation with Schmitz, after which word was circulated about the State that in defense of the public schools against the Japanese, Schmitz must, on behalf of San Francisco and California, go to Washing- ton. A telegram was received from Congressman Julius Kahn, a close supporter of Ruef and Schmitz, who rep- resented a San Francisco district in Congress, stating that "at the request of the President and Secretary of State we ask you to come here immediately for a con- ference with them and the California delegation." Schmitz started for Washington on February 3."^. He was absent from San Francisco until March 6. He did not, however, as had been predicted, return amid popular acclaim. The outcome of the Washington nego- tiations was not satisfactory to California. There was 141 On the way across San Francisco Bay to take the train at Oakland, in the words of newspaper reports of the incident, mem- bers of Mayor Schmitz's personal following who accompanied him, "were frankly delighted with the prospect of the indicted Mayor returning from the national capital covered with glory, and ac- claimed the savior of the country from a war with Japsn." 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." Fight to Evade Trial 129 popular belief that the Mayor's mission had failed. At the State line Schmitz received the startling- word that Ruef was a fugitive from justice; that Sheriff O'Neil had failed to discover the fugitive's whereabouts and had been disqualified. During the month of his absence from San Francisco, the Mayor was soon to learn, events of tremendous importance to himself and to his admin- istration had occurred. CHAPTER XL RuEF A Fugitive. Three months ^*^ after his indictment in the "French Restaurant" extortion cases — three months of continuous fighting to evade the issue — Ruef found his last technical obstruction, as far as the State courts were concerned, swept away, and was forced to enter his plea to the charge contained in the indictment. He pleaded "not guilty." His trial was set for March 5. Up to the day before the date fixed for the trial to begin, nothing had come up to indicate further delay. On March 4, however, Ruef's bondsmen surrendered him into the custody of the Sheriff. Ruef then applied to Superior Judge J. C. B. Hebbard for a writ of habeas corpus. The application was based on the allegation dealt with in a previous chapter, that Grand Juror Wise was ineligible, because he had been drawn as a trial juror within a year before the impanelment of the Grand Jury of which he was a member. On the ground that Wise was ineligible for Grand Jury service, Ruef's attorneys contended, their client's restraint was in viola- tion of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the Federal Constitution, thereby raising a Federal issue and paving the way for appeal to the Federal courts. 1^2 Ruef and S<"hmitz were indii^ted November 15, 1906. The date of nuef s plea of "Not guilty" v."as February 18, 1907. Ruef a Fugitive 131 In opposing Ruef's new move, Hiram W. Johnson/*^ who had been employed to assist the District Attorney in the "graft" prosecution, pointed out that the cases named in the petition were pending in a co-ordinate branch of the Superior Court; that they were set for trial the following day; that the points, including the Federal points, had been made subject of extensive argu- ments before Hebbard's colleague. Judge Dunne, and in the course of those arguments every question pre- sented in the proceedings had been passed upon. Ach, representing Ruef. denied that the Federal ques- tion had been presented. Johnson insisted that it had. An unfortunate scene followed. ^^^ Hebbard showed symptoms of intoxication. Johnson, Langdon and Heney finally refused to participate further in the pro- ceedings and walked out of the courtroom. ^^'^ 143 Hiram W. Johnson Is a native of California, having been born at Sacramento. He was educated at the Sacramento public schools and the University of Cnlifornia. At twenty-one he had been admitted to practice at the Cnlifornia bar. He was active for years a.arainst 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 asrainst the political machine which dominated the State. As primary candi- date for Republican nomination for Governor, he visited practically everv community in California, makinar one pledcre 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 ele-^tion resulted in political revolution in California. CSee "Storv of the California Tyesrislature of 1911" and "Story of the Cali- fornia Tyesrislature 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 over- whelming vote .Tobnson is the first Governor since 1853 to secure re-election in California. 144 See Heney's affidavit in The People vs. Ruef, No. S23. 14.5 "Again we protest." said Johnson \^'hen the final break came, "in behalf of the District Attornev of this citv 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. T\'e T'n'll not participate in anv proceeding which does not. accord- ing to our ideas, comport with the dignity of justice, the dlgriity of this court, or our own dignity." 132 Ruef a Fugitive The withdrawal of the District Attorney and his assistants did not delay Judge Hebbard's decision. He denied the writ Ruef prayed for, but he allowed an appeal from his order to the Supreme Court of the United States, and admitted Ruef to bail pending that appeal. One of Ruef's attorneys filed the writ of error issued by Judge Hebbard with the clerk of the Federal Circuit Court. May 2 was set as the date for the appearance on the writ of error before the United States Supreme Court at Washington.^*® The Aetna Indemnity Company had furnished Ruef's bond. This company surrendered Ruef to the Sheriff in the forenoon. In the afternoon it furnished the bail that had been imposed by Judge Hebbard. Ruef, in Hebbard's order granting him opportunity to take his case to the Federal Courts, had basis for fur- ther struggle in the courts to evade trial. But he under- took a new move. After leaving Hebbard's courtroom on the afternoon of March 4, Ruef dropped out of sight as completely as though the earth had opened and swallowed him. For three days the regular peace officers of San Francisco searched San Francisco for him but they did not find him. 146 On March 25, 1907, Ruef's appeal in the habeas corpus mat- ter was dismissed by the Supremo Court of the United States. Of this move. Frank J. Mumhy. one of Ivuef's attorneys, is quoted in a published interview: "We have instructed our representative in Washington to withdraw the writ of error filed by us. This de- cision was reached on account of the decision of the State Supreme Court to the effect thit the participation of an incompetent juror does not affect the validity of an indictment." This action left the Prosecution free to proceed with Ruef's trial without any possibility of the proceedings being questioned later. Ruef a Fugitive 133 When Ruef's case was called for trial in Judge Dunne's department on the morning following the pro- ceedings in Judge Hebbard's court, Ruef's attorney, Samuel M. Sliortridge, was present, but not the de- fendant. Shortridge was in the position of an attorney in court without a client."^ After a wait of four hours, to give Ruef every opportunity to make his appearance, Heney moved that the bonds of the absent defendant be declared forfeited, specifying the bonds originally given 147 Judge Dunne ruled that Ruef, being a fugitive from justice, and his trial one for felony, at which the defendant must he present at every stage of the proceedings, there was no trial before the court. Shortridge was in the position of counsel without a client. During the examination of Coroner Walsh, after his failure to find Ruef, Shortridge insisted upon interrupting the examination. Judge Dunne after repeated warnings, found Shortridge guilty of con- tempt of court, and sentenced him to serve twenty-four hours in jail. The Chronicle of March 9, 1907, contains the following ac- count of the incident: "Have you not said," Walsh was asked by Heney, "that you hoped he CRuef) 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 s^mipathy 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 liis client to the line of examination. Heney proceeded without paying any attention to Shortridge's interruption. Shortridge again entered an objection, and .Judge Dunne ordered him to take his seat. "But I wish to be heard on behalf of my client," persisted Short- ridge. "Take your seat, Mr. Shortridge, or I will order the Sheriff to cause you to do so or remove you from the court room," declared Judge Dunne. "Am I to understand that I am not to be heard In this court?" demanded Shortridge with piny 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." 134 Ruef a Fugitive as well as those furnished in the proceedings before Hebbard. Judge Dunne, in ruling upon Heney's motion, stated that he was proceeding as though the proceedings be- fore Judge Hebbard had not occurred. Those proceed- ings, he announced, he felt were under a species of fraud. He ordered Ruef's original bonds forfeited and took the question of the forfeiture of the bonds in the proceedings before Judge Hebbard under advisement. He considered it his duty, he said, to proceed with the trial of the case until ordered to desist by the Supreme Court or by the Court of Appeals. Attorney Shortridge announced to Judge Dunne that in proceeding with the hearing he might find himself in contempt of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Dunne stated that that would not embarrass him, and in any event, he would not proceed v/ith the matter until the defendant was in court. The day passed without the defendant's whereabouts being discovered. Sheriff O'Neil reported that he had been unable to find the fugitive, but expressed his belief that he would be able to do so eventually. With that understanding court adjourned for the day. The day following, Ruef's attorneys appealed to the State Appellate Court ^^^ for a writ of prohibition to pre- vent Judge Dunne and others from further proceeding against Ruef in the extortion cases, and to show cause 148 The two principal points on which the defense based their applications for writs of habeas corpus and of prohibition were: (1) That Juror Wise, having sat on a petty jury within a year, was disqualified to act as a Grand Juror, and hence the indictments were fatally defective. (2) That the matter was before the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of error. Ruef a Fugitive 135 why the writ should not be made permanent. Ruef being- in hiding, the application was not signed by the peti- tioner. The Appellate Court, after twenty-four hours, denied the petition. Ruef's representatives then went before the State Supreme Court Vv-ith the same repre- sentations. And here, again, eventually, Ruef lost. In the meantime, Ruef had not been found. The day following his disappearance. Judge Dunne disqualified the Sheriff and named the next officer in authoritative sequence in such matters, the Coroner, W. J. Walsh, as elisor, to arrest Ruef and bring him into court. Coroner Walsh had no better success than had Sheriff O'Neil. Ruef had disappeared on the night of Monday, March 4. On Friday, March 8, after three days of unavailing search by O'Neil and Walsh, ^^^ Judge Dunne disqualified Walsh and appointed William J. Biggy ^'° as elisor to arrest the fugitive. Within two hours Biggy, accompanied by Detective William J. Burns, had located Ruef at a road-house in the San Francisco suburbs and had placed him under arrest. ^^^ 149 Heney, In his affidavit in contention that an Elisor siiould be appointed to bring Ruef into court, indicated the conditions which were handicapping the prosecution. 150 Biggy afterwards became Chief of Police of San Francisco. 131 Ruef was with one of his henchmen, Myrtlle Cerf, when nr- rested. Long after, when he had plead guilty to one of the extor- tion charges, Ruef stated in an Interview published In the San Francisco Call. May IG, 1907, that it had been his purpose "to wait until the Legislature had acted on the Change of Venue Bill," which was considered In a previous chapter, and which at the time of Ruef's flight was being engineered through the Senate by George Keane in his capacity as Senator. Ruef, in his interview, stated further: "We had expected that this bill would go through. Nat- urally we were surprised when we learned that Campbell, the May- or's (Schmitz's) .attoiney, was at Sacramento lobbying against t.ho bill. What his object was I do not know. He even went to George 136 Ruef a Fugitive Having taken his man,^"'^ the elisor was at a loss to know what to do with him. To put him in the city prison was to turn him over to the police; to put him in the county jail was to turn him over to the Sheriff. The Chief of Police was even then under indictment with Ruef, a co-defendant ; the Sheriff had been disqualified. The only alternative was for Biggy himself to hold Ruef until the court could act. Biggy accordingly secured suitable quarters at the Hotel St. Francis, and there held Ruef a prisoner until the following Monday, when he was taken before Judge Dunne. Judge Dunne refused to admit Ruef to bail, re- manded him to Elisor Biggy's custody, and continued his trial until the following morning, Tuesday, March 12. Ruef immediately made application to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, asking to be released from the custody of Elisor Biggy and placed in charge of the Sheriff. But here again Ruef was defeated. Elisor Biggy continued his keeper for many months fol- lowing. Ruef, after his appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, had exhausted every legal device known to himself and his attorneys to escape trial in the extortion case pending Keane, who had charge of the hill, and tried to switch him to the other side." During- the period of Ruef's disappearance, his attorneys had in- sisted that they were unaware of his whereabouts. Myrtile Cerf, his companion in flight, refused to say before the Grand Jury with whom he had telephonic communication while at the roadhouse, on the ground that such testimony might incriminate him. 152 Ruef's arrest threw the administration into the greatest: con- fusion. Supervisor Wilson testified at the trial of The People vs. Ruef. No. 1437, Part 3, Vol. 7, p. 3175, that at 2 o'clock of the morn- ing following Ruef's capture, he went down to Henry Ach's apart- ment to ascertain if the rumor that Ruef had been found were true. Ruef a Fugitive 137 before Judg-e Dunne. ^^^ His last recourse gone, Ruef found himself brought face to face with trial before a jury. On March 13 the selecting of jurors to try Ruef began in Judge Dunne's court. But events of far greater moment than petty extortion had the attention of San Francisco. Even as Ruef was in hiding, Detective Burns and his assistants had trapped three members of the Board of Supervisors in bribery. This opened up the most fruitful field of the graft 153 Of the procedure which made possible Ruef s long: technical flglit 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 caufrht in the toils of justice. There are many objects to be gained by these delays. V/itnesses may die or be spirited away. Most important of all the public becomes wearied and finally forgets or loses its zest for the enforcement of the law. When that stage is reached the 'pull' comes into play. By the connivance of the District Attorney, and especially of the Judge, continuance after continuance can be granted until proof becomes impossible and the case is dismissed. The adoption of such a course by any accused person of bad reputation is moral evidence of guilt which is conclusive with the public. We have had in this city many disgraceful criminal trials. We have had many obvious mis- carriages of justice. There have been wealthy men whom every- body feels should be in the penitentiary who have hardly ceased for a day to flaunt their faces in decent society. We have never had a case in which the obstruction to the cause of justice began so early as Ruef began it, or was conducted with such brazen ef- frontery. It is not v/ithin our recollection that any accused person of whose guilt there was reasonable doubt had adopted such a course. Its adoption is the recognized sisrn of guilt. "But while our lawr affecting court practice are very bad, they do afford the means of ultimately bringing criminals to trial and convicting them if the evidence is sufficient and the jury unbiased and uncorrupted. It only requires that the public maintains its in- terest and thereby sustains its officials in their efforts to secure justice. In this case the advantage is with the public. There is no possibility of a 'pull' with the District Attorney. His assistant, Mr. Heney, is himself a master of the criminal law and in notable cases elsewhere has triumphed over similar efforts for delay made in behalf of criminals of far higher social and political standing than Ruef. In fact Ruef has no standing of any kind in the com- munity in any way different from that possessed by other political bosses supposed to be corrupt. The indignation of this community is a righteous indignation and it will never abate until under the due processes of law the truth in respect to Ruef and his rousta- bouts is dragged out in open court." 138 Ruef a Fugitive prosecution, and immediately the extortion cases became of comparative unimportance. The trapping of the three Supervisors led to confessions from fourteen oth- ers, which involved not only Ruef in enormous bribery transactions, but also prominent members of the bar, and leaders in the social, financial and industrial life of California. CHAPTER XII. Trapping of the Supervisors. Months before the Oliver Grand Jury was convened, it was common gossip in San Francisco that the members of the Board of Supervisors were taking- money from the pubHc service corporations.^^* Belief of this had got beyond the stage of mere newspaper accusation. It had become the firmly-settled conviction of the law-abiding element of the community. For this reason, as the ir.4 At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, Superv^isor Andrew M. W^ilson testified to a conversation which he had had with Ruef at Ruef's ofnce early in September, 1906. He was asked to state what he had said to Ruef on that occasion. Wilson re- plied: "A. I told him Mr. Choynski was across the street; I pulled the blind aside at his office, and showed him Mr. Choynski talking to .Tesse Marks; that he had stated to Marks the exact amount on the trolley proposition. "Mr. Sullivan: Q. Wlio had stated to Marks the exact amount on the trolley proposition? A. Mr. ChojTiski, and that I had ad- vised him a few weeks before that not to continue that flght for the attorneyshin 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 savs to Mr. Ruef, 'He has the cor- rect amount on the trolley,' and he stated that there must be a leak somewhere in the Boai-d; 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 infor- mation through Supervisor Kelly, as they were very friendly. "Mr. Arh: O. Who said that, you or Ruef? "Mr. Sullivnn: Q. W^ho snid that? A. I stated that to Mr. Ruef, thnt I thought the source of the leak was through Super- visor Kelly telling Morris Levy, and Morris Levy telling Choynski." — See Transcript, page 2643. 140 Trapping of the Supervisors months wore away in technical wrangHng in the "French Restaurant" extortion cases, the pubhc became impatient that time and energy should be expended in comparatively unimportant matters, while big graft went unprobed. Partisans of the administration took advantage of this sentiment to belittle the prosecution. Under this sort of hammering, the prosecution, dur- ing the months of February and March, 1907, unques- tionably lost ground in public opinion. But with Ruef holding the Supervisors to rigid ac- counting, and agents of public-service corporations lynx- eyed ^^^ to detect any weakness in their position, and quick to report with warning and advice to Ruef at any suggestion of danger. Burns and his associates were able to make little headway in securing evidence of big graft that would justify indictment or warrant trial. The Supervisors looked to Ruef absolutely. Some of them took bribe money from others than himself in spite of his warning, but when they scented a trap they hur- ried to Ruef for advice. When he directed them to return the bribe money 155 Supervisor James L.. Gallagher testifled 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 de- livered to Ruef. The substance of the note, Gallag'her testified, was that "The Grand Jury is taking up the investig'ation of the charges concerning the United Railroads permit; not much headway has been made; it is intended to endeavor to trap some of the Su- pervisors." Gallagher, unable to find Ruef, went back to Ford, according to Gallagher's testimony, and asked if the note were so important that Ruef should be hunted up. Ford had directed him to open the envelope and read the note. Gallagher did this, made a short- hand memora.ndum of it. and read the message to Ruef later. See transcript. The People vs. Ruef, Part 3, Vol. 2, pp. 976 to 983. Trapping of the Supervisors 141 they promised to do so, and in some cases actually re- turned it. Ruef was a competent captain over men who had all confidence in his ability to keep them out of trouble. So long as he was in touch with the Supervisors his posi- tion so far as the Supervisors was concerned was al- most impregnable. When, however, Ruef was caught in a position where he could no longer- consult freely with his men, advise them and reassure them, his or- ganization went to pieces in a wild scramble of every member thereof to save himself. This occurred when Ruef was placed in the custody of Elisor Biggy. Ruef fully appreciated this weak point in his posi- tion. He realized from the beginning of the Graft Prosecution the danger of members of the Board of Supervisors being trapped in independent bribery, and himself becoming involved through their confessions. Even before his flight from trial in the extortion case, he knew that his fears bade fair to be realized. Some fortnight before Ruef's flight, Supervisor Lon- ergan had been to Ruef with confession of having taken $500 from Golden M. Roy. Roy was proprietor of a well- known cafe and v/as counted by men in Lonergan's position as one of the supporters of the administration. But the more astute Ruef at once suspected betrayal. Ruef bluntly informed Lonergan that he had been trapped, directed him to return the money Roy had given him and warned him of the risk he ran in accepting bribes. Ruef's fears were well founded. Roy, in his dealings 142 Trapping of the Supervisors with Lonergan, was acting for Detective William J. Burns. The trap which Burns had prepared for the eager Lonerg-an was plausibly baited. Roy was a restaurant keeper with several side enter- prises, among them interests in a skating-rink. An ordi- nance regulating skating-rinks was pending before the Supervisors. Roy, acting under direction of the District Attorney, approached Lonergan with a statement that he wished the ordinance defeated. Lonergan accordingly met Roy at the' skating-rink office. In an adjoining room, placed so they could see and hear, were Detective William J. Burns and two others. From their places of concealment the three men heard the bargain, and saw Roy pay Lonergan $500 to defeat the skating-rink ordi- nance. Roy, acting for the District Attorney, then attempted to trap Gallagher. He offered Gallagher $1000 for his work on the skating-rink ordinance. Gallagher refused to take any money and said that Roy was a friend of the administration and it should not cost him anything. Roy urged Gallagher to accept the money, alleging that it came from a pool ; that Gallagher was entitled to it ; that he, Roy, had given money to several Supervisors already. Gallagher asked him to tell which ones. Roy refused, saying, "You would not expect me to tell on you." Gallagher immediately suspected Lonergan and told his suspicions to Wilson, and the tv/o hunted up Loner- gan and charged him with getting the money. Gallagher hurried Lonergan to Ruef much the same Trapping of the Supervisors 143 as they would have rushed a man showing the symp- toms of a deadly malady to a physician. Ruef warned him and advised him. The thoroughly frightened Su- pervisor assured Ruef that he would be careful in the future, and that he would return the money he had received from Roy."" But even as Ruef was dealing with Lonergan, Super- visor Edward I. Walsh was walking into a trap set in duplication of that into which Lonergan had fallen. Walsh, at the skating-rink, with the eyes of Burns and others upon him, accepted $500 from Roy — who was working as before under direction of the District Attorney — as the price of his vote on the skating-rink ordinance. The third Supervisor to fall into the District Attor- ney's trap was Dr. Charles Boxton. Dr. Boxton "'' was a different type from Lonergan and Walsh. He had had the advantage of superior education and training. A specially prepared trap was set for him at Roy's house. Boxton was introduced into the front room separated from the dining-room by fold- ing doors. The dining-room had been darkened, and the folding doors left slightly ajar. Burns, with his assistants, was concealed in the dining-room, where they 1S8 An interestint? incident of thi.s transaction grew out of word heins? carried to Roy, that Ruef had told Loneraan that Roy was a stool pig:con for Burns. Roy went to Ruef's office with a show of prreat indifrnation, demandins: to know what Ruef meant by such a charge. Ruef apologized and denied. 157 Boxton is thus described by Ruef, In his account of the graft cases: "Dr. Boxton was a dentist; he held the position of dean and professor of dentistry in an established medical and dental college. He was a popular man about town; had been one of the grand of- ficers of the Native Sons' organization; an officer of the First Cali- fornia Regiment in the Philippines, and had been several times elected Supervisor by large and popular votes." 144 Trapping of the Supervisors could see all that took place in the front room, as well as hear what was said. They saw Roy offer Boxton the money; heard him tell Boxton that the ordinance was to be defeated ; saw Boxton take the money. The trap was to be sprung once more, with Loner- gan, for the second time,^^^ the victim. Lonergan, instead of returning the $500 he had ac- cepted in the skating-rink transaction, as he had prom- ised Ruef he would do, accepted an additional $500 from Roy. As before, Burns and his men witnessed the transaction. Roy had told Lonergan of an ordinance authorizing the establishing of an oil refinery in which Roy claimed to be interested. He promised Lonergan $500 to sup- port the measure. The ordinance had been cleverly prepared, with an acrostic in the title, spelling the word "Fake." ^^^ Roy had interested Boxton in the measure as well as Lonergan. Boxton had introduced it at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors. On March 7, while Ruef was a fugitive, Lonergan went to Roy's house to get the money to be paid him for the support of the "Fake" ordinance. 158 The reason for springing the trap on Lonergan the second time was that the plan of Burns's had miscarried on ttie 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 marlted currency. When Lonergan was asked to cash the dra.ft, he said all right, but that he would have to go home and get the money. He went home and brought back gold. About this time the Chronicle pub- lished a story to th2 effect that several Supervisors had been trapped. 159 The acrostic was made by skipping two lines to the third, the first word of which began with "F," then skipping two lines to the sixth, skipping two lines to the ninth, and finally skipping two lines to the twelfth; the first letter of the first word of each of these lines spelt the word "Fake." Trapping of the Supervisors 145 The same arrangements had been made for Lonergan as for Boxton. Burns and his men were concealed in the darkened dining-room ; the folding doors were ajar.- Lonergan took the money. "What," he demanded of Roy, "have you in the next room?" and advanced toward the partially-open folding doors. At that Burns threw the doors open. "You see," said Burns, "what he has in there." "I want you to arrest this man," cried Lonergan, in- dicating Roy. "He bribed a Supervisor." "Yes, I saw him do it," replied Burns. "But you did not tell me to arrest him when he bribed you down at the skating-rink." Lonergan at first denied the skating-rink incident, but finally admitted it. Langdon and Heney were sent for, and joined the party at Roy's house. Lonergan was urged to tell what he knew of graft of the Schmitz-Ruef administration. He finally consented. It was not a long story. Supervisor James L. Gallagher had acted as go-between, Lonergan stated, from Ruef to the Su- pervisors. From Gallagher, Lonergan testified, he had received $475 to influence his vote in the ordinance granting permits to the organized prize fight promoters to hold fights once a month ; $750 to influence his vote in fixing gas rates at 85 cents per thousand instead of 75 cents, as had been pledged in the Union Labor party platform on which he had been elected ; $3500 in the matter of granting the Home Telephone Company's franchise; $4000 for his vote in granting the United Railroads its permit to establish the overhead trolley system. Lonergan stated further that Gallagher had 146 Trapping of the Supervisors promised him $750, and later $1000, to influence his vote in the matter of passing an ordinance for the sale of a franchise applied for by the Parkside Realty Company, with the "biggest thing yet" to come, Avhen the deal was consummated, by which the city would accept the plans of the Bay Cities Water Company. In addition to the sums received from Gallagher, Lonergan confessed to receiving $5000 from T. V. Hal- sey, representing the Pacific States Telephone and Tele- graph Company. Halsey had paid Lonergan the money, the Supervisor said, to oppose the granting of a fran- chise to the Home Telephone Company. Walsh and Boxton were sent for. On their arrival at Roy's house they were closely questioned, and urged to confess, but neither would make a statement that night. Boxton insisted that he would admit nothing unless the other Supervisors made statements. But on the following day, March 8, Walsh made a statement under oath to the District Attorney and Heney, in which he confessed to receiving bribes from Gallagher, except in the Home Telephone bribery, in the same amount and under like conditions that Lonergan had stated bribes had been paid him. Startling as these confessions were, they as a matter of fact involved none but Lonergan, Walsh, Gallagher and Halsey. At no point did they touch Ruef, or Schmitz, or those who had furnished the bribe money. Boxton with Walsh and Lonergan had been trapped in bribery. Two had confessed to receiving money from Gallagher, but even though the third, Boxton, added his confession to theirs, it would not have provided sufficient to convict. The confessions of the three were Trapping of the Supervisors 147 uncorroborated as to each bribe. The remaining fifteen Supervisors would to a certainty have sworn they voted for the several measures without inducement. With such testimony from the fifteen, no motive could have been shown for Gallagher to bribe Lonergan, Walsh and Box- ton ; the measures could, with the votes of the fifteen, have been passed without the votes of the three Super- visors trapped. To make out even a fairly good case against Ruef, it was absolutely essential to have Gal- lagher's testimony, and in addition thereto, the testimony of a majority of the members of the Board of Super- visors.^^*^ The prosecution had made progress in trapping the three Supervisors, and in getting confession out of two of them. But at best it was only an opening wedge. The least slip would have lost all the ground gained. The three trapped Supervisors might be sent to State Prison. Had they been, Schmitz with the fifteen Super- visors remaining would have filled their places by ap- pointment. The situation would then be more difficult for the prosecution than ever. While the agents of the District Attorney were deal- ing with the complicated problems which the first break in the line of the graft defense brought upon them, Ruef 100 With the testimony of all the Supervisors, including Gallagher, the prosecution subsequently found great difficulty in convicting Ruef. In the Parkside case, all the Supervisors testified in regard to two promises made to them, and all the officials of the Parkside Company testified to negotiations with Ruef and to the payment of money to him. In addition thereto, William J. Dingee, who was an entirely disinterested party, testified to a conversation with Ruef, ■which was highly incriminating in its character, and which amounted to an admission on the part of Ruef that he was receiv- ing money in the Parkside matter. With all this evidence before it, the jury stood six for acquittal and six for conviction. 148 Trapping of the Supervisors continued a fugitive. Gallagher, Ruef's immediate repre- sentative, realized the seriousness of the situation. He had no real loyalty for Ruef. His one thought was for Gallagher. He could for the moment see no hope for himself, except in the defeat of the prosecution. He accordingly exerted himself to block Burns, and to pre- vent the conditions of graft in the Board of Supervisors from becoming public.^*'^ Supervisor Wilson was as- sisting him. As encouragement, the anxious Ruef had sent Gallagher word by his sister to remain firm. But the leader was gone ; Ruef's grip was loosened. From Gallagher down to the wretched Lonergan, the Super- visors were thinking of saving themselves alone. Ruef's word, sent by his sister to Gallagher, was for Gallagher "to sit on the lid." Gallagher soon after ob- served to Wilson that "the lid was getting a little warm" ; that he thought he would get in touch with the prosecution to see what could be done with the other 101 W^ilson testified at the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, of the anxiety of the Supervisors during- this period. Although Wil- son had resigned from the board to accept tlie office of State Rail- road Commissioner to whicli he had been elected, he went to a con- ference of the Supervisors to decide wliat should be done. The fol- lowing is from Wilson's testimony: "Q. You were not then a Supervisor, were you? A. No, sir. "Q. M''ho 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: Tliat is vernacular authorized by the President- elect of the United States. I suppose it is good English? "Mr. Ach: Well, he is a big man; I suppose he might sit on something that might be a lid. The Court: Finish your answer. "Mr. Ach: Q. What do you mean? A. Trying to keep the facts of the condition of the Board of Supervisors from becoming public. "Q. What do you mean by that? A. The condition of the Board, the graft matters." Trapping of the Supervisors 149 side. Wilson assured Gallagher that he considered such a move would be a wise one. Gallagher's first definite word that as many as three Supervisors had been trapped reached him through Dr. Boxton's attorney, H. M. Owens. Owens told Gallagher that Boxton had made full statement of the situation to him and that he was convinced, and so was Boxton, that if Boxton went to trial he would be convicted. The effect of this information upon Gallagher cans be appreciated when it is realized that Gallagher, acting as Ruef's go-between, had himself paid Boxton money. Owens stated further that the question of giving the Supervisors immunity, provided they made complete con- fession, had been broached, and the suggestion had been made that Gallagher meet some member of the prosecu- tion to discuss this point. The names of Langdon and Burns were suggested, but Gallagher did not care to meet them. He finally agreed, however, to an appoint- ment with Rudolph Spreckels. Before the meeting between Gallagher and Spreckeh took place, Langdon, Heney, Spreckels and Burns had a conference. It was suggested that Spreckels might in- dicate to Gallagher that the prosecution would like to have his confession and statement, and that the District Attorney would unquestionably be able to extend to him immunity ^^^ on the strength of his giving full and free, 102 At the trial of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun. No. 1436, Spreckels testified to his own attitude on the question of immunity. He said: "I would be willing to grant immunity to any man who would bring to bar a man of great wealth who would debauch a city government, and who would use his wealth to corrupt indi- viduals and tempt men of no means to commit a crime in order that he might make more money." — See transcript of testimony, page 3326. 150 Trapping of the Supervisors truthful testimony concerning crimes in which he was involved while acting as a Supervisor in connection with the public service corporations and others. Three meetings were held between Spreckels and Gallagher before the matter was concluded. The meet- ing-place was in the grounds of the Presidio, the military reservation at San Francisco. The first of the three meetings was preliminary only. Spreckels explained to Gallagher the aims and purposes of the prosecution.^*'^ Gallagher would make no admis- sions, and indicated that under no circumstances would he consider the District Attorney's immunity proposition unless all the Supervisors were included within its pro- visions. After this preliminary meeting, Spreckels conferred with Langdon and Heney. It was agreed that Galla- gher's testimony was essential. He was, indeed, the 163 At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, Gallagher testi- fied that Spreckels told him in substance as follows: "Mr. Spreckels then stated that he was not actuated by vindic- tiveness in the matter, that he did not wish to make any more trouble or cause any more distress than was necessary in carrying out what he had undertaken, and that his purpose was to endeavor to stop the unlawful transactions, — dealings of corporations and large interests in this city with public officials; that his reason, that his view of the matter was that in order to accomplish that, that it would be necessary, or that he did not desire unnecessarily to injure anyone, and that the members of the Board of Supervisors and those who were engaged with them in the matter, outside of tliose who represented the corporations and big interests, were not as important from his standpoint as those who had, as those in control of those interests, because the members of the — the public officials and political bosses would come and go, but that the cor- porations and big interests remained; that they were, as he thought, the source of the trouble, and therefore, he did not consider it im- portant, or so important, to punish the officials as to reach those that were in his judgment primarily responsible for the conditions, that he felt that the District Attorney would grant immunity to the members of the Board of Supeivisors if they would tell the whole truth of their transactions with the corporations and other persons, large interests, that had had any dealings with them of an unlaw- ful character. I think I then said to him I would consider the mat- ter and would talk with the members of the Board of Supervisors about it." Trapping of the Supervisors 151 pivotal witness. The confessions of Lonergan, Boxton and Walsh showed that he had carried the bribe money from Riief to the Supervisors. Furthermore, the testi- mony of a majority of the Supervisors would be neces- sary. Under the circumstances it was decided that im- munity could very properly be extended to all the Super- visors. This decision Spreckels took back to Gallagher. Gal- lagher called his leaderless associates together. By this time it was generally known among the Su- pervisors that Lonergan, Walsh and Boxton had been trapped, that at least two of them had made statements to the prosecution. Furthermore, there were rumors that other members had been to the prosecution and made confessions. Gallagher explained the seriousness of the situa- tion."** He explained to them the immunity proposition which the prosecution had made, and stated that the matter rested in their hands. He said that he was will- i(>4 Gallag-lier 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 tliat they had inade statements to the prosecution, as I understood, or were about to do so, and that I had seen Mr. Spreckels and tnllced with him concerning tlie other members of the Board of Supervisors, and that Mr. Spreckels had stated to me that the pur- pose was not to prosecute the members of the Board of 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 tliat should he 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 oth'>r words, Mr. Ach, as nearly as I could, I repeated the statements of Mr. Spreckels to me." See Transcript on Appeal, page 1471. 1^2 Trapping of the Supervisors ing to sacrifice himself, if necessary, but that the whole matter was with them to decide. Wilson and Boxton urged that the terms offered by the prosecution be accepted,^^^ The Supervisors present were at first divided. Some of them announced that they would take the attitude of denying all graft. "Very well," replied Gallagher, "any one who wants to take that attitude will be excused from further dis- cussion." But none of the troubled officials left the room. Boxton stated that he would involve Gallagher in a statement, and that Gallagher would have to testify to all the money transactions he had had with the board. The Supervisors knew, even then, that Gallagher had already been involved by the confessions of Walsh and Lonergan. Under the urging of Gallagher, Wilson and Boxton, they finally decided to m.ake confession. Ruef was not present at that last secret caucus of the Schmitz-Ruef Board of Supervisors. Gallagher took back word to Spreckels that he had communicated to the Supervisors the. message which Spreckels had delivered to him from the District Attor- ney, to the effect that immunity would be granted to the Supervisors, provided they would make sworn dec- 165 "I told them," said Wilson in his testimony in the case of The People vs. Ruof, 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 follov/ed 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." Trapping of the Supervisors 153 laratioii of the crimes in which they were involved, giv- ing a truthful account of all matters. The Supervisors, Gallagher told Spreckels, had decided to accept the prop- osition, and would meet the District Attorney for the purpose of making their statements. Gallagher rather tardily asked immunity for Ruef, hut Spreckels stated that he had not discussed this fea- ture with the District Attorney, and that Gallagher would himself have to take the matter up with the authorities directly. In considering this immunity arrangement wuth the bribed Supervisors, the fact should not be overlooked that during the five months which had passed since the opening of the graft prosecution, Spreckels and Heney had been meeting officials of the public service corpora- tions involved practically every day at luncheon. But the corporation officials would give no assistance in ex- posing the corruption which was undermining the com- munity.^*"' iGO 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, Spreck- els and Heney were the recipients of many kind words of encour- agement and of congratulation, up to the time that Ruef plead guilty in the French-restaurant case. Immediately thereafter the atmosphere commenced to change. The indictment of some of the prominent members of the club was not pleasing. During the first trial of Glass, he and his attorneys constantly lunched at the Pacific Union Club, and many men, prominent in finance, would stop and chat ostentatiously with Glass and his lawyers, and would then ignore Spreckels and Heney, who would be sitting at a near-by table. An attempt to keep Rudolph Spreckels out of membership in the Bohemian Club was almost successful about this time, while Drum was elected a director of the Pacific Union Club while still under indictment, and Thomas Williams, of the New California Jockey Club, one of the bondsmen for Schmitz, was elected President. CHAPTER XIII. Confessions of the Supervisors, The resignation of Supervisor Duffey to take charge of the municipal department of public works, and of Su- pervisor Wilson ^''^ to take the office of State Railroad Commissioner, left sixteen members of the elected Schmitz-Ruef Board of Supervisors at the time of the exposures of the graft prosecution. The sixteen, after the surrender at their last secret caucus, made full con- fession of their participation in the gains of the organ- ized betrayal of the city. Supervisor Wilson added his confession to the six- teen. Thus, of the eighteen Union Labor party Super- visors elected in 1905, four years after the organization of that party, seventeen ^*^^ confessed to taking money from large combinations of capital, the very interests which the party had been brought into being to oppose. The public service corporations, confronting a party or- ganized primarily to control municipal government to 167 To the places thus vacated, Mayor Schmitz appointed O. A. Tveitmoe and J. J. O'Neil. Tveitmoe and O'Neil assumed their duties as Supervisors after the bribery transactions were completed. They did not become involved in the graft exposures, but served to the end of the terms for which they had been appointed. 168 The eighteenth Supervisor, who made no confession, was Duffey. Duffey, according to Gallagher's confession, participated with the others in the graft distributions. In the 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 prosecu- tion decided to abide by the impression which Gallagher claimed he liad formed. Confessions of the Supervisors 155 the end that equitable conditions in San Francisco might be guaranteed those who labor, by the simple process of support before election and bribery after election, secured as strong a hold upon the community as their most complete success at the polls could have given. These large interests, approaching the new order with bribe-money, found politicians operating in the name of organized labor, ostensibly to promote the best interests of labor, to be not at all formidable. And when the exposure came, and the bribe-giving corporation magnates were placed on their defense, their most potent allies in the campaign which they carried on to keep out of the penitentiary, were found in the entrenched lead- ers of the Union-Labor party. The Supervisors' confessions corroborated the state- ments previously made by Lonergan, Walsh and Boxton. The bribery transactions to which the seventeen Su- pervisors confessed, came naturally under two heads : The first class included the briberies carried on tlirough Ruef, who dealt directly with those who fur- nished the bribe money. Ruef employed Gallagher as agent to deal with the Supervisors. Thus Gallagher did not come in contact with those who furnished the money, while the Supervisors were removed still further from connection with them. Ruef, on his part, in passing the money, did not come into immediate contact with the Supervisors except in Gallagher's case. It was bribery reduced to a fine art. In this group of transactions were included the bribery of the Supervisors to grant to the United Railroads its trolley permit ; to the Home Tele- 156 Confessions of the Supervisors phone Company, its franchise ; to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, an 85-cent gas rate ; to the prize fight combine, monopoly of the pugilistic contests in San Fran- cisco. In this class, too, is properly included the Park- side Transit Company, which had, at the time the ex- posure came, paid Ruef $15,000 to secure a street rail- road franchise, with a promise of $15,000 more when the franchise had been actually granted. The Su- pervisors received nothing in this transaction, but they had been told by Ruef's agent, Gallagher, there would be, first $750 each for them in the Parkside matter. Later on they were told the sum would be $1000 each. The second class of bribes included those which were paid directly to the Supervisors. They included the bribes paid by T. V. Halsey, agent of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company to a majority of the Supervisors to prevent their av/arding the Home Telephone Company its franchise. Gallagher did not participate in these bribery transactions, and could only indirectly throv/ light upon them. But in the other cases Gallagher was the pivotal witness. He received the bribe money from Ruef, and, after taking out his share, he paid the balance to the other Supervisors. With a wealth of detail, Gallagher told how he had received the money, when and where, and went into the particulars of its distribution among his associates. He had received from Ruef in all, $169,350."'' Of this, he 169 This was the amount that Ruef turned over to the Super- visors. It represented a comparatively small part of what he re- ceived from the Public Service corporations. From the United Rail- roads alone, because of the granting- of the trolley permit, he re- ceived $200,000. In addition he was drawing a regular fee of $1,000 a month from the United Railroads. The Supervisors were not always satisfied with the amount Gal- Confessions of the Supervisors 157 had retained $27,275 for himself; the balance, $142,075, he had divided among his associates on the board. This enormous corruption fund which Gallagher di- vided with the Supervisors had come from four sources. The so-called prize-fight trust had furnished $9,000 of it ; the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, $13,350; the Home Telephone Company, $62,000, and the United Railroads, $85,000. The first money that passed from Ruef to Gallagher and from Gallagher on to the Supervisors, the confes- sions showed, was for the prize-fight monopoly. This particular bribery seems to have been intended as a trying-out of the several members to ascertain which of them would take money in connection with the discharge of their duties as Supervisors. Every member of the board accepted the package of bills which Gallagher tendered him. Indeed, several of them displayed surprising alertness to secure all that was their due. Ruef, it became known among them, had given Gallagher $9000, which evenly divided, meant $500 for each of the eighteen Supervisors. But Gallagher gave them only $475 each. An explanation was de- laprher e:ave thpm. There were times v/hen they entertained the idea that Ruef had sent more than Gnllaarher gave. They accord- insrly delesrated Rupervi?or "Wilson to ascertain from Ruef whether all the money intended for thern was rf^ar-hing' them. Ruef refused to discuss the matter T'-jtii Wilson. ■Wilson, at the trial of The Peonle vs. Ruef, No. 1437, testified: "I told him CRuef) that the Supervisors had asked me to call and see him: that thev wanted other information to confirm Mr. Gallaarher's reports to the Board on these money matters. He said that he did not care to disr-uss that with anyone other than Mr. Gallasrher; that it took up time and that whatever Mr. Gallagher did on the Board was with h's full knowU'dee and consent; that the matters were beinsr handled satisfactorily hy Mr. Gallagher, and when anythinsr 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." 158 Confessions of the Supervisors manded of him. He stated that he had taken out 5 per cent, as his commission. So strong was the dissatisfaction created by the hold- ing out of this 5 per cent, that Ruef arranged to pay- Gallagher a larger amount than the others received to compensate him, no doubt, for his extra services as bribe-carrier. The new arrangement for the compensation of Gal- lagher was followed when the Supervisors were paid after fixing gas rates at 85 cents per thousand cubic feet, instead of 75 cents,^'^" the sum pledged in their party platform. One of the Supervisors, McGushin, refused to break his platform pledge, and held out for the 75-cent rate. In distributing the gas money, Gallagher paid nothing to McGushin.i^^ But to each of the remaining sixteen Supervisors, Gallagher confessed to giving $750. Following the new rule that he was to have extra compensation, Gallagher kept for himself $1350. At the time of the gas-rate bribery. Supervisor Rea was making it unpleasant for his associates. Mr. Rea 170 About the time the 85-cent gas rate was fixed, one of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's stations was burned. Ruef stated to Gallag-her that the fire would be used as one of the rea- sons for fixing the S5-cent rate; that it would probably appeal to the public as an excuse for fixing the rate at S.5 cents when the Dlatform of the party h-^d mentioned 75 cents. See Transcript, The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, page 784. 171 V^hen McGushin refused to follow directions and give the Pacific Gas and Electric Company an 8.5-cent gas rate, Gallagher went to Ruef about it. At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1487, Gallagher testified: "I told him CRuef) 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 v/ith him." Confessions of the Supervisors 159 had accepted $475 prize-fight money from Gallagher, without, he testified before the Grand Jury, knowing what it was for. A few days later he told Schmitz of the matter. Schmitz contended that no such work was going on. Rea, when he received his $750 in the gas- rate case, went to Schmitz with a statement that money was used to have the gas rate fixed at 85 cents. Rea asked Schmitz what he was to do with the money. He testified before the Grand Jury that Schmitz replied : "You keep quiet. I will let you know." That was the last Rea heard from Schmitz on the subject. Rea testified before the Grand Jury that he still had the money Gallagher had paid him in the prize- fight and gas-rate cases. Rea's trip to Schmitz seems to have kept him out of the division of the Telephone and the United Railroads money. The Telephone bribery was somewhat complicated by the fact that rival companies were in the field bidding for Supervisorial favor. It developed that eleven of the Supervisors ^^- had accepted from T. V. Halsey, repre- senting the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Com- pany, bribes to block the granting of a franchise to the 1T2 The SurPi'visors who accenterl money from Halsey, actlngr for the PTfiflc States Telephone and Telecrraph Company, to prevent a franchise beins awarded an opposition company were: Boxton, Walsh, "^nison, Colemin. Nicholns. Furey, Mamlock, Phillips, T^on- ergran. Sanderson and Coffey. The amount paid in e.ach instance was Sn.OOn. Hfilsey promised several of the bribed members from $2,500 to $5,000 in addition to be paid them, if they remained faith- ful, after thpir terms had expired. The monev, the several members testified, had been paid to them bv Halsey in an unfurnished room in the Mills Bnildinc: whir^Ii had been temporarily ensra^ed for Mr. Halsev's use bv Frank C Drum, a director of the Pacific States Telephone and Telearranh Company. Examples of the methods em- ployed to corrupt the laborinermen Supervisors who suddenly found themselves placed in a position of trust and responsibility will he found in the appendix, i6o Confessions of the Supervisors Home Telephone Company. On the other hand, the Home Telephone Company had paid Ruef $125,000"^ to be used in getting favorable action on its application for a franchise. Ruef gave Gallagher $62,000 for the Supervisors. Ruef states that he divided the re- mainder with Schmitz. In this way, the administration was bribed to grant the Home Telephone franchise, while eleven ^^* of the Supervisors, a majority of the board, were bribed not to grant it. The complications which this created almost disrupted the Ruef-Schmitz combine. The difficulty was threshed out in a Sunday night caucus. Those who had received money from the Pacific States people, with Supervisor Boxton at their head, insisted that the Home franchise 173 This is the amount .sriven by Ruef in his "confession." He states that he received $25,000 when he agreed that the Home Tele- phone Company should have the franchise; and $100,000 when the franchise was granted. According to liis statement he gave $65,000 to Gallagher for the Supervisors: $30,000 he gave Schmitz; $30,000 he kept himself. Gallagher testified on several occasions that he received but $62,000 from Ruef. The details of Ruef's confessions are not dependable. On Ruef's own statement of the basis of division of this particular bribe money among the Supervisors, Gallagher received only $62,000 of Home Telephone money from him. 174 Ruef was himself to blame for the complication, for he had given certain of the Supervisors to understand that the purpose of the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company was to prevail, and that the Home Telephone Company would not be granted its fran- chise. The Supei-visors in taking the Pacific Telephone and Tele- graph Company's money, not unreasonably supposed they were taking from the favored of the administration. Supervisor "Wilson in his confession sDid: "The first conversation I had with Mr. Ruef, affecting m.oney 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. I.,ater 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. Confessions of the Supervisors i6i should not be granted. On the other hand, Ruef and Schmitz, with the thousands of the Home Company in view, insisted that it should be. Both Ruef and Schmitz warned the Supervisors that they were perhaps at the dividing- of the ways. "Well," replied Boxton significantly, "if men cannot get a thing through one way they might try and get it through in another." Mayor Schmitz demanded of Boxton what he meant by that. "Well," Boxton replied vaguely but defiantly, "you know there are other ways of reaching the mat- ter." "-^ But Boxton was unable to prevail against the support which Ruef and Schmitz were giving the Home Tele- phone Company. Although eleven of the Supervisors had taken money from the Pacific States Company to oppose the granting of a franchise to the rival Home Telephone Company, all but four of those present at the caucus decided to stand by Ruef and Schmitz, and voted in caucus to grant the Home Company its fran- chise.^''® The next day, in open board meeting, with Boxton still leading the opposition, the franchise was awarded to the Home Telephone Company. 175 For description of tiiis "dividing of tlie ways" scene, see testimony of Supervisor Wilson, Transcript on Appeal, The People vs. Ruef, page 2843. 176 Gallagher in his confession said of the decision of the Su- pervisors to stand by Ruef and Schmitz: "Mr. Wilson talked to a niunher of those bovs (Supervisors who had taken money from the Pacific States's agent), he being one of those who had taken this money, and he told me that notwithstanding the fact that they had taken this money that he didn't feel that he wanted to stand out from the leadership of Mr. Ruef and wanted to act with him and myself in the matter and said that he would talk to the other boys about it, and see how they felt about the proposition of voting for the Home Telephone franchise anyhow." 1 62 Confessions of the Supervisors The division of the money received from the Home Telephone Company people was one of the hardest problems in bribe distribution which Ruef and Gallagher were called upon to face. The first plan was to pay the Supervisors who had at the last supported the Home Telephone franchise, $3500. At once those Supervisors who had, from the beginning- remained faithful to the administration's sup- port of the Home Company and had refused to accept money from Halsey, pointed out that they would receive $v3500 only, while the Supervisors whom Halsey had bribed would get in all $8500 ; that is to say, $3500 from Gallagher for voting to grant the franchise and $5000 from Halsey not to grant it. It was, those who had remained true contended, inequitable that Supervisors who had been faithful to Ruef and Schmitz from the beginning should receive only $3500 ; while those who had been temporarily bought away from the administra- tion received $8500. The "justness" of this contention appealed to all. A compromise was finally arranged, under which those who had stood out to the end against granting the Home franchise, should receive no part of the Home Telephone bribe money; those who had received $5000 from Halsey but finally voted for the Home franchise, were to return $2500 of the $5000 to Halsey, and receive $3500 from Gallagher, making the total of the telephone bribe money for each $6000; those who had received nothing from Halsey were each to be allowed $6000 of the Home Tele- phone money. In this way each Supervisor who had voted for the Home franchise would get $6000 for his Confessions of the Supervisors 163 vote. In the case of four of the Supervisors the entire $6000 came from the Home Company. Gallagher, too, was one of this class, all his compensation being Home Telephone money. But Gallagher received $10,000. Eight of the Supervisors had received money from Hal- sey, and yet voted to give the Home Company its fran- chise. These received $3500 Home Company money from Gallagher and were allowed to keep $2500 of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company money that Halsey had given them. Thus the Pacific States was forced to pay the Supervisors part of the bribe money they received for granting its rival a franchise. Incidentally, some of the Supervisors did not return half the $5000 to Halsey. But this is a phase of the ethics of bribery upon which it is unnecessary to touch. Ruef regarded this unique discipline of the Pacific States as just punishment for its oflfense of trying to buy his Supervisors away from him.^''^ Following the telephone bribery, came that of the United Railroads to secure the much-opposed over-head trolley permit. On account of this permit, Gallagher tes- tified, Ruef had given him $85,000 to be distributed among the Supervisors. Of this $85,000, Gallagher kept $15,000 for himself, 177 In his confession, Gallagher stated that under this arrange- ment he paid $3,500 each to Coffey, Coleman, Purey, 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, W.nlsh, McGiishin and Rea. Of the five. Boxton and Sanderson received $5,000 each from Halsey of the Pacific Com- pany, and Walsh, according to his recollection, $3,500. McGushin and Ren received none of the brihe money paid by the two tele- phone companies. 164 Confessions of the Supervisors gave Wilson $10,000/'® and to each of the other Super- visors with the exception of Rea/^^ $4000. Gallag-her's testimony relative to the offer of a bribe in the matter of the Parkside Realty Company franchise was quite as explicit. He swore that Ruef had stated to him there ought to be $750 for each Supervisor in this. Later on, with a change in the proposed route,"" Ruef had told Gallagher that the amount would be $1000 to each Supervisor. Gallagher had conveyed this in- formation to the Supervisors. At the time of Ruef's flight, arrest and the attending breaking up of his organ- ization, the Supervisors were impatiently waiting for this money to be paid."^ 178 Gallagher testified before the Grand Jury, that the additional compensation had been given Wilson because he was more useful than any other member, besides himself, in keeping the Supervis- ors in line and in passing information regarding prospective bribe money. 179 Gallagher testified before the Grand Jury that he had paid Rea nothing, because he had no confidence in Rea's judgment and self-control. "I told Mr. Ruef," Gallagher testified, "I did not care to, that I wouldn't take the responsibility of dealing with Mr. Rea. I believe he was talking and had talked about matters dealing with me and did not care to have any dealings with him. He (Ruef) said, 'Very well, I'll attend to him,' or 'I will see to that myself,' or some such expression as that." 180 The original plan was to have this road on Twentieth Avenue. But to grade Twentieth Avenue would take time, and cost upwards of $100,000. On the other hand. Nineteenth Avenue had been graded, macadamized, and accepted as a boulevard. The Parkside people asked a change in the purchased franchise, to give them the boulevard. But the Charter prohibited grants of franchises over declared boulevards. Ruef concluded this provision could be over- come by ordinance. He feared criticism, but finally yielded to the Parkside people's request. Then went word to the Supervisors of increase in compensation in this particular transaction. 181 Gallagher's testimony before the Grand Jury regarding the promised bribes in the Parkside franchise undertaking was as follows: "Q. Now, then, the Parkside trolley, was there an understand- ing 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 Confessions of the Supervisors 165 One by one, sixteen of Gallagher's associates went before the District Attorney and made full confession. In every detail they bore out Gallagher's statements. When they had done, the District Attorney had state- ments from seventeen ^®- of the eighteen Supervisors,, that they had received large sums of bribe money to in- fluence their votes in matters in which public service corporations were concerned ; he knew the purposes for which the bribe money had been paid ; he had a state- ment from Gallagher, corroborated at many points by the testimony of the other Supervisors, that the money, had been furnished by Ruef. Ruef's testimony would bring the bribery transactions directly to the doors of It and Mr. Ruef spoke to me about it and said there ought to be a payment of $750 to each member on it and afterward said that if the thing' was changed from Twentieth Avenue to the Nineteenth Avenue, that there oug'ht 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 mat- ters? A. No. "Q. He would just say there will be this much coming? A. Yes, sir. "Q. And the same way in regard to this also? A. Yes, sir. "Q. $1,000? A. Yes, sir. "Q. And you passed it out in the 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. Wliat did he say? A. He made that excuse consequently that he didn't have it. "Q. Never said that he did not expect it? A. Did not." 182 The anxiety on the part of the confessing Supervisors to tell the truth was pathetic. WTien McGushln began his story he was asked: "Of course this statement you make is free and voluntary." "Yes," replied McGushin, simply, "Mr. Gallagher himself told me to tell the truth." i66 Confessions of the Supervisors those who had bribed. This testimony could have been had, had the prosecution agreed to give Ruef complete immunity. Ruef was a prisoner in charge of an elisor. He knew that the Supervisors had confessed. In an agony of indecision he sent for Gallagher and Wilson to learn from them all that had occurred. ^^^ They told him that full statements had been made to the District At- torney. Ruef complained that Gallagher should have tried to get into touch with him before making state- ments. To which Gallagher replied that such a course would have been impossible. ^^* Both Gallagher and Wil- son advised Ruef to make terms with the District Attor- ney. Ruef replied that he would think it over. Little came of the conference. The statements of the two Su- pervisors, however, must have shown Ruef how thorough the undoing of his organization had been, and how hope- less was his own case. But Ruef, sparring for time, and pleading for complete immunity, did not make immediate confession and, as a matter of fact has not, up to the 183 "I want to learn from your own lips," he told Wilson, "if what I have already heard is true regarding your making a state- ment to the prosecution." "I have been thoroughly informed," said Ruef in an interview given out later, "of everything that the members of the Board of Supervisors are reported to have told the Grand Jury, and I have no comment to make upon their alleged confessions at this time. Later, however, I will issue a statement which will furnish more sensations in connection with municipal graft than anything that has been made public." 184 Gallagher left the conference first. Wilson testified at the graft trials that after Gallagher had gone Ruef stated that "had he been in Gallagher's place he wouldn't have made those statements to the prosecution." "You can never tell what one will do until he is placed in Mr. Gallagher's position," replied Wilson, "we discussed the matter fully for two or three days before he took that step." Confessions of the Supervisors 167 present writing, told the full story of his connection with the public service corporations.^^' After the confessions of the Supervisors, the District Attorney left Ruef to himself and hastened the Super- visors before the Grand Jury, where they repeated their miserable stories.^^^ And then the Grand Jury took up the task of tracing the bribe money from those who had received it, to those who had paid it. 155 The nearest Ruef has come to a statement of his connec- tion with the public service corporations is contained in his story, "The Road I Traveled," which appeared in the San Francisco Bul- letin. The account is 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 im- portant of all he had in view. 156 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 anj'-one who might be interested in changing his testimony before I succeeded in getting his testimony recorded by a stenographer in the Grand Jury room." CHAPTER XIV. The Source of the Bribe Money. After the confessions of the Supervisors, the Grand Jurors had definite, detailed knowledg'e of the corruption of the Union-Labor party administration. The Grand Jurors knew : (1) That bribes aggregating over $200,000 had been paid the Supervisors. (2) That of this large amount, $169,350 passed from Ruef to Gallagher and by Gallagher had been divided among members of the board. The balance, the evi- dence showed, had been paid to the Supervisors direct by T. V. Halsey of the Pacific States Telephone Company. (3) The amount of each bribe; the circumstances un- der which it was paid ; even the character of the cur- rency used in the transaction. (4) The names of the corporations benefited by the bribery transactions, as well as the character of the spe- cial privileges which their money had bought. With the exception of the Home Telephone Company, the names of the directors of these benefiting corpora- tions were readily obtainable. ^®^ 187 The following persons sat on the Boards of Directors of the several corporations involved in the graft disclosures, either dur- ing 1906 when the briberies were committed, or during 1907 when the exposures came: Pacific Gas and Electric Company — N. W. Halsey, E. J. de Sabla, John Martin, Frank G. Drum, Wm. H. Crocker, N. D. Rideout, Frank B. Anderson, John A. Britton, Henry E. Bothin, Louis F. The Source of the Bribe Money 169 With this data before them, the Grand Jurors pro- ceeded to trace the source of the bribe money. Naturally, men who had long held places of respecta- bility in the community were slow to admit having' given Ruef vast sums, even under the transparent subterfuge of paying him attorney's fees.^^^ Some of them, when haled before the Grand Jury, testified reluctantly, and only under the closest questioning. Others frankly stood upon their constitutional rights, and with pitiful attempt to smooth out with studied phrases the harshness of the only acceptable reason for their refusal, declined to tes- tify on the ground that their testimony would tend to incriminate them. Monteagle, Jos. S. Tobin, G. H. McEnerney, Cyrus Pierce, Carl Taylor, F. W. M. McCutcheon. Pacific States Teleplione 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. McNichoIs, 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, TVm. Matson, J. M. O'Brien. Douglas S. Watson, J. E. Green. United Railroads — Patrick Calhoun, G. F. Chapman, Geo. H. Davis, Tirey L. Ford, Benj. S. Guiness, I. W. Hellman. Chas. Hol- brook, A. C. Kains, J. Henry Meyer, Thornwell Mullally, Jos. S. Tobin. The names of the board of directors of the Home Telephone Company, during the period of the bribery transactions, has not, so far as the writer knows, been made public. A. C. Kains resigned from the directorate of the United Railroads, and Jos. S. Tobin from the directorates of the Ignited Railroads and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, about the time of the disclosures. 188 The inconsistency of the "attorney fee plea" is well illus- trated in the United Railroads transaction. Ruef received $200,000 from the TTnited Railroads because of the trolley permit. General Tirey L. Ford, head of the United Railroads law department, to which he devoted all his time, was credited with receiving a sal- ary of $10,000 a year. Thus Ruef's single "fee" was as much as the United Railroads would have paid its head lawyer in twenty years, almost a lifetime of professional str\'ice. 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. lyo The Source of the Bribe Money Nevertheless, the Grand Jury succeeded in wringing from the officials of the several corporations involved, damaging admissions ; admissions, in fact, quite as start- ling as had been the confessions of the Supervisors. The refusal of some of those not unreasonably under suspicion, to testify was, too, quite as significant. In the matter of the bribery of the Supervisors by T. V. Halsey, agent of the Pacific States Telephone and Tele- graph Company, the Grand Jury had information that eleven Supervisors had been paid over $50,000 to oppose the granting of a franchise to the Home Telephone Company. A majority of the payments were made in an unfurnished suite of three rooms in the Mills Build- ing. Frank Drum, a director of the company, admitted having engaged the rooms at Halsey's request. E. J. Zimmer, auditor for the company, testified that Halsey held the position of General Agent of the company, Halsey's duties, the testimony showed, were assigned him by Louis Glass, vice-president and general manager, and for a time acting president of the company. Hal- sey, under the company's organization, reported to Glass. Zimmer testified that Halsey could not spend the com- pany's money except on the proper approval of the ex- ecutive officer of the company. From October, 1905, when President Sabin of the company died, until Feb- ruary, 1906, when Henry T. Scott, Sabin's successor, was elected. Glass acted as president and as executive officer. He had, according to Auditor Zimmer, authority to ap- prove expenditures made by Halsey. After Scott's ele- vation to the presidency, either Glass or Scott could have approved such expenditures. Zimmer testified fur- The Source of the Bribe Money 171 ther to giving Halsey, at Glass's order/^^ as high as $10,000 at a time. Halsey ^^° gave no vouchers for these large sums ; they did not appear on the books ; ^®^ they were carried on tags. Zimmer stated that he did not know for v/hat the funds were used ; had merely followed out Glass's in- struction, and given Halsey the money. The testimony of Thomas Sherwin threw some light 189 Zimmer insisted at first tliat the total of tlie amounts which he turned over to Halsey would not exceed $20,000. Later he ad- mitted that he had not kept track of the amounts, and the total mlg-ht have been $30,000. This he increased to $35,000, and finally stated that it was "not over $40,000, If it was that." He ad- mitted that it would have been possible for Executive Officer Glass to have paid out $70,000 without his knowledge. "Checks," he said, "could have been signed without going through me; could have been carried just the same as this tag account was." William J. Kennedy, cashier and assistant treasurer of the com- pany, who had charge of the "tags," stated that during February, 1906, considerable amounts were drawn out in this way, which might have totalled as high as $70,000. 190 Regarding the manner in which money was furnished to Halsey, Zimmer testified before the Grand Jury as follows: "Q. This $10,000 that you gave him (Halsey) under direction of Mr. Glass, in what shape did you hand it to him? A. Currency. "Q. Did you have the currency on hand or send out and get it? A. Sent out and got it. I went out and got it. "Q. Where did you get it? A. I don't remember, I had to go to several banks. "Q. Did Mr. Glass tell you he wanted you to give it to him in currency? A. Yes, sir." 191 These admissions led to close questioning of Mr. Zimmer. The following is taken from his testimony given before the Grand Jury: "Q. Now, in what way did that money appear in the books? A. Didn't appear in the books. "Q. How was it taken care of? A. No voucher was ever made for it. "Q. How would your cash account for it? A. It wasn't taken out of the cash 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. Baton, treas- urer, the same as other coin checks are issued, coin or currency. "Q. It would have appeared somewhere in the books, that check, that amount would be deducted from the bank account? A. Yes, sir; but carried in the expense account of the cash suspense. "Q. Leave a tag with you? Leave a tag, would you? A. Yes." 172 The Source of the Bribe Money upon the bookkeeping methods followed. Sherwin had been traveling auditor for the American Bell Telephone Company, which concern owned 51 per cent, of the stock of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company. Later he took Zimmer's place as auditor of the Pacific States Company. Mr. Sherwin admitted that some of Mr. Halsey's "special expenses," at least, were finally charged to the company's legal department. ^^^ Passing from the investigation of the bribery transac- tions of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company to the activities of the Home Telephone Com- pany, the Grand Jury examined prominent business men of Los Angeles as well as of San Francisco. The plan of operation followed by the capitalists be- hind this enterprise was to organize a construction com- pany, whose part was to establish the plants, put them 192 Before the Grand Jury, Sherwin was closely questioned as to one of Mr. Halsey's "Special expense" claims. The following is from his testimony: "Q. Now, then, that shows that it was charged against what fund? A. That got in the legal expense finally, we charged it to Reserve for Contingent Liabilities, and each month we credit that account, I have for,?otten maybe $2,000, and charge it to legal to make it run even in the expense each month. "Q. Why does it ^o to legal? A. Because — instead— to what else would it go? "Q. 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 de- partment. 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. Tes, that reserve fund is charged off for legal expense. "Q. And what is the reason for that? A. For charging it to legal? "Q. Yes. A. For charging it to legal — because — I don't know the reason — it is always done that way." The Source of the Bribe Money 173 into operation and turn them over to the operating com- panies, taking- their pay in the securities of the local op- erating company. Thus, at San Francisco, the Empire Construction Company played an important part in the Home Telephone Company enterprise. As Heney put it, the Empire Construction Company received the most benefit from the granting of the Home Telephone franchise. The Empire Construction Com- pany furnished at least part of the money that went into the fusion campaign fund in 1905. Investigation showed that 25 per cent, of the stock of the Empire Construction Company belonged to men who were in the construction solely, while 75 per cent, was in the hands of men who were financing the enterprise. This last block of stock at the time of the investigation was divided among James H. Adams and Thomas W. Phillips of the Adams- Phillips Company, A. B. Cass, Gerald S. Torrance and A. K. Detweiler. Detweiler could not be found. Adams, Cass and Torrance, after answering some of the ques- tions put to them, availed themselves of their constitu- tional privilege, and refused to make further answers. The books of the Adams-Phillips Company disappeared and employees of that company undertook to evade an- swering questions regarding the disappearance, on the ground that they might incriminate themselves. But a sharp order from the Superior Court brought out their testimony. However, none of them gave testimony that led to the discovery of the missing volumes. But the general trend of the testimony went to show that the responsible agent for the Empire Construction Company and the Plome Telephone Company in San 174 The Source of the Bribe Money Francisco was A. K. Detweiler. The testimony showed Detweiler to have been at Ruef's office in consultation with Ruef and Supervisor Gallagher; he was active in every move that was made on behalf of the Empire Con- struction Company and of the Home Telephone Com- pany in San Francisco, and had the disbursing of the funds. Incidentally, through the testimony of Dr. Fred But- terfield, a representative of Adolphus Busch, the brewer, the Grand Jury learned that a third telephone company. the United States Independent, seeking a franchise to do business in San Francisco, would have bid for the fran- chise which the Home Company received, had not the franchise been so worded that only the telephone system controlled by the Home people could be operated under it. Butterfield stated that his company, made up of re- sponsible capitalists, considered the franchise worth something over a million dollars, and was prepared to bid up to a million dollars, if necessary, to get it. The Home Company paid San Francisco $25,000 for the franchise. Butterfield testified that his company had in- tended to invest $4,500,000 in the San Francisco enter- prise, and that Ruef knew of the extent of the com- pany's plans. With such testimony, the assertions of Ruef's partisans that opposition to the Ruef-Schmitz ad- ministration retarded development of the community compare curiously.^^^ The Grand Jury could not secure the attendance of Mr. Detweiler, for about the time of the investigation Mr. Detweiler mysteriously disappeared. The investiga- 193 See Supervisors' letter to the Examiner, footnote 64, page 62. The Source of the Bribe Money 175 tion into the affairs of the Home Company had, there- fore, to be conckided without Mr. Detweiler's testimony. Following the policy of the stockholders of the Em- pire Construction Company, the officials of the United Railroads refused to testify. President Patrick Cal- houn ^°* and Thornwell Mullally, assistant to the presi- dent, when given opportunity to state their side of the case under oath, stood upon their constitutional rights, and declined to give evidence that might incriminate them.^^^ They were accordingly excused from the Grand Jurv room. 194 Calhoun returned to San Francisco April 10. In Interviews published in the San Francisco papers of April 12, Calhoun em- phatically denied all knowledge of the bribery transactions. In his interview in the Chronicle he said: "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 secur- ing this franchise I would not have accepted it." 195 The refusal of Calhoun and Mullally to testify created a sen- sation, even in those sensational times. The Chronicle in Its issue of May 4, 1907, printed the following account of the Incident: "For the first time in the history of the examination of witnesses before this Grand Jury, Heney was careful not to instruct the prospective witnesses as to their legal rights. Instead he merely asked them if they were already familiar with their rights under the law. " 'I am aware,' said Calhoun, who was the first to be called, 'that anything I might tell this body might be used against me.' " 'Witli that imderstanding are you willing to become a witness before this Grand Jury?" asked Heney. - " 'I am not,' was Calhoun's response. "The jurymen who had leaned forward as the reply of the presi- dent hung on his lips sank back in their seats. " 'That is all, Mr. Calhoun,' said Heney to the president, and then going to the door he said to the bailiff, 'Call Mr. Mullally.' "Mullallv's examination was identical with that of his superior's and he was permitted to go. Neither President Calhoun nor As- sistant Mullallv will be called again to the jury room." Calhoun Issued the following statement of his refusal to testify: "When called before the Grand Jury this afternoon and in- formed that it had under investigation the alleged bribery of pub- lic officials bv the United Railroads, we declined to be sworn and in 176 The Source of the Bribe Money But the employees of the company did not escape so easily. When, for example, George Francis, William M. Abbott, George B. Willcutt and Celia McDermott refused to answer questions p3^,to them in the Grand Jury room, they were haled before the Superior Court, where they were informed that they must testify. In spite of the hostility of these witnesses, the prose- cution succeeded in securing a wealth of data regarding $200,000 which passed into the hands of Tirey L. Ford and, according to the theory of the prosecution, from Ford to Ruef. The prosecution established the fact that two days before Mayor Schmitz signed the trolley permit, that is to say, on May 22, 1906, Patrick Calhoun, as president of the United Railroads, received by telegraphic trans- fer from the East to the United States Mint at San Francisco, $200,000.^^*^ Two days later, the day the trolley permit was signed, President Calhoun took Ford order that our action may not be misconstrued, I call your atten- tion to these facts: "For months past the public prints have been full of charges traceable to certain persons connected with tlie prosecution that they had positive evidence that the United Railroads had spent not less than $450,000 in bribing the officials of this city. I have re- peatedly stated that neither I nor the United Railroads, nor any official of the United Railroads, had bribed anyone, authorized any bribery, knew of any bribery or approved of any bribery. This statement I now fully reaffirm. It is not for us nor any officer of our company to disprove these grave charges. It is for those making them to prove them. We do not now care to discuss their motives. We know that they cannot produce any truthful evidence connecting us or any officer of the United Railroads with this al- leged crime. "We relied, in declining to be sworn, upon the broad Constitu- tional right of every American citizen that a defendant cannot be called as a witness, and upon the justice, fairness and common sense of the Grand Jury, to whom we look for complete vindica- tion without offering one word in our own behalf." 196 For several weeks after the great fire of April 18-19-20, 1906, the banks were closed at San Francisco. Money could, however, during this period, be transferred to San Francisco, through the United States mint. The Source of the Bribe Money 177 to the Mint and instructed Superintendent of the Mint Leach to give Ford $50,000 of the $200,000. Ford told Leach that he wanted currency. The currency was finally secured by exchanging gold for bills at the Mint headquarters of the relief work then being carried on in San Francisco. These bills, it was shown, were all in small denominations, having been sent to San Fran- cisco from all parts of the country by individual sub- scribers to the relief fund. This money was taken away from the Mint, the tes- timony showed, by Ford and William M. Abbott. Soon after, Ruef loaned Supervisor Rea ^®^ $3500. By a curious trick of fate Rea had leased a piece of property from Rudolph Spreckels. In payment on this lease he used the money that Ruef had loaned him. This money was all in bills of small denominations. Late in July Ruef gave Gallagher $45,000, all in bills of small denominations, as partial settlement with the Supervisors for granting the trolley permit. Gallagher gave Wilson of this money $5000, and the other Super- visors with the exception of Rea $2000 each. They all understood that it was because of the trolley franchise deal. The balance Gallagher retained for himself. The confessing Supervisors, with the exception of Wilson and Rea, testified that their first payment on account of the trolley permit was $2000 each, in bills of small denominations. Wilson testified to having re- ceived $5000. Later, Ford, making two trips to the Mint, drew out 197 Gallagher had notified Ruef that he would not deal with Rea in the trolley transaction. Ruef, Gallagher alleged, had agreed to attend to Rea's case himself. See Chapter XIII. 178 The Source of the Bribe Money the $150,000 balance of the $200,000 that had been tele- graphed to Calhoun's credit. As before, the Mint paid him in gold, and as before. Ford exchanged the gold for currency. But instead of getting bills of small de- nomination, on the two trips which Ford made for that $150,000, he secured fifty and one hundred-dollar bills. On the day that Ford drew the last of that $200,000 from the Mint, an agent in the employ of the prosecu- tion followed Ruef from his office to the car barns in which Ford's office was then located. A few days later Ruef gave Gallagher $40,000 in fifty and one hundred- dollar bills, the greater part of which Gallagher dis- tributed among the Supervisors as second and final pay- ment on account of the granting of the trolley permit. In the Parkside deal, the Grand Jury had little dif- ficulty in tracing the money involved. William H. Crocker,^^^ a capitalist of large affairs, who owned the largest interest in the company, showed astonishing igno- rance of the management. The Grand Jury learned little from him. But those interested in the enterprise with Crocker not only told how half the money was paid Ruef, but how the books had been manipulated to conceal the payment. 198 Crocker testified before the Grand Jury, iiowever, that he had Icnown Ruef for many years. "He (Ruef) and my brother-in- law, Prince Poniatowslti," said Croclter, "both being French, and both being pretty clever men, struck up quite a friendship to- getlier and through that means I used to see more or less of Ruef and that was one of those peculiar friendships that spring up with people who are not identified and not connected in any way what- ever in any business enterprise, sprang up between Ruef and my- self, and when he told me that in 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. The Source of the Bribe Money 179 Ruef, according to the testimony of officials of the company, had first demanded $50,000 as price for his employment to put the franchise through, but had finally agreed to take $30,000. This amount, officials of the company testified, was provided by drawing two checks, one in favor of H. P. Umbsen and the second in the name of Douglass S. Watson, secretary of the Parkside Company. Umbsen and Watson thereupon deeded to the Parkside Company two parcels of land. The trans- action was then charged to the purchase of property.^^^ 199 Of this manipulation of the books, President J. E. Green, of the Parkside Company, testified before the Grand Jury as follows: "Q. How was the transaction to appear in the hooks? How was the property account to be charged with It? It would have to show some property. A. It was charged for a block that was purchased from Watson and Umbsen, a block of land. "Q. Did you tell Watson to do that? A. I believe I did. "Q. How did they get paid for the land? A. They deeded this block which they had to the company and the company in turn executed a deed to them, returning the land to them, simply a matter of bookkeeping. "Q. Was the company's deed put on record? From them to the company? A. I rather think so. "Q. What was the purpose of that? A. To get a charge to the property account for the expenditure of that amount of money. "Q. What was the reason for charging it to property account? A. Every expenditure that was made was charged to property account with the idea the property had to pay it back. "Q. Did you always go through the form with every expense that wasn't actually a piece of property, did you go through a form of deeding a piece of property and then deeding it back? A. No, sir. "Q. What was the reason of doing it in this Instance? A. Because — other things — there was a case — grading, sewering or fencing the blocks when they spoke for itself. "Q. I don't see how it helped you; it went to the property ac- count and the property went right out; don't see how it helped you any. A. It had to be charged to something, Mr. Heney. "Q. Why couldn't it be charged to what it was, attorneys' fees? A. Because 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; i8o The Source of the Bribe Money The property was deeded back to Umbsen and Watson at the same time, but these last deeds were not imme- diately recorded. Watson cashed the checks at the Crocker- Woolworth Bank, of which William H. Crocker was president. He testified that he received currency for them. The $30,000 he took to G. H. Umbsen. Half the $30,000 Umbsen paid Ruef. At the time of the exposure, Umbsen ^°° testified he when we got through selling anything over, that was profit in our favor. "Q. It appeared on the books as having been paid to Morrison & Cope for attorneys' fees? A. Can't say without seeing the books. "Q. Ordinary way of keeping books? A. Yes. "Q. You didn't cover up anything you paid to Morrison & Cope by putting through the hands of the secretary? A. No, sir. "Q. Why did you cover up this in connection with Ruef? A. I don't know; suppose the property account is probably the proper one to charge it to. "Q. Only explanation of it? A. Yes, sir." 200 Early in the graft investigation Detective William J. Burns, with studied carejessness, 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. Hender- son, secretary of the company, received word from William I. Bro- beck, of the law firm of Morrison, Cope & Brobeck, attorney for the Parkside Company, to call at that firm's law office. Of the inci- dent. 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 ho'v\'- I got the remark from Hooper who was the sales- man out there and I had passed it off. saying I did not want to talk about it. Then he said to me, T 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 ar- rive in New York about the 4th. Do you think it would be advisable to telegraph or write to him not to say anything? I said: Oh, no, I don't see any necessity for doing that. "Q. What was the remark as you heard it that Bums made? A. We were coming down on the Sutter street car, Mr. Kernan and myself, when Ed Hooper, salesman, spoke to us and said: The Source of the Bribe Money i8i was withholding the second payment until the franchise should be put through.-"^ In the gas-rate case, the Grand Jury found that the corporation that would, in the final analysis, benefit by the increase in gas rates, was the Pacific Gas and Elec- tric Company. The four responsible men in this com- pany were found to be N. W. Halsey, John Martin, Eugene de Sabla and Frank G. Drum. Halsey was out of the State for the greater part of the time and Cyrus Bierce. acting as treasurer of the corporation, looked after his interests. This narrowed the responsibility down to de Sabla, Martin and Drum. I had a distinguished visitor yesterday. I said, who; he said, Mr. Burns, the detective. He said, I knew something about the tele- phone cases. I say what he said, a little something. He asked me about that and started for the automobile and when he got there, he turned around and said, another thing, I want to ask you about, I heard Ruef got $30,000 from Parkside. "WTio would be the m.an to see. I am only out here selling land and don't know any- thing about that. I had been here with Watson when he w^as agent and when ITmbsen took charge he kept me in the same job. He was the salesman out there, that was at that time they had this automobile race and I turned around and said: I see the Oldsmo- bile won the race in Los Angeles, because I didn't want to continue the conversation with him. "Q. Did Brobeck, in his conversation, tell you where he got the information that Bums 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 sa^ying 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 ho tell you to send him some money? A. After we finished he said, 'Mr. Henderson, you had better send me pay for this inter- view.' I said what? and he said five or ten dollars and when I got to the office, I mailed him a check for $10." 201 Ruof's version of the affair, as Ruef gave it before the Grand Jury, was: "Mr. Umbsen stated to me that wnth 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 pro- portion of the fee. Mr. Gallagher estimated what it would require for his services in the matter and we had discussed would the Supervisors accept that amount." i82 The Source of the Bribe Money De Sabla testified before the Grand Jury that Ruef was not, to his knowledge, at any time on the pay roll of the company. Martin swore that he knew of no money that had been expended in connection with the fixing of the gas rates, and expressed himself as being as surprised as anyone at the confessions of the Super- visors to having received money after the gas rates had been fixed. Later, after Ruef had plead guilty to extor- tion, both de Sabla and Martin refused to testify further before the Grand Jury.^"^ Mr. Frank G. Drum, when called before the Grand Jury, stated that he had had no conversation with Ruef in reference to the fixing of the gas rates.^"^ But later Ruef told the Grand Jury that the money which he had turned over to Gallagher in the gas-rate transaction had come from Drum.^°* 202 John Martin's statement, when he refused to testify, fur- nishes fair example of the attitude of those who became involved in the graft scandal. The Grand Jury record shows: "John Martin recalled. "Foreman (to witnessl. You have already been sworn, so you can consider yourself under oath. Mr. Martin: I desire to stand on my constitutional right and not to testify further. "Mr. Heney: If you feel that your testimony might have a ten- dency to subject you to prosecution — . A. (interrupting). No. not that. I am not so advised that that is necessary. My constitutional rights are broader than that, I am advised. "Q. Then you don't desire to testify? A. No, sir. "Mr. Heney: All right." 203 Mr. Frank G. Drum testified as follows: "Q. Do you know Abraham Ruef? A. Met him. "Q. Did you have any conversation with him about that time? A. No, sir. "Q. I mean a conversation with reference to the rates? A. No, not that I know anything about." 204 Ruef on this point testified before the Grand Jury as fol- lows : "I received from Mr. Frank G. Drum, $20,000 as an attorney's fee as spoken of between ourselves, about the time that the gas rates were being fixed. Of that money, I gave to Mr. Gallagher for the Board of 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, The Source of the Bribe Money 183 The first to be indicted because of these transactions was Ruef. Sixty-five indictments were on March 20 returned against him. Eighteen were based upon the bribing of Supervisors in the so-called fight trust mat- ter ; seventeen upon the bribing of Supervisors in fixing the gas rates ; thirteen upon the bribing of Supervisors in the matter of the sale of the Home Telephone Com- pany franchise ; seventeen in the matter of granting the over-head trolley permit. On the same day, ten indictments were returned against Theodore V. Halsey, of the Pacific States Tele- phone and Telegraph Company, for the bribery of Su- pervisors to prevent the sale of a franchise to a compe- ting telephone company. A number of indictments were foiuid against A. K. Detweiler, for bribing Supervisors in the matter of the sale of the Home Telephone fran- and engaged me as attorney to represent the interests, as I under- stood it from him, which he represented in the company, at $1000 a month, of whicli 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 Gallaglier, 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 o.uestion 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, wliich caused them a great deal of damage, and I told Mr. Drum that it would be necessary for me, in order to protect the interests of the company and the inter- erts which he represented, to luive 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." 184 The Source of the Bribe Money chise. The Detweiler indictments, thirteen in number, were based upon payments of money by Ruef to Gal- lagher, and by Gallagher to different members of the board. On March 23, the Grand Jury returned nine indictments against Louis Glass, vice-president of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company, based upon the bribing, through Halsey, of Supervisors to prevent the granting of a competing telephone franchise. During the two months that followed, the Grand Jury continued at the steady grind of graft investigation. Finally, on May 24, one additional indictment ^°^ was brought against Halsey and two against Glass. On that 205 Although the Graft Prosecution was to be effectively opposed by Union Labor party leaders, the San Francisco Labor Council, made up of representatives of practically every San Francisco labor union, on the night of March 23, 1907, adopted resolutions declaring for the prosecution of bribe-givers as follows: "Whereas, The indictments issued during the past few days by the San Francisco Grand Jury against certain individuals involve specific charges of flagrant and widespread corruption on the part of many members of the present city government; and whereas, said government, having adopted the name of 'Union Labor' has pro- fessed particular concern for the welfare of the working class, as represented by organized labor, and has sought and secured elec- tion upon pledges of loyalty to the principles, economic and political, to which organized labor everywhere is committed; and whereas, the alleged conduct of the city government is not only grossly repugnant to the principles of organized labor, but violates 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, shoul.d 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 I'nion Labor party or any other political party or organization, and therefore being in no way responsible for the conduct or mis- conduct of any such party or organization; further "Resolved. That we also 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 utili- ties." The Source of the Bribe Money 185 date, fourteen indictments were returned against Patrick Calhoun, Thorn well Mullally, Tirey L. Ford, William M. Abbott,'"*' Abraham Ruef and Mayor E. E. Schmitz, indicted jointly, for the bribery in connection with the granting- of the over-head trolley permit. The day following, May 25, G. H. Umbsen, J. E. Green, W. I. Brobeck and Abraham Ruef were jointly indicted fourteen times on charges of offering a bribe to fourteen Supervisors in the Parkside franchise matter. The same day, fourteen indictments were returned against Frank G. Drum, Abraham Ruef, Eugene E. Schmitz, Eugene de Sabla and John Martin on charges of giving and offering bribes to fourteen Supervisors in the matter of fixing the gas rates. Still another series of graft indictments were to be found. Three prize-fight promoters, W. Britt, "Eddie" Graney and "Jimmie" Coffroth were, on nine counts, indicted jointly with Schmitz and Ruef for bribery in connection with the awarding to them of virtually a monopoly of the promotion of prize fighting in San Francisco. 20« At the time Patrick Calhoun held the office of President of the United Railroads; Mullally was assistant to the President; Ford general counsel for the corporation. Abbott was' Ford's assistant. CHAPTER XV. RuEF Pleads Guilty to Extortion. ^°^ While the Supervisors were making full confessions of their participation in the bribery transactions, and the Grand Jury was dragging from unwilling promoters, capitalists and corporation employees information as to the source of the corruption funds, Ruef's days and nights were devoted to consideration of plans for his own safety. Ruef, after his arrest and confinement un- der Elisor Biggy, became one of the scramblers of his broken organization to save himself. But Ruef was more clever, more far-seeing than any of the Supervisors. His course from the beginning in- dicates that, in considering confession, he carefully weighed against the power of the regularly constituted authorities of San Francisco to protect him if he testified for the State, the ability of organized corruptionists to punish for betrayal. Ruef realized that although the all-powerful State "machine," labeled Republican, of which the San Francisco organization labeled Union Labor, which he had built up, was but a part, had for the moment lost control of the San Francisco District Attorney's office, but the "machine" still dominated the other departments of the municipal government, as well 207 The statements contained in this chapter are based on affida- vits filed in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823. Many of the statements are qualified, and in many instances denied, in affidavits filed by Ruef, his friends, associates and attor- neys, in the same proceedings. Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 187 as of the State government.-''® Ruef realized that Lang- don might die ; that the State Attorney General might set Langdon aside and himself conduct the graft prose- cution. And he reaHzed that some day a district attorr ney other than Langdon would be prosecutor in San Francisco. In any of these events, what would be the lot of the man who had betrayed the scarcely-known captains of the powerful machine? On the other hand, the hour when the evidence which the District Attorney had accumulated against him would be presented before a trial jury, approached with deadly certainty. Such considerations led to Ruef devoting his days to resistance of the proceeding against him in the trial court, where a jury to try him on one of the five extor- tion charges on which he had been indicted, was being impaneled, while his nights were given to scheming to wring from the District Attorney immunity from punish- ment for the extortions and briberies which had been brought to his door. The period was one of activity for both District At- torney and Ruef. On the whole, however, the District Attorney had the liveliest time of it. To be sure, Ruef had been brought before the trial judge; that is to say, the impaneling of a trial jury had 208 In this connection, in discussing: the difficulties in the way of bringing- criminals to trial, the San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of March 14, 1907, said: "The penal laws of California are admirable, and cover almost every transaction deserving moral reprobation. The only reason why all our people are not either virtuous or in jail is that the same Tvegislatures which have so carefully defined crimes and pre- scribed punishments have been still more careful to enact codes of criminal procedure that nobody can be convicted of any crime if he has the cash to pay for getting off. And what the legislatures have failed to do in this direction the courts have usually made good." 1 88 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion begun, but Ruef's technical fight had not been aban- doned for a moment. The appearance of Ruef under arrest was signal for a fight to have him admitted to bail. But release under bonds Judge Dunne denied him on the ground of the immediate approach of his trial, and because he had at- tempted to put himself beyond the process of the court. Ruef's attorneys appealed to the United States District Court for a writ of habeas corpus, but this was denied them. His attorneys filed affidavits alleging bias and prejudice on the part of Judge Dunne against Ruef, and demanding a change of venue. And with these various motions, all of which the District Attorney was called upon to meet, was the appeal from Judge Heb- bard's order to the Federal Supreme Court, which was considered in a previous chapter. The actual work of drawing a jury to try Ruef began on March 13,-°^ eight days later than the date originally set for trial. The State was represented by District At- torney Langdon, Francis J. Heney and Hiram W. John- son. At the defense end of the table with Schmitz and Ruef were Attorneys Joseph C. Campbell, Samuel M. Shortridge, Henry Ach, Charles A. Fairall and J. J. Barrett. But it developed that one of the four citizens drawn for jury service was not in the courtroom. The defense objected to proceeding during the absence of the venireman. The hearing was accordingly postponed. Because of one technical obstruction and another, the work of impaneling the trial jury was delayed until 209 Four years later to a day, March 13, 1911, Ruef was taken to the penitentiary at San Quentin to begin service of his fourteen- year term for bribing a Supervisor. Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 189 April 2. Even after that date there were interruptions, but the work of securing the jury ^^° went on until May 13, when the twelfth man to try Ruef was accepted. But while Ruef was making this brave fight in public to head off trial on the extortion charge, behind the scenes he was imploring representatives of the Prosecu- tion to grant him immunity from punishment in return for such confession as he might see fit to make. As early as March 20, Ruef sent word to Heney through Burns -" that he was willing to make confes- sion, provided he were given immunity from punish- 210 As the impaneling of the Ruef jury proceeded, that Ruef's nerve was breaking became apparent to all who saw him. The Chronicle, in its issue of March 18, 1907, thus describes his condi- tion: "Ruef's ner\''e is breaking down. He is a prey to doubts and fears which never troubled him in those days when he coiild see his political henchmen every day and bolster up their confidence in his ability to fight off the prosecution. Reports reach his ears of confessions of guilt on the part of some of his official puppets, of the sinister activities of Burns and his agents and treachery on the part of those whom he considered his most devoted adherents, and fill him with alarm. "It was different when he could hold his Sunday evening caucus with the members of the Board of Supervisors, and reassure them that all would be well. He knows the men he used in his political schemes and their weaknesses." 211 Heney, in instructing Burns as to his policy regarding Ruef, took occasion to state to the detective his attitude toward the broken boss. In an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Calhoun et al.. No. 823, Heney sets forth that he told Burns: "Ruef was not a mere accessory or tool in the commission of these briberies. He is a man of extraordinary brain power, keen intelli- gence, fine education, with the choice of good environment, great power of persuasion over men, dominating personality, great shrewd- ness and cunning, coupled with a greedy and avaricious disposition. He has not been led into the commission of these crimes through weakness, but on the contrary has aided in ttie initiation of them and has joined hands with the most vicious and depraved elements in the city to secure unlawful protection for them in conducting their resorts of vice, and has joined hands with the special privi- lege seeking classes to place improper burdens upon the people of this city by granting franchises to public service corporations which ought never to have been granted, and by fixing rate.s which may be charged by them in excess of the amounts which such rates ought to be, and thus indirectly robbing the poor people of this city of a large part of their meagre earnings, and that to let Ruef go free of all punishment under such circumstances would be a crime against society." 190 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion ment for all crimes which he had committed or in which he had participated. Heney refused absolutely to consider any arrange- ment which involved complete immunity for Ruef. Negotiations on the basis of partial immunity fol- lowed. -^^ Heney, on the ground that he did not trust any of Ruef's lawyers, refused to discuss the matter with them, but stated that he would meet any lawyer in whom he had confidence to negotiate terms of partial immunity, provided that Ruef's representative were permitted : ( 1 ) To give the names of Ruef's accomplices who would be involved by his testimony. (2) To give the general nature of the offenses in which the various accomplices were involved. (3) To be prepared to assure Heney that Ruef's evidence against his accomplices could be corrobo- rated, and was sufficient to sustain a conviction. Ruef at first appeared to be well satisfied with the plan. He sent for a list of San Francisco attorneys, and set himself enthusiastically to the work of select- ing a list of the names of attorneys to be submitted to Heney. But he failed to make a selection, urging all the time to Burns that Heney accept Henry Ach. Ruef's insistence that he deal with Ach convinced Heney that Ruef was not acting in good faith, and he 212 Running throug-h the affidavits which resulted from the dif- ferences between the forces of the prosecution and the defense con- cerning- 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. Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 191 refused to yield to Burns's urging that he give way to Ruef in this particular and accept Ach as Ruef's representative.^" Under Ruef's temporizing, negotiations dragged until April 2, the day that, Ruef's technical obstruc- tions in the main set aside, his trial was to be resumed before Judge Dunne. On that day, a new actor appeared in the person of Dr. Jacob Nieto, a Jewish Rabbi of some promi- nence in San Francisco. Nieto, according to Burns's statement to Heney, asked the detective if he had any objection to his (Nieto's) calling upon Ruef. Nieto stated further that he believed that he could get Ruef to confess, and volunteered the theory that the "higher-ups" were en- deavoring to make Ruef a scapegoat for all the boodling that had been committed. Burns reported to Heney that he not only replied to Nieto that he had no objection to Nieto's visiting Ruef, but would be glad to have the Rabbi endeavor to get Ruef to tell the truth. When Burns told Heney of this conversation, Heney did not show himself so well pleased with the arrangements as Burns might have expected. The prosecutor took occasion to warn Burns against Nieto. Heney had already had unpleasant experience with Rabbi Nieto.-^* Nevertheless, Nieto visited Ruef. 213 See Henev's affidavit in the matter of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823. 214 Nieto. according- to Heney, had endeavored to make it appear that race prejudice entered into the prosecution of Ruef. Heney, in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Calhoun et al.. No. 823, tells of Nieto's interference even when the Oliver Grand Jury ■was being impaneled. Heney says: "During the latter part of 192 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion Members of Ruef's family were called into consulta- tion. Conferences were held between Ach, Ruef and Burns. Heney states in his affidavit that he did not attend these meetings. Finally Bums brought Heney word that Ach and Ruef wanted citations to show that the District Attorney had authority to grant im- munity. Heney sent back word that he was confident that the District Attorney had no such power, but with October or the first week in November, 1906, while said Grand Jury was being impaneled, Dr. Jacob Nieto introduced himself to me In the court room of Department No. 10, where I had noticed that he was a constant attendant and close observer of the proceedings connected with the impaneling of the Grand Jury. "Some days after he had introduced himself to me he stepped up to me, just as court had adjourned and after I had been exam- ining some of the grand jurors as to their qualifications, and said in substance: " 'Mr. Heney, it seems to me that you discriminate somewhat against the Jews in examining jurors, and I think that in your position you ought to be more careful not to exhibit any prejudice against a man on account of his religion.' "I asked what in particular I had done to cause him to criticise my conduct in that way, and he referred to some question which I had asked a grand juror, but which I cannot now recollect. I then said to him in substance: " '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 liis religious belief. I am sorry that you have so misapprehended the purpose and motives of my questions to jurors.' "On a subsequent day, during the time the Grand Jury was being impaneled. Dr. Nieto again approached me after an adjourn- ment of the court and again reproached me for having again shown prejudice or discrimination against some grand juror of the Jewish faith by the questions which I asked him ♦ * * and I said to him in substance, in a very emphatic tone of voice: 'Dr. Nieto, I have heretofore told you that I have no prejudice against any man what- ever on account of his religion. All I am trying to do in this mat- ter is to get fair grand jurors, and I am just as willing to trust honest Jews as honest Christians, but I 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 perse- cuted because he was a Jew influenced many of his fellow Jews in his favor is unquestionably true. Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 193 the further statement that if the terms of the im- munity agreement were reasonable and in the interest of justice, that the Court, provided it had confidence in the District Attorney, would unquestionably follow such recommendation as that ofificial might make. Burns brought back word to Heney that Ruef and Ach continued to insist upon complete immunity. Heney sent back an ultimatum to the efifect that Ruef must plead guilty to the extortion case then on trial before Judge Dunne -^^ and take his chances with the sentence that would be given him ; that if Ruef did this, Heney was willing to arrange for com- plete immunity in all the other cases, provided Ruef showed to Heney's satisfaction that his testimony could be sufficiently corroborated and would sustain a con- viction of his accomplices other than Supervisors, in cases where members of the Board of Supervisors had been bribed. In the meantime, the work of selecting a jury to try Ruef on the extortion charge was going on with the deadly certainty of the slide of the knife of a gfuillotine. The second week of the examination of prospective jurors brought Dr. Nieto to Heney's office. Burns accompanied the Rabbi. Nieto ^^® described himself as no particular friend 215 This case was numbered from the indictment, 305. Schmitz was indicted jointly with Ruef in this indictment, and later was convicted under it and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary. See Chapter XVI. The testimony at the Schmitz trial showed that Ruef had taken the extortion money from the French-Restaurant keepers, after Schmitz had acted with him to imperil the French- Restaurant keepers' liquor licenses, and had given part of the pro- ceeds of the enterprise to Schmitz. 216 In his affidavit, Heney quotes Rabbi Nieto as saying In substance: "I do not care to get publicly mixed up In the Ruef case, because among other things, I am not a particular friend of Ruef's, and am not interested in the matter as an individual but 194 ^uti Pleads Guilty to Extortion of Ruef. He expressed the opinion that Ruef should be punished; that he should restore his ill-gotten gains. Heney stated to Nieto his attitude toward Ruef, as he had expressed it many times before. From that time on Dr. Nieto was a frequent caller at Heney's office, always for the purpose of discussing the question of Ruef's confession. During all these meetings Heney did not depart a jot from his original position that the extortion charge against Ruef should not be dis- missed. Later on, a second Rabbi, Dr. Bernard M. Kaplan, joined Nieto in these visits to Heney's office. Kaplan continued active in the negotiations to secure immunity for the fallen boss.^^^ Finally Nieto, Kaplan and Ach sent word to Heney and Langdon by Burns that they desired to meet the District Attorney and his assistant only in the welfare of this community. I think that Ruef has grievously sinned against this community and that he can do a great deal to undo the wrongs which he has committed and to clear up the situation, and I have told him that it is his duty to himself and to his family and to the city of his birth to do so. I want you to understand, Mr. Heney, that I have not come here to ask you to let Ruef go free and without punishment. I think he ought to be punished, and I think he ought to give a large part of the money which he obtained from these corporations to the city to improve its streets. He ought to give $300,000 for that purpose, but Ruef thinks more of money than he does of his family, or even of his liberty, and I think he would rather go to the penitentiary than give up any very large amount of it." 217 Heney, in his affidavit, makes the following statement of his Impression of Kaplan: "Dr. Kaplan appeared to be far more inter- ested in finding out just what would be done to Ruef, provided he plead guilty in the Frencli Restaurant case than he was in the moral issue which was involved in the discussion, or in the beneficial effect which the testimony of Ruef might have upon the deplorable situation then existing in San Francisco on account of Its municipal corruption. "This was evidenced more from his manner and form of ques- tioning than by anything which he said. I immediately became convinced that lie 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 unsophisti- cated." Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 195 at Heney's office to discuss the immunity question. Heney and Langdon consented and the meeting was held in the latter part of April. Ach insisted upon complete immunity, but admitted that he had advised Ruef to take the best he could get.^^^ Neither Langdon -^^ nor Heney would consent to complete immunity, nor to material change in the stand which Heney had taken. Ach wanted assurance that the Judges before whom the bribery cases were pending w^ould, on motion of the District Attorney, dismiss them as to Ruef, and suggested to Heney that he go to the judges and get them to consent to the proposed agreement. To this Heney made emphatic refusal, stating that the utmost he would do would be to go with Ach to Judges Dunne and Lawlor and ask each of them whether he had confidence in him (Heney) and what the Judge's general practice was in relation to matters of this kind, generally, when they came before his court. Other conferences ^^° were held, at which Ach con- tinued to urge complete immunity for Ruef, which 21s 'Fleney. in his affif^avit, states: "During the conversation Ach statPd. in suhptance: 'You can't convict Ruef in this French Res- taurant case, but I realize that you are sure to convict him in some of the bribery cases, and I think it is useless for him to stand out and fierht any long-er, he had better take the best he can get, and I have told him so. Ke in.cists. however, that he ought not to be required to plead guilty in the French Restaurant case, or to submit to any punishment.' " 219 In the course of the intei-view, T.,angdon stated to Ach and the two Rabbis that he had authorized Heney to conduct the nego- tiations for him. but that he wanted it to be distinctly understood by everybody that he had the final say in the matter and would exercise it. and that no agreement could be concluded without his personal sanction. 220 Heney. in his affidavit describing these meetings, states that Ach. Kaplan and Nieto habitually came in the back way so they would not be seen bv newspaper reporters who at the time fre- quented the front halls of the private residence in which Heney, 196 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion finally brought out emphatic statement from Heney that he did not trust Ruef and would enter into no agreement with him which did not leave it in the power of the District Attorney to send him to the penitentiary if at any time the District Attorney and himself concluded that during the progress of the mat- ters Ruef was acting in bad faith, or that the informa- tion which he might give was not of sufficient im- portance to the people of the city and the State equitably to entitle him to go without punishment. Heney takes pains all through his affidavit to make it clear that he treated with Nieto and Kaplan at all times upon the theory that they were Ruef's special pleaders and special representatives, who believed that Ruef was sure to be convicted upon as many of the felony bribery charges as the District Attorney tried him on, and that he would go to the penitentiary for a term of years equivalent to life. On the night of April 21,^^^ when the work of se- after the fire, had his offices. Ach, Heney states, was desirous of not being known as party to the negotiations. Heney in his affi- davit says: "In this same conversation (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 direc- tors of the company and undoubtedly has sufficient influence with the other directors to take this client away from me. This is only one instance, and there are many others.' " 221 See affidavits of Francis J. Heney and Judge William P. Lawlor on file in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823. Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 197 lecting a jury to try Ruef was nearing completion, Ach, Kaplan and Nieto visited Heney's office with assurance that Ruef had about conckided to accept Heney's terms. But, they explained, a new difficulty had come up. Rabbi Nieto was to leave San Fran- cisco the next morning for a trip to Europe. Neither he nor Dr. Kaplan was familiar with the practices of the courts, and while the judges would no doubt consider favorably any recommendation which was made by Mr. Langdon or by Mr. Heney, nevertheless, the two Rabbis would like to hear from Judge Dunne and Judge Lawlor statement as to what the practice of each of these judges was in that respect before they urged Ruef any further to accept the terms which had been offered him. As Dr. Nieto was to leave for Europe early in the morning, they wanted to see the judges that night. Heney assured his visitors that owing to the late- ness of the hour, he was afraid it would be impossible for them to see the judges before morning. But they insisted. Burns was finally sent out to find the judges if he could. He succeeded in locating Judge Lawlor at the theater. Judge Lawlor at first refused to see Nieto and Heney that night, stating that they could appear at his chambers the next morning. But Burns explained that Nieto had to leave for Europe the next morning, adding that he was sure that both Nieto and Heney would consider it a great favor if the Judge would see them that night, as the matter was very important. Lawlor finally consented to see them, but stated that he would do so only at his chambers, if, as he understood it, Heney and Nieto wanted to see him 198 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion about his duties as judge. Burns took word back to Heney's ofifice that they could go to Judge Lawlor's chambers, where the Judge would go as soon as the theater was over. Heney, Kaplan and Nieto met Lawlor at his cham- bers. Heney went straight at the purpose of the meeting. "Judge," Heney sets forth in his affidavit he said in substance, "we come up here tonight to ask you what the practice of your court is in criminal cases in rela- tion to recommendations which may be made by the District Attorney?" Judge Lawlor replied in effect that the District Attorney represents the public in the prosecution of crime, and that under the law it was the practice for that official to submit to the court recommendations concerning persons who turn state's evidence ; that the law vests the authority in the Court to determine all such recommendations and that it is proper for the District Attorney to make them ; that such recommenda- tions should be carefully considered by the Court ; and if they are in the interests of justice they should be followed, otherwise not. Judge Lawlor stated further that he would not consider or discuss any cause or case of any individual except upon a full hearing in open court, and that it would be determined alone upon what was so presented. Final decision, he said, would in every case rest with the Court, and if the application was in the interest of justice, it would be granted, but if not it would be denied. Immediately after having made this statement Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 199 Judge Lawlor excused himself and left the building. Judge Dunne, when finally found by Burns, objected as strongly as had Judge Lawlor to going to the court- room that night, but finally yielded to the same repre- sentations as had been made to Judge Lawlor. All parties at the meeting with Judge Dunne at the courtroom were agreed and the incident was quickly over. Heney asked the Judge, in etTect, to state for the benefit of Nieto and Kaplan the practice of his court in criminal matters in relation to any recommendations which may be made by the District Attorney's office in the interest of justice when the defendant becomes a witness on behalf of the State against his accomplices. Heney stated further that the two Rabbis would also like to know whether or not Judge Dunne had confi- dence in District Attorney Langdon and himself. Judge Dunne replied in substance : "I have con- fidence in you, Mr. Heney, and in the District Attorney, and while I have confidence in the District Attorney, whenever a recommendation or suggestion is made by him in a case pending in my department, it is my practice to entertain and be guided by it, provided, of course, it is in the interest or furtherance of justice." Kaplan wanted to know what the course would be should a man plead guilty and afterwards ask to change his plea. "You have heard what I have said, gentlemen, as to my practice," replied Judge Dunne. "Of course, in all cases of such recommendations, and which I insist shall always be made in open court, whenever the Dis- trict Attorney fails to convince me that he is well ad- 200 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion vised, or that good and sufficient grounds exist for his motions, it must be remembered that the final de- termination must always rest with me. But, of course, I would give great weight to any recommendation either you, Mr. Heney, or Mr. Langdon might make." From the courtroom Nieto, Kaplan and Burns went to Ruef, but Ruef still insisted that he should not plead guilty to the extortion charge, "backed and filled," as Burns expressed it. Ruef sent word to Heney by Burns, asking an inter- view. But this Heney refused to grant, bluntly stating that should he meet Ruef, Ruef would misrepresent anything that he might say. Heney instructed Burns to tell Ruef that he could accept the proposition that he had made to him or let it alone as he pleased, that no more time would be wasted on him ; that trial of the extortion charge would be pressed to conclusion and regardless of whether conviction were had or not, Ruef would be tried immediately on one of the bribery charges. Nevertheless, the persistent Ruef got an interview with Heney. He secured it in this way: After Heney had retired on the night of May 1st, Burns called him up on the telephone, to state that if Heney would give Ruef a moment's- interview that Burns was confident that Ruef would accept Heney's proposition. Heney granted the hearing. Ruef plead for complete immunity. He argued that for him to plead guilty to the extortion charge would weaken his testimony in the bribery cases. He urged that public opinion would approve his release. He charged Heney with being prejudiced against him. Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 201 Heney listened to him patiently, but refused to con- sider any suggestion that he alter the original propo- sition. By this time ten jurors had been secured to try Ruef. Ruef begged for an interview with Langdon. It was granted, with Heney and others present. The same ground was gone over again ; the same denials made. And then Heney bluntly told Ruef in sub- stance: "You must plead guilty in case No. 305 and take your chances on the sentence which v.ill be im- posed in that case. This is our ultimatum and you must agree to this before the first witness is sworn in case No. 305, or we will withdraw our proposition and will never again renew it, or any other proposition looking to any sort of leniency or immunity for you.""- The day following. Burns brought word to Heney that Ruef had concluded to accept the Prosecution's proposition, and had begim his confession by reciting the particulars of the United Railroad's bribery. Burns recited what Ruef had told him. Burns's enthusiasm suffered a shock from Heney's cool analysis of Ruef's statement.-"^ Heney pointed out that Ruef had made no revelation which the Prosecution had not known before, and 222 See Heney's affidavit In the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als.. No. 823. 223 Ruef in this confession to Burns stated that he had received $200,000 from General Tirey L. Ford, head of the United Railroads law department. Of this amount, he said $50,000 he had given to Schmitz and retained $50,000 for himself. Ruef, five years later, in his story "The Road I Traveled," published in the San Francisco Bulletin, again stated that he had received $200,000 from Ford, of which he gave to Schmitz $50,000, to Gallagher his share for the Supervisors, and retained $50,000 for himself. Gallagher received $85,000. This leaves a balance of $15,000 which Mr. Ruef does not account for. 202 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion further that Ruef was certainly concealing part at least of what had occurred between him and General Ford. Heney was now convinced of Ruef's treachery.^^* Ruef's future course tended to strengthen this convic- tion. Having agreed to make full statement of his con- nection Vv'ith the bribing of the Supervisors, Ruef hag- gled over the form of immunity contract. He endeav- ored to force upon the Prosecution a contract of his own drawing. Failing in that he tried to persuade Heney and Langdon to enter into a stipulation that he might withdraw his plea of guilty in the extortion case. In neither move was he successful. Heney refused to depart a jot from his original proposition. Ruef finally accepted the immunity contract which Heney had submitted.^^'' Even after the immunity contract had been signed, Ruef continued to urge Burns that he be not required to plead guilty. The prosecution was not sure what Ruef would do. The examination of jurors to try him went on. The jury was completed on May 13,^^® and 224 It is significant to note in this connection ttiat Heney did not call Ruef as a witness before the Grand Jury in the United Railroads cases until after the Grand Jury had found Indictments against the officials of that corporation. In the opinion of the Grand Jurors, the testimony, exclusive of that of Ruef, Justified these indictments. 225 The immunity contract signed by Ruef and the District Attor- ney will be found in full in the appendix. 226 At the completion of the Ruef Jury, the Chronicle, issue of May 15, 1907, said: "The Ruef jury is complete and we are now in a way to learn all the truth about the particular crime for which Ruef is this time on trial, but which, compared with most other crimes for which he has been indicted, is a mere peccadillo. That Ruef got the money is proved, for he has confessed. His defense, of course, will be that the French-Restaurant proprietors voluntarily presented him with it. The state will have to prove, in order to secure a convic- tion, that they did not give the money voluntarily, but yielded it Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 203 was sworn. But the actual taking of testimony was delayed by Ruef demanding change of venue from Judge Dunne's court. This motion after the filing of numer- ous affidavits by both sides, was denied. However, Ruef's last motion delayed the taking of testimony for two days more. Upon Judge Dunne's ruling the next move would have been the placing of witnesses on the stand. But before this could be done, Ruef whispered to his at- torney, Ach. Ach arose and addressed the Court. "I am requested by our client, your Honor," Ach said in substance, "that it is his desire to have a con- ference with his counsel. I would like to draw your Honor's attention to the fact that up to this time Mr. Ruef has not had a single opportunity to confer with his counsel alone. If the elisor, or the guards, were not in the same room they were quite close by. I think, in view of this fact, that we might be granted an adjourn- ment until say two o'clock of this afternoon so that Mr. Ruef may have this privilege of conferring with us." Heney promptly denied Ach's statement. "What Mr. Ach has stated is not a fact," said Heney. "Mr. Ruef has always been granted privacy in his conference with counsel." On Langdon's suggestion, a half hour's recess was up under threats which they believed it to be In his power to exe- cute. If the state fails to prove that Ruef will stand before the community merely as a moral leper, loathsome to be sure, and despicable almost beyond human conception, but yet not proved guilty of that for which the law prescribes punishment in state's prison. If proper proof cannot be made he must, of course, be acquitted of this crime and at once put on trial for another. Noth- ing is gained by society by the conviction even of the most unmiti- gated scoundrel on insufficient testimony. But when the proof is sufficient the salvation of society demands punishment, and more particularly of punishment of the rich criminal." 204 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion granted to allow Ruef to confer with counsel. With his attorneys, Henry Ach, Samuel M. Shortridge, Frank J. Murphy and Judge Fairall, Ruef went into Judge Dunne's chambers for conference. On their return to the courtroom, Ach and Short- ridge, with Ruef's consent, withdrew from the case on the ground that they could not agree with Ruef as to the manner in which the case should be conducted. Fairall and Murphy remained by their client. And then Ruef, the tears streaming down his face, addressed the Court. He stated his intent to acknowl- edge whatever there may have been of wrong or mis- take in his record, and pledged himself, so far as it lay in his power to make it right.^^^ 227 Ruef? 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 dis- closed my determination, and against their express protest. I take this occasion to thank them for their services, fidelity and friend- ship. Notwithstanding the Court's finding yesterday that this trial might safely be cari'ied 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, wlien the time sliall come, I hope to pass into the eternal sleep. I have borne an honored name. In my private and in my professional life there has been no stain. In my public affiliations, until after the municipal campaign of 1905 and the elec- tion of the present 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 pur- pose, a desire to hold together a political organization which had been built up with much effort, the means of otherwise holding them, did after the election of this Board of Supervisors in a meas- Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 205 "I desire," concluded Ruef, "to withdraw my plea of not guilty heretofore entered, and to enter the con- trary plea, and at the proper time submit to the Court further suggestions for its consideration.^-* ure influence me and the high ideals for which I had heretofore striven. "During the past few weeks I have thouglit deeply and often of this situation, its causes and conditions. To offer excuses now would be folly. To make an effort at some reparation for the public good is, however, more than possible; to assist in making more difficult, if not impossible, the system which dominates our public men and corrupts our politics will be a welcome task. "I have decided that whatever energy or abilities I possess for the future shall be devoted even in the humblest capacity to restor- ing the ideals which have been lowered; shall, as soon as oppor- tunity be accorded, be re-enlisted on the side of good citizenship and integrity. May it be allotted to me at some time hereafter to have at least some small part in re-establishment on a clear, sane basis, a plane of high civic morality, just reciprocal relations be- tween the constantly struggling constituent element of our govern- mental and industrial life. "In the meantime I begin by earnestness of purpose, a purpose to make the greatest sacrifice which can befall a human bein^ of my disposition to make, to acknowledge whatever there may haye been of wrong or mistake and so far as may be within my power to make it right. "I reached this final determination last night after careful reflec- tion and deliberation. Where duty calls I intend to follow, whither hereafter the path of my life may lead and however unpleasant and painful may be the result. 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 sub- mit to the Court further suggestions for its consideration." 228 The Chronicle, in its issue of May 16, said of Ruef's confes- sions: "Abraham Ruef should have thought of his family before he entered upon his career of crime. They are innocent and the public need not, as indeed it cannot, withhold its sympathy for them. The most terrible punishment which is inflicted on such criminals is the distress which their 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 t>een 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 brand* of the city govern- ment which he could get hold of and brought the city almost to the verge of ruin. Seldom has a man occupying an unofficial station in life been able to achieve so much evil. It will be many a year 2o6 Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion "If the defendant wishes to change his plea of 'not guilty' to 'guilty,' " said Heney, "the prosecuting at- torney will consent to the discharge of the jury, as he requests, but we think the indictment should first be re-read so that he may enter the plea as he wishes." The indictment was read. "What is your plea?" asked Judge Dunne of the prisoner. And Ruef replied, "Guilty."-^^ before San Francisco can outlive the shame which the man Ruef 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, how- ever, would have sworn that he did so. It is unthinkable that such sums sliould have been paid him voluntarily by the restaurant keep- ers. All that Ruef can mean by his profession of 'innocence' while pleading guilty, is a claim that he succeeded in terrifying the restaurant men into submitting to blackmail without the use of words which the law would construe as a threat. There is no moral difference between what Ruef would claim that he did and the crime to which he has pleaded guilty. "Ruef also shows his disingenuousness by attributing his situa- tion to 'the assaults of the press.' Doubtless he has been assaulted by the press. But the press has accused him of nothing but what he has confessed and intimated. What fault has he to find with that? Shall the press remain silent while thieves plunder a dis- tressed city and rob it of its good name? Ruef fought the forces of decency until he could fight no longer. No man is strong enough to stand up against the wrath of an outraged community. His physical collapse was inevitable and the only mantle which charity can throw over him is that his physical weakness broke down his mental fac- ulties and caused the self-contradictions in what is a virtual confes- sion of all that he has been charged with." 229 The position of the Prosecution was most difficult. Every department of the municipal government, with the exception of the District Attorney's office, was controlled by the corrupt administra- tion, of which Schmitz was the official head. The necessity of deal- ing with Ruef, and the question of immunity arose primarily and almost entirely, from the fact that there was practically no evidence against Schmitz, except in the French restaurant case, and that there was no evidence in that case that Schmitz received any of the money which was collected by Ruef. Consequently without Ruef's testimony no conviction of Schmitz was possible at all^ except in the French restaurant case, and in that case his conviction was not at all certain. Union I-abor party adherents were naturally unwilling to believe Schmitz guilty until he had been so proven. The big public service corporations and Herrin of the Southern Pacific were all still in sympathy with him and ready to back him Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 207 for re-election. An election was approaching' early In November. The redemption of the city depended upon taking' its control a'way from Schmitz. The Police Commission and the Board of Public Utilities were part of the corrupt and discredited administration. During the rebuilding of San Francisco it was of vital importance to have these two boards honest. Hence the Prosecution felt justi- fied in going to unusual length to secure the additional testimony against Schmitz, which ought to make his conviction certain in the French restaurant case, and thus Immediately depose him from office and place the entire city government in the hands of honest men. The new Mayor could appoint a new Board of Supervisors, new Police Commission and new Board of Public Works, as well as many other important officials; and such new Mayor and Supervisors would be reasonably sure of re-election. Agents of the Public Service corporations realized to the full extent the importance of preventing the conviction of Schmitz, and of forcing the prosecution to submit to the appointment of a new Board of Supervisors before any conviction of Schmitz could possibly be secure, so that the new Board of Supervisors, so selected through Schmitz by thernselves, would have the power of appointing the new Mayor in case Schmitz were convicted. This new Mayor could appoint a new Police Com- mission and it in turn a new Chief of Police, and the new officials would be controlled by the same interests which controlled the old ones. CHAPTER XVI. ScHMiTz Convicted of Extortion. One week after Ruef had plead guilty to the charge of extortion, his co-defendant, Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz, indicted jointly with Ruef, was brought to trial, under indictment No. 305, to which Ruef had entered his plea of guilty. Hiram W. Johnson and J. J. Dwyer appeared with Heney and Langdon for the Prosecution. The defense was represented by the firm of Campbell, Metson & Drew, assisted by John J. Barrett and Charles Fairall, all prominent at the San Francisco bar. The preliminaries were not unlike those of the Ruef trial, which, at the point where testimony would have been taken, was stopped by Ruef's plea of guilty. There were the same allegations of bias, the same at- tempts to secure change of venue, the same appeals to the higher courts in habeas corpus proceedings. But these moves availed Schmitz as little as they had Ruef. Point by point the upper courts found against the in- dicted Mayor ; 'step by step he was dragged to pro- ceedings before a trial jury. The selection of the jury occupied two weeks. But with the swearing of the twelfth juror, Schmitz did not stop proceedings with tearful confession and a plea of guilty. Doggedly the troubled Mayor let the trial go on. The Prosecution called its witnesses to the stand. Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 209 One by one Schmitz's former associates as well as the restaurant men from whom, through Ruef, he had received money, took the stand and told the sordid story of the corruption of the Schmitz-Ruef administration. The specific charge under which Schmitz was tried was that of extortion from Joseph Malfanti, Charles Kelb and William Lafrenz, proprietors of Delmonico's Restaurant, of $1,175. The sum was Delmonico's share of the $5,000 paid to Ruef in 1905, by the French-restau- rant keepers to prevent the liquor licenses, without which their establishments could not be successfully con- ducted, being taken from them. The testimony showed : (1) That Schmitz had used his power as Mayor over the Police Commissioners to compel them in the first instance, to withhold French-restaurant liquor li- censes, and that later in the latter part of January, 1905, he had exerted himself as actively and effectively to have the licenses granted, even removing from office Police Commissioner Hutton, who was standing out against the French restaurants. (2) That attorneys, appearing before the Police Commissioners, to present the claims of the French- restaurant keepers for licenses, were unable to secure a hearing. One of these testified to having advised his client, and other French-restaurant keepers that "there is only one man who can help you, and that is Mr. Ruef." (3) That a French-restaurant keeper who owed Ruef money, and at whose establishment Ruef had his headquarters, approached his fellow French-restaurant 2IO Schmitz Convicted of Extortion keepers and told them that for $7,000 a year Ruef would represent them and keep them secure in their business for two years. The $7,000 demand was finally reduced to $5,000, $10,000 for the two years. (4) That the French-restaurant keepers raised $8,000 of the $10,000 demanded, and sent it to Ruef, $5,000 the first year and $3,000 the next. (5) That Ruef refused to receive anything but cur- rency, would give no receipt for the money, and would deal with one man only. (6) That Ruef claimed to receive the money as a fee from the "French Restaurant Keepers' Association," but that no such association existed in San Francisco. (7) That after the French-restaurant keepers had satisfied Ruef, Ruef appeared for them before the Police Commissioners and, after Commissioner Hutton had been removed from office by Mayor Schmitz, secured for them their licenses. ^^'^ Having established its case thus far, the Prosecution rested. The move was unlooked for. Ruef was known to have confessed ; it had been confidently expected that he would be placed on the stand to answer the question, in whatever form it could be forced into the record : Did you divide the money which you received from the French-restaurant keepers with Mayor Schmitz? But Ruef was not put on the stand. The public marveled, but those behind the scenes knew that Ruef was not the willing witness for the Prosecution that the public thought. 230 For fuller discussion of this testimony see Chapter "Ruef and Schmitz Indicted." Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 211 Ruef had confessed to Heney that he had given half the $8,000 which he had received from the French- restaurant keepers to Mayor Schmitz. But Heney, having trapped Ruef in deception, had very good rea- son for being distrustful of him. Ruef, forever seeking to justify himself, had told Heney that he had refused to appear before the Police Commissioners on behalf of the French-restaurant keep- ers, until the San Francisco Bulletin had challenged him to dare represent them, and claim the money he received from them was a fee. Ruef insisted that the Bulletin's challenge led him to take the case. In this Heney trapped Ruef in his trickery. Ruef's purported contract with the mythical "French Restaurant Keepers' Association," under which the French restaurant keepers had paid him $8000, bore date of January 6. Ruef insisted to Heney that January 6 was the true date upon which the contract was signed. The oral agreement had been made January 5. Heney then confronted Ruef with files of the Bulletin which showed that the Bulletin had not mentioned Ruef as appearing on behalf of the French-restaurant keepers until January 7. This was one day after Ruef had signed the purported contract with the mythical French Restaurant Keepers' Association. A stormy scene between Ruef and Heney followed this exposure. -^^ Heney charged Ruef with falsehood 2.')i "You have not," said Heney to the trapped boss, "told us all the truth in the United Railroads case. You have not told us all the truth in the case of the gas rate matter. You have not told us all the truth in the Bay Cities Water deal. You have not told us all the truth about the deal with Herrin in relation to the dele- gates from this city to the Santa Cruz convention. You have not told us all the truth in the telephone franchise matter. You lied to 212 Schmitz Convicted of Extortion and deception, and declared the immunity agreement canceled. Heney then ordered Ruef from the room, and did not, until long after the Schmitz trial had closed, have conversation with him again. When Schmitz's trial opened. District Attorney Langdon, Hiram Johnson, all the rest of Heney's asso- ciates, urged that Ruef be put on the stand, insisting that the case would be greatly strengthened if it could be proved by Ruef that Schmitz had received half the extortion money. Heney conceded the strength of this contention, but held, on the other hand, that Ruef would lie so much about other things that he would do more harm than ^ood to the case. Personally, Heney insisted, he wanted nothing to do with him. Thus, in making his opening statement to the jury in the Schmitz case, Heney refrained from stating that he expected to prove Schmitz received any part of the money which had been paid to Ruef. But of the break between Heney and Ruef, the pub- us in the Parkside matter, and I caught you at it before tlie 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 lie is rich and powerful. You wanted his influ- ence hereafter to help keep you out of trouble, because you have no idea of acting in good faith with the prosecution. I don't believe you ever acted in good faith with anybody in your life, but you have over-reached yourself this time." — See Affldavit of Francis J. Heney, in The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als.. No. 823. Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 213 lie knew nothing. San Franeisco looked to see Ruef put on the stand. When the Prosecution rested without calling this supposedly star witness, even the Defense was taken by surprise and had to ask continuance until the following day before calling witnesses. Schmitz took the stand in his own behalf. He denied the statements which his former Police Commissioners had made against him. The Mayor's story of denial was soon told. Heney, on cross-examination asked : "Did Ruef pay you any part of the $5,000 that has been testified he received from the French restaurants?" and Schmitz replied: "I didn't know that Mr. Ruef got any $5,000, nor did I receive any part of it."-^^ And then, in detail, Schmitz denied that he had received any money from Ruef, or had had any conver- sation with him regarding a "fee" which Ruef had re- ceived from the French-restaurant keepers. In rebuttal, Ruef was called to the stand.'^^ "Did you," questioned Heney, "in January or February, 1905, in this City and County of San Francisco, at the house of Eugene E. Schmitz, the defendant, at number 2849 Fillmore street, give to Eugene E. Schmitz any money, and if so how much, and in what kind of money?" "I did," answered Ruef, "$2500 in currency." 232 This answer came In the face of strong objection from Schinitz's counsel. Mr. Campbell went so far as to direct Schmitz not to answer. Mr. Barrett's objection was expressed in a way that caused Judge Dunne to order him to his seat. The several objections were overruled and the witness was directed to answer the question. 233 Heney, in an affidavit filed in the case of The Peojple vs. Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823, says of Ruef's appearance: "I did not at any time see or speak to Ruef, except when he was on the witness stand, and then only from a distance and In open court In the regular course of the trial and In the performance of my duty a3 a prosecuting officer." 214 Schmitz Convicted of Extortion "Did you, then and there, tell him," pursued Heney, "that it was his share of the money you had received from the five French-restaurant keepers?" "I didn't say to him," replied Ruef, "that it was his share of the money which I had received from the French restau- rants. I did say to him that I had received from the French restaurants the sum of $5,000, and that if he would accept half of it I should be glad to give it to him. Thereupon I gave it to him." Ruef testified further to paying Schmitz $1500 early in 1906, half of the second payment made to him by the French-restaurant keepers. The jurors before whom Mayor Schmitz was tried took one ballot only. They found the defendant guilty of extortion as charged in the indictment. Following the verdict, Schmitz, who eighteen months before had, for the third time been elected Mayor of San Francisco, was, as a convicted felon, confined in the county jail.-^* 234 Where Schmitz spent the night of Thursday, June 13, the night of his conviction, is a matter of dispute. Sheriff O'Neil Insists tliat he spent the night in jail. This has been denied. The state- ment has been made, apparently on good authority, that all of Friday following, Schmitz, accompanied by Dominic Beban, a deputy sheriff and State Senator from San Francisco, was about town in an automobile. But on Saturday, Judge Dunne warned the sheriff that Schmitz was to be treated as any other prisoner. After that day, pending his appeal to the higher courts, Schmitz was confined in the county jail. Attorney J. C. Campbell made a hard fight to keep his client out of jail. Among other things, Mr. Campbell held that the Mayor had so much official business to attend to that it was practically necessary for him to be in his office all the time for the next month. Schmitz, under this conviction, was sentenced to serve five years in the penitentiary. CHAPTER XVII. ScHMiTz Ousted From Office. The confession of the Supervisors to bribery had no sooner become known than anghng for control of the municipal government under its prospective reorganiza- tion began. -^^ The public-service corporation that had during the 1905 municipal campaign contributed to the campaign funds of both the Union Labor party and the opposing "Reform" fusion organization, had no care as to who reorganized, or in what name the reorganization was accomplished, so long as they continued in control. These corporations had larger interest in public affairs than ever ; there was prospect of their officials being indicted for felonies. But so long as Schmitz continued to be Mayor, neither those who aimed to reorganize for the best interests of San Francisco, nor those who were 235 As early as March 20, 1907, two days after the Supervisors gave their confession to the Grand Jury, The Chronicle touched upon the growing resistance to the prosecution. It said: "In the leading political clubs there is talk of Governor Gillett removing Mayor Schmitz and appointing a successor. This is in the line of gossip, however, for there is a legal question involved, the framers of the municipal Cliarter having provided no means for the removal of tlie head of the municipal government should he be found criminally derelict. There is also some talk of Schmitz resigning if TIeney will vaccinate him and render him immune from punish- ment for his offenses, as he is said to have done with the Super- visors. Another angle of the gossip in chis regard is that the Mayor will appoint a Board of Supervisors picked by prominent merchants and professional men who have organized for the purpose of redeem- ing San Francisco from the toils of the grafters." 2i6 Schmitz Ousted from Office plotting to continue the old order with new men, in the interests of the corporations, could act. The old order controlled Schmitz ; the opposition, having whipped confessions out of the Supervisors, controlled the board. Neither element could undertake reorganization until in control of both Mayor's office and Supervisors. This deadlock was brought about by charter pro- visions empowering the Board of Supervisors to fill vacancies occurring in the mayoralty office, and pro- viding that the Mayor shall fill vacancies on the Board of Supervisors. Had Mayor Schmitz resigned, the Supervisors, controlled by District Attorney Langdon, would have elected his successor. This would have given the Prose- cution the Mayor as well as the Supervisors. On the other hand, had the Supervisors resigned, then Mayor Schmitz would have appointed as their successors men in accord with him and with his policies. Schmitz could then have resigned and the Supervisors of his appoint- ment would have named his successor. This would have permitted the corrupt element to continue the old order in defiance of the Prosecution. Thus, so long as Schmitz held the office of Mayor, the Prosecution, la- boring for good government, could not permit the bribe- taking Supervisors to resign. On the other hand, those who had furnished the bribe money did not dare permit Schmitz to give up his office. In this astonishing situation, that bribe-givers might not gain the upper hand, it was necessary that the six- teen confessed bribe-taking Supervisors should continue in the offices which they had betrayed, so long as Schmitz Ousted from Office 217 Schmitz's power to appoint their successors continued. ^^^ There were, too, further comphcations. The Prose- cution could and did secure the discharge from munici- pal positions of Ruef's satellites who held their places under the Board of Supervisors. Thus, soon after the Supervisors had confessed, Charles Keane,^^''^ Clerk of the Board, was forced from his position. On the other hand, the old-time Schmitz-Ruef followers who owed their appointments to the Mayor, continued secure in 236 The Chronicle, in its issue of April 3, in discussing this phase of the situation, said: "The spectacle of the entire legislative body of a city confessing to the acceptance of great bribes is astonishing. Their continuance in office and consultation with the good citizens as to the best methods of restoring good government is unique. In many parts of the country there is outspoken disapproval of the course which is being taken, and loud declarations that if there were any good citi- zenship in San Francisco the confessed rogues would be driven out of office and hustled into the penitentiary. It is declared that In granting 'immunity' to these Supervisors the city is again dis- graced. Of course, all this is absurd. In the first place, there is no evidence and little probability that Immunity has been promised to anybody. Secondly, if the present Supervisors should resign Schmitz would promptly fill their places with men whom he can more im- plicitly trust but who would not be subject to indictment or' in any way amenable to decent influence. As for Schmitz, he will remain Mayor until he is convicted of crime. The public does not know how that conviction is to be got. It is supposed that some Super- visor can give part of the necessary evidence, but no Supervisor can be compelled to give any evidence at all, and they probably would give none, if driven out. They are not obliged to criminate them- selves. As for Schmitz, he is still defiant. He apparently does not believe that under the legal rules of evidence he can be convicted of what he evidently did. The journals which contrast our slow move- m.ent with the swift punishment which befell briber and bribed when the Broadway street railroad franchise was purchased doubtless ao not understand that the laws and court procedure in California are designed not to convict criminals, but to aid their escape from jus- tice, and that when Jake Sharp bought the New York Aldermen he did not also buy the authority which filled vacancies in the Board. As the situation in this city is unique, so. also, must be our methods of dealing with it. It may be that every Supervisor ought to be promptly indicted but it is certain that that is the one thing most ardently desired by the innumerable company of grafters outside the board. And it may not be but to help them." 23T 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. 2i8 Schmitz Ousted from Office their jobs. Thus, former Supervisor Duffey, appointed by Schmitz to head the Board of Public Works, con- tinued in that position, although involved by Gallagher in Gallagher's confession of the bribery transactions. The Chief of Police held office under the appointment of the Board of Police Commissioners. But Schmitz controlled the commissioners. The chief had been in- dicted with Schmitz and Ruef. The city was clamoring for his removal. But in spite of protests, Schmitz's influence kept the indicted chief in his place at the head of the police department. -^^ The situation could not but cause confusion. To the average man on the street, the Supervisors had 238 The San Francisco Call, in its issue of June 10, 1907, said of Schmitz's continued hold on the Police Department: "The Call has never attached much importance to the well meant efforts of the various citizens' committees to persuade Mayor Schmitz to reorganize the police force and the governing commis- sion of that body. It is easy to understand that Schmitz might engage in some such transaction or bargain if he could be shown his own advantage therein, but that he would surrender control of his most valuable personal asset at this time or, indeed at any other time, was scarcely conceivable in view of the character of the man. This is said advisedly. It is notorious that Schmitz all through his long session in office has treated his control of the police not as a public trust for the common good, but as so much personal property to be used to the limit for his private advantage. Therefore, when Schmitz, in the first instance, gave a committee some sort of pledge that ho would comply with its desire or requests, there was a very natural suspicion that the terms of the bargain as a whole had not been disclosed. There was the insistent inquiry, 'What does S.chmltz 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 iip the work now finds that Schmitz is deaf to its requests for a reorganization of the police force. The lack of discipline in that body has become a public scandal. At Its head is seen a man under indictment for felony, the associate of criminals and accused of tampering with veniremen called to try Schmitz^an accusation whose truth he admits. Gov- ernor Gillett has expressed the common knowledge that the Chief of Police is incompetent. He might have used a harsher word. But Dinan suits Schmitz. He is the ready and unscrupulous tool. An honest man in the same place would be of no use to Schmitz!" Schmitz Ousted from Office 219 confessed to bribery. Why, then, were they permitted to remain an hour in office? Why were they not in- dicted, placed on their defense and sent to the peniten- tiary ? The graft defense naturally took advantage of this sentiment. "Government by the big stick," as the hold of the District Attorney's office over the Supervisors was called, was condemned and ridiculed. One heard, however, little reference to the hold of the beneficiaries of the Ruef administration upon the Mayor's office. From all sides the Prosecution was importuned to oust the "boodle Supervisors." But the fact that a "boodle Mayor" would then appoint their successors was not given such wide publicity. In addition to the complications in the municipal government, due to the Schmitz faction's dogged re- sistance to the Prosecution, combined with the unquali- fied yielding of the Supervisors and the partial con- fession of Ruef, San Francisco was in a condition of confusion and discord. At the time Ruef entered his plea of guilty to ex- tortion, a year had passed since the great fire of 1906. Thousands were still living in shacks erected in the ruins of the old city. The principal business streets were littered with building materials. There had come the depression following the activity of rehabilitation and the pouring into San Francisco of millions of in- surance money. Titles to real property were confused if not in doubt, much of the records having been de- stroyed in the fire. Thousands found themselves forced into court to establish their titles. A little later, the 220 Schmitz Ousted from Office community was to suffer a visitation of bubonic plague. There were many authentic plague cases and some deaths. For months the city was in dread of quaran- tine. There were labor disturbances which for weeks at a time paralyzed industry. At one period between 7,000 and 10,000 iron-trades workers were out on strike. At the time Schmitz was finally convicted of extortion the telephone girls had been on strike since May 3rd. This alone threw the complex organization of a modern city into extraordinary confusion. The linemen struck. On June 21, telegraph operators in San Francisco and Oakland left their keys. But by far the most serious labor disturbance was the strike of the street-car conductors and motormen. For weeks the entire street-car system was paralyzed. The first attempt to move a car resulted in riot in which one man was killed outright and twenty-six wounded. A number of the wounded died. President Calhoun of the United Railroads rejected all offers to compromise, announcing his intention to break the Street Carmen's Union. He succeeded ; in the end the union was broken and scattered, but at frightful cost to Mr. Calhoun's company and to San Francisco. • During the strike of the carmen the city was filled with gunfighters and thugs admittedly in the employ of the United Railroads. Indeed, there was no attempt made to disguise the fact that the United Railroads had brought them into the city. Clashes between the two factions were of daily occurrence. Schmitz Ousted from Office 221 Aside from horse-drawn vehicles which had been pressed into service, street transportation was, for a considerable period, practically at an end. The inability of the people to go from place to place paralyzed in- dustry and business. Merchants, hotel keepers, manu- facturers, all suffered. There were many failures. Citi- zens in all walks of life implored Mr. Calhoun to arbi- trate his difference with his men. He refused abso- lutely.^^^ Henry T. Scott, president of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company, as doggedly re- fused to submit to arbitration the questions involved in the telephone girls' strike. 239 When, through the good offices of a committee of citizens, the difficulties of tlie iron trades were finally adjusted, The Call took occasion to urge an ending of the stiff-neclted 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, cnuld speak with convinction to the iron masters and their striking workmen, it should be able to deal even more effectively v.'ith 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 inter- vene 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 lahior 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 ail 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 prosperitv of any community. It is the best news of this stormy, stressful month." 222 Schmitz Ousted from Office The police seemed utterly unable to deal with the situation. Governor Gillett threatened to call out the militia, and companies at Los Angeles were actually directed to be in readiness to enter San Francisco. But this move was finally abandoned. And through it all, President Calhoun refusing to arbitrate or to compro- mise, issued numerous proclamations -*^ in which he 240 The following, issued on May 17, is a fair sample of the statements which Mr. Calhoun gave out during the period of con- fusion in San Francisco, in the spring and summer of 1907: ' "To the American People — The newspapers of this city published yesterday afternoon and this morning contain sensational statements purporting to give the testimony of Mr. Abraham Ruef before the Grand Jury yesterday afternoon. It is alleged that he confessed that the United Railroads, through some of its officials, bribed the Super- visors to grant the permit for the overhead trolley over certain of its roads. I do not know if Mr. Ruef made any such statements. If he did, they are untrue. I repeat with renewed emphasis my former declaration that no official of this company ever bribed any one, authorized Mr. Ruef or any one else to bribe anybody, knew of nny bribery, or approved of anv briberv. "T chprsre the nrosecution -pnth having prostituted the great office of tbp ■District Attornpv to fiirt^er tb^ plans of nrivate malice in the interest of a inan T\'bo organized the Muri'Vipal Street Pailwavs of San Francis'^o on the 17th dav of Anril. 190R. the dav before the earthnuake and fire, with a capital stock of $14,000,000, of which $4 ?> 00. 000 wf>re «!ubpcrihpd for as follow^: Ola us Snre'^kels subscribed $1 000.000. .Tames T). Pbelan subsi-ribed i^l.OOO OOO CJeors-e TOilttell subscrlhed SBOO.OOO Rndoir.Vi Spreckels subscribed J1. 000. 000, Charles S. ■^^''beoler puhs^vlbed Sion 000. T-^n per i^ent of the amount sub- scribed, or JiinO 000. -was Paid in (^ash, p«? eVio-wn by the affidavit of the trea='irer of +be companv, Ta.mes K. Moffltt. duly filed in the Coimtv Clerk's ofl\re. "T chars"e that, in f,irthpran"e of the plans of the private prnce- cutor to assure evidence that would involve the TTnited Railroads, the P'strict .Attornev b'^s b^en ■willina' to pu^'i^b^sp testinnon^' ■with Immnnitv contracts, purnortine- to srrant irnmnnity <^o se^f-oonfosc■'^s 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 tho.r arch enemy, the president of the United Railroads. ' If the S jpreme 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 bo a curious outcome to the efforts of an attorney to free men charged with crimes which the unions condemn, but It would not be the first instance of a miscarriage of the purposes of organized labor." 250 The Real Fight Begins and that for the good of the community the graft cases should be dropped. ^*'^ The evident poHcy of the defense was to undermine the prosecution and create pubHc opinion against it, until both prosecution and community should be worn out, and made to quit. The principal attack was through the newspapers. The prosecution had not been long at work before the weekly papers, with few exceptions, were devoting the bulk of their space to ridiculing and vilifying all who were in any way responsible for the graft exposures and impuning their motives. What these publications received for their work is indicated by the subsidies paid one of the least of San Francisco weekly papers — a publication since suspended — the Mission Times. In January, 1907, a man by the name of Williams purchased the Times for seventy-five dollars, giving his unsecured note for that amount. In less than a month the new proprietor had received $500 from an agent of the United Railroads. Later on, he received a regular subsidy of $250 a week, something more than $1,000 a month, which continued for thirteen weeks. The sub- sidy was later reduced to fifty dollars a week. But during the interim between the weekly subsidy contracts, lump sums were paid. It is estimated that in little over a year, Williams received from agents of *he United Railroads upwards of $7,000. The Times a*", first covertly, and later openly, opposed the prosecution. If the unimportant Mission Times, which at the open- 269 Some went so far when examined for jury service at the later graft trials as to say they would not vote to convict. The Real Fight Begins 251 ing of the year 1907 had changed hands for seventy- five dollars, received upwards of $7,000 from agents of the defense, the not unreasonable question may be asked, what did more important weekly papers, whose graft prosecution policy was practically the same as that of the Times, receive? In this connection it is pertinent to say that the majority of these publications gave evidence during 1907, of a prosperity that was quite as mysterious, if not as suggestive, as had been the prosperity of the Schmitz-Ruef Supervisors during 1906. As has been seen, the entire daily press of San Fran- cisco was, in the beginning, heartily in accord with the prosecution. Gradually, however. The Examiner and The Chronicle "'^ shifted their policy. Even while The Chronicle was backing the prosecution in its editorial columns, its reports of the proceedings at the various 2V0 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 amongr everybody, or a great many people, as to the value or necessity of another telephone system, and we could not obtain the assistance of any newspaper in that work without paying for it. Some required it in the shape of advertising which we did not need — don't do any good — others wouldn't take It in that way; the Chronicle wouldn't take it that way and we were forced in order to have some news- paper a.=pist us in that work, to pay the price which was $10,000. "Q. Did they give editorial work for that? A. No. They were supposed when the matters came up before the Board of Super- visors to write it up favorably, that is to say, talk about the advan- tage of a competitive telephone system in the way of keeping out a monopoly, and doing away with the poor system of the Pacific States." 252 The Real Fight Begins hearings were colored in a way well-calculated to under- mine Langdon and his associates. ^^^ Gradually the covert opposition of its news columns became the open editorial policy of the paper. But the most effective opposition came from The Examiner. The Examiner supported the prosecution until the conviction of Schmitz and the change in the municipal administration. Failure to dictate the selec- tion of Mayor and Supervisors may have had more or less influence in the change of policy. At any rate, the invention of The Examiner's writers and artists was tortured to make the prosecution appear to disadvan- tage. The most tawdrily clever of The Examiner's efforts were the so-called "Mutt cartoons." The cartoons ap- peared from day to day, a continuous burlesque of the work of the prosecutors, and of the graft trials. Heney was pictured as "Beaney;" Detective Burns, as Detective "Tobasco ;" James D. Phelan as "J. Tired Feeling;" Rudolph Spreckels, as "Pickles;" Superior Judges Dunne and Lawlor, before whom the graft cases were heard, as Judge "Finished" and Judge "Crawler," respectively. In these "Mutt cartoons" every 271 The Chronicle's reports of the work of the Graft Prosecution are models of the journalism which strikes in the dark. When, for example, the defense called Rudolph Spreckels to the stand in its efforts to disqualify the Grand Jury, The Chronicle, while in its editorial columns condemning such proceedings, reported the inci- dent in its news columns as follows: "Spreckels, who had been keeping in the background, came for- ward, glancing furtively at Heney, whose lips were moving nerv- ously." In the column from which this quotation is taken, Heney is represented as replying "nervously" to charges made by attor- neys for the defense, and Spreckels, when a question was put to him as looking "appealingly" to the attorney representing the pros- ecution. But observers of the proceedings recall no perceptible nervousness on Heney's part, nor "furtive" nor "appealing" glances from Spreckels. The Real Fight Begins 253 phase of the prosecution was ridiculed. For example, when the excitement over the graft trials was at its height, there were rumors that the assassination of Heney or Langdon would be attempted. In ridiculing this, The Examiner pictured "Beaney" with a cross on his neck where the bullet was to strike. A few weeks later, during the progress of one of the graft trials, Heney was shot down in open court, the bullet taking practically the same course which in the "Mutt" car- toon The Examiner had pictured. After the shooting of Heney, The Examiner discontinued the anti-prosecu- tion "Mutt cartoons." Mr. William Randolph Hearst's San Francisco Ex- aminer did effective service in discrediting the graft prosecution. But Mr. Hearst, with curious inconsist- ency, outside California, gave the prosecution his per- sonal endorsement. In his Labor Day address at the Jamestown Exposi- tion, September 3, 1907, for example, Mr. Hearst among other pleasing observations on the work of the San Francisco Graft Prosecution, said : "You hear much today of how a Mayor of San Francisco has fallen, but you hear little of how powerful public service corporations tempted a wretched human being with great wealth and brought a once respected man to ruin and disgrace. You hear much of how a Mayor elected on a Union Labor ticket is in jail, but little of the fact that it was an honest District Attorney, elected on the same Union Labor ticket, who put him there, an honest Dis- trict Attorney, who is doing his best to put beside the Mayor the men really responsible for all this debauch- ery and dishonor. While it is the fashion to criticise 254 ^^^ Real Fight Begins San Francisco just now, I venture to assert that the only difference between San Francisco and some other cities is that San Francisco is punishing her corrup- tionists. There is many an official elsewhere who has stolen office or dealt in public properties who would fare like Schmitz if there were more honest and fearless District Attorneys like Union Labor Langdon." Later on, after Ruef had been sent to the peniten- tiary, an article on the San Francisco Graft Prosecu- tion appeared in one of Mr. Hearst's magazines.^^^ The article was printed under the signature of Mr. Edward H. Hamilton, one of the ablest of Mr. Hearst's em- ployees. Mr. Hamilton gave the credit for the work of the graft prosecution to Mr. Hearst and The Exam- iner. The men whose steadfastness of purposes and high integrity had made even approach to the prosecu- tion of influential offenders possible, upon whom Mr. Hearst's Examiner had poured ridicule and abuse, were more or less favorably mentioned in the article, but Mr. Hearst was given the bulk of the credit for what the prosecution had accomplished. In California, where The Examiner's treatment of the prosecution was well known, Mr. Hamilton's article was received with some amusement and not a little resentment.^^' 272 The Cosmopolitan, issue of July, 1911. 273 The Sacramento Bee, in an editorial article, "Laureling the Brow of a Harlequin 'Reformer'," said of Mr. Hamilton's claims for Hearst: "The San Francisco Examiner is advertising an article by Ed- ward H. Hamilton in the July Cosmopolitan — an article which is a tissue of the most shameless misrepresentations from beginning' to end — an article which falsely and m_ost mendaciously credits the conviction and imprisonment of Abraham Ruef to William Randolph Hearst. "The Cosmopolitan is a Hearst magazine; Hamilton, a Hearst writer. Undoubtedly in New York many will believe Hamilton has written the truth. Every man in California knows otherwise. "It is strange that a writer with the ability and the reputation The Real Fight Begins 255 Although, with few exceptions, the poHcy of the San Francisco press was adverse to the prosecution, the principal interior papers gave Langdon and his asso- ciates loyal support. But eventually a chain of papers covering the greater part of the interior of northern and central California was enlisted on the side of the de- of Kdward H. Hamilton would for any consideration write an article so brazenly false that one marvels at the audacity alike of the eulogist and the laureled. "For Hearst had no more to do with the fate of Ruef than Ruef's own lawyers. He labored on the same side — to make the graft prosecution so unpopular that no conviction of the guilty could result. Day in and day out the Examiner reeked with slanders aimed at the men who were endeavoring to place Ruef behind the bars. "Day in and day out, the most malicious cartoons were pub- lished against Spreckels, Heney, Phelan, Burns and all who were battling for the punishment of public and semi-public scoundrels. Day in and day out in the Examiner Judge 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 Exam- iner men were supplied with rifles. "And their fears were to a certain extent justified. One of the vilest cartoons against Heney pictured 'Beany' in danger of his life from imaginary assassins. On 'Beany's' neck was a mark to show where the bullet was to strike. By an extraordinary coinci- dence, the bullet that struck Heney down at the Ruef trial found almost the identical spot that a few days before had been marked on 'Beany's' neck in Hearst's humorous cartoon. "On the night of the day that Heney was shot, indignant San Francisco in an immense mass meeting thundered its denunciation of Hearst and the Examiner. And graft-prosecution leaders found it necessary to plead with an inflamed populace to attempt no violence. "No more 'Beany' cartoons made their appearance. The Exam- iner wrote of all connected with the graft prosecution in terms of respect. But this repentance born of fear did not prevent Cali- fornians by the thousands stopping the Examiner. "The Cosmopolitan eulogy of Hearst in the graft-prosecution matter is a long line of known misstatements from beginning to end. "It is humiliating to have to record that a man of Ned Hamil- ton's talents could so debase them as to present in the light of a militant Paul of the graft prosecution one who was its most con- temptible Judas Iscariot. "Regrettable indeed is it that "Poor Ned 'must torture his invention To flatter rogues or lose his pension.' " 256 The Real Fight Begins fense. The papers were started or purchased by a news- paper pubHshing company known as the Calkins Syn- dicate. The Calkins people had for several years been iden- tified with a number of unimportant papers, printed in the interior. Suddenly, from publishing obscure weeklies and dailies, the Calkins Syndicate became one of the most important, if not the most important, publishing concern in California. A modern printing plant, one of the finest on the Pacific Coast, was installed at San Francisco. The establishment took over much of the printing of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, in- cluding the printing of the railroad corporation's month- ly. The Sunset Magazine. The Sacramento Union, the most important California morning newspaper printed north of San Francisco, and the Fresno Herald, an aft- ernoon daily, were purchased outright. A bid was made for the San Francisco Post,^''* but terms could not be made. The Calkins people accordingly started the San Francisco Globe, an afternoon daily newspaper. Less important papers were established at various points. In an increditably short period, the Calkins Syndicate had a chain of newspapers covering the greater part of northern and central California. The distinctive feature of these publications was their opposition to the San Francisco graft prosecution. But the abuse of the Calkins newspapers was not so cleverly presented as in the Examiner, nor so adroitly handled as in the Chronicle. So violent were the Calkins papers' 274 After the failure of the Calkins syndicate its successors to the ownership of "The Globe," purchased the Post and combined the two in one publication under the name of Post-Globe. The policy of the paper was not changed. The Real Fight Begins 257 attacks, in fact, that they injured rather than assisted the defendants' cause. This was generally recognized. The Calkins Syndicate, after losing whatever effective- ness it may have had, eventually went into bankruptcy. 275 275 The astonishing business conditions under which the Calkins Syndicate was conducted were brought out during the proceedings in bankruptcy. For example: The Union Trust Company, closely connected financially with the Southern Pacific Company, and the United Railroads, advanced the syndicate $175,000. To secure this loan, the Syndicate gave the Union Trust Com- pany as collateral 1251 shares of the 2500 shares of the capital stock of the Sacramento Publishing Company, 150,100 shares of the 300,000 shares of the capital stock of the Calkins Publishing House, the majority of the capital stock of the Fresno Publishing Company, which published the FYesno "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 Frer^no Publishing Company sold under the hammer for $4.S50. The 1251 shares of the Sacramento Publishing Company were estimated to be worth $51,000. The stock of the Calkins Pub- lishing Jlouse 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 news- paper and the real property where the paper was published. Soon after purchasing the Sacramento stock, the Calkins Syndi- cate organized a second Sacramento Publishing Company. The first company — that of the 2500 shares — was organized as The Sacra- mento Publishing Company. The Calkins people in organizing the second company dropped the "The," calling it "Sacramento Pub- lishing Company." The second company was organized with a capital stock of 300,000 shares, — 175,000 shares common stock and 125,000 shares preferred. The Syndicate took 100,000 shares of this preferred stock to the London, Paris and American Bank, and used it with certain stock of the Nevada County Publishing Company, another Calkins con- cern, as collateral to secure a loan of $30,000. Of the 25,000 (pre- ferred) shares remaining, the Calkins people sold 10,000 shares for money. The 15.000 shares remaining, Mr. Willard P. Calkins, head of the Calkins Syndicate, took to compensate him for his peculiar labors in the transaction. This disposed of the 125,000 shares of preferred stock in the second company. The 175,000 shares of common stock still remained to be disposed of. Mr. Calkins, as president of the Calkins Syndicate, wanting more money, took the 175,000 shares to the London, Paris and American Bank, and pledged them as part collateral for a second loan. He did more— he pledged the "Union's" Associated Press franchise as further security for this second loan. Eventually, the second loan was paid off, but the London, Paris and American Bank continued to hold the 175.000 shares of common stock and the Associated Press franchise, under an alleged col- lateral agreement, as further security for the first loan of $30,000. The first loan was eventually reduced to $16,085.02. When the 258 The Real Fight Begins Almost as effective as the newspaper publicity against the prosecution, was the opposition of fashionable social circles and of the clubs. The graft defendants became much in evidence at the best clubs in the city. To be sure, their persistent appearance all but disrupted some of the clubs, members in sympathy with the enforce- ment of the law openly objecting to their presence.^^^ crash came, two Sacramento Publishing Companies, one with a "The" and one without a "The," claimed ownership of the Sacra- mento "Union." A majority of the stock of the first company was pledged to the Union Trust Company as part collateral for a loan of $175,000; 175,000 shares of the common stock of the second com- pany and 100,000 shares of its preferred stock, together with the paper's Associated Press franchise, were in the hands of the suc- cessor of the London, Paris and American Bank, the Anglo & Lon- don, Paris National Bank, to secure a balance of $16,085.02 due on an original loan of $30,000. But there were further complications. The first Sacramento Publishing Company, the directors and officers of which were the directors and officers of the second company, transferred the cor- poration's office building to the second corporation. The second cor- poration thereupon mortgaged this real estate to the People's Bank of Sacramento to secure a second loan of $20,000. When Mr. I. W. Hellman, Jr., manager of the Union Trust Com- pany — also one of the prominent managers of the Hellman move- ment in local politics— was on the witness stand, at the time of the Calkins investigation, he was asked to whom he looked for the pay- ment of the $175,000. "To the Calkins Syndicate," replied Mr. Hellman. 276 The presence of President Calhoun at an Olympic Club din- ner in July, 1907, met with strong objection. Calhoun was not a member of the club. He had, it was charged, been brought there by one of the employees of the Southern Pacific Company, who was a member. His appearance led to open protest. It was finally arranged that objection should not be 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 mem- bers of the club, "to the presence here of Mr. Calhoun and I pro- test against his making a speech on the ground that the gentleman has been indicted by the Grand Jury for a most heinous offense; that he has been charged with bribing and debauching public offi- cials, and should not be a guest of the club until he can come with clean hands. I do not pass upon this man's innocence or guilt, but feel that vmtll his hands are clean he should not come to the club." The outcome was that, by action of the Board of Directors, Dr. Clinton was expelled from the club. The course was generally de- nounced. "The Olympic Club of San Francisco," said the Sacra- mento Bee, "has shamed itself in the eyes of every decent, honest, manly, self-respecting citizen in this State by its recent act, through its Board of Directors, in expelling Dr. Charles A. Clinton The Real Fight Begins 259 But in the end, the defendants prevailed and were loudly apparent at the principal clubs of the city even while under the inconvenience of indictment. San Francisco's so-called fashionable society was, during: the graft trials, practically organized as an ad- junct of the defense. Those in accord with the prosecu- tion were cut off visiting lists. Some of the non-resident indicted ones brought their families to San Francisco. Their wives and daughters at once became prominent in social matters. It was the refinement of the custom of bringing in "the wife and innocent children" of the defendant at a criminal trial. This character of defense was most effective. The from membership. The offense of Dr. Clinton was merely that he protested, as every other honorable member of the Olympic Club should have protested, not so much 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 mem- bers of the Olympic Club to force Calhoun to make a speech and become the hero of the affair." When the American battleship fleet visited San Francisco in 1908, much opposition developed over the efforts of upholders of the defense to have Calhoun invited to the banquet given in honor of the visitors. Calhoun's representatives finally overcame the resistance, and Calhoun was invited. Calhoun's social and other activities during this period resulted in much newspaper discussion. "The action of Patrick Calhoun," said the Examiner, "in appointing himself, Thornwell Mullally and William Abbott, all under Indictment on bribery charges, as dele- gates to the Industrial Peace Conference caused such indignation and protest on the part of the other delegates that a committee on arrangements last evening demanded that Calhoun withdraw the 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 Franf^isco's so-called social leaders. The alleged fact that neither Calhoun nor Mullally was present on that im- portant occasion was made subject of much curious newspaper comment. The "social side" of the graft defense not infrequently furnished saving comedy for an overstrained situation. It was, however, most effective in breaking down the prosecution. "So- cially" the defense had decidedly the better of the situation. Cal- houn, for example, became a member of the Olympic Club. There was a deal of newspaper protest at the club's action in admitting him, and defense of the club and other comedy. But Calhoun wore the "win,ged O" emblem of the Olympic Club on his automobile, nevertheless. 26o The Real Fight Begins charming entertainment of those wives and daughters of indicted magnates who engaged in the social publicity campaign in the interests of their troubled male relations, went far toward building up public opinion against their prosecutors. The supporters of the prosecutors were treated with scant ceremony. To be a supporter of the prosecution was not regarded as "good form." All in all, the social side was one of the cleverest and most effective features of the publicity campaign carried on by the graft defense.^'^^ The boycott of those in sympathy with the prosecu- tion extended to the larger business world as well as to exclusive social circles. When, for example, the Amer- ican battleship fleet visited San Francisco on its tour around the world in 1908, the committee appointed by the Mayor to arrange fitting reception and entertain- ment of its visitors, organized by making James D. Phelan, prominently associated with Mr. Spreckels in the Graft Prosecution, chairman. That Mr. Phelan should be made head of the com- mittee, or even identified with it, gave serious offense to the large business and financial interests that did not approve the prosecution. ^'^^ The large interests thus 277 One of the most amusing experiences which the writer had during this period was in listening to a woman, prominent in Episcopalian Church affairs, as she voiced her indignation because of a slight put upon her at an important social event of her church, at which daughters of one of the graft defendants had place in the receiving line. 278 Some of the letters of refusal to contribute are of curious interest. For example. Timothy Hopkins, a capitalist of large af- fairs, wrote curtlv: "Yours of the 4th in reference to contributions for the entertainment of the United States Fleet has been received. I am not contributing. Yours truly, TIMOTHY HOPKINS." E. E. Calvin, for the Southern Pacific, wrote "that under present conditions we cannot afford to contribute money to any purpose other than charity or a pressing public necessity." A. H. Payson, for the Santa Fe, wrote that under his instruc- tions he "was not able to make a subscription for this purpose In behalf of the Atchison Company." The Real Fight Begins 261 offended refused to contribute to the reception fund. William C. Ralston, United States Sub-Treasurer at San Francisco, and treasurer of the Fleet Reception Commit- tee, reported to the committee that several large banks and public service corporations would not contribute to the reception of the fleet unless Mr. Phelan left the reception committee.^^^ The committee, refusing to submit to this arrogant dictation, accordingly proceeded to the entertainment of the fleet without assistance from the anti-prosecution financiers and institutions. The smaller merchants, as- sisted by those banks and enterprises which had not been offended by the proceedings against the corrupters of the municipal government, contributed upwards of $75,000. The reception to the fleet was thus carried to successful conclusion without the assistance of the graft defense element. 279 Mr. Ralston, in an interview printed In the San Francisco Examiner, September 26, 1908, said of this incident: "The true facts of the case are that when P. N. Lilienthal and myself called on many of the banks and all of the public utility corporations they came out boldly and stated that they would not give one dollar while Phelan was Chairman of the Executive Com- mittee, or connected with the reception of the fleet. "Some of tlie banks that refused are the Crocker National Bank and the Wells-Fargo National. Some of the other banks only gave $100 when they would have given much larger amounts. They dis- liked Phelan. Among the corporations were the Telephone Com- pany, the Spring Valley Water Company, and the Gas and Electric Light Company. The Southern Pacific and Santa Fe refused to subscribe and it is presumed their reasons were the same as the other corporations. "When I learned the true situation," Mr. Ralston went on, as he widened the moutli of tlie bag for the certain escape of the cat, "I went before the Executive Committee, at a meeting at whicli Mr. Phelan was present, and guaranteed the sum of $25,000 more if Mr. Phelan resign or step out. I even went further and said that besides guaranteeing $25,000, I felt assured that the sum of $50,000 could be easily collected if Mr. Phelan would drop out. This Mr. Phelan refused to do. These matters all came up in executive meetings." In this connection it is Interesting to note that at the 1914 elec- tion in California, Mr. Phelan was elected to represent the State in the United States Senate, while Mr. Ralston was defeated at the Republican primaries for nomination for Governor. 262 The Real Fight Begins In the work of undermining the prosecution, the hum- bler circles of municipal life were not neglected. The claquer in labor union, and wherever groups of laboring men and women met, was quite as active as his prototype at club and exclusive function. In labor circles the pros- ecution was described as a movement to discredit labor and to disrupt the unions. Here, Rudolph Spreckels was described as the unrelenting foe of labor organizations. At club and function, on the other hand, the prosecu- tion was condemned as agent of "labor organization and anarchy," and Mr. Spreckels denounced as a man who had "gone back on his class." In all quarters stories were circulated, questioning Spreckels' motives. The most persistent charge against him was that he had started a street-car system of his own, and had insti- tuted the graft prosecution to drive the United Rail- roads out of business. This story was told and retold, although the purposes for which Mr. Spreckels had con- templated engaging in the street-car business were well known.-®" It was quite as well known, too, that the briberies alleged against officials of the United Railroads were committed long after the graft prosecution had been inaugurated. Heney ^^^ was also made target for criticisms. His 280 See Chapter III. 281 President Calhoun's denunciation of Heney was scarcely con- sistent with the high regard in which Heney was at the opening of the prosecution, held 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 Lang- don 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 Fran- cis J. Heney at and prior to the time of his appointment as assist- ant district attorney was the representative of the corporation con- trolling the street-car system of said city and county (The United The Real Fight Begins 263 whole life was gone over in the search for flaws. It was discovered that in self-defense he had, years before, shot a man in Arizona. ^®^ This was made basis of a charge that Heney had committed murder. The new version of the Arizona incident was fairly shouted from San Fran- cisco housetops. Heney was denounced as a "special prosecutor, a human bloodhound, engaged in hounding of men to the penitentiary." It was charged against him that he had received excessive fees from corporations ; that he had accepted fees from the Federal government while acting as deputy to the San Francisco District Attorney, and that therefore his San Francisco employment was ille- gal f^^ that he had been a drunkard. Railroads), in a certain dispute between said corporation and its employees. That tlie appointment of said Heney to said office will, in regard to the enforcement of law against said corporation, be prejudicial and detrimental to the interests of said city and county," Heney resigned his position as arbitrator in the United Rail- roads controversy soon after the prosecution opened. 282 The graft defendants sent men to Arizona to have Heney indicted, charging murder of a Dr. Handy. Years before, Heney had taken the case of Handy's wife in divorce proceedings, after other attorneys had declined it because of fear of Handy. Handy had boasted that he would kill the man who took his wife's case. After Heney had agreed to represent Mrs. Handy, Handy an- nounced that he would kill Heney with Heney's own gun. He actually attempted this, and Heney, in self-defense, shot him. Heney was exonerated at the time. When the graft trials opened, first representatives of Ruef, and then representatives of the United Railroads went to Arizona for the purpose of working up this case against Heney, and if possible secure his indictment for murder. Ruef's representatives even went so far as to attempt to secure the services of Handy's son to get Heney indicted. Young Handy went to Heney, told him what was going on, and offered to go to Arizona to protect Heney. But Heney declined to permit this sacrifice. Ycung Handy expressed gratitude for what Heney had done for his mother. Heney's brother, Ben Heney, with full knowledge of what was going on, watched the efforts of those who were endeavoring to make this case, long since disposed of, a matter of embarrass- ment to the prosecutor. As the graft defense investigators found nothing upon which to base a charge this move against the graft prosecution failed. 283 Dean John H. Wigmore of the Northwestern School of Law at Chicago, author of Wigmore on Evidence, made sharp reply to 264 The Real Fight Begins A most effective attack consisted in charging connec- tion of the graft prosecution with the CaHfornia Safe Deposit and Trust Company. This institution closed its doors during the 1907 panic. It had carried an enormous volume of deposits. Thousands of homes were affected. The California Safe Deposit and Trust Company was, as a result, very unpopular. Stories were circulated that the company had backed the prosecution, and had contributed funds for its work. J. Dalzell Brown, one of the leading spirits of the company, was also described as one of 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 .7. 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 lionest 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 tiie opposing counsel.' I am compelled now to assume that you have no case, because all that your expensive The Real Fight Begins 265 the prosecution's backers. It was shown at the Cal- pamphlet does is to abuse one of the counsel for the prosecution. Until now I have supposed it proijer to suspend judgment. I do so no longer. "And what are your three 'constitutional and moral' questions. — since you have sent m.e a pampiilet asking an answer to them? I will answer them frankly. "1. Was Mr. Heney's payment by the Department of Justice covertly for the California prosecution but nominally for other and Federal services? "Answer: I do not know. But I and other honest citizens will presume in favor of the honesty, in this act, of a President, an Attorney-General, and an Assistant Attorney-General who proved in all other public acts that they were honest and courageous be- yond example, especially as against a man like yourself who pub- lishes a pamphlet based tla'oughout on anonymous assertions. "2. Can a Federal Assistant Attorney-General, under Federal salary, lawfully act at the same time as State Assistant District Attorney? "Answer: As to this 'constitutional' question, I leave this to the courts, as you should. As to this 'moral' question, I say that it is moral for any Federal officer to help any State officer in the pursuit of crime, and that only guilty lawbreakers could be im- agined to desire the contrary. "3. Can a private citizen contribute money to help the State's prosecuting officers in the investigation and trial of a criminal charge? "Answer: He can; and it is stupid even to put the question. Under the original English jury-system (of which you received the benefit) and until the last century, the private citizen was usually obliged to pay the prosecuting expenses; for the State did not, and crime went unpunished otherwise. If nowadays, in any community, crime is again likely to go unpunished without the help of private citizens, there is no reafson why we should not revert to the old system. As for Mr. Spreckels (the private citizen here named by you), his name should be held in honor, and will ever be, as against anything your pamphlet can say. As for Mr. Heney and his receipt of $47,500 officially and 'large sums of money additionally' from Mr. Spreckels, it may be presumed that he spent most of it on trial expenses, and did not keep it as a per- sonal reward. But even if he did so keep it, let me register the view that he is welcome to all this — and to more — if anybody will give it; that no money compensation is too high for such rare courage; that the moral courage displayed by him is as much entitled to h.igh money compensation ns t'.ie unprincipled com- mercial skill displayed by yourself — and this solely by the economic test of money value. — viz., demand and supply. "Apart from this, the high sums said to have been paid by you to Abraham Ruef solely for his legal skill estop you from ques- tioning the propriety of lesser sums said to have been paid to Francis J. Heney for his legal skill. "Just twenty-five years ago I sat in an upper room on Kearny street, with five other young men, and helped to organize a Munici- pal Reform League. Two or three others, still living, will recall the occasion. Abraham Ruef v/as 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 rer^nt course of events in my old home, th.at has intereste' 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. 392 The Calhoun Trial Heney, in his opening statement to the jury, set forth the prosecution expected to prove that Ruef au- thorized James L. Gallagher to offer the bribe to Super- visor Nicholas ; that Ruef afterwards gave the money to Gallagher to pay Nicholas ; that Calhoun authorized Ruef, either through Tirey L. Ford, or personally, or both, to make the offer to Gallagher and to authorize Gallagher to make the offer to Nicholas. The prosecution showed by Gallagher that the offer had been made to Nicholas and to every member of the Board of Supervisors with the exception of Rea. In this, Gallagher was corroborated by the Supervisors. Not only had the offer been made, but the bribe money had been paid. Gallagher testified that he had received $85,000 from Ruef to be distributed among the Supervisors for their votes which gave the United Railroads its over- head trolley permit, and that, after keeping out $15,000 for himself, he had distributed the money among them, giving to Supervisor Nicholas $4000 of the amount. Supervisor Nicholas testified that Gallagher had offered him the bribe and had paid him the money. By the officials of the United States Mint, the prosecution showed that $200,000, about the time of the bribery, had been turned over to General Tirey L. Ford, on order from Mr. Calhoun. The $200,000 could not be accounted for by the available books of the United Railroads. Ruef and Ford were shown to have been in close touch with each other during the period. *^^ But nobody could be found who had seen Ford pass $200,000 to Mr. Ruef. 427 See Chapter XV, "The Ford Trials." The Calhoun Trial 393 Here was, perhaps, a weak link in the prosecution's chain of evidence. Mr. Calhoun did not, however, put General Ford on the stand to tell what he did with the nioney. Neither did Mr. Calhoun put Mr. Ruef on the stand to testify as to the source of the $85,000 which Rucf gave to Gallagher to pay the Supervisors for their votes by which the trolley permit was awarded to the United Railroads. But, however weak the link between Ford and Ruef, there was no weakness in the link between Calhoun and Ford. By evidence that could not be disputed, the prosecution showed that Ford got $200,000 through Calhoun. Frank A. Leach, Director of the United States Mint at San Francisco, testified that Calhoun, with General Ford, had called upon him at the Mint some- time between May 22 and May 24, 1906.'*^® Calhoun called. Leach testified, to ascertain how $200,000, which had been transferred from the East to his credit.*-" 428 The trolloy-permit was granted May 21, 1906. 429 The letter placing $200,000 to Calhoun's credit read as fol- lows: "Treasury Department, Washington. May 22, 1906. Superin- tendent of the United States Mint, San Francisco, Cal. Sir: Con- firmation is certified to a telegram sent you this day, in sub- stance as follows: " 'Pay to Patrick Calhoun, President TTnited 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 cer- tificates of deposit Nos. 5251, 5252, 5253 and 5267, issued by the Assistant Treasurer of the United States, New York city. In all amounting to $482,500. " 'Pay to master California Lodge, Number 1. A. F. and A. M., $319.65 on account of original certificate of deposit No. 112, issued by the Assistant Treasurer of the United States, Chicago." Re- spectfully, "CHARLES H. TREAT, "Treasurer of the TTnited States." 394 The Calhoun Trial could be drawn out in certain sums in favor of such persons as he might designate. Leach testified he had furnished Calhoun with the desired information. Ford afterwards appeared at the Mint with an order from Mr. Calhoun for $50,000/=*" which was paid to him. Later, Calhoun telegraphed to Leach from Cleve- land, Ohio, to pay Ford a second $50,000; and still later the $100,000 remaining. "^^ The Mint officials paid Ford the money in accord- ance with Mr. Calhoun's directions. Mr. Calhoun of- fered no evidence to show why this considerable sum was paid to General Ford, or what General Ford was supposed to have done with it. Mr. Calhoun, when the last of the $200,000 had been turned over to General Ford, had given Mr. Leach a receipt ■*"- in full for the amount. But what was quite as extraordinary as this direct evidence against Mr. Calhoun was the ofifer of the District Attorney to meet the defense's charges and insinuations against the prosecution. Rudolph Spreck- 430 The telegrams directing the money to be paid Ford read: "Cleveland, Ohio, .July 2S, Ofi. Hon. Frank A. Leach. Superin- tendent U. S. Mint, San Francisco. Please pay to Tirey L. Ford, or order, fifty thousand dollars and charge same to my account. Patrick Calhoun, President United Railroads of San Francisco." 431 Calhoun's order placing the $100,000 to Ford's credit read as follows: "Cleveland, Ohio, August 21, 06. Hon. Frank A. Leach, Super- intendent United States Mint, San Francisco. Please pay to Gen- eral Tirey L. Ford, or order, one hundred thousand dollars, and charge the same to my account. Patrick Calhoun, President United Railroads, San Francisco." 432 Calhoun's final receipt for the $200,000 was as follows: "Received from Frank A. Leach. Superintendent U- S. Mint, two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) on c/d No. 5251, with Asst. Treasurer U. S., Ne-.v York. PATRICK CALHOUN, "President United Railroads." The Calhoun Trial 395 els was called to the stand. The attorneys for the defense were invited to ask him any questions they saw fit. "From the time we attempted to impanel this jury," said Heney, in extending this invitation, "the attorneys for the defendant have been attempting to try Rudolph Spreckels, James D. Phelan and God knows who else. By insinuations they have been endeavoring to get into the mind of this jury the idea that Mr. Spreckels was back of this prosecution for malicious purposes and for gain, for profit, to get hold of the United Railroads. I told them when they were making those insinuations that I proposed to throw down the bars to them ; that I proposed to force them to the proof; that I would put the witnesses upon the stand and would not object to a single question asked them. "The witness, Spreckels, is now upon the stand, and we won't object to their asking him anything on earth, from the time he was born dow^n to the present day, to the present minute." One of the most frequent charges which had been made against the prosecution was that it had expended money wrongfully. Rogers asked for a statement of the prosecution's receipts and disbursements. Mr. Spreckels announced his willingness to account for every dollar expended, but refused, until he should be directed by the Court, to give the names of the con- tributors to the fund.*^^ 433 "I want to protect those (the contributors) whom I prom- ised to protect in this matter," said Spreckels. "Outside of that, the matter is entirely an open matter; I have no concern In It." — See Spreckels's testimony. Transcript of evidence in the matter of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, Page 3385. 39^ The Calhoun Trial "Will you," broke in Heney addressing Calhoun's lawyers, "produce an itemized account of moneys ex- pended in the defense of these matters?" "I beg your pardon?" questioned Rogers. "I say," said Heney, "will you produce an itemized account of moneys expended in opposition to these prosecutions?" The defense did not seize this opportunity to clear itself of the not unreasonable suspicion that money had been used to influence jurors to vote for acquittals; to get witnesses out of the State; to corrupt agents of the prosecution ; and perhaps to attempt murder. On the contrary, the attorneys for the defense denounced Mr. Heney's suggestion as "misconduct." Mr. Spreckels stated his willingness to furnish item- ized statement of the prosecution's expenditures. This he did. Furthermore, he submitted himself to rigorous cross-examination regarding the items of his account. But the clever attorneys for the defense uncovered nothing upon which charge of wrongful expenditure or questionable methods could be based.'*^* The charge that Spreckels had engaged in the Graft Prosecution to injure the United Railroads came to as sorry an ending. By competent witnesses it was shown that the prosecution had been planned, and the prelim- inary work done, before the bribe-money in the trolley deal had passed. Furthermore, it was shown that Spreckels had ofifered to assist Calhoun to have the time of his franchises extended, if such extension were 434 The statement in full of the expenditures of the prosecu- tion, as shown in the transcript of the Calhoun trial, will be found on pag« xxxiv of th« Appendix. The Calhoun Trial 397 necessary for practical installation of the conduit electric system, asking- only that the unsightly poles and over- head wires be not inflicted upon the city. It was only when Calhoun, dealing with a Board of Supervisors sus- pected of corruption, showed conclusively that he pro- posed to install an over-head trolley system, whether the people wanted it or not, that Spreckels and his asso- ciates organized their traction company. It was shown that the object of the organizers of the company was to demonstrate that the conduit system was practical for San Francisco. And, finally, the articles of in- corporation under which the company proposed to oper- ate, provided for the transfer under equitable arrange- ments of the proposed new lines to the city, should the city wish at any time to take them over. Mr. Spreckels and his associates were shown not to have had desire or inclination to engage in the street-car business. But it was shown that they proposed to fight for what they considered the best interests of the city of their birth and residence. Another frequently-made charge had been that Heney was the attorney for Rudolph Spreckels, directing a privately-conducted prosecution.^-^ As a matter of fact, 435 The charge of private prosecution was raised early. The Chronicle of May 14, 1907, printed as part of Ford's statement why he did not testify before the Grand Jury, tlie following: "The private interests that are behind this attack upon the officers of the I'nited Railroads have free access to this juryroom through their cliosen 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 tliis Grand Jury. "The officers of the United Railroads are not unmindful of the tremendous power for harm that lies in this unusual and extraord- inary situation. "They, therefore, protest against the consideration by this Grand Jury of any evidence whose legality and sufficiency cannot 398 The Calhoun Trial Langdon, and not Heney, headed the prosecution, and Langdon let it be known at all times that he was the final arbitrator in all questions growing out of the prosecution. And at no time did he fail to assert himself. But at the Calhoun trial, the fishing expedi- tions in which the defense indulged, brought the facts out convincingly that Heney, far from being in Spreck- els' employ, or directly or indirectly receiving money from him for graft-prosecution services, or any other services, was giving his time to the city, without reward or hope of reward. Thus, point by point, the allegations which the graft defense had for three years been making against the prosecution, were shown to be without foundation in fact. The bars were down, as Heney put it. Rudolph Spreckels and others who had made the prosecution possible, were under oath, and were prepared to answer any question that might be put to them. The ablest be judicially determined from a full, complete and correct ti-an- script 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, rep- resenting private interests in no manner connected officially with any of the governmental affairs of this city and State. "Fourth — I am the general counsel and legal adviser of the United Railroads and its officers, and whatever knowledge I pos- sess of any of the affairs of the United Railroads or of its offi- cers, has come to me in professional confidence and, under the law of this State, everj' attorney is compelled to keep inviolate, and at every peril to himself, preserve the secrets of his clients. "Fifth — Under the statement of the representative of the Dis- trict Attorney's office in attendance before this Grand 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." The Calhoun Trial 399 lawyers, cunning in cross-examination, selected, indeed, for their craft and skill in searching out the innermost secrets of witnesses, were there to question. But not one statement reflecting upon the purposes of the prosecution, nor of its motives, nor of its meth- ods, was brought out. The graft defense, free to ques- tion as it would, was unable to justify the insinuations of baseness of purpose and method ; nor to justify its loosely-made charges against the prosecution.*^** . Indeed, the attorneys for Mr. Calhoun even resisted full discussion of Mr. Spreckels' motives. The intimation, so broad as to approach positive declaration, had been made repeatedly that Mr. Spreck- els had inaugurated the graft prosecution for the pur- pose of injuring Air, Calhoun and the properties which he represented — the United Railroads. On re-direct examination, ]\Ir. Spreckels was asked by the attorney for the State whether, at the time he had first discussed investigation of graft conditions in San Francisco with Mr. Heney, he had had any idea of investigating Mr. Calhoun. Mr. Barrett, representing the defendant, strongly objected to this line of questioning.*^'' After a wrangle between the attorneys as to the matter of the witness's motives, Spreckels was permitted to make a brief statement to the Court. "My motives," he said, "have been inquired into, and I have indicated to ]\Ir. Rogers (Calhoun's attor- 430 One of the most complete answers to the charges scattered nation-wide by the Graft Defense, came from Dean John H. Wig- more of the Northwestern School of Law at Chicago, author of Wigmore on Evidence. (See footnote 283.) 437 See transcript of testimony, The People vs. Patrick Cal- houn, No. 1436, page 3723. 400 The Calhoun Trial ney) that as far as I am concerned the bars are abso- lutely down; I am willing to take the judgment of this community as to motives, as to my purposes and as to the truthfulness of my statements made here." Mr. Spreckels was finally permitted to answer the question. He answered in the negative/^^ The defendant placed no witnesses on the stand. The explanation of their peculiar position which the United Railroads officials were looked upon to make when opportunity offered was not made. The denials which they had for three years been indignantly making through the newspapers were not stated under oath."^ 438 Mr. Spreckels finally testified on this point as follows: "Mr. Heney. Q. At the time that Mr. Phelan agreed to con- tribute the $10,000, Mr. Spreckels, what did you say, if anything, about contributing yourself? A. That was in the first meeting, I think, Mr. Heney, and I told him that I was ready and willing to contribute a similar amount; that I believed it would be possi- ble to get others to join and contribute. "Q. At that time was anything said by any person about pros- ecuting Mr. Calhoun? A. Absolutely no. "Q. Or any person connected with the United Railroads Com- pany? A. The discussion was entirely confined to the administra- tion, the corrupt administration as we termed it. "Q. At that time did you have any purpose or intention of prosecuting Mr. Calhoun? A. I had not. "Q. Did you have any reason to believe that Mr. Calhoun at that time had committed any crime? A. I had no indication of such a crime. "Mr. Moore. Was that time fixed, Mr. Heney? "Mr. Heney. Yes, it was fixed; the first conversation, and he has fixed it as nearly as he could. "The Court. Have you in mind the testimony on that point, Mr. Moore? There was some reference to it in an earlier part of the 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 Rfiilroads? 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 aliy time that you desired to have him prosecute any person connected with the United Railroads Com- pany? A. I did not." 439 The Chronicle in its issue of March 19, 1907, the day after the story of corruption of Supervisors was made public, refers to the denials of United Railroads officials as follows: "Weeks ago, when the first charges of a corruption fund was The Calhoun Trial 401 The trial resulted in a disagreement. According to published statements, purporting to come from mem- bers of the jury, on the first ballot four jurors stood for conviction, eight for acquittal ; on the second, nine for acquittal, three for conviction. On all the other ballots the jurors stood ten for acquittal and two for conviction.**" published, Patrick Calhoun issued from his New York offices a typewritten statement, equivalent to about three-fourths of a Chronicle column, in which he announced: " 'I have just seen the San Francisco papers, in which vague charges are made that the United Railroads of San Francisco paid or caused to be paid $700,000 for a permit to use electricity on the roads that it formerly operated with cable. There is no foundation for this rumor. The United Railroads of San Francisco never paid or authorized any one to pay on its behalf a single dollar to the Mayor, Supervisors or any public official of the city of San Fran- cisco or the State of California.' "Late last night the following additional denial was Issued from the office of the United Railroads: " 'I am authorized to state in the most positive way that neither Mr. Calhoun nor any officer of the United Railroads ever paid or authorized anyone to pay one dollar to any official. 'THORNWELL. MULLALLY, 'Assistant to the President United Railroads.' " 440 The following statement was published over the name of Otto T. Hildebrecht, one of the two Jurors who had voted to convict: "As soon as we entered the Jury room, I overheard a crowd of the jurors in the rear of the hall shouting 'Acquit! Acquit!' We then proceeded to name a foreman. This matter disposed of, the members began balloting. "In the first half hour three ballots were cast. On the first vote it stood 8 to 4 for acquittal. On the second ballot Maguire suc- cumbed 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 402 The Calhoun Trial Immediately after announcement of the verdict,*" the District Attorney attempted to bring Calhoun to trial for the alleged offering of a bribe to Supervisor when he remarked in answer to Sanderson's query, 'Then you won't need me?' 'I don't think we do.' "I then asked the other jurors to come into court, they con- tending that Ruef had carried on the conversation with Sanderson and that Callioun 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 suppres- sion of testimony, had only been touched upon during the trial to prove that Calhoun knew that the bribery deal had been carried through. " 'Can't you give Calhoun the benefit of the doubt, that he paid this money as a fee?' was the burden of the others' argument. 'I would be willing to extend him every chance,' I replied, 'but 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 oft these ten men for twelve hours, but I held firmly to my course and voted throughout upon my conscience. I should have been ashamed to have lifted my head in the future had I fallen down and voted for an acquittal. When the deputy, Mr. Coyle, called to convey the word to Judge Lawlor as to the clearness of an agree- ment being reached, I met him at t'ne 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 tliose standing alongside of me, punched me in the ribs in an effort to ma'Ke me shut up, as they figured that they ought to be able to convince me. I have received letters from all over the State; friends and acquaintances, even utter strangers, congratulating me upon my stand in the Calhoun case and my vote for conviction." 441 Calhoun, after the disagreement of the jury that tried him, issued a statement to the press in which he bitterly denounced those who were responsible for the prosecution, and hinted at retaliation. He continued to insist that Heney Vv'as a corrupt ofR- The Calhoun Trial 403 John J. Furey. This the defense resisted. The com- munity was filled with the suggestion that the Calhoun jury, having failed to agree, the costly graft trials should be brought to an end.**^ Nevertheless, Calhoun's second trial was begun. But before a jury could be secured, Francis J. Heney had been defeated for election as District Attorney. This cial: "There lies in the courtroom," said Calhoun, "forty checks made by Mr. Rudolph Spreckels to Mr. Francis J. 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 pur- pose of enabling him to devote liimself 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 Ignited Railroads has gathered about him were many who made it a business to pro- claim that when the indictments came to the test of fact in court the disposition of that $200,000 would be explained as a perfectly innocent matter in the simplest possible manner. How th.ese prom- ises have been fulfilled we know. The mystery of that $200,000 remains as dark as ever. Not even the stockholders of the com- pany are invited Into the confidence of its president. It is not now the question, Where did he get it? but What did he do with it? "As long as that question remains unanswered by or for Cal- houn and as long as he refuses to undergo cross examination and the ordinary legal tests of proof, just so long will tlie whole Amer- ican public believe him guilty of bribery. As for his threat of some sort of vague legal proceedings against the prosecutors, that will merely provoke a laugh, as men do laugh at a cheap and ob- vious bluff." 442 The free press, not only of California but of the entire nation, protested against such a course. "San Francisco," said the Pittsburgh Times-Gazette, "owes it to the nation to continue her fight against the big grafters of that town. If she lets up now the grafters the country over will take heart, and the next time it becomes necessary to go after the tribe, it will be more difficult even than it has been in San Francisco to convict a briber." 404 The Calhoun Trial meant the breaking down of the graft prosecution. The District Attorney consented to continuance of the case until the new administration should take charge. The case was not pressed by Mr. Langdon's successor, and finally, with the other graft charges, was dismissed. CHAPTER XXVII. The San Francisco Election of 1909. Scarcely had the disagreeing jury in the Calhoun case been discharged than the Graft Prosecution was again called upon to meet the graft defense at the polls. Langdon's second term was to expire the follow- ing January. His successor was to be elected in No- vember. Mr. Langdon refused positively to be a candidate to succeed himself. The supporters of the prosecution turned to Heney as the most available candidate to oppose the elements united against them. Heney did not want to be a candidate. The gruel- ing contest of the Calhoim trial, coupled with the nerve- shattering effects of the wound in his head, had brought him to the point of physical and nervous breakdown. But it was demonstrated to him that he had the largest personal following in San Francisco ; that the public had confidence in him ; that he nuist make the fight. And Heney, doubtful of his physical ability to con- tinue to the end of the primary and final campaigns, consented to become a candidate. There followed the most astonishing campaign for municipal office ever held in San Francisco, or probably in any other American city. California was at the time groping her way from the clutch of the Southern Pacific "machine." The California Legislature of 1909 had adjourned after a 4o6 The San Francisco Election of 1909 session which had ended largely in disappointing failure for the anti-machine element. The anti-machine ele- ment had been in slight majority, but it had blunderingly permitted the machine minority to organize both houses. As a result, the "machine" had been able to defeat the passage of many anti-machine — now known as progres- sive — measures. In other instances progressive meas- ures were before their passage,**^ in the face of the earnest but unavailable protest of the well-intentioned but unorganized anti-machine majority, loaded with hampering amendments. Two of these measures bore directly upon the San Francisco situation. The first measure provided for the Direct Primary. The second provided for the elimina- ■tion of the "party circle" from the election ballot. This last named measure, known as "the Party Circle bill," passed the Senate, but was defeated by one vote in the Assembly. The defeated measure was in- tended to restore the Australian ballot to its original simplicity and effectiveness.*** Under the machine's tinkering of the State's elec- tion laws, the xA.ustralian ballot had become a device for encouraging partisan voting. The "party circle" was placed at the head of the column of party candidates. A cross placed in the circle registered a vote for every candidate nominated by the party designated by the circle. The question of "distinguishing marks" invali- 443 See "Story of the California Legislature of 1909," Cliapters VIII, IX, X, XI. 444 This reform was accomplished at the Legislative session of 1911. The undesirable provisions were also stricken by amendment from the Direct Primary law. See "Story of the California Legis- lature of 1911." The San Francisco Election of 1909 407 dating entire ballots was ruled upon so closely by the State courts, that many voters voted by means of the one cross in the party circle to avoid the risk of having their entire ballot denied counting because of technical defects that might creep in if a divided ticket were voted. Had the "Party Circle bill" become a law it would have eliminated the "party circle" from the ballot, leaving the voter to select individual candidates of his choice. The one Assembly vote that defeated this measure after it had passed the Senate, went far toward bringing the San Francisco Graft Prosecution to an end. The Direct Primary measure was not defeated, nor did the machine element succeed in amending it into complete ineffectiveness. The anti-machine Republicans and Democrats, by joining in non-partisan caucus on this measure, succeeded in forcing the passage of the Direct Primary bill, but they were not able to keep it free of defects. Harassed by the machine at every turn, the anti-machine Senators and Assemblymen w^ere com- pelled to accept many undesirable provisions. ^''^ 445 "Before voting on this matter," (the Direct Primary pro- visions) said Senator Stetson, an anti-machine leader in explain- ing his vote, "lest any one in t!ie future m.ay think that I have lieen 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 Ignited States Senate, who shall have the endorsement of the greatest number of dis- tricts, comes from nobody and goes to nobody. It means nothing — mere words — idle words. The only way in which a candidate could have been pledged would have been to provide a pledge or instructions to the Legislature. The words 'shall be permitted' mean nothing and get nowhere. I shall vote for this report, not because I want to. but because I have to if we are at this session to have any Direct Primary law at all." Senator Stetson was referring particularly to the section which denied the people by state-wide vote the right to indicate their preference for United States Ser.ator, but his words would have applied as directly and as truly to otiier sections of the measure. Other good government Senators did, as a matter of fact, de- nounce the very partisan clause which later contributed so largely to Heney's defeat. Senators Campbell, Holohan and Miller, for 4o8 The San Francisco Election of 1909 One of these provisions bore directly upon the San Francisco election of 1909, and contributed to a large extent to the outcome. This clause required a primary candidate to make affidavit giving "the name of his party and that of the office for which he desires to be a candidate ; that he affiliated with said party at the last preceding general election, and either that he did not vote thereat or voted for a majority of the candidates of said party at said next preceding general election, and intends to so vote at the ensuing election." At the time this section was under consideration, anti-machine legislators and the unhampered press pointed out that under it, District Attorney Langdon could not, in all probability, have been nominated nor •re-elected in 1907 ; that Mayor Taylor's election of that year would have been impracticable, if not impossible ; that Judge Dunne would have been hampered to the point of defeat in 1908 ; that under it, both in 1907 and 1908, the so-called "higher-up" element in the field of corruption would have been given an advantage which the better citizenship of the community would have had difficulty in overcoming.**^ But the machine element denounced these not un- example, while voting for the bill, sent to the clerk's desk the following explanation of their vote: "We voted for the Direct Primary bill because It seems to be the best law that can be obtained under existing political condi- tions. We are opposed to many of the features of this bill, and believe that the people at the first opportunity will instruct their representatives in the Legislature to radically amend the same in many particulars, notably in regard to the election of United States Senators, and the provisions that prevent the endorsement of a candidate by a political party or organization other than the one that first nominated such candidate." 446 See files of Sacramento Bee for February and March, 1909, and Senate Journal for March 22, 1909, page 1976. The San Francisco Election of 1909 409 reasonable objectors as "enemies of the Direct Primary bill," and under cover of the denunciation, and the fight for practical expression of popular choice for United States Senators, the objectionable clause was permitted to remain in the bill. No sooner had the Legislature adjourned than judi- cial interpretation of the partisan clause of the Direct Primary Act became necessary. The San Francisco primary election was at hand, and the partisan pro- visions of the new law proved the first snag which the various candidates encountered. Although the members of the Legislature, machine as well as anti-machine, voted for the bill, believing that the partisan clause restricted primary nominations to members of the party of the candidates' affiliation, the San Francisco Election Commissioners held there was nothing in the law to prevent the name of a Re- publican appearing on the Democratic ticket, or of a Democrat on the Republican ticket, provided the can- didate made affidavit of the party of his affiliation. Under this ruling it appeared that, in spite of the objectionable partisan provision of the Direct Primary law, the San Francisco election could be held on the non-partisan basis which had resulted in the election of Taylor and Langdon two years before. The one issue before the San Francisco electors was continuance of the Graft Prosecution. The supporters of the prose- cution, Republicans as well as Democrats, desired to vote for Heney. McCarthy was the avowed Labor L'nion party candidate for Mayor. The Union Labor party was considering the nomination for District At- 4IO The San Francisco Election of 1909 tomey of Charles M. Fickert. The prospects were good that Heney would receive the Republican and Democratic nominations, as Langdon had two years before. He was supported by the better element of both parties, and opposed by the anti-prosecution ele- ment of both. This opposition found expression in the Republican party in a committee of twenty-five, at the head of which was I. W. Hellman, Jr., of the Union Trust Company.*^^ The better element of the party planned the nomination of Heney, as did the better element of Democrats. On a non-partisan basis, such as had prevailed in 1907, the Union Labor party would have nominated McCarthy for Mayor, and Fickert for District Attorney, while the anti-machine, pro-prosecution Democrats and Republicans would have nominated a strong candidate for Mayor, and Heney for District Attorney. Conditions were thus shaping themselves admirably for continuance of the non-partisan administration of municipal affairs, which had at least blocked corruption, even though it had not beaten down the barriers of 447 The Union Trust Company loaned $175,000 to the Calkins' Syndicate, which published papers in opposition to the prosecution. For the curious circumstances under whicli 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, v/Iien the 1909 campaign was opening, said in an interview, published in the Chronicle, August 4, 1909: "In New York I found that there is still a great difficulty in securing capital for San Francisco on account of the Graft Prosecution, or the 'graft persecution,' as they call it there. Of course, I do not know what changes have occurred in the situa- tion here since I left six months ago, but I had an Interview with certain people in New York and I found that they were unwilling to send capital here as long as this 'graft persecution' was con- tinued." The San Francisco Election of 1909 411 technicality, which stood between the corruptors of the municipal government and law-provided penalties. But this developing' non-partisan arrangement was suddenly overturned in an opinion rendered by the Supreme Court, reversing the ruling of the Election Commissioners. The court held that the partisan provisions of the Direct Primary law prohibited the name of a primary candidate appearing upon any primary ticket except that of the party of the candidate's affiliations. Under this ruHng, Fickert's name could not go on the Union Labor party primary ticket, for Fickert had affiliated with the Republican party. The Hellman com- mittee of twenty-five (Republican) immediately took up the Union Labor party candidate for District Attorney, whose name could not go on the Union Labor party primary ticket, Mr. Fickert being apparently quite as satisfactory to Mr. Hellman and his associates as he was to Mr. McCarthy. Heney, under the Supreme Court's ruling, found himself in a more difficult position. With other Califor- nia Progressives, Fleney had in 1908 supported Taft for the Presidency. His political affiliations were there- fore, under the provisions of the Direct Primary law, Republican. His name could be placed on the Repub- lican primary ticket, but not on the Democratic. But it soon became evident that if his name went on the Re- publican ticket he would be defeated at the primaries. The registration of voters under their party designa- tion to enable them to vote at the partisan primaries showed an astonishing condition. The machine, anti- 412 The San Francisco Election of 1909 prosecution element was discovered to be massing its strength in the RepubHcan party. Two years before, Daniel A. Ryan, the Republican candidate for Mayor, had received only 9255 votes in San Francisco, while Taylor, the Democratic candidate, had received 28,766, and McCarthy, Union Labor, 17,583. But for the 1909 primaries, no less than 47,945 registered as Republicans, a gain of 38,609 over Ryan's vote,*^^ while the Demo- cratic registration was 17,632 only, 11,134 less than Taylor's vote, and the Union Labor registration, 10,546, or 7037 less than McCarthy's vote in 1907. Heney's name could not go on the Democratic ballot. If he permitted it to go on the Republican ballot, the tre- mendous Republican registration indicated that the anti- machine Republicans would be outvoted by "machine" members of all parties who had registered as Republi- cans. By another provision of the election laws, Heney, should he be defeated at the primaries, could not become an independent candidate ; defeat at the primaries barred him from running at the final election. Heney was effectively shut out from participating as a primary candidate. And this, in face of the fact that the anti-machine Republicans and the anti-machine Dem- ocrats were striving to make him their candidate. Had the 1909 primary law prevailed in 1907, Lang- don's re-election could have been, and almost to a cer- tainty would have been blocked, and the Graft Prose- cution brought to an end two years before it was. 448 Ryan did not receive his full party vote (see chapter XXI) while Taylor received the anti-machine vote of all parties. Never- theless, this does not account for the extent of the astonishing changes in registration. The San Francisco Election of 1909 413 At the 1909 Primary election, Heney's name, al- though he was the choice of the anti-machine element of all parties, did not appear on any of the primary ballots.'*** Nevertheless, 4594 Republicans wrote Heney's name on their primary ballots. But this was not suffi- cient to give him the nomination. Fickert, whose name appeared on the Republican ballot, as a regular candi- date, received 12,480 votes, which gave him the Repub- Hcan nomination. On neither the Democratic nor Union Labor primary tickets did the name of any candidate for District At- torney appear. The McCarthy element urged that Fick- ert's name be written in by Union Labor party voters. They carried their point. Fickert being nominated by the Union Labor party by 3308 votes. But even here there was registered protest at what was going on. Union Labor party voters to the number of 617 wrote Heney's name on their ballots. In the same way. a determined effort was made to give Fickert the Democratic nomination also. He re- ceived 2298 votes. But the pro-prosecution Democrats rallied to Heney's support, and nominated him by a vote of 2386. Thus out of a total of 28,967 who voted for nomination of District Attorney, no less than 7597, or more than 25 per cent., wrote Heney's name on their 449 It Is interesting' to note that the politicians responsible for this condition, and who regarded Heney's position at the 1909 pri- maries with no attempt to conceal their amusement, were in 1912, loudest in their insistence that they had been disfranchised be- cause the names of Taft electors did not appear on the California election ballot at tl.e 1912 election. It is also to be noted that their representations were based on misrepresentation. They 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. 414 The San Francisco Election of 1909 ballots, in protest against the partisan conditions which made his regular nomination impractical. The law was new ; the election, the first held in the State under the Direct Primary. It was difificult to make the electors understand they could vote to nominate Heney by writing his name on the ballot. Of the 38,385 who voted at the primaries only 28,967 voted for Dis- trict Attorney. Unquestionably, a large percentage of those who did not vote at all, would have written Heney's name on the ballot had they known that such a course was permissible. But they did not know, and more than 25 per cent, of those voting did not vote for District Attorney. As the Rev. Charles N. Lathrop put it : "They have Heney sewed up in a bag, and the bag is the partisan features of the Direct Primary." *^° Out of this confusing primary election, Fickert came with two party nominations, the Union Labor and the Republican, while Heney had one nomination, the Demo- cratic. This meant that Fickert's name would be printed twice on the final ballot under partisan designation, while Heney's would be printed but once. Thus, for every chance Heney had for a "party circle" vote Fick- ert had two. The prosecution forces had supported Byron Mauzy 450 The California Legislature of 1911 corrected the features of the election laws which blocked free expression of the will of the electors. San Francisco, by amendment of its charter, has since placed all municipal elections on a strictly non-partisan basis, with provisions under which no candidate can be elected by a plurality vote. It is interesting to note that although opposed by Mayor McCarthy and the group of politicians about him, these amendments correcting the weaknesses of the election laws, were adopted overwhelmingly. McCarthy's vote in 1911 was practically the same as the vote' by wiiich he was elected in 1909. Had the election been held under the same conditions in 1911, as in 1909, McCarthy would almost to a certainty have been re-elected. The San Francisco Election of 1909 415 for Republican nomination for Mayor, but Mr. Mauzy *" was defeated by William Crocker, who received the Re- publican nomination. The Democrats nominated Thomas B. W. Leland for the mayoralty ofifice, while the Union Labor party named P. H. McCarthy. The mayoralty- district attorney tickets were, therefore: Republican, Crocker and Fickert ; Union Labor, McCarthy and Fick- ert ; Democratic, Leland and Heney. But the issue be- fore San Francisco, continuance of the Graft Prosecu- tion, had no partisan significance at all. It was sup- ported and it was opposed by members of both parties. The whole fight was over the election of Heney. But never had candidate for ofifice opposition which had more at stake. *®^ Men with apjiarently unlimited means at their dis- posal, realized that Heney's election would in all proba- bility mean for them a term in the State prison. They were fighting for their liberty. The commercial inter- ests were warned that, in the words of L W. Hellman, Sr., the banker, the Graft Prosecution was hurting busi- 451 Mr. Mauzy had the activo opposition of the anti-prosecu- tion element, which proposed that old sores be forgotten, and the city be kept free of graft in the future. "If you think," said The Chronicle, on August 17, 1909, "San Francisco is suffering injury from the fruitless effort to obtain con- victions in cases in which evidence is lacking, vote the Byron Mauzy ticket. If you believe that the sane thing to do is to cease wasting money over the attempt to accomplish the impossible, vote for candidates who can be depended upon to give the city an administration from which graft will be eliminated in future." 452 The platform expressions on the Graft Prosecution issue are Interesting. Tlie 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 Liabor party plank on this ciuestion read as follows: "We believe in the principle of the equality of all men before the law; that every guilty person should be prosecuted with vigor, in accordance with the law of the land, and that the administra- 41 6 The San Francisco Election of 1909 ness.*^^ The anti-Graft Prosecution press insisted day after day that briber}' of public officials, while bad, is the most common of crimes and the most difficult to prove; that San Francisco had tried to convict, had failed and might as well give up. So-called "improvement clubs" went so far as to adopt resolutions not only protesting against further prosecution, but demanding that the Su- pervisors withdraw support given the District Attorney's tion of the law should be free from any and all suspicion of pri- vate control. We condemn favoritism or leniency in behalf of any offender before the law, or any compromise with criminals. We demand that any and all offenders be dealt with alike, and to such end we pledge our nominees." The Democratic plank alone pledged support to the Graft Prose- cution. It read: "We pledge the Democratic party absolutely and unequivocally to the support of the Graft Prosecution which for three years has valiantly battled for the principle of the equality of all men be- fore the law, which has secured convictions against disheartening odds and has paved the 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, em- bodies these issues, and we pledge him the vigorous and loyal support of the Democratic party." 453 The "hurt business" argument was ably combated by busi- nessmen who were free of the graft mire. "From all the available information at hand," said Colonel Harris Weinstock, of the firm of Weinstock-Lubin & Co., in re- plying to this argument, "I find that on the whole the volume of business is greater in San Francisco than it ever was before. I am, therefore, unable to see how business has been hurt by the Graft Prosecution. "The burden of proof on this point properly rests with those making the charge. They should present facts and 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 busi- ness 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 Hell- man idea. "It is significant of San Francisco's credit standing in the world at large," the latter read, "that the bonds of this city com- The San Francisco Election of 1909 417 office in its efforts to land bribe-givers behind the bars.*^* And finally, the large business interests opposed to the prosecution, threw strength to McCarthy; not that they Hked McCarthy — they united against him two years later — but because the election of McCarthy would go far toward the defeat of Heney. Members of the labor unions were, to a large extent, supporters of the prose- cution. Their votes had made Langdon's election sure mand prices that compare favorably with the issues of other large municipalities, as measured by the low interest return which in- vestors are willing to accept. To illustrate: For every $1,000 put into municipal bonds at present figures, the purchaser would receive per annum: "From San Francisco bonds $39.00 "From Philadelphia bonds 37.00 "From Cincinnati bonds 37.50 "From Cleveland bonds 37.50 "From St. Louis bonds 38.80 "From Pittsburg bonds 37.00 "From Chicago bonds 38.50 "From Minneapolis bonds 38.50 "From Milwaukee bonds 39.00 "From New York bonds 39.50 "Considering these facts, and the readiness with which the San Francisco bonds are being taken, it does not appear that this city is suffering in reputation, as some people affect to believe, by reason of certain trials which have engaged the attention of the criminal courts for two years past." "I have no patience," said Heney, in discussing the Hellman argument, "with this talk that we hear from merchants and bank- ers that the Prosecution is hurting business. They heard the same talk in Boston when our Revolutionary sires threw tea over- board. It would hurt business, they said, to have a war with England. I can see the picture, wlnen Thomas Jefferson was sign- ing the Declaration of Independence, of a large man, who looked like the cartoonist's representation of a corporation offlcial, com- ing through the door behind him and shouting, 'Hold on, Tom, you'll hurt business.' And when Washington was spending that terrible winter with his army at Valley Forge, the same class of men who are now crying at us in San Francisco were shouting for the war to stop. 'Damn principle,' they were crying. 'It's hurting business. This war must stop.' " 454 "It is." said the Chronicle, commenting upon the adoption of such resolutions, "a matter of common knowledge that there is a widespread feeling among those whose good citizenship cannot be disputed that the city, having done its best for three years, without success, to find legal proof which would connect officials of the corporations which profited by the corruption of the Schmitz administration with the crime of bribery, it is necessary to dis- continue the effort. Hitherto no one has been willing to formally 14 41 8 The San Francisco Election of 1909 in 1907. During the 1909 campaign, and down to the very day of election, the sentiment among laboring men was to vote for McCarthy and Heney. But Heney's name did not appear on the Union Labor ticket. Labor's support of Heney was vigorously opposed. Appeal was made to workingmen to stay by their class; to vote for the labor candidates, McCarthy and Fickert. On the Monday night before the election, the writer, with Professor George H. Boke of the University of Cali- fornia Law School, joined a group of working men who were discussing the merits of the several candidates. approach the authorities in the matter lest he should appear to show sympathy with evildoers. The Richmond Club, however, has formally memorialized the Supervisors to withdraw further support by appropriations on the ground that it has become ap- parent that success is impossible, and that further effort would be not only a waste of money and energy but serve to keep be- fore the world the memory of a most disgraceful epoch in our history. "Bribery of public officials is the most dangerous of crimes. It undermines the very foundation of government by the people. And yet it has been in this and all other large American cities the most common of crimes. In the public mind, and in common speech, any person or firm which has habitually done business with our city government has been held to have on himself the burden of proof that he was innocent of bribery. And then came the riot of debauchery under the Schmitz administration, with corruption in all forms permeating every department of the city government. We have had nothing like that before, and yet until the election of the present Board of Supervisors this city has almost never had a Board on v/hich some members were not believed to be corrupt and constantly on the watch for oppor- tunities to 'hold up' those seeking to do business with the city. It is not believed that any franchise now in existence has been obtained without bribery or operated without continuous bribery. It has been generally assumed that whoever undertook to do busi- ness with the city must buy his way in by some form of cor- ruption. "Bribery is a crime for w^hich conviction is almost impossible. Occasionally pro»f can be got through a decoy, as in the case of the Schmitz Supervisors. What was exposed in that way, how- ever, was no legal proof against the higher officials of the bene- ficiary corporations. For that other proof must be had, and thus far, except in one case, no conviction has been had. And unless the courts reverse themselves that conviction will not stand. The question then arises as to the duty of the city. Shall we continue to expend energy in striving to accomplish what we all see to be impossible, or shall the city, having done its best, turn its energies The San Francisco Election of 1909 419 Apparently all but one of them were for McCarthy and Heney. The exception was for Leland and Heney. He was defending himself, when the writer joined the group, against the charge that in voting for Leland he was "voting outside his class." This Leland advocate was a most noticeable young man. He declared himself to be a member of the elec- tricians' union. Well under thirty, clear-eyed and force- ful, he was prepared to stand his ground. When his immediate opponent became personal, the electrical worker, without raising his voice, without excitement, or boast, or display, remarked quietly : "Do not resort to Into more hopeful channels? As to that there will be differences of opinion, nor is it possible for anyone to know to what extent those differences are founded in reason, and how much on personal hatreds and a desire for notoriety. "There is doubtless a feeling- that the continuance of these prosecutions is now doing- great harm, which could only be counterbalanced by conviction based on clear legal proof, for which it is impossible to hope. In the first place, it is enormously costly and has introduced a universal system of spying which is exciting animosity against both sides of these cases. Decent citi- zens are coming to resent secret efforts to induce them to com- promise themselves on the one side or the other. Secondly, the awful exhibitions of perjury in order to escape jury duty are shocking the moral sense of the community as severely as it was shocked by the exposure of the bribery. And the examination of the jurors are resulting in expressions of opinion by prospective jurors which do not do the city any good. Finally, the conduct of these trials is turning into a farce processes which should be the most solemn 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 impris- onment for months at a time of innocent citizens dragged from their homes and compelled to listen to the interminable quarrels of counsel over matters having no legitimate bearing on the case and injected solely for the purpose of confusing jurymen. Every- body sees that it will be impossible in the case now on trial to get a jurv fit to b^- intrusted v/ith the fate of a dog. Every in- telligent citizen has been 'disqualified' by reading the testimony before the Grand Jury. "It is a most difficult situation. No reputable citizen is will- ing to seem to impede the course of justice. But, now that an organized bodv has formally raised before the Supervisors a question whi^h has long been a daily subject of discussion when- ever two men have met, it will be necessary to frankly face the situation and decide where duty lies." 420 The San Francisco Election of 1909 personalities, for if it comes to personalities, what chance have you against me?" There were no more personalities. Incidentally his argument was fast bringing out the fact that every worker in the crowd was going to vote for Heney. The effect of it was important. Suddenly from somewhere there appeared a new man to do his part in molding public opinion. The new-comer went through that crowd with the assurance of a practiced football player through an ag- gregation of amateurs. In less than five minutes he had addressed every man of the group. But he had none of the marks of a worker, and nobody thought to ask for his "card." His was the pasty face and the pudgy neck and the soft, unclean hand of the cadet. His argument was curious and even ridiculous, but it was most effect- ive. It at least scattered the crowd. "Of course Calhoun is a grafter," he said in effect. "They are all grafters. Spreckels is a grafter. Of course, Fickert is Calhoun's man, just as Heney is Spreckels's man. They are all out for graft. But if we are to have grafting, let's keep the graft in our own class. Why should you vote to let Spreckels's men do the grafting? You have a candidate of your own. Vote for him. It is only a fight between millionaires any- how, and a toss-up which is right. Let us vote for the man of our class." The effect of this running fire of words was imme- diate. The electrician lost the attention of his associates. The discussion came to an end with murmurs of ap- proval of the newcomer's position. That he should have The San Francisco Election of 1909 421 changed a vote with such argument seems incredible. But that he had created a doubt in the minds of those workingmen was apparent to all who saw. He left them well prepared for the anti-jirosecution workers who would meet them at the polls the next morning. But the laboring element was not the only "class" forced into opposition to Heney. At the exclusive clubs, fashionable hotels, social functions, support of Heney was denounced as treason to the exclusive, fashionable, social class. It was quite amusing to hear first genera- tion descendants of honest steerage immigrants decrying the prosecution of rich men trapped in bribe-giving on the theory that to do otherwise "would be treason to our class." Thus, Mr. Heney was called upon to meet the "class" opposition of the laborer and the magnate. On the other hand, the unafraid, intelligent people of San Fran- cisco, who recognized no "class" issue, rallied to Heney's support. But they were without the concerted plan of action which the other side had perfected. The San Francisco press, with the exception of The Bulletin and Daily News, gave Heney no editorial support, but the country press, which had no circulation in San Fran- cisco, earnestly urged his election. ^^'^ 4r.5 The following from the Fresno Republican is vrvy son,] ex- ample of thi.s excellent but unavailing news^paper 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 re- member the ■'vfhole civilized world is looking on, and will judge 422 The San Francisco Election of 1909 Good citizens throughout the country wrote urging Heney's election. "To rout the forces of the prosecu- tion at this juncture in San Francisco," wrote Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of New York, "is to hoist the red flag of anarchy, to proclaim that law and order are not al- ways enforceable, or that such enforcement is not always profitable." But Rabbi Wise was in New York. His influence did not, unfortunately, extend, in any important degree, to San Francisco. On the day of election, the writer visited many vot- ing places in the districts in which the labor vote was you by that vote. It is the good name of San Francisco that you are voting up or down. "Banker Hellman says not. He has been to New York and he says 'New 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 prosecu- ting. Of course, Patrick Calhoun, of New York, wants the prose- cution of Patrick Calhoun of San Francisco stopped. It is Banker Hellman's privilege to have a mere pendulum which swings from his San Francisco office to his New York office and thinks it is in New York. But it is not incumbent on you to share that mental deficiency. If Bankej- Hellman should announce in New York that he was going to discuss the San Francisco situation, his audi- ence would consist of the New York partners of the San Francisco grafters. He thinks that is 'New York.' The real New York would neither know nor care. It never heard of Banker Hellman. But if Francis J. Heney should be announced to discuss the San Francisco situation in New York, there is not a place of assem- blage in the city big enough to hold the people who would want to hear and see him. The whole nation knows Heney and it has made up its mind al)out him. It is waiting to see what you do, before it makes up its mind about you, too. " 'The prosecutions must stop, some time,' to be sure. But who has earned from San Francisco the right to say when? When Francis J. Heney says it is time to quit, then it is time; not be- fore. He has given his time, his strength, and almost his life for you. He has purified your politics and regulated your government. He has redeemed your city's name in the esteem of the world. He is making for you a fight which no one ever had the courage, the persistence or the ability to make before. He is not tired yet and he has not surrendered yet. Suppose you leave it to him, when it is time to quit. "People of San Francisco, the world is looking on. It cannot determine your decision. Neither can you determine what it will think of that decision, when it is made." The San Francisco Election of 1909 423 strong. Working men by the scores were taking less than a minute to mark their ballots. It was evident that they were voting by means of the party circle. Every Labor Union party vote of this kind was a vote against Heney. The last hope that Heney would get this sup- port was gone. One did not need wait for the counting of the ballots. It was plain that Heney was defeated. The election returns spoke eloquently of the means that had been employed to defeat Heney. For the pri- mary election 47,945 had registered as Republicans, but Crocker, the Republican candidate for Mayor, received only IZ,766 votes at the final election. Although but 10,546 had registered for the primaries as members of the Union Labor party, P. H. McCarthy received 29,455 votes, which, wherever voting was done by means of the party circle, carried a vote for Fickert. Fickert, with the two nominations, received 36,192. Heney, running on the Democratic ticket, received 26,075 votes, 6481 more than Leland, the candidate for Mayor. But the combination against Heney was too great for him or any man to overcome. Fickert was elected.*''*' The Graft Prosecution had been defeated at the polls. 45G Heney on the day after the election issued the following statement: "The first battle for equality before tlie 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 righteous- ness. "The fight between the forces of evil and the forces of good is and must be a perpetual one. The first battle of Bull Run cast gloom over 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 equal- ity before the law a great setback, but be of good cheer and take fresh courage, you many thousands of good men and women who have joined in this fight for the maintenance of the purity and 424 The San Francisco Election of 1909 protection of our homes and the uplifting of the moral standards of our city! "We have been defeated in this election, but the sober moral sense of the community will again reassert itself and San Fran- cisco will vindicate herself before the world. "I retract nothing that I have said during the recent campaign. On the contrary, I reassert the truth of all that I have stated from the public platforms. I have no regrets except that for poor San Francisco and the many thousands of people who fought shoulder to shoulder with me in the good fight. "Let us all to-night firmly resolve that we will continue the battle for equality before the law with unabated vigor until suc- cess has crowned our efforts." The following statement was issued by Rudolph Spreckels: "While the defeat at yesterday's election of the principles for which I have fought is regretted by me, it will speedily bring about a truer estimate of my real motives. "One of the compensations of this defeat is that I have so quickly been given an opportunity to disprove the charges so fre- quently made that I have been actuated by sordid or vindictive motives. The individuals against whom it is alleged that I have entertained malicious and selfish designs are entirely removed from the possibility of harm at the hands of the so-called Prose- cution. "Attempting to punish was an unpleasant and incidental por- tion of the public work which I set out to do. I am glad that the people have taken that task off my hands and left me free to do the more important part of my undertaking. "Feeling that the people will fully realize this, I desire to say that I shall continue the work of civic regeneration with undi- minished hope and earnestness." CHAPTER XXVIII. Dismissal of the Graft Cases. At the time of Mr. Fickert's election to the District Attorney's office, the second trial of Patrick Calhoun for oflfering- a bribe was well under way. As at the other graft trials, there had been delays *^^ so that after five months the jury was only half complete. That the trial could not be finished before Mr. Fickert assumed the duties of his office became evident. The case was, for that reason, on December 9, continued until January 10, in order that Mr. Fickert might participate in the selection of the trial jurors. But on that date, Mr. Fickert, who had been in office only two days, very frankly admitted himself to be unfamiliar with the facts, and not prepared to go to trial. Further continuance was accordingly granted until January 31, and then until February 7. In the meantime former Supervisor James L. Gal- lagher, the pivotal witness in the case, had disappeared. Gallagher was known to have been in San Francisco for some three weeks after Fickert's election. About De- 457 The second trial of Patrick Calhoun (No. 1437) was begun July 19, 1909. Owing to the illness of one of Mr. Calhoun's coun- sel," the trial was suspended on August Ifith, and resumed Septem- ber 30th. The following day the defendant secured further con- tinuance until November 15th, upon tlie ground of the pendency of a municipal political campaign. After the election the trial was resumed. On 1 'ecemb<^r 0th, it was, by agreement between the parties continued until January :oth, when the new District At- torney should be In office. 426 Dismissal of the Graft Cases cember 1 he dropped out of sight. He was supposed to have gone to Europe.^" On February 7, Mr. Fickert moved the dismissal of the case pending against Mr. Calhoun on the ground that there was not sufficient legal and competent evi- dence to warrant him submitting the case to a jury.*^^ 458 The motives which prompted Gallagher to flee the city are among the undetermined elements of the graft cases. Perhaps rec- ollection of his attempted assassination had something to do with it. It may be that the defense, which had done so many extra- ordinary things during the course of the graft trials, made it worth his while to go. Gallagher is known to have been plentifully sup- plied with money while he was away. An attempt was made to create the impression that agents of the Prosecution had been in- strumental in getting Gallagher out of the State. But the attempt, while it confused the situation somewhat, was not taken seriously. When in August, 1911, Judge Lawlor dismissed the indictments against the alleged bribe-givers in the trolley case, he took occa- sion to say: "I am more convinced now than I was when these same motions were urged more than a year ago, that James L. Gallagher is remaining out of this jurisdiction for a specific pur- pose. The future will make that point entirely clear. When his Importance as a witness in any of these so-called graft cases has ceased there is no doubt that James L. Gallagher will be again in our midst. If I were able to lay the responsibility for that situ- ation upon any individual or set of individuals I repeat that ap- propriate proceedings would have been instituted to have the law redressed in that behalf." Judge Lawlor was right. After the dismissal of the graft cases Mr. Gallagher returned to San Francisco. To the intim.ation of District Attorney Fickert that Gallagher left the State to embarrass the District Attorney's administration. Judge Lawlor on one occasion said in an opinion: "That the former ad- ministration may have distrusted the official intentions of the Dis- trict Attorney toward these indictments might be assumed from all the surrounding circumstances. But it does not seem probable that the former administration would induce a material and indis- pensable witness to leave the State and thereby make it easy for the District Attorney to secure a result which otherwise might entail serious embarassment. So far as the showing is concerned there is no tangible proof tending to support the charge of the District Attorney, nor is there any proof which would justify such an inference." 459 Fickert's motion had been prepared in advance and was read to the court. "Since the calling of this case on January 10th," he said, "I have made a thorough and careful examination of the evi- dence left in the District Attorney's office by my predecessor, Mr. Langdon, and he informed me on my accession to the office, that h© had delivered to me all the evidence of every kind and character in his possession or under his control in this case. I have also ex- amined thft transcript of testimony given at the former trial of this defendant; besides this, I have made independent search for further evidence. These exatninations convince me that there is not suf- Dismissal of the Graft Cases 427 Judge Lawlor denied the motion. In denying it, Judge Lawlor stated that in the view of the court the action should be tried by a jury and a verdict should be rendered by a jury, if that were possible, in the full operation of the law. Fickert stated in the discussion which followed that he wanted his motion to apply to all the other graft cases of the same class as Calhoun's, with the exception of the defendants Ruef and Schmitz. But here again did the Judge deny the District Attorney's request. After Judge Lawlor's ruling, Calhoun's attorneys announced themselves ready to proceed with the trial of the case. Fickert stated that he would be ready in a week. Judge Lawlor thereupon questioned Fickert very closely about the absent witness, Gallagher. Fick- ert gave assurance that diligent hunt wa"^ being made for the witness. The questioning of the District Attorney was con- tinued ten days later when the case again came up. Judge Lawlor asked Fickert to tell definitely whether he proposed to put the issue before a jury in the absence of his material witness. Fickert replied that Gallagher's absence greatly weak- ened the State's case, and that in his belief certain facts could not be proved without Gallagher being present. But as for that, Fickert insisted that even with Gal- lagher present he did not believe that the State could ficient legal and competent evidence to justify me, as a sworn officer of the law, to present this case to a jury. "My opinion is confirmed by the fact that 42 out of 48 jurors sworn to try this defendant and the defendant, Tirey L. Ford, upon the same state of facts, voted 'Not Guilty.' I, therefore, 'in fur- therance of justice,' move the dismissal of this indictment, on the grounds that the evidence is wholly Insufficient to warrant an- other trial of this case." 428 Dismissal of the Graft Cases make out a case.*^" Nevertheless, he continued to insist that he was ready to proceed to try the action even in the absence of the witness Gallagher. But Judge Lawlor announced that he did not pro- pose to proceed with the trial of the action : (1) If a material witness were without the jurisdic- tion of the court. (2) If the court did not believe that the cause were to be prosecuted with the vigor and fidelity that the law contemplates.**'^ 460 Judge Lawlor was also careful to make clear that if the court proceeded with the formation of a jury, jeopardy would at- tach to the case. He also pointed out that the statute of limita- tions had run ag'ainst the alleged crimes. The following is from the transcript, the questions being directed to Mr. Fickert: "The Court: You are aware that if you proceed to form a jury to try this issue, and the witness does not appear, that jeopardy has nevertheless attached and that the defendant will be entitled to ask for his deliverance at the hands of that jury, whether that witness is produced or not. "Mr. Fickert: Yes, I am aware of that, if your Honor please. "The Court: And you are aware further that the alleged crim- inal act set up in the indictment is outlawed within the meaning of Section 800 of the Penal Code; that is to say, that more than three years have intervened since it is claimed that that act was committed. "Mr. Fickert: That is correct, if your Honor please. "The Court: The witness, James L. Gallagher, gave testimony in the trial of c.se 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. Fick- ert that counsel would stipulate to nothing of the kind. 401 "At the present time," said Judge Lawlor in making this announcement, "it is the intention of the Court to deal with this matter, so far as the absence of that material witness is con- cerned, and to suspend judgment as to the ultimate attitude of the District Attorney in respect to this and other causes before the Court. I do not intend to sit here and preside over a trial if for any reason, whether it seems sufficient to the District Attorney or not, the Court reaches the conclusion that the case is not being prosecuted in good faith. The Court, in pointing out the duty of the District Attorney on February 7th. was not inviting a sugges- tion that we should proceed to trial without regard to the outcome of that trial or to its particular features or the manner in which it should be tried. The Court will try no case, it will not consume its own time, it will not consume the time of others, it will not Dismissal of the Graft Cases 429 Fickert also stated his position. He insisted that he did not believe that any evidence had ever existed against the trolley-graft defendants Abbott and Mullally, and did not believe it to be his duty as District Attorney to prosecute men against whom there was no evidence. Fickert even attempted to commit Judge Lawlor to this proposition, by stating that the Judge in chambers had confessed as much. This Judge Lawlor denied. Mr. Fickert's assistant, i\Ir. Berry, had been present during the discussion in chambers between Mr. Fickert and allow the expenditure of public money for the mere purpose of go- ing through the forms of a trial. The Court must feel in the end that the people are represented. Now, what its final view shall be as to the District Attorney will be announced when the Court deems that anouncement pertinent and proper. The Court has its own views as to what may be done within the exercise of its prerogative in the event that it does not feel that the people are represented, and will act upon its own judgment when that time arrives. At this time the witness being absent from the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court points out to the District Attorney his duty under Section 1052 of the Penal Code, to move for a proper continuance of this action until the Court can be advised as to whether or not that witness can be produced." Later, when Fickert suggested that all criminal causes be trans- ferred to some other department where the judge might be of a different opinion. Judge Lawlor said: "I have had no occasion to find fault with your acts in respect to any other causes that have been brought before this Court. I am endeavoring to have your mind concentrated upon one thing, and that is the matters which are before tliis Court, and for the prosecution of which you, under your sworn oath of office are re- quired to give your full attention to. Your own statement in sup- port of your motion to dismiss this case evinces in my judgment a disposition not to do your duty. However, I still say that this matter I bring to your attention, and ask you to give full reflection uijon the matter. I have no desire in any manner to hamper you. The process of this Court is at your disposal at all times, in all causes, and if any person or set of persons be found to be inter- fering with the due administration of Justice you will have a full hearing before this Court in order that you shall not be so ham- pered. 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." 430 Dismissal of the Graft Cases Judge Lawlor, but Mr. Berry failed to sustain his chief's contention.***^ "In these cases, the cases against Mr. Abbott and Mr. Mullally," said Fickert, "I shall never proceed in them because there is absolutely no evidence which at all gives even a suspicion." In respect to the other cases, Mr. Fickert announced that he intended to take the same course that he had in those under discussion, and stated that if the Judge so desired he would advise him before hand as to which of the cases he intended to make a motion for dismissal. "In view of the statement you made on February 7," **'^ replied Judge Lawlor, "the Court will not feel called upon to grant any application looking to a dis- missal of any of those cases. The Court will finally deal with them in the manner prescribed by the law. And if that situation is not reached so that the Court can proceed with the trial, the Court will be under the 462 "I think your Honor well knows," Fickert had said, "that certain defendants in this particular class of cases, that there have not been produced here in Court, and I do not think ever ex- isted, any evidence against them. I allude to Mr. Abbott and Mr. Mullally. And I so informed you in your chambers, and you in words confessed that pi-opositlon." Judge Lawlor took this statement up. The following is from the transcript: "The Court: Now, before you pass to those other cases, In re- gard to these two cases do you make the statement that 1 made any statement to you, in the presence of Mr. Berry, that I said there was not sufflcient 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." 46.3 See footnote 459, page 426. Di-smissal of the Graft Cases 431 solemn obligation of setting down in its minutes the reason why a trial has not been had in any particular instance, and why cases are dismissed or disposed of without the trial of the general issue. The Court cannot escape its responsibilities. I have pointed out that under the law it is for the Court to say finally what shall become of cases that are not pressed to conclusion, and when the Court does that it must give its reasons — the law says so. In this State, since the formation of the government therein, the power has not for any consid- erable length of time lodged in the District Attorney to dispose of actions ; that matter is confided to the Court. Counsel will be doing injustice to his own position if he assumes that the Court has any other attitude than to finally dispose of these matters according to the law without doing injustice to any person, either to the Dis- trict Attorney or any person who is unfortunate enough to be involved. But when the Court comes to write down its action it will be based upon what it believes to be the fact and upon nothing else." Fickert replied that he was ready to proceed with the matter. To this Judge Lawlor reiterated that the Court v/as not going to permit the District Attorney to I)roceed in the absence of a witness, who, according to the District Attornev's own statement, was material.**'* 464 "In dealing with the attitude of the District Attorney," said Judge Lawlor, "as is manifested by all that I have said upon that subject, I have endeavored to deal justly with him. to reach no con- clusion myself definitely as to the attitude of the District Attorney. I sincerely hope that in these cases, as in all cases that may come before the Court, the District Attorney will do his full duty. I de- sire it equally understood, however, that if the District Attorney in any case fails of his duty the Court is not going- to be recreant and it is not going to sit here as a minister of justice and permit a travesty in any form, for any purpose, whatever the views of the District Attorney may be. Now, I have endeavored to make It 432 Dismissal of the Graft Cases Nor did the earnest plea of attorneys for the defense for dismissal move Judge Lawlor. In the absence of the material witness, Gallagher, he continued the case, on the Court's own motion, until April 25.**^^ On that date, Calhoun's attorneys moved for dis- missal of all the indictments pending against their client upon the ground that his trial had been postponed and continued for more than sixty days without his consent and over his objection and exception. Fickert submitted the motion, fortifying it with a statement that he did not believe that the District Attor- ney's office would be justified in asking continuance until Gallagher's return. Judge Lawlor postponed determination of the motion clear that there are two considerations that will affect the Court in the final disposition of this business: First, that it will not pro- ceed with the trial of any action where material testimony is not forthcoming. That would be the disposition of the Court in any case, but it is especially its attitude in this case in view of the sweeping statement of the District Attorney made on February 7th that there is no sufficient evidence upon which to proceed to trial against any of these four defendants." 465 The statement was made repeatedly that Gallagher was not under subpoena when he left the State. The statement was even contained in the opinion of the Appellate Court, granting the writ of mandate that preceded the dismissal of the graft cases. Judge Lawlor at the proceedings 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 else- where, how it could be declared elsewhere, in the absence of such testimony as I might be able to give on the subject. I expressly refrained, on an occasion when I made an extended statement cov- ering these cases, from making any final word on that subject. I am not prepared now to say so, because I don't know. "Mr. Berry: I will state to the Court that I have made a very careful inquiry in the District Attorney's office, and of the records, and of the officials in that office in the previous administration, and I have been unable to secure or to get any definite information on that point." Dismissal of the Graft Cases 433 until July 14.'*"^ His ruling was announced on Au- gust 3. Judge Lawlor went exhaustively into the situation •I'lo Judge Lawlor, in announcing this decision, said in part: "Sec- tion 13 of Article I of the Constitution provides in part: 'In crim- inal prosecutions in any court whatever the party accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial. * * *.' Section 1382 of the Penal Code declares in part: 'The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, must order the prosecution to be dis- missed in the following cases: • * *. 2. If a defendant, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial within sixty days after the finding of the indictment, or filing of the information.' "This provision has repeatedly been declared to be a statutory expression with reference to the section of the constitution to which the Court has referred. It has been held to mark the period within which a party accused of crime is to be brought to trial, unless good cause to the contrary is shown. About the general proposition of law involved in the determination of the present motion there can be little ground for contention. The perplexity usually arises In the determination of what the reserve language of Subdivision 2 of Section 1382 of the Penal Code may be included to cover. An application of this character must be determined according to the peculiar circumstances surrounding the application." ♦ * • "The Court is of the view that so far as the determination of the motion itself is concerned the onus is on the People to show good cause, which would take the case out of the operation of the constitutional provision and the statute referred to. The Court, in that view of the matter, has addressed the District Attorney as to what his attitude is with respect to the motion, and the District Attorney has made it plain that it is not his intention to take any step toward meeting the application of the defendant to have the causes dismissed. In the view which the Court takes of the gen- eral attitude of the District Attorney toward the four defendants at bar, the Court feels it is a case where it must act, and to the extent thiat 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 pres- ent administration in the District Attorney's office. The fact, how- ever, that the witness is absent from the State and not within reach of the process of the Court, is a fact established before the Court at this time. "It is not the intention of the Court to disregard the rights of this or any other defendant, that may be urged before this Court, but, it is likewise the disposition of the Court, to see that the pub- lic interests are safeguarded, and that no arrangement between the defendants and the sworn officer of the law shall be suffered to direct and control the action of this Court. And in that view of the matter the Court has reached the conclusion that it is its duty to continue these causes further, in order to see whether or not the missing witness can be secured, and if he cannot be secured within such time as this Court may deem to be proper and which would take the case out of the exception contained in the provision 434 Dismissal of the Graft Cases presented.***^ He pointed out that a material and in- dispensable witness was absent from the State ; he stated that the Court was called upon to intervene "be- cause the District Attorney has at practically every turn followed the lead of these defendants" ; he held that through the influence of unusual agencies, so far as the graft cases were concerned, the law had broken down, and that the crimes charged are of the most serious nature, "because such criminal activity tends to sap the very foundations of government" ; he insisted that be- fore the indictments should be finally disposed of every reasonable effort should be made to get at the truth of the situation. "The disposition of grave charges other than on their merits," he concluded, "is not to be encouraged and should not be allowed, except in the face of a strict legal necessity." He continued the cases until Au- gust 29. Stanley Moore, one of Calhoun's attorneys, when Judge Lawlor had concluded, demanded that he be per- mitted to reply. This demand was refused. There follovv^ed one of the most extraordinary scenes ever recorded of a court of justice. The defendant's attorneys, the District Attorney, and even the prisoner at bar, openly and contemptuously defied the Judge on the bench. Stanley Moore charged him with "doing politics 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 he con- tinued for further hearing until 10 a. m., Thursday, July 14, 1910." 467 Judge Lawlor's decision will be found in full in the Appendix, page i. Dismissal of the Graft Cases 435 from the bench that you stultify in your occupancy." A. A. Moore, another of Calhoun's lawyers, accused him of being "a partisan, a bitter partisan, and doing- dirty politics." "And," Stanley Moore hastened to add, "have been before these indictments were ever filed in this court, as the events of that midnight deal in which you par- ticipated on April 29 amply demonstrate." ^^^ District Attorney Fickert, in the face of the Court's direction that he take his seat, denounced "the state- ments and aspersions you have tried to cast upon me" as "false in each and every particular." A third of Mr. Calhoun's attorneys added his de- nunciation. Mr. John Barrett decried the proceedings as "infamous." Judge Lawlor sentenced Calhoun's three attorneys to serve five days each in the county jail for contempt and ordered the SheriflF to take charge of them. But the extraordinary scene was not concluded. The prisoner at the bar had not yet been heard. Calhoun took the floor to tell the Judge on the bench that should the Judge send him (Calhoun) to jail for contempt "it will be heralded all over this country as an honor." *'^^ 408 See Chapter XV. 469 Calhoun's denunciation of Judge Lawlor was as follows: "Mr. Calhoun: May it please your Honor: I ha\'e 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 gc to jail; and as an American citizen I say to you that if you should send me for contempt it will be heralded all over this country as an honor. You have seen fit, sir, to send three of the most distinguished counsel of this State 436 Dismissal of the Graft Cases The Court attempted to interrupt the angry defendant. The interruption was ignored. The prisoner at the bar was exhibiting himself as more powerful in San Fran- cisco than the Judge on the bench. When he had said his say, he took his seat. The trolley-graft cases dragged along for more than a year after this astonishing scene in Judge Lawlor's courtroom. ■''° The defendants applied to the Supreme Court in habeas corpus proceedings, but failed to secure interference. They then went to the State District Court of Appeal, where they secured a writ of mandate di- recting Judge Lawlor to dismiss the indictments in the cases of the trolley-graft defendants. *^^ The District Attorney's office announced to Judge Lawlor that the District Attorney had no intention of prosecuting an appeal from the judgment and order of the District Court. to jail. Why? Because they have sought to express in terms of respect, and yet in terms of strength, their protest against in- justice "The Court: Mr. Calhoun "Mr. Calhoun: There is a tiine — pardon me, your Honor — when every man has a right to be heard "The Court: Mr. Calhoun "Mr. Calhoun: Now, before I take my seat, I desire further to say this, that any insinuation that implies either that I was a party to any obstruction of justice, or that I was a party to the absence of this witness, or that I have sought to control the District At- torney's office of this city is untrue. There is no evidence before this Court. You yourself know it." 4 70 Judge Lawlor's term of ofRce 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 Januaiy, 1919. In November, 1914, however, he was elected to the Supreme Bench of the State, his term of office beginning in January, 1915, and ending in January, 1927. 471 Of the three Appellate Judges who granted this writ, one of them, Kerrigan, was prominent in the flash-light picture taken at Santa Cruz during the 1906 State Convention, in which Ruef occupied the center position of honor. See Chapter IV. Dismissal of the Graft Cases 437 Judge Lawlor thereupon dismissed the cases as di- rected. He also included the cases against Frank G. Drum. Eugene de Sabla and John Martin, which were governed by much the same considerations as the trolley cases. Four years and a half had passed since the indictments had been brought. Little by little, the in- fluence of those of the community who were for law and order and impartial law enforcement had been sapped and broken down. The prosecution had been worn out ; the community had been worn out. The de- fense had shown greater staying qualities than either peace ofificers or community. It had been pretty thor- oughly demonstrated that convictions could not be had.*^- The dismissal of the trolley-graft and gas-graft cases was the final breaking down of San Francisco's efiforts to have the cases tried upon their merits. To be sure, the indictments against the telephone-graft defendants and the prizefight-graft defendants, and against Schmitz and Ruef still stood. Glass, a telephone-graft defend- ant, had been convicted, but the Supreme Court had reversed the decision on technicalities.*'"'' The absent 472 Assistant District Attorney Berry on the occasion of tlie dis- missal of the indictments said on this point: "If the men who are involved in this transaction have transgressed the laws they are sowing- the wind possibly which may reap the whirlwind by break- ing down the institutions of the land. I regret exceedingly, if these men are guilty of the offense with which they have stood charged here, that they cannot be convicted. I assure the Court and I state here that it would be my purpose to follow these cases, if these defendants arc guilty and the evidence were had, to the uttermost in order to bring about the ends of justice. It is no doubt in the minds of the community that where men of promi- nence and where men of wealth are concerned, and are brought be- fore the bar of justice and justice is not had, that those who are less fortunate in influence and means are thereby made to feel and believe that this is not a government for those who stand before the law equal with those who stand with the tremendous power of influence behind them." 473 The seven .Justices of the Supreme Court took no less than four views of the points raised in the Glass case. The majority 438 Dismissal of the Graft Cases witness, Gallagher, was not a material witness in the Glass case. But when along in August, 1912, a year after the dismissal of the gas and trolley-graft cases, Glass's case was called, it was found that important wit- nesses had disappeared. The incident was taken by the papers, not as a reflection upon the community, but as a joke on Judge Lawlor.*^* The Glass cases were finally dismissed. Former Mayor Schmitz in February, 1912, was brought to trial. Ruef was brought over from San opinion was written by Justice Henshaw, and concurred in by Jus- tices Melvin and L.oris:an. Chief Justice Beatty concurred in the judgment, but not in all the particulars of the opinion. In signing the decision, the Chief Justice adds: "I concur in the judgment of reversal and in most particulars in the opinion of Justice Hen- shaw. I shall, if other pressing duties permit, present my views in a separate opinion." (See 112 Pacific Reporter, page 297.) The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Shaw and concurred in by Justice Angellotti. A third opinion was written by Justice Sloss. .Justice Sloss, after defending the single point in the majority opinion in which he concurs, concludes: "On each of the other points discussed in the opinion of Justice Henshaw, I agree with the dissenting members of the court (Shaw and Angellotti) that no prejudicial error was committed." The fourtli opinion, which the Chief Justice intimated he might file, was not filed. 474 The following from the San Francisco Call of August 2, 1912, indicates the completeness of the triumph of the defense campaign: "Mrs. Theodore Halsey, wife of Theodore V. Halsey, appeared before Superior .Tudge Lawlor yesterday morning on a bench war- rant in the case of iLiOuis Glass, indicted for bribery in the tele- phone cases growing out of the so-called Graft Prosecution. She was in court to explain the absence of lier liusband from the State, whose appearance is wanted if Lawlor orders Glass to trial. "Attorney Bert Schlesinger appeared with Mrs. Halsey, explain- ing the bench warrant was void inasmuch as Mrs. Halsey was not a fugitive. He said he did not wish to impede the trial in any way and would allow her to answer any questions propounded by the Court. "Lawlor asked Mrs. Halsey, through her attorney, where her husband was. Mrs. Halsey was not compelled to take the stand. She said Halsey left San Francisco six weeks ago because of ill health, going to Nevada, and that she has not heard from him in a week. "Assistant District Attorney Berry said a motion was before the Court to dismiss the indictments pending against Glass and he wished to know the Court's intention. Lawlor said he believed Halsey and Einil J. Zimmer, who is said to be in Europe, were competent witnesses against Glass, and It was his duty to try Glass again. He said the result of the former Glass trials showed Dismissal of the Graft Cases 439 Quentin prison to testify against him. But Ruef re- fused to testify unless the Ruef indictments were dis- missed. This, Judge Dunne/'^ before whom many Ruef indictments were pending, refused to do. Ruef did not testify. Schmitz was acquitted. The other indictments against Schmitz were eventually dismissed. The same course followed in the cases of the other graft defendants. The graft defense had beaten San Francisco ; its record of shameful success was complete. Halsey had knowledse of the source of the bribe money and who paid it to the Supervisors. "Lawlor continued the cases of Glass until August 12th, to learn from the District Attorney if the Prosecution has exhausted all its resources in the matter. "Schlesinger and Mrs. Halsey were about to leave the courtroom when Lawlor said, 'I trust, Mr. Schlesinger, you will inform the Court of the whereabouts of Mr. Halsey, if you learn in the mean- time." " 'I will assist the Court in any way possible,' replied Schles- inger. 'But I regard all these Graft Prosecutions as corpses and the mourners have long since ceased to mourn.' "The Judge said nothing in the record showed such a condition. Petective Sergeant Prool took the stand and said he had learned nothing more of the whereabouts of either Halsey or Zimmer." 475 Judge Dunne, until the last, stood as staunchly for effective prosecution of the .i:;raft cases as had Judge Lawlor. CHAPTER XXIX. Ruef's Last Refuge Fails. That a jury of twelve men had found Ruef guilty of bribe-giving did not mean necessarily that the broken boss would be confined at San Quentin, the prison to which he had been sentenced to serve his fourteen-year term. Indeed, the probabilities were very much against his suffering any such indignity. Ruef had, at the test, continued "true to his class" ; he had not assisted the State in bringing the bribe-givers to account. Men, powerful in financial, social and political circles were unquestionably under the greatest obligation to him. He had not "gone back on his class." His "class" owed it to him to save him from stripes, as Ruef by his course had beyond question saved many of his "class" from stripes. Having been convicted by a jury, the first move was for Ruef to appeal to the trial judge for a new trial. This appeal was denied him. Ruef then appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the District Court of Appeal. The three justices of the District Court of Appeal found nothing in Ruef's contention to warrant the granting of a new trial. ^^'^ Thus four judges found that Ruef's trial had been fair, even technically fair. But Ruef's possibilities were not exhausted. The Supreme Court could, if four of the seven 476 See Cal. App. Rpts., vol. 14, page 576. Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 441 members were so inclined, grant him a rehearing, and to the Supreme Court Ruef appHed. The Cahfornia State Constitution provides that "the Supreme Court shall have power to order any cause pending . . . before a district court of ap- peal to be heard and determined by the Supreme Court. The order last mentioned may be made before judg- ment has been pronounced by a district court of ap- peal, or within thirty days after such judgment shall have become final therein." The District Court of Appeal found against Ruef on November 23, 1910; this action became final thirty days later, or on December 23, 1910. The Supreme Court had thirty days after December 23, that is to say, until January 22, 1911, to grant Ruef a rehearing, if a majority of the seven Supreme Justices so decided. If the Supreme Court failed to act before the close of January 22, Ruef, unless pardoned or parolled, would have to go to State prison. Ruef, on December 31, 1910, petitioned the Su- preme Court for a rehearing. On January 23, an- nouncement was made that the Supreme Court, by a four to three decision, had decided to grant Ruef's petition. The decision was received with protest from one end of the State to the other.'*^^ The Lesfislature 478 Said the Sacramento Bee in an editorial article discussing this order, the day after it was made public, January 24, 1911: "It cannot be denied that this order, by a bare majority of the Supreme Court and — with the single exception of the Chief Justice, by the three of its members least esteemed and respected by the public — has excited disgust and exasperation throughout California. There is a strong popular feeling and belief that the Supreme Court should not thus have interposed to save from punishment the most notorious scoundrel and corruptionist in California, a man known to everybody as having enriched himself by systematic grafting and by the bribery of public servants in the Interests of corpora- 442 Ruef s Last Refuge Fails was in session at the time. Senator George W. Cart- wright of Fresno introduced a resolution *" requesting the Assembly — where impeachment proceedings must originate — to take such steps as might be deemed necessary for investigation of the Supreme Court's con- duct. And finally there came the rumor — at first not gen- erally believed, but later confirmed by the Supreme Justices themselves — that one of the Justices at least had signed the order granting Ruef his rehearing be- fore the Attorney-General had filed his brief in answer to Ruef's petition. The Justice who had thus acted tions, a man with many indictments resting against him, but con- victed only on one. "What adds to this general disgust and indignation over the Supreme Court's order is apprehension that the rehearing before that tribunal may result in the grant of a new trial for Ruef, a reversal which in all probability would be equivalent to a final discharge. Such changes have taken place in San Francisco in the last two years, especially in the office of the District Attorney, that a new trial would have small chance of ending in conviction. "No reasons are given by the Supreme Court for its order for a rehearing, but presumably they are of a purely technical sort, for the fact of Ruef's guilt was abundantly proved on the trial." 479 The Cartwright resolution was in full as follows: "Whereas, The Supreme Court of this State on or about the 23rd of January, 1911, rendered a decision in the case of the Peo- ple of the State of California vs. Abraham Ruef, in which the de- fendant is granted a rehearing; and "Whereas, Various newspapers have published criticisms con- demning said decision, and intimating that the Justices participa- ting therein were controlled by corrupt and unworthy motives; and "Whereas, The integrity of our courts has been frequently as- sailed by public speakers and by many of our citizens, all of which tends to destroy the confidence of The People in the purity and integrity of our courts of justice; be it "Resolved, by the Senate, That the Assembly be requested to appoint a committee of the Assembly, such committee to be au- thorized, empowered and instructed to investigate the whole sub- ject matter and particularly to investigate said decision, the grounds upon which the decision is based and the conduct of the Justices of the Supreme Court in relation to said decision, and that the committee report to the Assembly the results of such investi- gation, with such recommendations as to the committee may seem meet and proper in the premises; be it further "Resolved, That said committee shall have power to summon witnesses, and to send for persons and papers and to issue sub- poenaes and compel attendance of witnesses when necessary." Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 443 was Justice Henshaw, the same Supreme Court Justice who occupied prominent position in the picture of the banquet scene at the 1906 Santa Cruz convention, in which Ruef appears in the central position of honor.*^^ The facts later brought out involved the following dates : December 31, 1910 — Ruef's petition for rehearing was filed in Supreme Court. January 10 — W. H. Metson was granted permis- sion to file a brief in the case as Amicus Curiae. January 10 — Justice Henshaw signed the order grant- ing Ruef a rehearing. January 11 — Justice Henshaw left the State and was absent until after the order granting Ruef a re- hearing had been filed. January 12 — Metson filed his brief as Amicus Curiae. January 12 — The Attorney-General filed his reply to Ruef's petition for a rehearing. January 19 — Justice Melvin signed the order grant- ing Ruef's petition. January 20 — Attorney-General filed reply to Met- son's brief. January 21 — Chief Justice Beatty. and Justices Shaw, Angellotti, Lorigan and Sloss met in the chambers of the Chief Justice for consultation regarding Ruef's petition. Justice Lorigan signed the order granting the petition. Justices Shaw, Angellotti and Sloss de- clined to concur in such order, and Chief Justice 480 See Chapter IV. 444 Riief s Last Refuge Fails Beatty reserved his decision in the matter until Janu- ary 22, 1911. January 22, 1911 — (Sunday, the last day on which the order could be signed) Chief Justice Beatty signed the order, his being the fourth name on the document, four signatures being necessary to make it effective. January 23 — A typewritten copy of the order was filed with the Clerk of the Court, the original being retained in the ofifice of the secretaries to the Justices. Up to this time, eleven judges had passed upon Ruef's case. Seven of them — one Superior Judge, three Judges of the District Court of Appeal and three Justices of the Supreme Court — had decided that Ruef had had a fair trial, that no technicality could be in- voked to save him. Four of the eleven judges, in a way which, to the lay mind at least, was some- what irregular, had decided to grant a rehearing. The public was not at all backward in expressing the opinion that this would mean a new trial ; and that under con- ditions as they were at San Francisco, Ruef Vv^ould not for a second time be convicted. ^*^ As is usual in such cases, the public was dissatisfied, suspicious, indignant, but without plan or remedy. Some demanded investiga- 481 This view was entirely justified by the outcome in the Coffey case. Coffey was one of the boodle Supervisors who had at the test refused "to go back on his class." He was tried for bribe- taking and convicted. In the Court of Appeal practically the same points were raised in his favor as were raised in the Ruef case. The Appellate Court refused to interfere. The Supreme Court, by a three to four decision, granted Coffey a rehearing and later a new trial. The line-up of the eleven judges was the same in Cof- fey's case as in Ruef's — seven found Coffey had had a fair trial; four found that he had not. The four — under the rules of the legal game — were more potent than the seven. The jury verdict was nullified. The indictments against Coffey were finally dis- missed. Had the Supreme Court's order for a rehearing of the Ruef case stood, the outcome would have unquestionably been the same. Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 445 tion at the hands of the Legislature ; others wanted impeachment *-^ proceedings instituted. Mr. William Denman, a leader of the California bar, urged before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Legislature owed it to the Supreme Court, as well as to itself and to the public, to make thorough investigation, and de- manded of the committee if the Legislature on proper showing would declare the office of a Supreme Justice vacant. Senator Shanahan. a member of the committee, was quick to reply that imder such a showing the Legis- lature would certainly act. "But," added Shanahan — and here he touched the weak point of impeachment proceedings — "it would take months if not years. That is why impeachment proceedings will not be instituted. Impeachment proceedings from the trial of Warren 482 Some of tlie ablest men in the State urged impeachment pro- ceedings. "If the charges," said United States Senator John D. Works in a letter to State Senator Hewitt, "made against Judge Henshaw by the Attorney-General of this State, under oath, are true, why is it the Legislature of this State before this has not com- menced impeachment proceedings against him? "The legislature has no right to shrink from this duty and re- sponsibility and relieve itself from taking such a step by relegating that duty and responsibility to The People of the State by the en- actment of recall legislation. If Judge Henshaw, or any other judge, has violated his duty to the State and betrayed his office as the charges made against him indicate, the duty of the legisla- ture is imperative, and that duty should be performed without hesitation and without delay." Justice Henshaw, in discussing Judge Works' letter, in an in- terview in the San Francisco Examiner, February 15, 1911, is quoted as saying: "All the charges made by Attorney General Webb in his affidavit attacking the Ruef rehearing order of Janu- ary 30th are true. The orders were signed in the manner stated and I told him so when he visited my office. There was nothing unusual about it. It was done in accordance with the usual prac- tice of this court. "We seldom meet in session to sign the orders. There may be twenty cases to be passed on in one week. Each Justice looks them over at his leisure and signs what orders he agrees to. "I was out of the State, as Mr. Webb says, and at the time that he says. I did not even imagine that there was a legal point in- volved. The practice never has been questioned before." 446 Ruef s Last Refuge Fails Hastings to the present time have proved unsatisfac- tory." But, however individuals differed on the question of impeachment proceedings, the general attitude was that the Attorney-General should take steps, if such course were practical, to have the order granting Ruef a re- hearing set aside. This the Attorney-General did. He attacked the order before the tribunal which had made it, the highest tribunal in the State, the only one to which appeal could be made. And the Supreme Court set the order aside, de- claring it to be "ineffectual for any purpose and void." But the Supreme Court did not set the order aside because Justice Henshaw had signed the document be- fore the argument of the prosecution had been heard. The order was set aside on the ground that Henshaw, being absent from the State when the signature of the fourth Justice was attached thereto, was at the time, being absent from the State, unable to exercise any judicial function as a Justice of the Supreme Court. Without Henshaw's signature, the signatures of but three of the Supreme Justices appeared on the order. As the signatures of four of the Justices were re- quired to make the order effective the Court declared it to be worthless.**^ 483 The following is from the Supreme Court decision revoking the Ruef order for a rehearing (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 01 it, and this disability continued during the whole period of his absence. During that time his situation was the same as If he had absolutely ceased to be a member of this court. It is true that there was a suspension, only, of 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 Rucf s Last Refuge Fails 447 Thirty days from the time the judgment of the District Court of Appeal became final having expired, the Supreme Court could not interfere further. Ruef had lost his last technical play on a technicality. He went to State prison. But Ruef did not go to State prison because a jury of twelve men had found him guilty of offering a bribe to a Supervisor; he did not go to State prison because seven out of eleven judges who passed upon the ques- tions involved had found that he had had a fair trial. Ruef went to State prison when he did because a mem- ber of the Supreme Court of California was absent from the State at a time inopportune for Ruef. Ordinarily, after his failure in the Supreme Court, Ruef would have had two more chances for escaping the full penalty of his bribe-giving, namely, parole at the hands of the State Board of Prison Directors, and pardon from the Governor. But again was Ruef unfortunate. Hiram W. John- son, as Governor of California, sat at Sacramento. been a complete vananoy in his office. Assent, to or concurrence in a decision or order of the court bein^ the exercise of a purely ju- dicial function, liis 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 makinp it an accomplished decision, temporarily ceased to be effectual for any purpose, and so con- tinued ineffectual for any purpose during the whole period of his absence. Such previously indicated willingness to concur could not accomplish that which the absent justice himself could not ac- complish. The time having: expired before he returned it follows that he never concurred with even a single other justice in the purported order. (1) Admittedly this order, if it ever did become effectual, did not become so until .January 22- 1911, when the fOTirth justice appended his name. At that time, however. Justice Hen- shaw could not effectually join thf-rein, 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 in- effectual for any purpose and void." 448 Ruef's Last Refuge Fails He had gone into office pledged "to kick the Southern Pacific machine out of the State government." He was keeping his pledge. There was no pressure which men of Mr. Ruef's "class" could bring upon Governor Johnson to move him to grant Ruef freedom. The possibility of parole was as remote, although the State Board of Prison Directors — who in Cali- fornia are appointed for ten-year terms — continued for a time under the old order. One of the five directors was Tirey L. Ford *^* of the United Railroads, Ruef went to prison convicted of a charge of bribing a Supervisor to vote to give the United Railroads its overhead trolley permit. The evidence indicated, if it did not show, and Mr. Ruef has since confessed, that this money came to him from General Ford. Ruef, because of the crime, foimd him- self confined in a prison of which General Ford was 484 Ford's term as prison director expired January 12, 1914. He continued in office until his term had expired and his successor had been appointed. After Ruef had confessed that the trolley bribe money had come to him through Ford, the Sacramento Bee of August 30, 1912, after reciting the allegations of Ruef's confession, said: "There, in brief, is the tale which Abraham Ruef tells 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 feel- ing has been that a man of naturally fine principles and honorable sentiments had been warped by his environments, and had done under instructions that at wliich his better nature rebelled. "It would be futile now to discuss what Tirey L. Ford should have done and should not have done; or to declare that no tempta- tion should have led him to perform any other than legal work for the United Railroads. "■The Bee will say as little as it can say conscientiously under the circumstances. Human nature is human nature the world over. And The Bee men cannot forget the long, long years of intimate friendship with and faith in Tirey L. Ford. But every considera- tion of the eternal fitness of things demands that he should no longer remain a member of the State Board of Prison Directors." Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 449 one of the five governors, with power of parole in his hands. But it developed that Governor Johnson had power to set aside such parole. So Ruef could expect Httle from even the Board of Prison Directors. Scarcely had Ruef been placed behind the bars, however, than a State-wide campaign was inaugurated to compel his pardon or parole. The public was treated daily by the newspapers with descriptions of the dis- comfitures *^^ which Ruef was suffering. When he was found, for example, smuggling sweet chocolates into prison, and was punished for it, the Ruef-friendly press cried out at the cruelty and unreasonableness of such punishment. *®® The suffering which his imprisonment has brought 485 The following is a fair sample of the articles descriptive of Ruef's suffering in prison, which have been inflicted upon the Cali- fornia public ever since Ruef donned stripes; it appeared in The San Francisco Bulletin of December 21, 1912: "Ruef Is an epicure. As discordant sounds do violence to the feelings of a musician gifted with an exquisite ear, so coarse, badly cooked or tasteless food does violence to the epicure who is gifted with exquisite nerves for inhaling, tasting and appreciating delicate flavors. The gastric juices of the epicure cannot become freely active on mere hunger as with men not so endowed. Digestion with the epicure must wait upon the fine dictates of the palate; and a stomach so guarded cannot wantonly change to an extreme opposite without material suffering. To eat merely to be filled, to overeat, to eat hur- riedly, is for the epicure, as one epicure puts it, 'to commit moral sins.' Ruef since his imprisonment has been compelled to do all these things." 486 To this complaint of cruelty to Ruef, The Fresno Republican made sharp answer: "A visitor," said The Republican, "smuggled articles to Ruef — nothing more dangerous than sweet chocolate and newspaper clippings, to be sure, but still a covert violation of a necessary rule — so Ruef is deprived of visitors and letters for two months, and the automatic application of a general rule postpones his application for parole for six months. Whereat there is wailing and woe, and the San Francisco Call says that Ruef's friends re- gard it as particularly unfortunate that he should be deprived of visitors just at the time when a movement for his parole is go- ing on. "To all: Let us be sympathetic. Only let us make it general. Ruef shall have his sweet chocolate. But all the other prisoners shall have it too. Ruef shall sneak things into prison, inside his blouse, by bribing the guards. But all the other prisoners shall have all the like privileges, though it is known that some of them would prefer dope, daggers and dynamite to sweet chocolate." 15 450 Ruef s Last Refuge Fails upon the members of his family is dwelt upon at length. Letters from them, pleading for assistance for their imprisoned relative have been received by many whose assistance it was thought might prove effective in se- curing his release. But when Ruef was brought back from San Quentin prison to San Francisco to testify at Schmitz's trial, the pathetic story was published broadcast that these letter-writing relatives had been kept in ignorance of his imprisonment, and thought him to be traveling in Europe.**^ One of the most contemptible stories circulated to create public opinion for his release was that Ruef had been made scapegoat because of his religion, Ruef is a Jew, circulators of this story insisted that he is in prison because he is a Jew, while the gentile bribe- givers go free. As a matter of fact, the gentiles associated with Ruef have gone free because of Ruef's treachery to the graft prosecution, but this does not prevent the circula- tion of the story. A saner view, breathing of better citizenship, came 487 Commenting upon this the Sacramento Bee, in Its issue of February 9, 1912, said: "In an effort to create sympathy for Abra- ham Ruef, a story was originated at San Francisco, and has found wide publicity as news, that the aged mother of the felon has been kept in ignorance of his imprisonment, and does not even know of his conviction for bribery. "Yet letters purporting to 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 ignor- ance of Ruef's confinement is mere fiction. "In either case a contemptible trick has been played by some agency both active and unscrupulous in seeking to promote Ruef's release. After this the public and the newspapers may well be suspicious of sympathetic stories respecting Ruef and his confine- ment. If he is personally responsible for the effort to exploit his mother in the manner here related, he is even a more despicable specimen of humanity than the known facts of his career would Indicate." Ruefs Last Refuge Fails 451 from Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of the New York Free Synagogue. "Israel," said Rabbi Wise, "is not re- sponsible for Ruefs crimes any more than the Roman or Protestant Church is responsible for the crimes of its communicants. But we of the House of Israel in America would be in part answerable for Ruefs mis- deeds unless we made it clear, as we do, that Israel is unutterably pained by this blot upon its record of good citizenship in America." By far the most astonishing support of the move- ment to free Ruef came from the San Francisco Bul- letin and Fremont Older, its managing editor. Older was one of the strongest supporters of the graft prose- cution, as was the paper under his management. But once the graft prosecution was concluded, Older and the Bulletin became the most persistent of the sup- porters of the movement to secure Ruef his freedom.*^^ 488 Older, in a letter to Dr. S. W. Plopkins, of Lodi, gives his reasons for working for Ruefs release as follows: "San Francisco, September 25, 1911. Dr. S. W. Hopkins, Presi- dent Board of Healtli. Lodi, Cal. Dear Sir: If you read my article in the Survey, I think there is much in it that you did not under- stand. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I tried to. I wanted those who read the Survey article to believe tliat I at least no longer think we are going to better the world by punishing men individually. I do not feel that it is good for people or for the edi- tor of the Pacific Christian to want vengeance administered to our brothers and sisters. I think vengeance, and by vengeance I mean punishment, makes us all worse rather than better. I have asked for mercy for Ruef because I felt that I, above all others, had done most to bring about his downfall. If you have followed the long fight the Bulletin has made during the past eight or nine years, you will recall that I was fighting Ruef long years before the city woke up. You will also recall that I attacked him bitterly with all the Invectives that I could personally command, and all that I could hire. I cartooned liim in stripes. T 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, unscru- pulous, savage. I went to Washington and enlisted Heney in the fight. Burns came, and Spreckels joined in the chase. Then I pur- sued with the same relentless spirit in the wake of these men. At last, after eight years of a man-hunting and man-hating de- bauch, Ruef crossed over and became what I had wanted him to 452 Ruef s Last Refuge Fails Largely through Older's influence, men of prominence throughout the country — with apparently no very clear knowledge of the situation — have been induced to ex- press themselves as favorable to Ruef's release. In the publicity campaign for Ruef's release which gives no indication of abatement, Ruef, and those who seek his release, are praised in the most extravagant terms, while those who will not enroll themselves in his interests are as extravagantly condemned.*®^ be, what I had longed and dreamed that he might be — a convict, stripped of his citizensliip, 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 al.so stripped, that is, stripped of all pretense, sham, self-righteousness, holding the key to another man's cell. I dropped the key. I never want to see it again. Let it be taken up and held by those who feel they are justified in holding it. I want no more jail keys. For the rest of my life I want to get a little nearer to the forgiving spirit that Christ expressed. "Isn't what I am accusing myself of, true of all of us? Think it over. Think of your own life. Think of the lives of those around you, and see if you cannot discern that we are all guilty. And then think whether or not you believe that society will be benefited by denying Ruef a parole, which only gives him a half liberty and still holds him under the restrictions of the prison until his term is finished. "I am surprised at the tone of the article you sent me, published in the Pacific Christian. It reads like a chapter out of the Old Testament rather than the New. But I fear that the world is be- ing governed more upon the lines of the Old Testament than the New. I asree 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 ad- vanced far enough to make it possible. But I can at least be true to myself and express what I honestly feel. "I wish as a favor to me that you would send a copy of this letter to the Pacific Christian, as I am leaving for the East and will not have time. I should like them to know what I am writing you. Sincerely yours, Fremont Older." 489 The San Jose Mercury, controlled by Congressman E. A. Hayes, in its issue of September 22, 1911, published one of these Ruef campaign articles. The following description of Ruef occurs: "Not many months have gone since Ruef found domicile m Ruef s Last Refuge Fails 453 But in spite of all that is being done to create public opinion favorable to Ruef's release, the sober expression of machine-free press and public is that Ruef should be treated both on the score of parole and confinement precisely the same as any other pris- oner.*°° This attitude was clearly presented by the Fresno Republican at the time Ruef was found smug- gling chocolate sweets into the prison. In the attitude of prison officials toward Ruef, the Republican pointed out, there are two alternatives. "One," the Republican went on to say, "is the course of Warden Hoyle, in treating Ruef like any other prisoner, and disciplining him humanely but sternly, for any in- fraction of the necessary prison rules. The other is to let Ruef have privileges which the other prisoners do not and can not have. News travels nowhere faster or surer than in prison. If Ruef bribes guards, the officials may not know it, but the prisoners will. If Ruef states prison. But what changes Time has wrought in that brief period. Tlie little man sits in his cell, lonely and solemn, as he meditates on the singularities of mankind. With no bitterness in his soul, without a thought of revenge twisting his sense of peace and good will toward man, he passes the time planning the com- forts of his fellow unfortunates and reading and rereading the let- ters that come so regularly from the loved ones whose burdens he so gladly carried and to whose joy he so gladly contributed. He is neither unhappy nor without hope." The same article contains another word picture — of Francis J. Heney. It reads: "But if Older has turned 'right about face,' Heney, the other member of the firm, has not. He remains the unforgiving, snarl- ing, short-haired bulldog, with his hand against every man, and every man's hand against him." Such is the character of the publicity campaign to release Ruef from prison. 490 When in 1914 Governor Johnson became candidate for re-elec- tion, extraordinary efforts were made to compel him to pardon, or to consent to the release of Ruef on parole. So persistent were Ruef advocates, that the Governor found It necessary to issue a state- ment of his position regarding Ruef. That statement will be foun(J in full on page xxviii of the Appendix. 454 Ruef s Last Refuge Fails may have smuggled sweets, the other prisoner, whose every nerve-cell shrieks in agony for cocaine, but who knows he will be thrown in the dungeon if he smug- gles it, will have no illusions about the smuggling privilege. If the very minions of justice do injustice, as between Abe Ruef and Convict No. 231,323, every man in that vast prison will be taught that he is the victim not of justice, but of force and favoritism. And if Ruef, at the expiration of a bare year, were to be paroled out, every other convict, whose very application can not be heard until he has served half his term, will know that he is suffering the penalty, not of his crime, but of his poverty and friendlessness. Shall Abe Ruef be suffered to teach that lesson? Shall he cor- rupt San Ouentin prison as he did San Francisco? Or shall there be at last one place found where even Abe Ruef gets exact and equal justice?" Ruef is getting equal justice at State prison, not be- cause he corrupted San Francisco, not because a jury of twelve citizens found him guilty, not because seven out of eleven judges declared against him, but because the political machine, of which Ruef was one of the most powerful leaders, has been broken in California. Under the old order, to have kept Ruef jailed would have been impossible. CHAPTER XXX. Conclusion. After the McCarthy-Fickert election there were ru- mors that the graft defense, flushed with its successes in the overthrow of the prosecution, would resort to reprisals, by singling out persons prominent in the movement to enforce the law, for trumped-up charges and possible indictment. But aside from an abortive attempt to make it appear that former Supervisor Gallagher had fled the State at the behest of William J. Burns, reprisals of this nature were not attempted. The reprisals came in more subtle form. Members of the Oliver Grand Jury which had brought the in- dictments against Ruef and his associates, found them- selves marked men in business, political and social cir- cles. A member of the faculty of the State University who had been active in defending the cause of the prosecution, found his salary remaining practically stationary, while his associates received material ad- vances. When the directorate of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition Company was formed, finan- ciers who had supported the prosecution found them- selves barred from directorships. It may be said, how- ever, that the graft defense was well represented, one of the Exposition directors at least, Thornwall Mul- lally, having been one of those indicted in the graft cases. 4S6 Conclusion When the suggestion was made that James D. Phelan be made Pacific Coast representative in Presi- dent Wilson's cabinet, at once the graft defense pack was on his track, openly naming Mr. Phelan's assist- ance to the prosecution cause as reason sufficient why he should not be given the cabinet appointment.*^^ On the other hand, all danger of confinement in State prison being gone, the graft defense, through its various newspapers, urged incessantly that the past be forgotten, that San Francisco interests get together for the good of San Francisco. But this "getting to- gether" meant the banishing from political, social, and, as far as practical, business circles, all who had sided with the prosecution, thereby giving control of all activities to sympathizers with the graft defense. This is well recognized throughout the State, and the exclusive "get-together" movements are received with general ridicule. *^^ The graft defense does not 491 The San Francisco Argonaut, one of the principal apologists for the Graft Defense, in its issue of November 23, 1912, said of the suggestion of Mr. Phelan's name for the cabinet: "Ex-Mayor Phelan, of San Francisco, would be in line for cabinet honors if our local war of the roses were not so recent and if Its unfragrant memories and resentments could be set aside. But this is not yet." 492 The Fresno Republican in its issue of December 7, 1912, pays the following tribute to the graft defense's "get-together" plans: "They are going to hold a 'burn the hammer' celebration in San Francisco on New Year's eve, for the cremation of knocking. "It is a good idea, and one worth going the limit on. By all means, burn the hammers! But the 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 boost- ing way to dispose of the other fellow's hammer. If we go after it, w^e 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 knock- ing. But when we burn or bury our own, then we know that at least our part of the knocking is ended. "The purpose of the 'burn the hammer,' or 'get-together,' is, of Conclusion 457 stand well in California. The "vindication" that was heralded throughout the country when the indictments were dismissed has not been accepted in California as generally as those most immediately afifected could have wished. Then again, the corporations involved in the scan- dals, have a heritage from the graft defense which seems destined to bring confusion upon them at every turn of their development. Late in 1912, for example, a year and a half after the trolley-graft indictments were dismissed, the United Railroads attempted re- adjustment of its bonded indebtedness. This could be done only with the consent of the State Railroad Com- mission. The Commission, willing to allow any proper adjustment upon competent showing, asked that the corporation's books be produced. The books had, dur- ing the days of the prosecution, been sent out of the State. The United Railroads could not produce the books, and consent to its petition to readjust its finan- cial affairs was withheld until the books should be course, to bridge the breach loft 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. "W^illiam H. Crocker give a reception to such members of the Oliver grand jury as have survived the boycott. "The San Francisco Post issue a congratulatory edition, com- mending the achievements of Governor Johnson's administration. "Patrick Calhoun offer to take Abe Ruef's place In San Quentin for a yeai-, 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 th?y are the ones who want it. The way to get it is first to put away their own implements of discord. And no bettor pledges of intent to do this could be con- ceived than are contained in the suggestions here offered." 458 Conclusion forthcoming. Unofficial assurance was given officials of the corporation that investigation would not be made of its graft defense expenditures, '*°^ nor of any ex- penditures involved in the scandal of the alleged bribe- giving. But apparently even this assurance did not satisfy those connected with the United Railroads whose reputations, at least, were at stake. *^* The com- 493 The machine-free press of the State, however, openly Insisted that it would be a sood thing if full publicity of the United Rail- roads expenditures could be had. "What the missing books might contain of an interesting sort," said Tlie Sacramento Bee in discussing the incident, "may be gath- ered from a 'list of expenses' submitted by Calhoun in lieu of the books, including an item of $314,000 to Patrick Calhoun for 'services rendered.' * "The character of these 'services' may be surmised by anybody familiar with the history of the recent bribery and Graft Prosecu- tions in San Francisco. But surely the public and the stockholders and creditors of the United Railroads are entitled to specifications. "It is largely that corporations may not bribe in secure secrecy, or otherwise commit criminal acts without detection, that the Pro- gressive states are bringing them under strict regulation and in- spection by proper authority." 494 Tlie 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 promis- sory note is perliaps 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 tliis 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 communitj' of San Francisco, and at a Conclusion 459 pany's books were not opened for the Commission's inspection. By far the greatest sufferer from the graft defense was San Francisco. Here it was demonstrated that even with a District Attorney intent upon the discharge of his sworn duty, with upright trial judges on the bench, the machinery of the criminal law broke down when men with practically unlimited means were brought to bar. To accomplish this required a four years' contest, in which community resistance to po- lical corruption was overcome, the people misled, their minds poisoned against that which is wholesome, and made tolerant of that which is base and bad. The unhappy effects of this are just beginning to be understood. The evil of the graft defense will live long in San Francisco after the dismissal of the indict- ments. Four years after the defeat of the Graft Prose- cution, Referendum petitions against State laws have been forged in San Francisco, and the laws, which had been passed by the State Legislature and signed by the Governor, have been delayed from going into effect for nearly two years, because of the forgeries. And yet, although the forgers are known, their prosecution, except in one instance, has not even been attempted. Governor Johnson has called the attention of the Attor- ney-General of the State to this condition, and has urged him to undertake the prosecution of tliese forgery cases. time when this same company was urging upon this Commission the necessity of issuing further Isonds to pay off maturing obliga- tions, and also at a time when admittedly the outstanding obliga- tions could not be paid at maturity by approximately $20,000,000." This enormous sum had been taken in gold at various times, ranging in amounts from $250 to $85,000. 460 Conclusion Tenderloin interests at San Francisco now indicate even greater power in the community than they exerted during the worst days of Ruef-Schmitz regime. The same is in a measure true of the public service cor- porations. When District Attorney Langdon announced in 1906 that public-spirited citizens would assist in meeting the expenses of running to earth the corruptionists that had San Francisco by the throat, prospect of law-en- forcement through the regular channels was welcomed, and ugly talk of lynch-law prevalent at the time, ceased. The success of the graft defense meant that the efforts to reach the corrupters of the municipal government through the courts had failed. San Francisco was beaten. In the community's present inability to pro- tect itself against the encroachments of the public service corporations, and to correct vice conditions which are far worse than in the worst days of the Schmitz-Ruef regime, the effects of that beating are seen. San Francisco will be long in recovering from the effects of her defeat. Because of the results of it, she finds herself handicapped in her race for Pacific Coast supremacy with Los Angeles, Seattle and even Oakland. And the prospects are at the close of the year 1914, that the burden of this handicap will be increased before it is diminished. In the old days an invading army conquered a city and sacked it. The System conquered San Francisco and is exploiting it. The defeat of the graft prosecution was a defeat for San Francisco alone. It v.'as not a defeat for the State of California. Conclusion 461 The evil influence of the graft defense did not reach beyond the metropoHs. On the contrary, the suc- cess of the defense uncovered for the whole State the actual political conditions under which all California was laboring. The registration of 47,945 l-iepublicans at San Fran- cisco to defeat Heney at the primaries, and the Re- publican vote of 13,766 at the final election, demon- strated the emptiness of partisan pretense. One of the immediate results was a uniting of all good citizens regardless of political afifiliations for good government, and Hiram W. Johnson, Heney's associate in the graft trials, was in 1910, elected Governor of California. Four years later, James D. Phelan, Rudolph Spreckels's associate in financing the graft prosecution, was elected United States Senator from California, while Judge Lawlor was that year elected to the State Supreme Bench. Judge Dunne was in 1914 re-elected to the Superior Bench to serve until 1920. Decisions from the higher courts — to the lay mind astonishing; to authorities on questions of law, vicious and unwarranted — which set free men who had been convicted of dangerous felonies ; scandals which grew out of these decisions ; the public's demonstrated help- lessness against them, aroused the State. By over- whelming vote California added to her Constitution a provision under which The People may by direct vote remove a corrupt or incompetent judge from the bench. The public had assumed that men trapped in bribe- giving would be measured by a fixed rule of the law. 462 Conclusion and their proper punishment in due course be meted out to them. That anything else could be had not occurred to the average citizen. But the astonishing performances at the graft trials, the extraordinary anti-prosecution publicity campaign, and, finally, the amazing technical defense, and the failure of the graft defendants to take the stand and manfully deny under oath the charges brought against them, opened the eyes of the public to the fact that the methods of criminal procedure were sadly inade- quate. And the further fact was emphasized that while the weak points in the methods of bringing an of- fender to punishment could be used to advantage by the rich man, they were unavailable to the man without the means to employ a lawyer to present the techni- calities governing his case. Out of this conviction, came agitation for reform ' of the methods of criminal procedure. An elaborate plan for such reform was presented to the 1909 Legis- lature.*''^ But the machine element controlled the com- mittee organization of both houses, and the measures were defeated. At the 1911 session of the Legislature, after John- son had been elected Governor, measures for the re- form of the criminal procedure similar to those defeated by indirection at the 1909 session, were introduced. Many of them became laws. But, unfortunately, certain labor leaders were made to believe that the measures 495 These measures are de.scrlbed in "The Story of the California Legislature of 1909." The methods employed to defeat them were told in detail. See chapter "Defeat of the Commonwealth Club Bills." Conclusion 463 were aimed at Labor. This led to opposition which resuhed in the defeat of several of the proposed re- forms. One important constitutional amendment was, how- ever, presented to the people that goes far toward cor- recting the abuses which attended the graft trials. This amendment provides that "no judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted in any criminal case on the ground of misdirection of the jury or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, un- less, after an examination of the entire cause in- cluding the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error comjilained of has resulted in a miscar- riage of justice." • Not a vote was cast against this amendment in either house of the Legislature. The feeling against the use of tritling technicalities for the release of con- victed criminals which the graft cases had displayed so glaringly, was shown in the popular vote on this amend- ment : 195,449 voted for the amendment, while only 53,958 voted against it.*^*^ The San Francisco graft prosecution succeeded in sending but one of the corrupters of the municipal 496 Under the provisions of measures wiiich became laws at tlie 1911 session, it is lield that it will be impossible hereafter to put grand jurors on trial as was done in the San Francisco graft cases. Hereafter, too, an indictment or information may be amended by the District Attorney without leave of the Court at any time be- fore the defendant plead-s; and at any time thereafter in the dis- cretion of the Court where it can be done without prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant. Another measure takes from a witness his privilege of refusing to give testimony on tlie grounds that it may incriminate liim. The witness is safeguarded, however, by a provision tliat he shall not be liable thereafter to prosecution nor punishment with respect to the offense regarding which such testimony is given. 464 Conclusion government to State prison. He, too, would in all probability have escaped imprisonment but for the ab- sence from the State of a single member of the Supreme Court at a critical moment. But the graft prosecution did something infinitely more important than the sending of a few corruptionists to cell and stripes. It awakened a State to its help- lessness against a corrupt system. The People arose in rebellion against the "System," and is laboring to throw the "System" off. In 1910 and 1911 a political revolution was worked in California. But the revolution had its beginning back in 1906, when Rudolph Spreckels guaranteed the expenses of the prosecution of the corrupters of the municipal government of San Francisco, and Francis J. Heney, as his share in the campaign, pledged his services. Had there been no San Francisco graft prosecution, there would, in 1910, have been no successful political uprising in California. Hiram W. Johnson would not have been a candidate for Governor. The accomplished reforms which are the boast of the State, and the models which other States are adopting, would still be the unrealized dreams of "reformers." The "Sys- tem" would still be in the saddle. The graft defense has left its mark of ill upon San Francisco. That city has borne the brunt of the injury because of it. The graft prosecution, by forcing the "System" out in the open, where all its power for evil can be seen, worked California inestimable good. And here, San Francisco, in common with the whole State, gains also. APPENDIX JUDGE LAWLOR'S RULING ON MOTION TO DIS- MISS GRAFT CASES, AUGUST 3, 1910. On April 25th, 1910, an application was made by Pat- rick Calhoun, Tirey L. Ford, Thornwell Mullally and Wil- liam M. Abbott to dismiss the indictments against them. The application is before the Court at this time for con- sideration. When the defendants pleaded not guilty they exercised their statutory right and each demanded severance from each other and from their co-defendants, Abraham Ruef and Eugene E. Schmitz. (Sec. 1098 Penal Code.) There have been five trials — three of Tirey L. Ford and one each of Abraham Ruef and Patrick Calhoun. The second trial of Patrick Calhoun was commenced on July 19th, 1909 (case No. 1437). Owing to the illness of one of his counsel the trial was suspended on August 16th, 1909, and resumed on September 30th, 1909. On the following day the trial was ordered continued until Novem- ber 15th, 1909, on motion of the defendant, upon the ground of the pendencj' of a municipal campaign. On January 8th, 1910, Mr. Charles M. Fickert assumed the office of District Attorney'. On February 7th, 1910, the District Attorney moved the Court to dismiss the remaining charges against these de- fendants (Sec. 1385 Penal Code), which motion was by the Court ordered denied. (Sec. 7, Art. I, and Sec. 19, Art. VI of the Constitution; Sees. 1041, 1042, 1126, 1385, 1386 and 1387 Penal Code.) On February 14th, 1910, the parties announced that they were ready to resume the trial in case No. 1437 against Patrick Calhoun, but the Court continued the case for trial until February 17th, 1910. On the last named day the cause was ordered continued for trial until April 25th, 1910. On April 25th, 1910, the four defendants interposed a motion to dismiss the remaining indictments against them. The further hearing of the motion was continued until July 29th. 1910. On the latter day the causes were con- tinued until this time. Two things are chiefly responsible for the Court's action in respect to the remaining indictments since the District Attorney moved to dismiss them on Februarj' 7th, 1910 — first, the Court's apprehensions based on the declared atti- tude of the said District Attorney toward the remaining indictments, and, second, the absence from the State of 11 James L. Gallagher, a material and indispensable witness in the said causes. The second reason will now be con- sidered. It was the theory of the People in the live trials re- ferred to that Abraham Ruef represented the defendants in the alleged bribery of the members of the Board of Super- visors, and that James L. Gallagher, one of its members, in turn represented Abraham Ruef in the transactions. In this way the Court is able to determine that the testimon}' of this witness is material, and now holds, as a matter of law, that unless additional testimony is produced, it is in- dispensable to the establishment of the res gestae. In the early part of December, 1909, it became known that the witness had departed from the State. Up to the present time it has not been shown whether he had been formally subpoenaed or was otherwise under the authority of the Court to appear as a witness in the trials of the remaining indictments. If he is subject to the authority of the Court in any of these cases his absence would con- stitute a criminal contempt, and he could be extradited from any other State having provisions of law similar to those of this State. (Sub. 4, Sec. 166, and Sec. 1548 Penal Code.) In this connection it may be proper to point out that practically ever since issue was joined on these indictments they have been on the calendar for trial, and that during the trials referred to the cases not actually on trial were from time to time called and the witnesses admonished by the Court to appear on the deferred date. But it has not been ascertained whether on this manner the missing wit- ness has been so admonished to appear so far as the re- maining indictments are concerned. In the month of January, 1910, the Court directed that all persons who could give testimony concerning the ab- sence of the witness be subpoenaed. On January 24th, 1910, the first hearing was had, and on several occasions thereafter witnesses have been orally examined on the sub- ject. From this oral testimony it is difficult to determine the intentions of the witness concerning his departure from and his return to the State. It seems that in the latter part of November, 1909, he left for Europe, accompanied by his wife. Robert F. Gallagher, a brother of the wit- ness, testified in effect that the witness never stated he intended to absent himself as a witness in the graft cases and made no suggestion of that nature; that he, Robert F. Gallagher, gained no such impression from anything he did say, except that it was a disagreeable situation for him to be a witness; and that their talk proceeded along the Ill line that there was not going to be any future trial in the graft prosecution. This brother testified further: "He did state on one occasion sonietliing to the effect that Burns had disappeared and that Heney had disappeared and that there wasn't any prosecution; that the incoming District Attorney would not certainly be in earnest in the prosecution." Other witnesses testified to a variety of facts touching the departure of the witness from San Francisco and his declarations on the general subject. Dr. Alexander War- ner gave testimony to the effect that he went to Europe on an Atlantic steamer with the witness and his wife. Thomas J. Gallagher, another brother, among other things quoted the witness to the effect that he was going to Europe, that he might settle in an eastern State, that he made no secret of his purpose, and that William J. Burns, special agent of the former administration in the Dis- trict Attorney's office, knew of his intention to leave. Nothing definite appears in the oral showing concerning his intentions on the subject of his return, and so far as that showing is concerned the point is more or less in- volved in conjecture. But on July 29th, 1910, Frederick L. Berry, the Assistant District Attorne3% assigned to this department of the Court, filed an affidavit embodying clip- pings from the local newspapers of the previous month, w^hich state that the witness was, at the time the articles were written, in Vancouver, B. C. From these clippings it appears that the witness intended to permanentl)' locate in Vancouver. The only tangible evidence from the wit- ness himself, however, is found in his letter to Thomas J. Gallagher under date of June 29th, 1910, in which this excerpt appears: "In reply to your inquiry I cannot state when I shall return to San Francisco, if at all. I may remain here." In my judgment a review of the showing up to this time leads to the inference that the witness left this juris- diction and is remaining away because of some form of understanding or agreement. The circumstances under which he left California clearly show that he was acting guardedly, notwithstanding the testimony, which there is no reason to douI)t, that he informed several persons of his intention to take a trip. When the quoted statement of Robert F. Gallagher was first made I was disposed to assume that the witness left the State principally because he believed the prosecution was a.t an end, and that he made his plans quietly so that the step would not occa- sion comment. In oirier words, that he did not believe there would be any further attempt to prosecute the so- IV called graft cases. But from a study of the entire show- ing- I cannot adhere to that theory. I repeat that up to the time his presence was discovered in Vancouver, the showing was uncertain as to whether he really intended to return to California, and if so, when he would return. It was to be seen that the action of the Court would be in- fluenced by this uncertainty, so when the exigencies of the situation called for a definite showing as to the wit- ness' intentions, he seems to suddenly appear in Vancou- ver, where, under the treaty conditions, he would be safe from extradition, and is promptly discovered by the re- porter of a New York paper. In the clippings his quoted statements on the subject of his intentions are unequivocal. He is to make his home in Vancouver. But his personal communication to Thomas J. Gallagher, already referred to, which he probably realized would be produced in Court, is significant in tenor and he is apparently less certain of his intentions. This would tend to make his future action consistent should he hereafter return to California. From the entire showing I do not entertain any serious doubt as to what his real purpose is. I am inclined to believe that when the necessity for his presence as a witness has passed he will return. To entertain any other view, or be in serious doubt on the point, is to ignore the inherent prob- abilities of the showing and to deny a fair consideration to the known history of this litigation. Now, it must follow that if the witness has left and is remaining away from the State because of an arrangement of some nature aflfecting these cases, the responsibility for his absence should be placed where it belongs. On April 25th, 1910, the District Attorney stated to the Court: " . . . and it appearing also that James L. Gallagher left with the consent and connivance of those who had preceded me in office, I at this time do not wish to as- sume any responsibility for his disappearance. Whether he shall return or not T cannot say. Some of the wit- nesses who were called here testified that he went away with the intent and with the purpose of embarrassing my administration and that he was supposed to keep away until such time as certain persons would request his return. . ." The foregoing fairly states the position of the District Attorney on this point, as repeatedly expressed in Court since he first moved the dismissal of these indictments. If the charge that the former administration entered into a bargain with the witness to default be true, there would be no alternative but to dismiss the indictments without delay. But I have found no evidence in the showing tend- ing to support so grave a charge, and upon sound reason- ing it would seem to be opposed to every reasonable probability. According to the showing, William J. Burns left the State about three weeks in advance of the witness, and, so far as the Court is advised, he has not since been in the State. That the former administration maj^ have distrusted the official intentions of the District Attorney toward these indictments miglit be assumed from all the surrounding circumstances. But it does not seem probable that the former administration would induce a material and indispensable witness to leave the State and thereby make it easy for the District Attorney to secure a result which otherwise might entail serious embarrassment. So far as the showing is concerned there is no tangible proof tend- ing to support the charge of the District Attorney, nor is there any proof which would justify such an inference. Nor, on the other hand, do I find any formal evidence in the showing which tends to bring the responsibility for the disappearance of the witness home to these defendants. In the absence of tangible proof neither side should be charged with so grave an act. But if there has been com- plicity on the part of either of the parties, every effort should be made before disposing of these cases finally to establish the facts. It has been pointed out that if the former administration entered into a bargain with the wit- ness looking to his absence, the application should be granted without delay. And clearly, if the defendants are responsible for the absence of the witness, under a famil- iar maxim of the law, the application should be promptly denied. (Sec. 3517 Civil Code.) There being no tangible proof, therefore, before the Court, of the complicity of the parties, should the pending application be granted at this time? A person accused of crime is entitled to a speedy trial. (Sec. 13. Art. I, Const.) This fundamental right has been made the subject of statutory provision. The second subdivision of Section 1382 of the Penal Code provides that: "Unless good cause to the contrary is shown, the court must order the prosecution to be dismissed if the indict- ment is not brought to trial within sixty days after the filing thereof." More than sixty days have run in favor of this applica- tion, and the question presented at this time is whether the showing touching the absence of James L. Gallagher shall constitute "good cause" within the meaning of the law. This term must be construed and applied according to the peculiar circumstances of each case. It should be VI interpreted so that the rights of both parties shall be equally recognized. The absence of a material and indis- pensable witness for the People would, under proper cir- cumstances, constitute good cause, provided that good faith and diligence are shown in the effort to produce the wit- ness. In re Bcrgerow (133 Cal., 349) is a leading authority on this question and is almost invariably cited in support of applications of this character. It is proper to point out that in the prevailing opinion the Court studiously elim- inates from the pertinency of the authority the absence or illness of a witness for the prosecution. The conclusion I have reached is that under the law, and the surrounding circumstances, including the recent action of the witness, that another reasonable continuance should be directed in order, if possible, that the duty of the Court in the premises shall be rendered more clear. At this time the Court is not satisfied that the relief sought should be granted. On the other hand it is realized that a final decision should not much longer be delayed. In the determination of this matter the Court, while fully recog- nizing the rights of the defendants, is mindful of the rights of the People and its own sense of responsibility, and is anxious to avoid a decision which will serve as a mischie- vous precedent. It is idle to attempt to ignore the inherent probabilities of the situation presented. A material and indispensable witness is absent from the State, and the Court is called upon to intervene because the District Attorney has at practically every turn followed the lead of these defend- ants. Through the influence of unusual agencies the law has broken down, so far as these cases are concerned. The crimes charged are of the most serious nature, because such criminal activity tends to sap the very foundations of government. The statute of limitations has run against these charges and if the application is granted, therefore, there can be no further prosecution, no matter what de- velopments may follow. (Sec. 800 Penal Code.) In the trial of Patrick Calhoun the Court admitted evidence of a most extraordinary character on the theory of the People that it tended to show guilty consciousness on the part of the accused. This evidence was not contraverted. It in- cluded the dynamiting of the home of the witness under circumstances which threatened not only his life, but also the lives of several other persons. A certain other build- ing, the propertv of the witness, was subsequently blown up by the use of dvnamite. If the apparent design on the life of the v/Ilness had been successful, the Court would be less perplexed in deciding a question of this character. It Vll is possible that these experiences and not the suc^gested arrangement with the witness are responsible for his ab- sence. The evidence also included an effort to suppress testimony by an attempt to induce a witness to leave the jurisdiction of the Court, and other matters of a serious nature. And, finally, while the Court is clear that it should not base any action at this time upon the assumption that either side is responsible for the absence of the witness, yet reason and the exercise of a sound discretion dictate that the Court should act with prudence. Before the in- dictments should be finallj- disposed of, every reasonable effort should be made to get at the truth of the situation. The disposition of grave charees other than on their merits is not to be encouraged and should not be allowed, except in the face of a strict legal necessity. Let the cases be continued until 10 a. m., Monday, August 29th, 1910. So ordered. HOW THE SUPERVISORS WERE BRIBED. Thomas F. Lonergan, when elected to the Schmitz-Ruef Board of Supervisors, was a driver of a bakery wagon. He recited at the trial of The People vs. Louis Glass, the manner in which he had been bribed by agents of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company. Loner- gan's testimony was as follows: "I reside in Sanchez street, San Francisco. I have lived in San Francisco since March, 1879. I have a family composed of a wife and three children. I was in the bakerj^ business. I was in that business quite a number of years. I worked latterly' for Mr. Foley. I worked in a bake shop quite a while and also drove a wagon for him. I do not hold any official position now. I did hold the position of Supervisor of the City and County of San Francisco. I was elected Supervisor in November, 1905, and took office on January 7th or 8th, 1906. I know John Kraus. I first met him some time after my election at my home. I did not invite him to come there. "One morning, some time after my election, the doorbell rang, a gentleman was at the door and wanted to see me. I went downstairs. He asked me if I was Mr. Lonergan. I said yes. He says. 'The recently elected Supervisor?' or words to that effect. I said yes. He says, T don't think you are the man I wanted. I came out here from the VIU East a few years back with a Mr. Lonergan, and I thought he was the one that might have been elected.' I said, 'No, you are mistaken, it is the other one,' or something like that. He then incidentally told me he was connected with the Pacific States Telephone Company, and would be pleased to take me around their works at any time that I would find it convenient. I answered him as well as I recall now, that I possibly would take it in some time. I subsequently went to the telephone company's office. To the best of my recollection I saw Mr. Kraus in the meantime before going there, and made an appointment with him. I don't well remember meeting him at the telephone company's office. I think where I met him was on the corner of Mason and Market or Powell and Market, one or the other, around there. That was by appointment. Then I went with him to the telephone company's plant on Bush street, I think, out in the Western Addition at that time. He took me through the works, showing me the works and the arrangements in connection with it, and how they treated their help, and stated to me they were installing another new plant, I forget now whether it was one or two or more. After we left there I had lunch with Mr. Kraus. I don't well remember where. He spoke about an opposition company in that talk. The opposition company was spoken of, considering the appliances they had, and the amount of work they were then doing, and the new switchboards they would put in, that it didn't appear neces- sary to have an opposition company here. Mr. Kraus paid for the lunch, I believe. "I am acquainted with Mr. T. V. Halsey. I first met him, I think, either on Pine or Bush street, to the best of my recollection. I. N. Copus introduced me to him. To the best of my recollection it was some time after meeting Kraus and before I took office as Supervisor. That m.eeting was by appointment. Mr. Copus made the appointment I believe. To the best of my recollection that was my first meeting with Mr. Halsey. I think I was introduced to him by Mr. Copus at the time and place of the meeting. We adjourned to lunch at a restaurant that we were standing in front of. We went upstairs in the restaurant, had some lunch. Nothing particular was spoken of there outside of the current topics. The room we lunched in was not a public dining room. It was a private room. Copus went up to lunch with us. I believe Mr. Halsey paid for the lunch. We were there possibly an hour or an hour and a half. We had Sauterne wine to drink, as well as I remem- ber. The next time I saw Halsey to the best of my recol- IX lection was at his office on Bush street, in the telephone building there. It was some time between the 12th and 14th and the 20th of February, 1906, I should judge. I think I went there on that occasion on the invitation of Mr. Kraus, as well as I remember, that Mr. Halsey would like to see me. I found Halsey when I got there. I am not conversant with the building; I suppose the part of the building I met him in was his office. I don't remember whether there was any one else in the room. I had a talk with him in there. No one else was present while I was talking with him that I am aware of. Mr. Halsey, as well as I remember, spoke to me about the foolishness of having a second telephone system in San Francisco. He told me the same as Mr. Kraus had told me — all they had accom- plished, and that they were going to accomplish, and that it would cost m.erchants twofold for the other telephone, and they wanted to know if I would not be friendly toward them. I told him I was deeply impressed with the work- ings as I had seen them, and that I felt that I could be friendly to them. I cannot remember the exact words he then said at the time. The substance of it was that it would be to my interest to be friendly, or rather, that they would make it to my interest to be friendly to them, and I was told — I think it was at that meeting — that there would be five thousand dollars in it for my friendship down, and $2,500 the following year, provided I did not accept a commission, or any such thing as that while I remained a member of the Board of Supervisors. To the best of my recollection at that time I received from him one thousand dollars in currency. I put it in my pocket and took it home. The next time I saw Mr. Halsey was some few days later. It was the Saturday previous to the passing to print of the ordinance relative to the Home Telephone Company. That meeting was held in a room in the Mills Building. I cannot well recollect whether I was telephoned for or not; I possibly'- must have been. The meeting was up in the building some few stories. To the best of my recollection it was on the side of the building that looked out on Bush street, and not very far from the corner of Montgomery street. I found Mr. Kraus there when I went in. There was no one else in the room where Kraus was. That room was furnished with a table and a couple of chairs. Well, he asked me if he could depend upon me as to my friendship in regard to the Pacific States Telephone Company, and I told him I saw no reason why he could not. I don't remem.ber whether anything was said about the Home Telephone Company X franchise. There may have been. I can't recollect just at this moment. He told me that he had a sufficiency of the members of the Board of Supel-visors, to the best of my recollection, who were friendly towards the Pacific States, and that they did not particularly need Mr. CofiFey, except that I had spoken well of him, and depending on my friendship, he gave me the four thousand dollars in cur- rency. During our conversation I had mentioned Mr. Coflfey as a friend of mine that I thought was particularly friendly towards them. I don't well remember whether he then said he would see Mr. Coffey, or not, or whether he made answer. I do remember that he said at the latter meeting that they did not particularly need him, that he had a sufficiency of the members. I took it home and gave it to my wife. "To the best of my recollection I next saw Mr. Halsey at my home the latter end of the following week after I got the money. No one else was present when he talked with me. It was in the front room of my house." Supervisor Michael W. Coflfey was a hack driver. At the Glass trial he told the manner in which the bribe-givers approached him. He said: "I have lived in San Francisco about forty years. I have been in the carriage business driving a hack. I own a hack of my own. My stand was on Fifth street, right opposite the Mint. I was elected a member of the Board of Supervisors in November, 1905, and took office early in January, 1906, I am a married man. My family consists of four girls and one boy. I am acquainted with T. V. Halsey. I first met him some time in the month of De- cember at my hackstand. I am acquainted with John Kraus. I first met him about the same time. At the time that T met Halsey at the hackstand, Kraus was with him. I am not sure whether it was the first time, but probably the second time. I think Mr. Kraus came to see me first, and Mr. Halsey came with him afterwards. Well, he, Kraus, just came up merely to introduce himself to me, and asked me how business was. There was nothing said at the time that he brought Halsey to me. There was nothing said pertaining to telephone matters at that time, neither; it was simply merely to give me an introduction and ask me up to have a drink on the corner of Jessie and Fifth streets. Nothing was said about the telephone service at that time. I next met Halsey a few days afterwards. Both Halsey and Kraus were there together at that time, and we spoke — they spoke to me about my telephone service, both home XI and in the drugstore in front of which I had my hack- stand, and asked me if the telephone service was satisfac- tory. I told them it certainly was, that I couldn't find any fault with either one. The drugstore 'phone I had nothing at all to do with, any more than I had the privilege of placing the number of the telephone upon my business cards so that my friends could know where to find me in case they wanted to telephone me. I paid for no service on that 'phone at all. My hackstand was right in front of the drugstore. I should judge Ilalsey and Kraus came around there to see me between three times and a half-a- dozen. I received telephone messages from Mr. Halsey several times. He called me by 'phone, he telephoned to the house, and to the stand, and wanted me to come down to see him. I went down to see him one time. He after that invited me around to the telephone company's offices, to view the system, but I never accepted his offer, I never went with him. The first occasion that I went down to the telephone company's office to see him he extended me an invitation to come around amongst the different branch offices there to see the sj^stem, how it was working, and show me the advantages of a one-system telephone. Kraus was there on one occasion. Somewhere around in the neighborhood of noon time, Mr. Kraus was there, and Mr. Halsey asked me if I had lunch. I told him no, not at that time, so he asked Mr. Kraus to take me out to lunch, excusing himself on the ground of a previous engagement, that he couldn't go to lunch, but he asked Mr. Kraus to take me out to lunch and Mr. Kraus did so. "I had a talk with Halsey in the Mills Building. T can't exactly tell the date, but it was on a Saturday, in and around noon time. I can't exactly fix the date. Tt was some time, T think, in the month of February. We caucused on the Sunday night, and it v.^as Saturday, either the week prior to the caucus or the day before the caucus. This caucus was the Sunday prior to the passing of the ordinance to print which was on a Monday. T went to the Mills Building by telephone invitation of Mr. Halsey. When I got down there T took the elevator and went up on, T think, the seventh floor at the extreme end of the building, on one of the rooms facing on Bush street, and the other on Montgomery street. T found Mr. Halsey there and no one else with him. To the best of my recollection there was either a box or a chair and a table, and a telephone in there, and no other furniture at all in the room. Mr. Halsey when I went in, said, 'Good day, Mr. Coffey.' Said I, 'How do you do, Mr. Halsey?' I says, 'Did you telephone for Xll me?' He says, 'Yes, I want you to be friendly with the company,' and stepped into another room, the door leading into the Montgomery street entrance, and then came out with a parcel, a bundle, and handed it to me, and says, 'I would like to have your friendship for the company.' I did not open the package at that time. Nothing was said then about the Home Telephone Company's application for the franchise. I took this package that he handed me home and put it in a box in the room. I did not open it when I got home, not at that time. Subsequently I did. When I opened it I found in it five thousand dollars in United States currency. That was very shortly after I had been in the Mills Building on that occasion. I think it was a few days after that. After putting this money in the box I kept it there." GALLAGHER'S ORDER REMOVING LANGDON FROM OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY. (October 25, 1906.) "To the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco: "Gentlemen — Pursuant to the provisions of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, and especially in pursuance of Sections 18 and 19 of Article XVI thereof, I, James L. Gallagher, Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, do hereby suspend William H. Langdon, District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, and an elected officer thereof, for cause, as hereinafter assigned and specified, and I hereby notify you of such suspension and the causes therefor, which are as hereinafter assigned and specified. "Said cause is contained in the following specifications, which specifications I hereby also present to you as the written charges against said William H. Langdon, District Attorney as aforesaid, and I hereby present said specifica- tions of causes of such suspension as written charges against said William H. Langdon, District Attorney, suspended by me as aforesaid. "Specification 1: "Neglect of Duty. "In this, that for a period of about 30 days prior to the presentation of these charges the said William H. Lang- don, District Attorney as aforesaid, has absented himself XIll from the City and County of San Francisco, without leave, and has neglected his official duties, being during that time engaged in the canvass and campaign for the office of Governor of the State of California. "That during said time, owing to the recent disaster, a large number of acts of violence have occurred at the hands of criminals congregated in said city, resulting in an excessive and unusual number of murders, maimings, assassinations, assaults and other crimes of violence, tend- ing to render the city unsafe and to injure its reputation, yet the said District Attorney wilfully, without permission from any of the public authorities of said city and county, did absent himself a greater portion of said time from said city and county, and so negligently conducted and per- formed the duties of his said office as District Attorney as to render no active or efficient assistance to said city and county in the proper prosecution, detection or preventing of any of said crimes, and during the main portion of said period did leave his said office without the aid of his super- intendence, direction or service, thereby being guilty of inefficiency in such public office and being negligent and inattentive in the performance of his public duties at a time when the unusual activity of those engaged in crimes of violence demanded and required his personal presence and greatest personal activity to aid in preventing or at- tempting to prevent, detecting or attempting to detect or punish the said crimes or the persons guilty thereof. "Specification 2: "Neglect and Dereliction of Duty. "In this, that during the period of about 30 days last past, the newspapers of the City and County of San Fran- cisco have published and proclaimed that the said William H. Langdon, as District Attorney, and others co-operating with him, were, and for months past had been, in the pos- session of evidence sufficient to convict certain officials of the city and county of serious crimes. These charges have been repeated daily and within the knowledge and cogni- zance of said District Attorney, and yet notwithstanding said knowledge and said purposes, the said District Attor- ney has failed to cause the arrest of any of said officials, and if the charges so publicly made are and were not true, the said District Attorney had knowledge of said falsity and untruth, and yet notwithstanding said knowledge has failed to cause the arrest of the publishers or editors of the newspapers for publishing said statements for criminal libel. "Specification 3: XIV "Neglect and Violation of Duty. "That under the provisions of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, it is part of the duty of the District Attorney, when required, to advise the Board of Police Commissioners, the Chief of Police, the Board of Health, or the Coroner as to the matters relating to the duties of their respective offices, yet notwithstanding said official duty, the said William H. Langdon, as such District Attorney, has entered into a combination and conspiracy for political purposes and efifect to bring unmerited discredit upon said of^cials or some of them, and has failed to advise them relative to their duties, and has assumed a position and attitude inconsistent with his duty to the Police Com- missioners and the Chief of Police, thereby tending to im- pair and demoralize the Police Department of said city at a serious and critical time. "Specification 4: "Neglect and Violation of Duty. "That the said William H. Langdon, being the District Attorney of said City and County of San Francisco, as aforesaid, during period above mentioned, in addition to neglecting his public duties, as above set forth, instead of aiding the authorities of said city and county, did on the contrary engage in and assist in a combination in the interest of certain insurance corporations and other persons to injure and defame the character of the Chief Executive of this city. Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz, in substance as follows: "A large number of German insurance companies, having lost many millions of dollars by the conflagration of April 18, 1906, having denied their liability, Eugene E. Schmitz, Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, deemed it advisable in the interest of the upbuilding and rehabilitating of the city, to visit the German Empire in his official capacity for the purpose of stating the true facts concern- ing said conflagration to the home officials of said com- panies and to use his personal influence vv'herever the same would be available in the German Empire, with a view to cause the said insurance companies to pay the said losses; and deeming said matter one of great public interest, the said Mayor did obtain from the Board of Supervisors a leave of absence from the City and County of San Francisco for a period of 60 days from October 1, 1906; and after he left on said mission, a combination, plot and plan was formed for the purpose of defaming and injuring and weak- ening the standing and reputation of said Eugene E. XV Schmitz, in order that his said attempts might be discredited and to destroy whatever influence the Chief Executive of this city might have in dealing with the said insurance com- panies at their home offices and in obtaining influence abroad to compel said companies to properly recognize their obligations; and that as a part of said scheme, it was determined to print and publish in the newspapers of San Francisco charges against the said Mayor which w^ere false, malicious and slanderous and known so to be by the par- tics engaged in said scheme, and among other things said persons so engaged did cause it to be published that the Chief Executive of this city was a fugitive from justice and had absconded from the City and County of San Fran- cisco; and that the said William H. Langdon, as District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, and acting in his capacity as such, did aid, assist and abet and further the said scheme as aforesaid, and has become and is an active party thereto to the end that said Mayor should be induced to return to San Francisco to defend himself against such charges before he could have time to accom- plish the said purpose for which he went to said German Empire. "Specification 5: "Violation of Duty and Use of Oflfice for Ulterior Purposes, "That during the fall of 1905, one Francis J. Heney, in a public speech in said city and county, aspersed the char- acter and good name of a prominent citizen of this com- munity, and stated that he knew him to be corrupt, and said citizen having instantly demanded that said Heney be compelled to make proof of said assertions and said Heney having been compelled to appear before the Grand Jury of said City and County of San Francisco with reference thereto, there admitted that he had made such statements without any personal knowledge regarding the same, which facts were widely published at the time, and brought said Heney into obloquy and contempt, from which time said Heney had been possessed of a purpose to effect a personal revenge both against the object of his false charges and against Eugene E. Schmitz, Mayor of San Francisco, and all of these facts were and are well known to said William H. Langdon. as District Attorney as aforesaid; yet not- withstanding said knowledge and within the month of October, 1906. the said William H. Langdon, in order to enable said Heney to use public office, position and powder tc gratify his spirit of revenge and malice, did appoint said Heney Assistant District Attorney of said city and XVI county, and did turn over to him the powers of office of said District Attorney in order that he might gratify his private revenge and malice. "Specification 6: "That prior to such appointment as such Assistant Dis- trict Attorney, said Francis J. Heney had publicly assailed the Judges of the Superior Court of the city and county as corrupt and crooked, and had denounced all or nearly all of them as dishonest and corrupt, and yet has failed at any time to make proof of such charges, which facts were all well known to said William H. Langdon, District Attorney as aforesaid, from the time of the utterance, which was long anterior to the time of said Heney's appointment by said Langdon, and said Langdon also knew that said Heney frequently, while intoxicated, made grave and serious charges involving the personal character of citizens of this city, yet notwithstanding such knowledge said William H. Langdon did appoint said Heney to such office, knowing that the said Heney in such office would be required to appear before the Judges whose character he had thus aspersed, and to practice in their courts, did appoint said Heney to said office, which appointment is not conducive to the proper co-operation which should exist between the Judges of the Superior Court and the office of District Attorney. "Specification 7: "That said Francis J. Heney at and prior to the time of his appointment as Assistant District Attorney was the representative of the corporation controlling the street car system of said city and county in a certain dispute be- tween said corporation and its employes. That the appoint- ment of said Heney to said office will, in regard to the enforcement of law against said corporation, be prejudicial and detrimental to the interests of said city and county. "Specification 8: "That prior to the turning over of said District Attor- ney's office and its powers to said Francis J. Heney. as hereinabove specified, the City and County of San Francisco had intended to procure its own water supply and thereby to prevent the exorbitant charges for water now exacted by the private corporation controlling the city's water supply, and that it was about to take proceedings to pro- vide a safe and secure supply of water for said City and County of San Francisco for domestic use, extinction of conflagrations, etc., and that such purpose was greatly to XVll the interest of said City and County of San Francisco, That said corporation now supplying water to said city and county is bitterly opposed to the acquiring of a water sup- ply to the City and County of San Francisco on account of its present monopoly. "Said Francis J. Heney has been and is attorney em- ployed by said Water Company, and his attorneyship for such company is inconsistent with the holding of a place as Assistant District Attorney, and against the best inter- ests of the people of San Francisco. "Specification 9: "That in the interest of the corporations and persons before mentioned, or some or all of them, together with persons unknown, large sums of money have been and are being raised for the purpose of slandering, defaming and injuring the reputation of said Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz, and of suborning perjury against him, thereby injuring the interests of said city and county and its residents and inhabitants; and said William H. Langdon as such District Attorney, knowing said facts, by the appointment of said Heney, is knowingly aiding and abetting the said plot and scheme. "Specification 10: "Violation of Duty and Ulterior Use of Oltice. "That since the appointment of said F. J. Heney as an Assistant District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco by said William H. Langdon, the said Langdon and the said Heney have caused to be published or have been parties to the publication of open and covert threats against the Superior Judges of the City and County of San Francisco for the purpose of influencing the judicial action of said Judges. "Specification 11: "That the appointment of said Heney as such .-\ssistant District Attorney was made by said Langdon in furtherance of the combination aforesaid, and at the dictation of cer- tain newspaper influences and individu.als, who have con- tributed many thousands of dollars to further the political ambitions and aspirations of said William H. Langdon and other persons, and to secure through the appointment of said Heney the consummation of a political plan and the wreaking of their private revenges against Eugene E. Schmitz, Mayor of San Francisco, and the Board of Super- visors and the Police Department of the City and County of San Francisco and their political supporters, and to generally disrupt the business and proper government of 16 XVIU this city, and also for the purpose of attempting to influ- ence the ensuing election. And said combination is also in pursuance of a well-defined and organized plan for the purpose of controlling and subjugating the labor market and the wage-earners. "And the said William H. Langdon turned over said office of District Attorney as aforesaid to said Francis J. Heney with the intent and purpose and with the under- standing that said Francis J. Heney would and should abuse such position, and use his said position as a deputy in a substantial control of said office of District Attorney to gratify his own private and personal revenge, and also with the intent that said Francis J. Heney, through said office, should produce before the Grand Jury of said city and county illegal and hearsay evidence which by law said Grand Jury is forbidden to act upon, and procure such Grand Jury to return indictments against innocent citizens of said city and county upon such illegal and hearsay evi- dence for the purpose of gratifying the private revenge of said Francis J. Heney and the political ambitions of said William H. Langdon. And said William H. Langdon also further turned over said office and power to said Francis J. Heney with the intent and purpose that said Francis J. Heney in such position should advise such Grand Jury that matters and acts not constituting an ofifense at law were indictable offenses, and thus and thereby falsely and un- lawfully procure indictments against innocent citizens of said city and county. "Specification 12: "That in addition to the purposes hereinabove specified as a foundation and reason for the acts set forth, that all the acts hereinabove charged and set forth as having been done, aided, abetted, procured or assisted by said William H. Langdon as said District Attorney, were so done and performed by said William H. Langdon as such District Attorney to promote his own political ambitions and upon and at the eve of an election about to occur in the State of California, at which said William H. Langdon is a can- didate for Governor, all with intent to deceive and tnislead electors and voters and to procure an increased vote for himself as such candidate for Governor. "Inefficiency in the office of District Attorney, and neglect on the part of the District Attorney and his office to perform the duties of his office. "Dated, San Francisco, October 25, 1906. "JAMES L. GALLAGHER, "Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco." XIX THE RUEF "IMMUNITY CONTRACT." The "immunity contract" given Ruef was as follows: "Whereas, Abraham Ruef of the City and County of San Francisco has agreed to impart to the District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, a full and fair statement and disclosure, so far as known to him, of all crimes and offenses involved in the so-called 'graft' prosecutions or investigations now and heretofore conducted by said District Attorney by whomsoever such offenses or crimes may have been committed, and has agreed in making such disclosure and statement to state fully and wholly all the facts and circumstances known to him in, about, and surrounding the same, and in making such state- ment and disclosure to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; "Now, Therefore, In consideration of the premises it is agreed by the undersigned that if said A. Ruef shall do said things and immediately make such full and fair disclosure of all such crimes and offenses involved in the so-called 'graft' prosecutions and investigations above referred to, and known to him, and shall state and disclose to the under- signed the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and shall make full and fair disclosure of all said crimes and offenses known to him, and of all the facts and circumstances in, about and surrounding the same and known to him, and shall at all times whenever called upon, before any court, testify in regard thereto and to the whole thereof fully and fairly, together with all the facts and circumstances surrounding the same, so far as the same are known to him, and shall state, tell and testify on oath the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth therein, then and in that event the undersigned, deeming it to be in the interests of public justice, and believing that said A. Ruef will thereby be equitably entitled to such consideration in accordance with the time-honored custom and practice of prosecuting officers in both State and Federal jurisdictions throughout this country, and in line with common law precedents. "1. Will grant and obtain for said A. Ruef full and complete immunity from prosecution or punishment for all and any of said offenses and crimes involved in said so- called 'graft' prosecutions or investigations, and will not prosecute him for any thereof. "2. Will cause said A. Ruef to be jointly and not other- wise indicted with all and any others against whom indict- ments have heretofore been or may hereafter be returned or found for or upon any crimes or offenses in which said XX Ruef has participated or is alleged to have participated to this date; provided, however, that the undersigned shall not be bound to include any of the present members of the Board of Supervisors in any such indictments. "3. Will, as any one of said joint indictments relating to a specific subject matter shall be taken up for trial, after the jury has been impaneled and sworn to try the same, dismiss the same and all other indictments and charges on the same general subject matter as against the said Ruef,' under the provisions of section 1099 of the Penal Code of the State of California, and will at the same time dismiss all indictments relating to the same general subject matter, which are now pending against said Ruef singly. "Any and all indictments or charges upon any general subject matter of which one shall not have been brought to trial before December 31st, 1907, shall be dismissed as to said Ruef and said Ruef discharged on or before Decem- ber 31st, 1907, under the provisTons of section 1099 of the Penal Code where applicable, or under provisions of other sections of said code in cases where said section 1099 shall not be applicable. "It is however expressly agreed that in any event all in- dictments and charges now pending or hereafter to be brought against said Ruef (except action No. 305 which is herein otherwise provided for) shall be dismissed as against said Ruef under the provisions of section 1099 of the Penal Code where the same may be applicable and when said section is not applicable shall be dismissed under other provisions of the Code, all prior to December 31st, 1907; provided, the undersigned District Attorney shall not be re-elected as such District Attorney in November, 1907, and, in any event, prior to said District Attorney resigning or otherwise surrendering or giving up his office or terminating his tenure thereof, it being the understanding and agree- ment that each and every indictment and charge now pend- ing or hereafter to be brought against said Ruef shall be absolutely dismissed. "Provided, that said Ruef shall have fully yr-p^vmed so far as may have been in his power the spirit and letter of his agreement herein. "4. All and any indictments or charges which are to be found or returned against said Ruef jointly or otherwise, shall be returned and found not later than October 1st, 1907, unless hereafter otherwise mutually agreed. "5. In the event of the prosecution of said Ruef by any other officer or person on account of any of su'h crimes or ofifenses committed or participated in or alleged to have been committed or participated in by said Ruef to this date, the undersigned will employ every legitimate influence and power to secure a dismissal thereof, and in the event that a conviction shall be had in any thereof, the undersigned hereby agree to apply to the Governor of the State of Cali- fornia for the pardon of said Ruef therefor or therein and to use all legitimate influence and power to secure such pardon. "6. It is understood and agreed that, notwithstanding the scope and effect of the language used throughout this agreement, it does not and shall not be construed to apply in any respect or particular to that certain indictment No. 305, or the offense charged therein, which is now pending against said Abraham Ruef jointly with Eugene E. Schmitz, in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Fran- cisco, State of California, in Department No. 6 thereof. "Dated, May 8th, 1907. "WM. H. LANGDON, "District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco. "FRANCIS J. HENEY, "Assistant District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco. "Agreed to: "A. RUEF." "IMMUNITY CONTRACT" GIVEN SUPERVISORS. "San Francisco, Cal., July 30, 1907. "Whereas. James L. Gallagher. E. J. Walsh, F. P. Nich- olas, C. J. Harrigan, Max Mamlock. J. J. Furey, Jennings Phillips, Thomas F. Lonergan, James F. Kelly, L. A. Rea, W. W. Sanderson, Daniel C. Coleman, Sam Davis, A. M. Wilson, M. F. CoflFey. all of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, have each m.ade to me a disclosure of certain crimes and offenses committed by him- self, and by himself jointly with others and by others, which he claims to be a full and fair disclosure thereof, so far as known to him. "Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises, deem- ing it to be in the interest of public justice, and believing that each of the above-named parties will thereby become equitably entitled to such consideration, in accordance with the time-honored custom and practice of prosecuting of^cers, in both State and Federal jurisdictions throughout this country, and in line with common law precedence, it is XXll agreed by me that if he has made a full and fair disclosure of all of such crimes and ofifenses and has stated to me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and if he shall whenever called upon to do so by me, or by any other officer on behalf of the People of the State of Cali- fornia, to again make a full and fair disclosure of such crimes and ofifenses, together with the facts and circum- stances surrounding the same and the persons therein in- volved, in any cause, action or proceeding whatever in regard thereto, fully and fairly, together with the facts and circumstances surrounding said crimes and ofifenses and the persons involved, and tell and testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then, and in that event, each one of them who so does shall not be prosecuted, complained against or indicted for any of said crimes or ofifenses, or his connection therewith. "It is understood that the making or verifying of any affidavit or answer in the case of 'Langdon vs. Ruef, et al.,' heretofore brought in the Superior Court of this city and county, is included in this agreement; and it is further understood that Fred P. Nicholas shall not be further prose- cuted in the case now pending against him in which he is under indictment in this city and county, upon the charge of accepting and agreeing to accept a bribe from one Holmes. "Signed: W. H. Langdon, District Attorney; Franris J. Heney, Asst. Dist. Atty. Witness: James L. Gallagher." The People vs. Ruef, page 1382. DISTRICT ATTORNEY LANGDON'S PLAN FOR RE- ORGANIZING THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. (See Chapter XVII.) "San Francisco, July 9, 1907. — To the San Francisco Labor Council, the Merchants' Association, the Building Trades Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade, the Real Estate Board and the Mercharts' Exchange: Gentlemen — We respectfully submit to your consideration and ask your co-operation in the carrying out of the fol- lowing proposed plan for the selection of a Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco for the unexpired term of Eugene E. Schmitz, who, having been elected Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco in November, 1905, was on the 13th day of June, 1907, convicted of a felony; to wit, of the crime of extortion, by a jury in Department No. 6 of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. Thereafter, upon the 8th day of July, 1907, judgment upon the conviction was duly pronounced and entered, by which a sentence was imposed of five years' imprisonment in the State Prison at San Quentin. "The Political Code of this State, and the charter of the City and County of San Francisco, both provide that the office becomes vacant when the incumbent is convicted of a felony, and in several decisions our Supreme Court has held that the words 'convicted of a felony,' signify the verdict of a jury. That court has also held that this provision of the code and charter is self-acting, and that the vacancy is created 'eo instanti,' upon the happening of the event, and that all that is necessary is for the appointing power to fill the vacancy thus created. By virtue of the conviction of Eugene E. Schmitz, the office of Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco became vacant. Upon the 9th day of July, 1907, the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to the charter, elected as Mayor to fill the vacancy thus created Dr. Charles Boxton. This action was taken to avoid legal complications in the interim, before a permanent selection of Mayor could be made, and it is thoroughly well under- stood that the selection of Dr. Charles Boxton is merely temporary. "The conditions surrounding the present Board of Super- visors have been so completely explained, through the public press, that it is unnecessary to go into further detail in that regard than to say that Dr. Boxton has offered to resign his office as Mayor, as soon as a suitable successor has been found. In the present unprecedented condition of the municipal government, circumstances have made it the duty of the District .\tt0rne3', in the interest of the public wel- fare, to take the initiative, in the endeavor to find such a successor. "It is the desire of the District Attorney as speedily as possible to confine the operations of his office entirely to those duties ordinarily incumbent upon it. The next election for city officers takes place in November of this year, but the situation of the city government, and the material con- ditions obtaining in the city with regard to necessary public improvements, render it absolutely indispensable that we proceed with the utmost energy to obtain for the office of Mayor a man of unblemished integrity and great executive ability. "The District Attorney and his associates, realizing that the selection of a Mayor to fill the unexpired term in ques- XXIV tion should be made by as representative a body of the people as possible, have deemed it wise to call together a convention that will be, as nearly as circumstances and the time at our disposal permit, fairly representative of the community at large. For that purpose they have decided to call together a convention composed of thirty delegates, fifteen of whom shall represent labor, and the remaining fifteen shall represent employers generally. "It is, of course, impossible on account of the limited time at our disposal to accord representation to all the organized bodies in the city entitled to the same. All that we can reasonably be expected to do is to make a sincere and earnest efifort to have the convention composed of delegates from such well-known organized bodies, large and varied in membership, that the people generally will be satisfied that the plan of selection is fair, reasonable and democratic. "The prosecution in the graft cases feels that it is highly desirable to keep politics out of the organization of the city government as much as possible until the people, in the manner ordained by law, have an opportunity at the ballot-box again to express their will directly. "We address this communication and invitation to the following bodies, to wit: The San Francisco T.abor Coun- cil, the Merchants' Association, the Building Trades Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade, the Real Estate Board and the Merchants' Exchange. We respect- fully request the foregoing associations to send delegates to the proposed convention on the following basis of appor- tionment, that is to say, that the two bodies representing labor shall select fifteen delegates, eight of whom shall be selected by the San Francisco Labor Council and seven by the Building Trades Council, and the remaining ■ fifteen members of the convention shall be selected, three each, by the remaining five bodies above mentioned. "It will be appreciated that it is necessary to impose a time limit within v/hich the selection of delegates shall be made, and the subsequent nomination of a Mayor by the convention shall be accomplished. In that view we ask that a response to this invitation, containing the names of the delegates selected, be delivered to the District Attorney's office, 2181 Fillmore street, on or before Saturday, July 13, 1907, and that the Mayor be nominated within five days thereafter. The success of this plan, in our judgment, de- pends absolutely upon the harmonious co-operation of all sections of our people, who, we believe, are fairly repre- sented by one or more of the foregoing associations. Con- scquently we deem it essential to prescribe as a condition for the assembling of the proposed convention that this invitation shall be accepted by all of these bodies. "This plan for the selection of a Mayor is the result of most patient, thorough and anxious deliberation on the part of those associated in the graft prosecution, and its single purpose is to satisfy, so far as in our power, the desire of all good citizens to sink factional and political dififercnccs and choose for Mayor a man who will be generally recog- nized and accepted as representative of the whole people, who will bring to all industrial disputes a spirit of con- ciliation and harmony, and who will be possessed of the capacity, energy and honesty needed in the great work of rehabilitating our city and restoring it to normal conditions. We desire that perfect freedom and independence of action shall govern the convention from its inception to its close, and accordingly the District Attorney and his associates will wholly refrain from an}' participation after the convention has assembled. I have the honor to be, "Yours very truly, "W. H. LANGDON, District Attorney." ROOSEVELT'S LETTER TO SPRECKELS ON THE GRAFT SITUATION. "The White House, Washington, June 8, 1908. "My Dear Mr. Spreckels — Now and then you and Mr. Heney and the others who are associated with you must feel down-hearted when you see men guilty of atrocious crimes who from some cause or other succeed in escaping punishment, and especially when you see men of wealth, of high business and, in a sense, of high social standing, banded together against you. "My dear sir, I want you to feel that your experience is simply the experience of all of us who are engaged in this fight. There is no form of slander and wicked false- hood which will not as a matter of course be employed against all men engaged in such a struggle, and this not only on the part of men and papers representing the lowest type of demagogy, but, I am sorry to say, also on the part of men and papers representing the interests that call them- selves pre-eminently conservative, pre-eminently cultured. "In such a struggle it is too often true that the feeling against those engaged in it becomes peculiarly bitter, not merely in the business houses of the great financiers who directly profit by the wrongdoing, but also in the clubs, in certain newspaper offices where business interests exercise an unhealthy control and, I regret to add, in other news- paper offices which like to be considered as to a marked degree the representatives of the cultivation and high social standing of the country. "Now, I do hope that you and your colleagues will treat all this bitterness with entire disregard. It is of small con- sequence to you, or to any of us who are engaged in this work, whether men think well or ill of us personally; but it is of very great consequence that we should do the work without flinching, on the one hand, and on the other hand, without losing our good-humored common sense, without becoming angered and irritated to a degree that will in any way cause us to lose our heads. "Therefore, I hope that you and Heney and your asso- ciates will keep reasonably good-natured; but that above all things you will not lose heart. You must battle on valiantly, no matter what the biggest business men may say, no matter what the mob may say, no matter what may be said by that element which may be regarded as socially the highest element. You must steadfastly oppose those foolish or wicked men who would substitute class consciousness and loyalty to class interest, for loyalty to American citi- zenship as a whole, for loyalty to the immutable laws of righteousness, of just and fair dealing as between man and man. "It is just as bad to be ruled by a plutocracy as by a mob. It is profoundly un-American and, in a social sense, profoundly immoral, to stand for or against a given man, not because he is or is not a brave, upright and able man, but because he does or does not belong to a labor union or does or does not represent the big business interests. In their essence, down at the foundation of things, the ties that are all-important are those that knit honest men, brave men, square-dealing men, together, and it is a 77:i:3^hty poor substitute if we replace these ties by those that bind men together, whether they are good or bad, simply because they follow a particular business, have a given social stand- ing or belong to a particular organization. It is an evil and a dreadful thing for laboring men to endeavor to secure the political dominance of labor unions by conniving at crookedness or violence, by being 'loyal' to crooked labor leaders, for to be 'loyal' to the fancied interests of the unions when they are against the laws of morality and the interests of the whole people means ultimately the destruc- tion of the unions themselves, as an incident to the destruc- tion of all good citizenship. XXVll "But it is, if anything, an even more evil and dreadful thing to have the merchants, the business men, the captains of industry accessories to crime and shielders and support- ers of criminals; it is an even more dreadful thing to see the power of men high in State politics, high in finance, high in the social life of the rich and fashionable, united to stifle the prosecution of offenders against civic integrity if these offenders happen to be their friends and associates; and most evil of all is it when we see crooks of a labor party in offensive and defensive alliance with the crooks of a corporation party. Labor unions and corporations alike should be heartily supported when they do good work, and fearlessly opposed when they stand for what is evil. The best kind of wage worker, the best kind of laboring man, must stand shoulder to shoulder with the best kind of pro- fessional man, with the best kind of business man, in put- ting a stop to the undermining of civic decency, and this without any regard to whether it is a labor union or a corporation which is imdermining it, without any regard to whether the offender is a rich man or a poor man. "Indeed, if there can be any degrees in the contemptuous abhorrence with which right thinking citizens should regard corruption, it must be felt in its most extreme form for the so-called 'best citizens,' the men high in business and social life, who by backing up or by preventing the punishment of wealthy criminals set the seal of their approval on crime and give honor to rich felons. The most powerful ally of law^- lessness and mob violence is the man, whoever he may be, politician or business man, judge or lawyer, capitalist or editor, who in any way or shape works so as to shield wealthy and powerful wrongdoers from the consequences of their misconduct. "You have heart-breaking difficulties with which to con- tend. You have to fight not only the banded powers of evil, but, alas, that it should be said, the supineness and indifference of many good men upon whose zealous support you had a right to feel that you could rely. Do not be discouraged: do not flinch. You are in a fight for plain decency, for the plain democracy of the plain people, who believe in honesty and in fair dealing as between man and man. Do not become disheartened. Keep up the fight. "Very sincerclv vours, "THEODORE ROOSEVELT. "Rudolph Spreckels, Esq., "San Francisco, Cal." XXVlll GOVERNOR JOHNSON'S STATEMENT REGARDING RUEF'S IMPRISONMENT. (See Chapter XXIX, page 453.) Ever since Abraham Ruef was taken to San Quentin an organized and systematic agitation has been carried on to effect his release, and all that power, influence and money and favorable publicity could do to manufacture public sen- timent for him has been done. His case has ever been be- fore the people, and never since his confinement at San Quentin has he been permitted to be in the category of the ordinary prisoner. Purposely have I heretofore refrained from any public utterance upon the subject, and this for reasons that may be obvious. Ruef's partisans now charge his failure to ob- tain his release to ine. In so far as I have expressed my views to certain mem- bers of the Prison Directors, and their views accord with mine, I accept the responsibility. I do not believe that Ruef should be paroled at this time. I insist that he shall be treated just like any ordi- nary prisoner, neither more harshly nor more leniently. As vigorously as I am able, I demand that there shall be no special privilege in the prisons of the State of Cali- fornia, and that when special privilege has been banished from every department of government, it shall not be per- mitted, no matter what the power or threats, to creep into our penitentiary. The grossest injustice that could be committed against the other 3,300 men confined in our State prisons would be to single out the one rich, powerful and conspicuous of- fender and, because of his riches and his influence, grant him what is denied to the humble and friendless prisoner. If prisons are to be maintained, and the system in vogue continued, all prisoners must be treated exactly alike. Since the parole law went into effect, the Prison Direct- ors have continuously acted under a rule which required, save in exceptional cases, the service of half of the net sentence before an application can be heard. In the Rob- erts case, recently decided, the Supreme Court held this rule to be illegal, but also held that paroles rested in the absolute discretion of the Prison Directors, and that in de- termining whether or not parole shall be granted, it was the right and duty of the Board to take into account the length of sentence, the time served, etc. As I understand the attitude of the Directors, they in- sist that in the matter of granting paroles, although appli- cations may be made after one year, it is neither unjust XXIX nor unfair nor illegal that prisoners be required, save in exceptional cases, to serve half the net sentence. This rule is applicable .to 3,300 prisoners, most of them unknown and unheard of. It is demanded that another rule be made for Ruef. Ruef's sentence was fourteen years. His net sentence will be eight years and ten months. Half of the net sen- tence will be four years and five months. He was received in San Quentin about March, 1911. If required to serve half his net sentence, presumably he will be paroled about August, 1915. Purposely, apparently, misapprehension has been created about the recent parole of Dalton. Dalton desired to be liberated before half his net sentence had been served, and was not. He was granted a parole at the last meeting of the Prison Directors, which takes effect some months after the completion of half of his net sen- tence. The Recent Action of the Prison Board. In behalf of the parole of Ruef it is insisted that any man is entitled as a matter of right to a parole after one year's imprisonment. I will not subscribe to this doctrine. It has been asserted that the Supreme Court has so de- cided. This is not true. The Supreme Court simply deter- mined that after one year the prisoner had the right to make his application, but that his parole rested absolutely thereafter in the discretion of the Prison Board. At the last meeting of the Prison Directors 78 men ap- plied for parole, Ruef among them. None of these had served half his net time and this fact was known to all the members of the Prison Board. To four members of the Prison Board before that time every application had been presented with the history of the case, and with all the facts that had been filed concerning it. Every man, prison director or other, knows the facts of the Ruef case. The 78 were all denied parole. When the Ruef people assert he had no hearing, they mean he had no such hearing as Ruef desired. When they shout that his case was not con- sidered, they mean not considered as Ruef demanded. If the hearing had been as Ruef and his partisans had staged it; if Ruef had delivered an oration, taken down by the shorthand reporter, brought for the purpose; if Ruef had dominated the entire situation, and the Directors had yielded to his power and his influence; if Ruef had been paroled, what a virtuous and glorious Prison Board it would have been! But the hearing being otherwise than had been staged, the determination being other than what the power of Ruef demanded, the Prison Board is abused XXX and denounced; not denounced or abused because 11 other men were not paroled (they are unknown, poor, helpless, without friends), but abused and denounced because one man, Ruef, was not paroled; because one man, Ruef, was treated exactly as all others were treated. The Charge of Bitterness and Vengeance. I resent any imputation of bitterness or revenge on my part toward Ruef. I have neither. More than two years ago I expressed what I write to-day — that for the sake of society and the unfortunates confined in prison, Ruef must be treated like all others similarly situated. To yield be- cause of fear to the persuasion, cajolery or the threats of a powerful prisoner, is to cause the iron to enter the soul of every obscure and friendless prisoner, and to make every other one of the 3,300 men in our jails know that even in prisons class distinctions prevail, and to add to the bitter- ness and the hopelessness of men confined. The bitterness and revenge are on the other side of this controversy. It has become necessary to make this statement because of the unmerited abuse of the Prison Board, and because some individuals, while begging mercy for Ruef, have without mercy sought Ruef's release by threats of annihilation and destruction of all opposed. The Plea That the Past Be Forgotten. Often we hear that Ruef is the only one who has been punished of those guilty of the particular crimes of which he was a part, and that for this reason should be liberated. If three men committed a murder, two escape and are never found, and the third is convicted, ought he to be re- leased because he is the only one punished? It is unnecessary, however, to discuss this phase of the case. After conviction and imprisonment, if clemency be asked, ordinarily the only question that can be considered is whether the prisoner is guilty or innocent. Does any person claim Ruef to be innocent? If guilty, then to him must apply the usual prison discipline and rules. There is to-day in the same prison with Ruef a poor, uneducated, friendless Greek, the product of the graft prose- cution just as Ruef is. Claudianes is serving a life sentence for dynamiting Gallagher's residence and almost murdering seven people. Claudianes was paid to do the dynamiting that Gallagher might be put out of the way. He was the ignorant, sodden instrument of men who would not stop even at murder; but he was only the miserable tool after all. No appeal has been made to me for Claudianes. No petitions have been presented in his behalf, no organized XXXI effort for his release, no threats of political annihilation unless clemency be extended to him. Why? Is it because Claudianes is unknown, ignorant, friendless, moneyless? The Unjust Charge of Racial Prejudice. Every cheap politician has been quick to seize upon the Ruef case and endeavor to make political capital for himself or create hostility to me out of it. Among the baseless and outrageous things that have been published is that Ruef is not granted special privileges and immunities be- cause of racial prejudice. When Ruef was denied parole, denied with him were men of many races. No one has claimed that these were denied parole because of race prejudice. In San Quentin to-day are thirty-one Jews. Thirteen of these, for one reason or another, have at times lost their privileges. Is it possible that Ruef is the only man to be considered? No complaint is made for the thirty-one, or for the thirteen. Since February 1, 1912, twenty-seven Jews have been paroled from San Quentin. Six of these have been returned for violations of parole. In relation to the twenty-seven or the six there has been neither outcry nor protest nor publicity nor effort of any sort. Why the as- tounding, organized effort and publicity campaign for Ruef alone? The appointments that have been made by this adminis- tration include Rabbi Meyer, H. Weinstock, Paul Sins- heimer, Simon Lubin, Miss Steinhart, Julius Jacobs, E. Franklin, Louis Frankenheimer, A. Sapiro, Jacob Alexander, A. Bonnheim, Miss Peixotto, Judge Cerf and many others. No list of more able and patriotic men and women in the service of any State could be furnished than this. Is Ruef the sole test of every question? To two young men of Jewish faith lately have been granted pardons. No tremendous petitions loaded down with the names of politicians, no extraordinary publicity was presented in their behalf. Is there no man in the list of appointees to whom in pride we may all yield our praise? Is there no man among the 3,300 prisoners in San Quentin and Folsom who justly can arouse efforts in his behalf? Or is the sole test of official action by the Prison Directors of California or the Chief Executive of the State to be the disregard of every other man's rights and the granting to Ruef alone of a privilege that none other enjoys? California Prisons To-day. In the discussion that has ensued from the Ruef case XXXll and because of the Ruef case, the prisons have been said to be the one part of the present administration that is not progressive, and that they are yet a relic of the Herrin machine. Nothing could be further from the fact. I chal- lenge contradiction of the following statements: California is in the forefront of all the States in the management of her prisons. In matters of food, shelter, clothing, employment, recreation, medical attention, oppor- tunities for education, general freedom consistent with dis- cipline, encouragement of decent tendencies, and in the number of paroles (although these have been granted under the half term rule), no State has gone further. Within the past three years the strait-jacket, the water- cure and the hooks, once so freely used, have not been tolerated. Every form of corporal punishment has been abolished. When prisoners are received the effort is made to get the history of the crime and possible cause of it, and then to apply corrective measures intelligently. As soon as received, every newcomer is given a thorough phys- ical examination and his teeth are looked after by a den- tist. It not infrequently happens that the first place a man is quartered in is the hospital. Special attention is given to tuberculars, alcoholics and dope fiends. Wassermann tests are made for the slightest indication of blood taint, and the best treatment afforded. After the physician and dentist conclude their examinations, the newcomer is turned over to the Director of Education, who endeavors to take the man's mental measurement and get at his moral status. There are now 200 pupils in the day school at San Quen- tin, and three rooms of thirty each in the night school. The educational facilities are being constantly increased. Two hundred and twenty-six are enrolled in the academic courses with the University of California and by cor- respondence are receiving their training from our great institutions of learning. The State Use system, which was enacted in 1911, furnishes work in industries for the State. In the matter of food the State purchases the best and the rations issued are abundant. Sanitary conditions are a model in the newly constructed portions of the prison and the best possible in the old construction. In the last three years 1372 paroles have been granted by this harsh, cruel and outrageous Prison Board, as against 1132 granted in all the years from 1893 to 1910 inclusive. The paroles have been granted, however, justly. Because one was not granted unjustly and unfairly, the record of the Prison Board counts for naught. I have purposely refrained from discussing the character XXXlll of Ruef's crimes or any matters extraneous to the one issue presented. I have tried to make clear that I believe Ruef should be treated just as the least known prisoner is treated. I'hat his advocates wish him to be treated otherwise because he is Ruef will be clear to any who will reflect that had Rucf been paroled and the other 11 denied parole there would have been no agitation; if Ruef were granted what others were denied, there would be no fulminations against the Prison Board and petty politicians would not have seized upon recent events to bow and scrape and bend and crawl to the organized power of Ruef. SCHMITZ'S ATTEMPT TO CONTROL SAN FRAN- CISCO RELIEF FUNDS. In the early part of June, 1906, it was agreed that a committee consisting of Benjamin Ide Wheeler, Judge W. \V. Morrow and James D. Phelan should go to Washing- ton, in order to interest Congress in some project for financing the rebuilding of San Francisco. Before their departure, Mayor Schmitz invited them and other members of the Committee of Fifty to his residence, where a luncheon was served. During the luncheon he stated that the Board of Supervisors were about to resume their public functions for which they were elected by the people, and the private persons who were administering the affairs of the city doubtless would employ their abilities for the rehabilitation of their own business, and he sug- gested that the relief fund be turned over to the Board of Supervisors for distribution. Judge Morrow, Mr. Phelan and others protested that it was not the function of the Super- visors to distribute relief, and that there was a trust rela- tionship existing between the donors and the finance com- mittee of the Relief and Red Cross Funds. After the lunch- eon, the Mayor handed Mr. Phelan his transportation, but later in the afternoon Mr. Phelan, suspicious of his purpose, sent word to the Mayor that he had decided to remain in the city. He remained behind to protect the funds. .'\s subsequently developed in the graft investigations, the Supervisors had accused the Mayor of abandoning the city government to his enemies, and insisted upon the en- joyment of all the rights and privileges of their office, and that the work of distributing relief at that time was the principal business of the city. 17 XXXIV RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS OF PROSECU- TION FROM JUNE, 1906, TO MAY 17, 1909. (As shown by testimouy taken at trial of Patrick Calhoun.) RECEIPTS. Subscription account $ 73,384.75 Subscription account R. Spreckels 138,478.05 Cash received by W. J. Burns 1,278.70 Refunded by the Bulletin account Older case 250.00 $213,391.50 DISBURSEMENTS. W. J. BURNS ACCOUNT: W. J. Burns account, per- sonal, $12,357.45; office expenses, $1,911.43; office furniture, $671.50; carriage hire, $27.25; auto hire, $2,700.75; auto ex- pense, $4,162.36; traveling expense, $1,302.15; telegrams, $797.79; The Bulletin, $309.55; incidentals, $158.50; paid for account City and County of San Francisco, $223.52; detective services. $70,572.65; detective expenses, $27,277.35; extra sal- aries, $778.55. Total, $123,250.80. F. J. HENEY ACCOUNT: Rent, $3,186.25; office ex- pense, $1,522.02; private exchange and operator, $1,949.22; telegrams, $316.82; postage and messenger expense, $280.26; traveling expense, $118.45; office salaries, $8,684.67; office furniture, $433.50; auto and carriage hire, $957.05; steno- graphic and legal expense, $2,147.37; detective expense, $4,232.61. Total, $23,828.22. SUNDRY DISBURSEMENTS: P. Dolman, $5,087.65; Hiram W. Johnson, $11,000.00; J. J. Dwyer, $13,400.00; C. W. Cobb, $10,000.00; legal expense, official count for judges, $191.50; George J. Cleary, $70.00; L. Kavanaugh, $506.20; D. M. Duffy, $1,878.85; W. J. Burns, $17,195.00; Jas. Foley, $1,010.00; Miler & Co., $40.00; automobiles, $5,100.00; auto expense, $815.98. Total, $66,295.18. Total disbursements $213,374.20 Balance, cash 17.30 $21.3,391.50 ITEMS, W. J. BURNS ACCOUNT. Personal: Salary, $8,548.80; subsistence, $2,081.75; rent, $1,726.90. Total, $12,357.45. Office Expenses: Rent (R. L. Radke Co.), $935.00; XXXV telephone, P. S. T. & T. Co., $398.93; light and heat— E. D. Feil, $25.00; W. G. Stafford, $8.00; mantels, $0.95— $33.95 ; towels (Star Towel Sup. Co.), $15.80; newspapers, $46.40; P. O. Box, U. S. A., $12.00; stamps, U. S. A., $20.40; Purity Water Co., $12.00; advertising— Call, $1.60; Examiner, $3.40 —$5.00; car fare, $3.20; stationary— Library Bureau, $7.40; Mysell-Rollins, $3.00; Barry Co., $9.75; Brown & Power, $59.90; E. H. Wobber and others, $76.70— $156.75; typewriter expense— Vaughn, $56.30; Revalk, $77.10; Underwood, $5.50 —$138.90; stenographic, $43.80 (L. F. Hurlburt, et al.); incidentals — pans, $0.40; opening Marchand's safe, $10.00; safe dep. Crocker, $6.00; painting floor, $1.00; N. Y. Ex- change, $0.95; express charges, $8.40; keys, $3.25; paint, $1.00; tel. directory, $1.50; stars (spec), $5.25; city directo- ries, $9.00; elect, buzzer, $1.35; show cards (A. Unsworth), $18.50; show card frames (Young & Rhodes), $2.00; whet- stone, $0.70; hauling, $5.00; moving safe (Gorham & Thom- as), $15.00— $89.30. Total office expenses, $1,911.43. Office Furniture: Lamp, $3.55; two desk lamps, $7.80; J. Brenner Co., $68.00; water heater, $19.20; Library Bureau, $78.00; Ladd's Gun Store, $55.50; safe (Freeman, Brewster, McCabe). $165.00; 2 gas heaters, $13.10; Spencer Desk Co., $37.50; Geo. Walcom (curtains) $3.35; E. Emerson (desk), $10.00; Olympic Arms Co., $28.55; Library Bureau, $40.50; L. & E. Emanuel, $12.00; Acme Furn. Co., $96.75; Hale's, $23.20; C. P. Stanton, $9.50. Total, $671.50. Carriage Hire: Kelly, $2.50, $4.00, $5.00, $3.00, $12.75. Total, $27.25. Auto Hire: Scott, $15.00, $5.00, $50.00, $65.00, $10.00; H. M. Owens, $20.00; W. J. Burns, $90.00; Alarch 30th, $207.50; Ruef's arrest, $10.00; F. J. Heney, $10.00; W. J. Burns, $5.00; April 27th, $32.50; L. Heidinger, $25.00; Auto Livery Co., $73.50, $92.50; Kelly, $32.50; Otis Patkhill, $45.00; Auto L. Co., $538.00; A. S. Lathaw, $105.00; Auto Livery Co., $296.50, $60.00, $20.00; M. Mamlock, $17.50; auto Livery, $78.00; Cal. & Coulter, $25.00; F. Coulter, $42.50; Auto Livery Co., $25.00; Auto Livery Co., $288.00; Zim- merline Bros., $5.75; Auto Livery Co.. $132.50, $22.50, $190.50, $35.00, $22.50; Broadway Garage, $8.00. Total, $2,700.75. Auto Expense: Goggles, $3.50; sundries, $9.35; Harris Rubber Co., $120.98; Harris Rubber Co., $70.10; Geo. P. Moore Co., $12.30; Geo. P. Moore Co., $9.35; Harris Rub- ber Co., $48.58; Chanslor Lyon, $30.88; Harris Rubber Co.. $24.39; Bauer Lamp, $1.50; Bauer Lamp. $4.50; Auto Livery, $132.00; Auto Livery, $2.00; Chans. & Lyon, $12.75; Chans. & Lvon, $14.05; G. P. Moore, $26.90; G. P. Moore, $6.12; Arcade Garage, $51.20; towing auto, $5.00; Irvine Mch. Wks., XXXVl $114.60-' Harris Rubber Co.. $6.00; Franklin Car, $59.12; Gillig & Son, $9.00; Gillig & Son, $5.00; Arcade Garage, $149.45; Arcade Garage, $134.25; G. P. Moore Co., $3.00; H. W. Bogen, $103.50; H. VV. Bogen, $127.00; Pioneer Auto Co., $0.75; Pioneer Auto Co., $5.40; Gorham Rubber Co., $35.00; Berg Auto Supply Co., $1.50; Pioneer Garage, $6.00; Keenan Bros., $51.80; Keenan Bros., $23.05; Pioneer Garage, $186.70; Diamond Rubber Co., $222.50; Pioneer Auto Co., $2.50; Pioneer Auto Co., $24.00; Auto Livery Co., $166.00; G. P. Moore, $2.50; G. P. Moore, $4.50; Harris Rubber Co., $2.25; Arcade, $151.60; Arcade, $151:50; Bogan. $9.75; Bogan, $39.00; Pioneer, $3.00; Pioneer. $1.00; tire repair, $0.75; Pacific Gar., $12.85; Pacific Gar.. $97.40; Arcade. $123.35; Keenan, $11.00; Keenan, $13.95; Chans. & L., $3.25; Chans. & L., $2.50; Bogen, $9.85; Bogen. $7.00; Osen & Hunter, $109.45; Pacific Gar., $5.25; Pacific Gar., $70.00; Irvington Garage, $71.50; Pioneer, $8.50; Pioneer, $6.00; J. E. Elkington & Sons, $55.50; Continental R. Co., $88.88; Schwartz & Gotlieb. $8.00; C. & L., $12.45; Pacific, $9.75; Pacific, $11.25; Spreckels Garage, $384.85; Sunset Garage, $14.50; Spreckels Garage, $82.65; Pioneer, $7.00; Letcher, S. Tose. $4.00; Keenan, $104.05; Pioneer Auto Co., $10.50; Pacific, $29.10; Halls Auto Rep.. $32.30; Studebaker. $17.91; Arcade, $159.15; Spreckels Garage, $185.25; Jerome Garage, $2.25; Miller Bros., $8.75; Goodyear, $5.00; Cr. H. W. Bogen, $10.00. Net total, $4,162.36. Traveling Expense: Kendall to Portland, $20.00; Ferry, $1.05; Halsey, $493.40; Geo. Burns, round trip home. $130.00; baggage transfer, $1.50; trip to Oakland, auto, etc., $7.10; trip to Oakland, auto, etc., $6.60; B. T. Block to San Tose, $2.15; ferryage auto, etc., $15.35; ferrvage auto, etc., $6.60; F. A. Leach, $230.00; B. A. Libby, $100.00; ferryage, auto, etc., $1.90; ferryage auto, etc., $1.90; ferryage auto, etc., $1.00; W. J. Burns to Los Angeles. $57.40; W. J. Burns, $2.10; Slater witness Ford case, $168.90; trips Okd. Galla- gher case, $13.20; Marie Ware McK. Port. S. F. Ret., $50.00; Cr. F. H. Leach, witness Ford case, $8.00. Net total, $1,302.15. Telegrams: $797.79. The Bulletin: 30.000 papers (10-31, 1908) $309.55. Incidentals: Christmas turkeys, $37.85; 5 glove orders, $10.00; theater party, $6.00; C. P. Stanton (burglar alarm), $57.25; S. F. Call 1400 Jones, $2.25; expense account Blake case, $3.50; lunches, W. J. Burns et al, $41.65. Total, $158.50. Paid for account City and County of San Francisco: Exchange on Washington, D. C, sent to F. A. Leach, wit- ness, to cover expenses to S. F., $250.00; less amount re- XXXVll funded by Citv and County of San Francisco, $26.48 — ^223.52. Detective Services and Expenses: D. F. Cecil, services $2,396.00, expenses $942.50; H. J. Woolman, services $476.00, expenses $328.00; R. J. Bergen, services $708.00, expenses $510.50; R. H. Perry, $3,095.00, expenses $1,318.05; I. H. Henderson, services $350.00, expenses $188.85; E. S. Spauld- ing, services $2,820.00. expenses $550.70; W. W. Farrell, services $704.00, expenses $196.50; L. G. Carpenter, services $225.00; expenses, $170.20; R. S. Spaulding, services $2,042.00, expenses $378.25; J. G. Lawlor, services $2,837.50, expenses $1,221.63; I. J. Scott, expenses $30.00; E. G. Borden, serv- ices $78.00; P. Hendirard, services $202.00, expenses $200.55; R. J. Burns, $2,810.00, expenses $2,076.47; S. S. Simon, services $206.00; B. Kohlman, services $248.00, expenses $18.75; G. E. Burns, services $2,510.00, expenses $4,369.62; C. F. Oliver, services $2,920.00, expenses $833.85; C. P. Fox. services $472.50, expenses $265.35; S. G. R. Ollsen, $40.00; G. W. Hess, $1,595.00, expenses $1,250.22; J. Mc- Carthy, services $1,313.00, expenses $227.35; J. C. Saulman, services $110.00. expenses $1.20; L. Pring, services $44.00; L. Cullen, services $60.00; M. C. Doyle, services $52.00; D. M. Duffy, services $150.00; Chas. Wyman, services $20.00; A. Steffens, $45.00; A. Greggains. services $780.00. expenses $665.85; J. H. Shiner, services $480.00. expenses $310.80; P. F. Roller. $290.00, expenses $349.20; P. E. Sowers, services $410.00, expenses $284.10; T. R. Sullivan, services $320.00, expenses $328.55; D. McCarthy, services $948.00, expenses $114.21; J. Compton, services $1,880.00, expenses $81.40; R. Ellis, services $246.00. expenses $6.00; P. Bergin, services $20.00, expenses $17.00; C. P. Stanton, services $2,645.00. expenses $4.20; H. Sullivan, services $95.00, expenses $1.70; J. S. Hensley, services $140.00; James Foley, services $2,335.00. expenses $134.10; J. F. Severney. services $285.00, expenses $15.55; A. Hornberg, services $44.00; E. W. Stow, services $342.00. expenses $216.60; G. M. Insley, $1,417.00, expenses $414.45; B. F. Daman, serv- ices $1,148.00, expenses $529.80; L. C. Caldwell, $896.00, ex- penses $360.25; R. N. Hamlin, services $1,902.00, expenses $50.00; F. Kingsberg. services $90.00; W. Bettiee, services $1,068.00. expenses $164.25; W. J. Dewer, services $160.00; J. F. Clark, services $1,072.00, expenses $501.29; W. J. Biggy, Jr.. services $260.00, expenses $35.40; M. C. Perry, services $144.00. expenses $109.00; C. A. Spaulding, services $336.00. expenses $109.70; E. T. Newsome. services $364.00, expenses $58.85; F. J. Barry, services $32.00; J. H. Hamil- ton, services $26.00; R. C. Schindler. services $1,483.00, ex- penses $706.85; W. S. Schindler, services, $1,161.00, ex- XXXVlll penses $224.15; O. G. Schleicher, services $340.00, expenses $122.66; E. A. Piatt, services $1,205.00, expenses $315.20; W. H. Russell, services $1,305.00, expenses $298.30; S. B. Priest, services $210.00, expenses $1.40; E. J. Whiskatchies, services $1,200.00, expenses $484.85; E. W. Madden, services $255.00, expenses $33.35; J. M. Creighton, services $1,494.00, expenses $667.60; G. E. Madden, services $30.00, expenses $1.70; J. Crawford, services $35.00; E. Graf, services $20.00; expenses $7.00; W. Duchion, services $100.00; J. V. Thomp- son, services $72.00, expenses $13.00; F. C. Boden, expenses $62.35; F. F. McGee, services $50.00; M. L. Doyle, services $286.00; E. M. Burgoyne, services $84.00, expenses $53.95; C. Bernstein, services $64.00; E. Goldstein, services $92.00, expenses $15.25; H. C. Wilier, services $216.00; J. W. F. Jackson, services $384.00, expenses $178.50; D. L. Chiles, services $20.00; Mrs. May Schindler, services $154.50, ex- penses $3.50; L. Gold, services $805.00, expenses $58.65; J. M. Ullmache, services $40.00, expenses $93.20; C. P. Snell, ser- vices $12.00, expenses $0.65; W. C. Heney, services $1,939.00, expenses $20.05; E. C. Lange, services $42.00; expenses $2.60; E. Emerson, services $365.00, expenses $79.15; J. McKenzie, services $47.00; O. Hooper, services $85.00, expenses $12.45; Geo. Mane, services $15.00; Chas. Cook, services $40.00, ex- penses $0.80; C. T. Oliver, Jr., services $236.00, expenses $25.80; D. W. Armstrong, services $5.00; F. A. Neary, serv- ices $280.00, expenses $42.50; P. D. Code, services $280.00, expenses $35.65; Martin Judge, services $40.00; J. D. Silver- thevv^, services $14.00, expenses $1.71; G. Hague, services $68.00; W. J. Kelly, services $199.00, expenses $3.75; S. G. Whitney, services $52.00, expenses $6.65; C. F. Schneider, services $148.00, expenses $9.30; L. R. Mower, services $34.00, expenses $26.50; G. L. Doolittle, services $26.00, expenses $7.10; W. A. Conneau, services $25.00, expenses $2.20; E. S. Newsome, services $125.00; J. M. Creighton, services $615.00, expenses $200.00; H. Beasly, services $175.00; L. J. Cass, services $155.00; L. Murphy, services $230.00; Ed. Hornback, services $71.00; E. M. , ser- vices $435.00, expenses $44.80; P. Berr, services $36.00; S. J. Rohan, services $70.00; Geo. Yearaner, services $237.50, ex- penses $11.60; E. Vetisarator, services $63.00; F. C. Boden, services $150.00; T. C. McGiff, services $12.00; H. J. Lovent- zen, services $680.00, expenses $471.25; A. H. Barr, services $748.00, expenses $2.00; P. M. McGee, expenses $100.50; N. Komgold, services $525.00, expenses $37.35; E. Gensler, ser- vices $15.00, W. J. Otts, services $510.00, expenses $423.85; J. H. Dewey, services $30.00, expenses $6.75; W. C. Knox, services $180.00; M. F. , services $1,162.50, expenses XXXIX $363.00; J. M. Kelly, services $35.00; R. H. Schouatt, services $161.00, expenses $2.25; D. S. Hutchins, services $80.00, ex- penses $40.45; Chas. Goff, services $127.15; C. P. Morey, Jr., services $10.00; S. F. , services $95; Jesse A. Gahans, services $30.00; A. Setrakian, services $12.00, expenses $14.50; E. E. Kam, services $10.00; J. Walsh, services $25.00. Total services, $70,572.65; expenses, $27,277.35. Extra Salaries: O. F. Holmes, $25.00; S. S. Simon, $5.00; O. F. Holmes, $48.25; W. J. Flynn and 2 assts., $73.00; Wyman, $20.00; Stefifen, $20,00; T. Lonergan, $50.00; T. Lonergan, $50.00; T. Lonergan, $50.00; Cullen-Watchman, $28.00; A. Fromberg, $8.00; G. H. Knox, $5.00; A. B. Lycaw, $48.80; W. J. Flynn, $50.00; securing information at Roys, $5.50; D. M. Dufify, $104.50; C. A. Sage, $3020; B. Bergen, $20.80; P. Callender, $25.00; P. Callender, $2.00; J. C. Brown, $30.00; D. W. Armstrong, $10.00; D. W. Armstrong, $25.00; D. E. Scales, $5.00; Bob Ellis, $15.00; D. W. Armstrong, $1.00; S. Hitchcock, $1.00; D. Wilkie, $25.00. Total, $778.55. ITEMS FRANCIS J. HENEY ACCOUNT. Rent of Office: $3,186.25. Office Expenses: Water, light, heat (repairs gas fixtures, $4.88; purity water, $22.75; Stafford & Co., $297.93; S. F. G. & E. Co., $209.59; gas regulator, $4.76; Gas Appliance Co., $18.00; gas mantels, $3.00; Bush & Lind, $17.00); stationery (E. H. Wobber & Co., et al., $314.90; numbering machine, $5.00; I. Upham Co., $97.23; Brown & Power, $1.00 Schmidt L. & L. Co., $6.00; Badescu Prtg. Co., $2.50); typewriter, rental and supplies (Remington T. W. Co., $139.80; Smith Premier, T. W., $8.00; Typewritorium, $7.50); newspapers, $126.15; janitor supplies (scavenger, $16.59; towels. $26.44; C. Brown & Sons, $19.80; J. H. Reardon, $2.40; W. E. Johnson, $3.35; Greenblatt & Co., $1.80; New- man & Levinson, $2.55; Brittain & Co., $19.00; O'Connor, Moffatt, $3.00; W. T. Wiley, $3.00; H. G. Root, $14.33; S. P. Co., $1.33; carpet-cleaning, $7.55; Hill & Co.. $18.50); sundries, C. P. Stanton et al., $85.14; glazing, $11.25. Total, $1,522.02. Private Exchange, Telephone and Operator: $1,949.22. Telegrams: $316.82. Postage and Messenger Service: $280.26. Traveling Expenses: $118.45. Office Salaries: J. H. Reardon, $1,050.00; W. E. John- son, $1,650.00; Miss O. O. McShane, $1,934.66; Mrs. Smith, $806.25; Mrs. L. E. Russell, $2,085.00; C. H. Stanton, $377.51; xl janitress, $156.25; voucher No. 1, Jany. 31, 1907; no detail, $625.00. Total, $8,684.67. Office Furniture: J. Rehrn & Co., $15.75; Fuller Desk Co., $27.00; Rucker Desk Co., $142.25; J. Breuner Co., $28.50; O'Connor, Mofifatt. $91.65; Goodyear Rubber Co., $3.50; Sloane & Co., $52.37; G. Lipman, $7.50; Bush & Lind, $27.89; C. Brown & Sons, $6.05; shelving $10.00; Jewel Gas Appliance Co., $21.04. Total, $433.50. Auto and Carriage Hire: United Carriage Co., $100.25; Pacific Garage, $100.00; Auto Livery, $70.00; Kelly's, $8.50; Arcade Garage, $5.00; Tom Sawyer, $17.50; J. W. Burke, $3.00; Max Mamlock, $15.00; T. White, $5.00; L. D. Crane, $632.80. Total, $957.05. Stenographic and Legal Expense: L. Kavanaugh, $1,031.00; T. B. Elderkin,- $83.40; G. W. Smith, $28.00; State of California, $3.50; H. Hernon, $18.10; County Clerk, $6.00; citation for Codes, $0.37; express on briefs, $2.65; F. L. Gauhey, $2.00; F. M. Handy, $1.50; R. B. Treat, $1.75; D. W. Burchard, $200.00; S. Potter, $15.00; notary fees, $2.00; H. Harper, $96.15; C. Bennett, $5.00; A. W. Reynolds, $13.20; W. C. Bristol, $77.15; H. C. Finkler, $6.40; RicHards & Carrier, $258.20; Mrs. M. Moore, $10.00; Mr. Webb, $3.00; Mrs. C. Tellison, $5.80; D. Young, expert, $25.00; C. D. Stewart, expert, $189.00; G. W. Reynolds, expert, $63.00. Total, $2,147.37. Detective Expense: W. J. Burns, $2,416.95; L Ritten- house et al., $1,815.66. Total, $4,232.61. ea i iViitzri g ^mmm^ %a3AiN»^ %oJiw3-jQ>^ ^Wjol fie ^nn, ea "^SM UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. IFOff^ NO PHONE RENEWALS %avj REC'D SJS^L DEC 10^88 7 lyBci . REC'D ID-imi i. oeros 1981 'mjuiu MIIBRAR 1 k 198^ R£C'0 1-0-^^^ flf,^ ^*^'<^UN2l J995 "^1 mcwJ^f'- 4199fr JUN18l99b 0/: '■ ft JAN 2 3 1«>«^ ^)^:>» ^^ Q S)|i^l m\^ '^/smm-m >> ^OJIIVDJO' iillliili 3 1158 01030 117; ea =3 ARYQr A^llIBRARYQ<- ^^WE•l)NIVER% ^lOSANCElfx^ WJO'^ ^OJIIVDJO"^ ' >1' ' ,,tn ^ 1,1)1