Transcriber's Note
Footnotes have been gathered at the end of each chapter.
There are numerous apparent spelling or typographical errors, including
those that appear in the copious quoted material. These have been
corrected, and are noted in the detailed notes at the end of this text.
Italics are represented here using the underscore character as _italic_.
Bold text uses the equal character as =bold=.
"THE SYSTEM"
AS UNCOVERED BY
The San Francisco Graft Prosecution
BY
FRANKLIN HICHBORN
(Author of "The Story of the California Legislature of 1909"; "The
Story of the California Legislature of 1911"; and "The Story of the
California Legislature of 1913.")
"It is well enough, my fellow-citizens, to meet as we do to-night,
and to applaud the sentiments of patriotism, and to echo the
voice of indignation uttered upon this rostrum. But another and
more imperative duty devolves upon every one of us individually,
and that is to give his and her moral support to the officers of
the law. We must not content ourselves by merely adopting a set
of resolutions, and then going home and forgetting about it,
placing all responsibility upon the constituted authorities.
This is not a case of the constituted authorities. It is the
case of the people of San Francisco. And unless the people of
San Francisco do their individual duty in supporting the
prosecution, the officials of the courts and of the law must
fail in their efforts."--_Walter Macarthur at the mass meeting
called at the time of the attempted assassination of Heney._
COPYRIGHT, 1915
by
FRANKLIN HICHBORN
San Francisco
Press of The James H. Barry Company
1915
FRANKLIN HICHBORN'S
BOOKS ON
CALIFORNIA POLITICS
Story of the California Legislature of 1909 $1.25
Story of the California Legislature of 1911 1.50
Story of the California Legislature of 1913 1.50
"The System," as Uncovered by the San Francisco
Graft Prosecution 1.50
CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. The Union Labor Party Movement 11
II. The Ruef Board of Supervisors 22
III. The San Francisco Ruef Ruled 30
IV. San Francisco After the Fire of 1906 49
V. Graft Prosecution Opens 73
VI. Ruef's Fight to Take the District Attorney's Office 87
VII. Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled 96
VIII. Ruef Loses Fight for District Attorney's Office 107
IX. Ruef and Schmitz Indicted 110
X. Fight to Evade Trial 121
XI. Ruef a Fugitive 130
XII. The Trapping of the Supervisors 139
XIII. Confessions of the Bribe-taking Supervisors 154
XIV. The Source of the Bribe Money 168
XV. Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion 186
XVI. Schmitz Convicted of Extortion 208
XVII. Schmitz Ousted from Office 215
XVIII. The Real Fight Begins 240
XIX. The Glass Trials and Conviction 269
XX. The Ford Trials and Acquittals 279
XXI. The San Francisco Election of 1907 300
XXII. Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 320
XXIII. The Defense Becomes Arrogant 335
XXIV. Jury Fixing Uncovered 357
XXV. The Shooting of Heney 370
XXVI. The Calhoun Trial 388
XXVII. The San Francisco Election of 1909 405
XXVIII. Dismissal of the Graft Cases 425
XXIX. Ruef's Last Refuge Fails 440
XXX. Conclusion 455
APPENDIX.
Judge Lawlor's Ruling in Motion to Dismiss
Graft Cases i
How the Supervisors Were Bribed vii
Gallagher's Order Removing Langdon from
Office of District Attorney xii
The Ruef "Immunity Contract" xix
"Immunity Contract" Given Supervisors xxi
District Attorney Langdon's Plan for Reorganizing
the Municipal Government xxii
Roosevelt's Letter to Spreckels on the Graft
Situation xxv
Governor Johnson's Statement Regarding Ruef's
Imprisonment xxviii
Schmitz's Attempt to Control San Francisco's
Relief Funds xxxiii
Receipts and Disbursements of the Graft Prosecution xxxiv
PREFACE.
A tethered bull does not know that he is tied until he attempts to go
beyond the rope's limits.
A community does not feel the grip of the "System" until it attempts
resistance. Then it knows.
San Francisco during the Ruef-Schmitz regime was no more under the heel
of the "System" than when other "bosses" dominated; no more so than
to-day; no more so than other communities have been and are.
The political "boss" is merely the visible sign of the "System's"
existence. However powerful he may appear, he is, after all, but agent
for the "System." The "boss" develops power, does the "System's" work
until he is repudiated by the people, when another "boss," usually in
the name of "reform," takes his place.
But the second "boss" serves the same "System." Ruef entered San
Francisco politics as a "reformer." He supplanted other "bosses." But
Ruef in his turn served the "System" they had served.
San Francisco, when Ruef had reached his point of greatest possible
power, rose against him. The "System" was not immediately concerned.
Ruef had lived his day; the hour for another "boss" to succeed him had
come. But San Francisco proposed to get at those back of the "boss"; to
get at the "System." And then San Francisco found the "System" more
powerful than herself; more powerful than the State of California.
And San Francisco was beaten down, humiliated, made to understand that
within her borders the laws could not be enforced against those to whom
the "System" granted immunity from punishment.
To secure evidence against bribe-givers, the State granted immunity to
bribe-takers who confessed their crimes and joined with the State to
bring larger criminals to justice. And the "System's" agents cried
outrage that bribe-takers should go free of punishment.
But the "System" granted immunity from punishment to those who had
bribed. And the apologists for the "System" will tolerate no criticism
of this sort of immunity.
Other communities have risen against the "System's" agents, the
"bosses," and the "bosses" have given place to other agents. But few
communities, if any, have attacked the "System" as did San Francisco.
Had they done so, unquestionably they would have found themselves as
ineffective against corruption as San Francisco has been shown to be.
The "System" is confined to no particular State or locality; it
permeates our entire public life. Judge Lindsey in Colorado calls it
"The Beast." In California we call it "The Southern Pacific Machine,"
for in California the Southern Pacific Company was its chief
beneficiary. Other communities call it the "Organization." The bull does
not discover his rope until he strains at it; the community knows little
or nothing of the overpowering "System" until it resists. San Francisco
resisted and discovered.
The mere bribing of a board of supervisors was not extraordinary. Our
newspapers furnish us daily with sorry recital of bribe-taking public
officials discovered in other communities. But the effective, searching
resistance to bribe-giving which San Francisco offered was
extraordinary. It was a new thing in American politics. It compelled the
"System" to show its real strength, and that, too, was new in American
politics, and extraordinary, also.
The "System" at San Francisco had taken the usual precautions which
ordinarily ensure it against successful opposition, or even question. It
had, through its agents, selected the candidates for public office,
including the District Attorney. With the District Attorney loyal to the
"System" the "System" was secure against attack. And even were the
District Attorney to resist the "System," still was the "System" secure,
for the "System" could deny the District Attorney, through the public
officials it controlled, the funds necessary for successful opposition.
But here again extraordinary circumstances worked for the "System's"
confusion. Not only had the "System" been mistaken in the caliber of the
man whom it had permitted to be nominated for District Attorney, but
patriotic citizens guaranteed the expenses of effective attack through
the District Attorney's office.
Nevertheless, the "System" would ordinarily have been able to laugh at
the attack, and render it abortive, by compelling the citizens who were
backing the District Attorney to withdraw their support.
Even at San Francisco, the supporters of the District Attorney felt the
force of such attack. Those who supported the Prosecution found
themselves harassed in their business ventures, and snubbed in the
social circles in which they had moved. When Heney, stricken down in the
discharge of his duty, lay at the point of death, a minister of the
gospel prayed for the wounded Prosecutor's recovery. Immediately from
the pews came silent expression of disapproval. That pastor refused to
be intimidated, refused to join with his fashionable congregation
against the Prosecution. He was eventually compelled to resign his
pastorate. Rudolph Spreckels, while accounting for every dollar that the
Graft Prosecution had expended, asked to be excused from naming those
who had subscribed to the fund, lest they be attacked. Ordinarily, those
citizens whose instincts had led them to guarantee the District Attorney
their support, would have been forced to abandon him.
But at San Francisco, a few citizens, in spite of ridicule, abuse,
social ostracism and business opposition, stood firm for civic
righteousness. This made San Francisco's attack upon the "System"
possible and stirred the "System" to extraordinary resistance.
The "System," seeing itself threatened, went to the relief of the
"boss," its agent, whom even its chief beneficiaries despised. The
"boss," through his puppet in the Mayor's chair, declared the office of
the District Attorney vacant, and appointed himself to fill the vacancy.
The boldness of the move startled the whole community. But the act
merely demonstrated the extremes to which the "System" was prepared to
go. It was not extraordinary in comparison with what was to follow.
Later on, witnesses were to be concealed, intimidated, gotten out of the
State; their kidnaping even being attempted. The managing editor of a
newspaper opposing the "System" was to be taken on the street in
daylight, hurried across the country to a suburban town, forced into a
stateroom of an outgoing train, and sent on his way to a distant city.
The home of the pivotal witness against the "System"-protected
defendants was to be dynamited, the witness and other inmates of the
building miraculously escaping with their lives. A public prosecutor
was, while conducting one of the "System"-attacking trials, to be
shot down in open court. A prisoner at the bar was to arise to denounce
the judge on the bench as a partisan and a scoundrel. Thugs were
to invade court-rooms while trials were going on, to intimidate
"System"-threatening prosecutors and witnesses; men were to be trapped
as they offered bribes to trial jurors; agents of the Prosecution were
to be bribed to turn over to the defending element the Prosecution's
papers and reports. An agent of the Prosecution in the employ of the
Defense, working in the interest of the Defense, was to sit at the
Prosecutor's side during the selection of a trial jury, to advise the
Prosecutor of the character of the men under examination for jurors, and
with such advice mislead and confuse.
No; bribe-giving at San Francisco was not so extraordinary as the events
which grew out of attempt to punish for bribe-giving.
And now, as we look upon San Francisco beaten, and retarded in her
development because of that beating, the hopelessness of her opposition
to the "System" is the most startling thing of all. We see now, that
with a District Attorney intent upon doing his duty, with funds ample
for vigorous prosecution guaranteed, with trial judges of integrity and
ability on the bench, none of the accused, so long as he remained loyal
to the "System"--so long as he did not "snitch"--was in real danger of
suffering the law-provided punishment for the crimes uncovered against
him.
Ruef carefully weighed the ability of the Prosecution to save him,
against the power of the "System" to punish or to save, and knowing the
power of the "System" as few other men knew it, Ruef betrayed the
Prosecution and cast his lot with the "System." The outcome would have
justified his judgment but for a series of unusual events which none
could have foreseen. The most extraordinary incident of the whole Graft
Prosecution, we can now, with the "System" uncovered before us, see, was
that Abe Ruef went to the penitentiary. With full knowledge of the
power, resources and methods of the "System," it is not at all
extraordinary that guilty men under its protection should escape
punishment. But it is extraordinary--due only to a chain of
extraordinary happenings--that one of its agents, who continued
faithful, who didn't "snitch," finds himself in prison and unable to get
out.
The San Francisco Graft Prosecution uncovered the "System" as it has
been uncovered in no other American city, for San Francisco made the
hardest, most persistent, and longest continued attack that a
municipality has ever made upon it. California has profited greatly
because of the uncovering, for while uncovered, the "System" may be
proceeded against intelligently, not in the courts, but at the
ballot-box. California has been quick to profit by the opportunity which
the uncovering of the "System" has offered.
In preparing this volume for the press it is my purpose--so far as lies
in my power to do so--_to keep the cover off_.
_FRANKLIN HICHBORN._
Santa Clara, Calif., Dec. 25, 1912.
CHAPTER I.
THE UNION LABOR PARTY MOVEMENT.
Eugene E. Schmitz[1] was elected Mayor of San Francisco in November,
1901. He had been nominated by the Union-Labor party. This party was
organized after labor disturbances which had divided San Francisco into
militant factions, with organized labor on the one side and organized
capital on the other.[2]
The convention which had nominated Schmitz was made up in the main of
delegates who had affiliations with labor unions and were in close
sympathy with the labor-union movement.
But this did not mean that the new party had the unanimous approval of
the labor unions, or of the rank and file of organized labor. A
considerable faction, with P. H. McCarthy, president of the State
Building Trades Council, even then a dominating figure in San Francisco
labor circles, at its head, advised against the movement, and opposed
the new party candidates not only in 1901, but in 1903 when Schmitz was
a candidate for re-election.
On the other hand, the new party had in the beginning the support of the
Coast Seamen's Journal, published at San Francisco, and one of the most
influential labor publications on the Pacific Coast. It had, too, the
advocacy of several earnest Labor leaders.
Very frankly, such leaders questioned the ultimate consequences of the
movement, expressing fears which time was to justify. But to them the
situation offered no alternative. Their support and influence went to
the new party as an expedient of the times, not as the beginning of a
permanent political organization.
But the movement, once started, got beyond their control. During the
first five years of Union-Labor party activities in San Francisco many
of these original supporters were forced, first into silence and finally
into open repudiation of the methods of the Union-Labor party
administration.
In the meantime, members of the McCarthy faction, which had resisted the
organization of the party, and had opposed it at the 1901 and 1903
elections, became its strong partisans. This element supported the party
ticket at the 1905 election; and in 1907, and again in 1909, when
McCarthy was himself the Union-Labor party candidate for Mayor.
But the Union-Labor party ticket which McCarthy headed did not have the
united support of labor leaders who had organized the movement. Indeed,
labor leaders whom the McCarthy faction in 1901 called "scabs" for
organizing the Union-Labor party, were, by the same men who had
condemned them in 1901, denounced as "scabs" during the 1909 campaign
for not supporting the Union-Labor party candidates.
From the beginning, the Union-Labor party had the support of elements
outside the labor-union movement. Much of this support came from
citizens who, regardless of their attitude on trade-unionism, were
dissatisfied with the old parties. The situation offered exceptional
opportunity for the political manipulator. But the one man with the
political vision to see the possibilities of the third-party movement,
was not a member of a labor union. He was a lawyer who had already
attained some prominence in San Francisco politics--Abraham Ruef.[3]
Ruef was quick to see the potentialities of the political Frankenstein
which groping labor leaders had brought into being. He knew that _they_
could not control their creation; he knew that _he_ could. He did not
overestimate his powers. He managed the new party's 1901 campaign.[4]
Under his direction, success was won for a cause that had been deemed
hopeless. The genius of Abraham Ruef made Eugene E. Schmitz Mayor of San
Francisco.[5]
In practical acknowledgment of Ruef's services, Schmitz issued an open
letter, in which he stated himself privileged to consider Ruef his
friendly counsellor.[6] The issuance of that letter made Ruef the
recognized political representative of the Union-Labor party
administration, a position which he held until the estrangement of
himself and Schmitz under the strain of the graft prosecution.[7]
But the government of San Francisco did not pass entirely under control
of the Union-Labor party until four years after Schmitz's elevation to
the Mayoralty.
During the era of Union-Labor party power in San Francisco, the Mayor
and the eighteen members of the Board of Supervisors were elected every
two years.[8] Schmitz, under Ruef's management, was re-elected in 1903.
But the Union-Labor party failed at that election, as it had in 1901,
to elect a majority of the Board of Supervisors. Many of the
commissions, on the other hand, through appointments by the mayor, had,
by 1903, passed completely under Union-Labor party control.
Gradually, the opinion grew in San Francisco that the management of the
departments was unsatisfactory, if not corrupt. This opinion, in 1905,
when Schmitz was for a third time the Union-Labor party candidate for
Mayor, found expression in fusion of the Republican and Democratic
parties to bring about the defeat of the Union-Labor party nominees.
This fusion was in the name of municipal reform. The organizers of the
movement were in the main opposed to machine political methods. When,
however, the movement gave evidence of vitality and strength, the
political agents of public service corporations became identified with
its leadership.[9] The new leaders were soon in practical control.
Public-service corporations were largely instrumental in financing the
movement. Testimony was brought out before the Grand Jury which
conducted the graft investigations, that nearly every public-service
corporation in San Francisco contributed to the fusion fund, the
average of the contributions being $2,500 for each corporation.[10]
On the other hand, the public-service corporations contributed liberally
toward the election of the Ruef-backed, Union-Labor party
candidates.[11] Ruef was already on the pay-roll of the law departments
of many of them. Thus, generally speaking, it made little difference to
the corporations whether the "reform" fusion candidates or the Ruef
Union-Labor party candidates were elected. The corporations had
captained each side, and in a large measure had financed each side.
The inevitable difficulties of a campaign, financed and officered by
public-service corporations, to correct municipal ills for which the
corporations were in large measure responsible, were encountered from
the beginning. For the head of the reform or fusion ticket, men who had
been prominent in the organization of the anti-Ruef crusade were
suggested, only to be rejected by the corporation allies who had after
the reform group's preliminary successes become identified with the
movement.
Finally, after several names had been canvassed, John S. Partridge, an
attorney of good ability, and repute, but scarcely known outside the
immediate circle in which he moved, was agreed upon as Mr. Schmitz's
opponent. Both the Democrat and the Republican party nominated Mr.
Partridge, and with him a complete fusion ticket, including supervisors.
Partridge had a clear field against Schmitz, but his candidacy failed to
carry the confidence, or to awake the enthusiasm which brings success at
the polls.
The Union-Labor administration was openly denounced as corrupt. Francis
J. Heney,[12] fresh from his success in prosecuting the Oregon land
fraud cases, went so far as to declare in a speech before one of the
largest political gatherings ever assembled in San Francisco that he
knew Ruef to be corrupt,[13] and, given opportunity, could prove it.
The public generally believed Heney's charges to be justified. But of
approximately 98,000 registered voters only 68,878 voted for Mayor, and
of these, 40,191 voted for Schmitz. Partridge received only 28,687[14]
votes, being defeated by a majority of 11,504.
Not only was Schmitz re-elected by overwhelming majority, but the entire
Ruef-selected Union-Labor party ticket was elected with him.
Ruef, as Mayor Schmitz's recognized political adviser, and political
agent for the Union-Labor party, found himself in control of every
branch and department of the San Francisco municipal government.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Schmitz, previous to his election, was employed as a musician in
a San Francisco theater. His connection with organized labor
came through membership in the Musicians' Union. He had no
intention of aspiring to the Mayor's chair until Ruef suggested
it to him.
[2] The San Francisco labor strike of 1901 arose out of the refusal
of the organized teamsters to deliver goods to a non-union
express agency. The Employers' Association refused to treat with
the men collectively. Other organizations went out in sympathy.
James D. Phelan, who was then Mayor, was the intermediary
between the teamsters and their employees. He advocated
recognition. The negotiations failed. During the progress of the
strike there were constant disturbances. A steamship company,
for example, employed prizefighters in the guise of workingmen
to seek positions as strikebreakers, and when interfered with to
belabor the pickets. Assaults were made upon non-union teamsters
carrying supplies to and from railway stations. The Chief of
Police, in order to preserve peaceful traffic, placed two
policemen upon each truck. Labor leaders asked not only that the
police be withdrawn from the trucks, but from the waterfront.
This action the Mayor refused to take, on the ground that it was
his duty to preserve public order, and that it was in the
interest of all to avert rather than suppress trouble. A meeting
of representatives of the several factions was held at the
Mayor's office, September 23, 1901. The story was circulated
that the Mayor had said at the meeting that if the workmen did
not want to be clubbed let them go to work. Both sides now admit
the statement was not made. Joseph S. Tobin, Henry U.
Brandenstein, Lawrence J. Dwyer and Peter J. Curtis, who were
present, have set forth in affidavit that "Mayor Phelan did not
say at said conference, as has been alleged, referring to the
workingmen's strike, that 'if they don't want to be clubbed let
them go to work,' nor did he make any statement of like import."
At the time, however, feeling was running so high at San
Francisco that the most extravagant stories were believed.
Opponents of the administration--those representing capital as
well as those advocating recognition of the unions--seized upon
every opportunity to discredit. Crafty adventurers of the type
of Abe Ruef lost no chance to work distrust and confusion. Out
of the turmoil came the Union Labor party.
[3] Ruef graduated from the University of California and from the
University of California law school with exceptional honors. He
was at twenty-one a practicing attorney. With Franklin K. Lane,
the present Secretary of the Interior, Dean John H. Wigmore of
the Northwestern University, and others, he organized a club for
civic reform. His first political convention, he tells us in his
Confessions, showed him that representative government was a
farce. He resolved to devote himself to his law practice. But
almost immediately we find him an "errand boy" for Martin Kelly
and Phil Crimmins, powerful "bosses" in their day, but now
practically forgotten. Ruef continued with Kelly and Crimmins
for ten years. He drifted with the machine, securing excellent
training for his future career. His opportunity came in 1901,
when, in its effort to throw off the yoke of the bosses, the
State secured the enactment of a new primary law. Under this law
Ruef took his first step to secure control of the State
political machine. He seized upon the new law as a vehicle to
organize a "reform" movement. His organization took the name
Republican Primary League. He secured a large following. He was
becoming powerful. He tells us in his Confessions that during
this period he was invited to dine at the homes of men of
political and social importance, among them William F. Herrin,
chief counsel of the Southern Pacific Company, and Patrick
Calhoun, president of the United Railroads. But as yet, Ruef had
little real influence in the "organization." Then came the labor
unrest, and the Union Labor party movement. Ruef managed to
combine the Republican Primary League with the Union Labor party
movement. This combination was the basis of his campaign for the
election of Schmitz.
[4] Ruef also provided much of the funds employed in the first
Schmitz campaign. In a statement published May 16, 1907, Ruef
said: "When Schmitz first ran for Mayor I made his campaign for
him, and put up $16,000. My friends told me I was a fool. I
guess I was."
[5] Out of the 52,168 votes cast for Mayor, at the 1901 election,
Schmitz received 21,776. His opponents--Wells (Republican) and
Tobin (Democrat)--divided 30,392 between them, Wells receiving
17,718 and Tobin 12,674. Up to the present time (1914) the
Union-Labor party has four times been successful in San
Francisco mayoralty elections. But only once, in 1905, has its
candidate been elected by majority vote. Changes in the San
Francisco Charter, ratified at the 1911 session of the State
Legislature, place the election of municipal officials on a
non-partisan basis, and prevent election by plurality vote.
Henceforth all officials must be elected by majority vote.
[6] Schmitz's letter announcing his obligation to Ruef was as
follows:
"My Dear Ruef: Now that the election is over and I am to be
the Mayor of our native city, I wish to express to you and
through you to all your loyal friends and the faithful
Republicans who supported my cause, my profound appreciation
of the generous, whole-souled, substantial and effective
support accorded me in the exciting campaign which has just
closed. Viewed from your prominent position in the Republican
party, I know the seriousness of the step which you took when
you voluntarily and unconditionally offered me your valuable
aid, and I cannot in words properly give utterance to my deep
feeling in this regard. I can only say that your action is
worthy of yourself, and that no higher praise can be accorded
you.
"I have now for some fifteen years enjoyed your acquaintance
and friendship and your services as my attorney in many
capacities, and I say without hesitation or flattery that I
have yet to find a more honorable, a more loyal, a more able
attorney, or a truer friend.
"I feel that I owe a great deal of my success in this
campaign to you and your friends, and I shall not permit
myself at any time to forget it.
"Though you have never asked or even suggested it, I shall,
with the utmost confidence and with a sentiment of absolute
security, feel myself privileged at all times to consider you
as my friendly counsellor and to call upon you whenever I may
require assistance in the solution of any of the perplexing
and complicated questions which must necessarily arise in the
conduct of so vast and important an office.
"I trust that you will not hesitate to say that I may do so.
Again and again thanking you and your friends, I am,
"Very sincerely yours,
"E. E. SCHMITZ."
[7] Ruef at once availed himself of the opportunities which his
position offered. He accepted regular "retainers" from
public-service corporations. He testified before the Grand Jury
that he was employed by the United Railroads through Tirey L.
Ford, just after the first election of Schmitz, at $500 per
month, and that he gave receipts to Ford for this money, during
Schmitz's first term of office, but received the money always in
Ford's office in currency; but that after the second election of
Schmitz, he (Ruef) refused to give any more receipts for this
money, although he continued to receive it from Ford the same as
before with receipts, and that after the third election his
salary was increased to $1,000 per month, which was paid in the
same way by Ford without any receipts.
Ruef further testified that he was employed by the Pacific
States Telephone and Telegraph Company, immediately after
Schmitz's first election, through T. V. Halsey, and that Halsey
paid him $1,200 per month in currency without any receipt.
E. S. Pillsbury, general counsel of the Pacific States Telephone
and Telegraph Company, testified that he never heard of Ruef's
employment until after the indictments were returned against
Halsey, and that he, Pillsbury, attended to all of the legal
business of the company during the entire time Ruef was under
employment. Pillsbury received only $1,000 per month for his own
services, and testified that he would have objected to the
payment to Ruef of a larger salary than he was getting.
Pillsbury was a stockholder to the amount of $500,000 in his own
right, and was a member of the executive committee of the board
of directors of the company.
At the trial of The People vs. Tirey L. Ford, No. 817, I. W.
Hellman, one of the most prominent of California bankers and at
one time a director of the United Railroads, testified: "Some
five years ago (the Ford trial was in 1907, which would make the
date about 1902) Mr. Holland, who was then the president of the
United Railways, came to me to ask my advice whether Mr. Ruef
should be employed as an attorney for the United Railways,
stating that by employing him peace could be secured with the
labor unions, that he had great influence with them, and there
would be general peace, and it was to the benefit of the
railways company to have such peace. Mr. Ruef then was an
attorney of high repute, recognized as a good lawyer, and I said
if that could be accomplished it would be for the benefit of the
railway company as well as for the public, and I advised yes.
Whether he has been employed or not I do not know, because I
afterward sold my interest in the company and I never have
inquired whether he had been employed or not."
In this connection, it is interesting to note that Ruef in his
latest confession, the publication of which was begun in the San
Francisco Bulletin in May, 1912, states that his employment by
corporations as attorney did not begin until after the second
Schmitz election--that is to say, in 1903. Hellman's testimony
would indicate that his employment by the United Railroads dates
from 1902. Compare with footnote 77, page 74.
[8] Under amendments to the San Francisco Charter, ratified by the
Legislature of 1911, the Mayor and Supervisors are now elected
to four-year terms.
[9] George F. Hatton, Southern Pacific lobbyist and politician, and
political manager for United States Senator George C. Perkins,
was one of the principal leaders of the 1905 "reform" movement.
He was at one time retained as an attorney by the Empire
Construction Company, affiliated with the Home Telephone
Company, which was seeking a franchise to establish a telephone
system in San Francisco in competition with the Pacific States
Telephone and Telegraph Company. The Home Telephone Company
contributed to the "reform" campaign fund. Through the "reform"
Board of Supervisors, who were to be elected, and whose campaign
was thus financed, the Home Company was to get its franchise.
But the "reform" candidates were defeated, the Schmitz-Ruef
Union-Labor party candidates were elected. The Home Telephone
Company thereupon proceeded to secure its franchise by employing
Ruef.
[10] William Thomas, of the law firm of Thomas, Gerstle & Frick,
attorneys for the Home Telephone Company, testified before the
Grand Jury that his company had contributed $8,000 to the
"reform" campaign fund. The testimony indicated that this money
was used at the primaries. Louis Sloss, one of the leaders of
the "reform" movement, testified that after the primaries,
Detweiler, who was at the head of the Home Telephone Company
enterprise, sent his personal check for $800 additional.
Fairfax H. Wheelan, one of the leaders of the "reform"
movement, testified before the Grand Jury that the Pacific
States Telephone and Telegraph Company, in the name of T. V.
Halsey, subscribed $2,000 to the fund; and the United
Railroads, concealing its identity under the name "Cash,"
$2,000 more.
[11] Dr. Charles Boxton was one of the Union-Labor party Supervisors
elected in 1905. At the second trial of Louis Glass,
vice-president of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph
Company, for bribery, Boxton testified that during the
campaign, T. V. Halsey, political agent for the company, met
him on the street and gave him a sealed envelope, saying: "If
that will be of any use to you use it."
Boxton found the envelope to contain $1,000 in United States
currency.
[12] Francis J. Heney when five years old went to San Francisco with
his parents. He was educated at the public schools of that
city, the University of California, and Hastings Law School.
After being admitted to practice he lived for a time in
Arizona, where he served as Attorney-General. On his return to
San Francisco in 1895, he confined himself to civil practice
until, at the solicitation of United States Attorney-General
Knox, he undertook the prosecution of the Oregon Land Fraud
cases. He was at the close of successful prosecution of these
cases, when invited by Rudolph Spreckels, Phelan and others, to
participate in the prosecution of the San Francisco graft
cases.
[13] Heney's statement was prophetic. The published account of his
speech (see Chronicle, November 6, 1905) was as follows:
"If I had control of the District Attorney's office, I would
indict Abe Ruef for felony and send him to the penitentiary,
where he belongs, for I have personal knowledge that he is
corrupt.
"If you elect these people, the graft of this city will become
so great that the citizens of San Francisco will ask me to come
back and prosecute him. When the time comes I will do as the
people request as a matter of civic duty."
Heney's charge brought caustic reply from Ruef. In an open
letter to Heney, published November 7, 1905, Ruef said:
"Francis J. Heney:--In the published reports of your speech at
Mechanics Pavilion last Saturday night you are represented as
saying: 'I say to you, moreover, that I personally know that
Abraham Ruef is corrupt, and I say to you that whenever he
wants me to prove it in court I will do so.'
"I am not a candidate for office, but as a man I do not propose
to leave your false statement undenied.
"In the past I have paid little attention to anything said by
hostile papers concerning myself, feeling that the public fully
understood the despicable motives underlying the utterances of
their proprietors. In your case a different situation presents
itself. You have recently acquired considerable repute as a
prosecuting attorney for the United States Government. Your
statements, if unchallenged, may be given some credence by
those not familiar with the true condition of affairs.
"In making the statement that you personally know that I am
corrupt you lied. You cannot personally know that which does
not exist.
"In making the statement at a time and place which allowed no
opportunity for a legal showing before the date of the election
which you seek to influence, you showed the same courage which
put a bullet into the body of Dr. J. C. Handy of Tucson, Ariz.,
in 1891, for whose killing you were indicted for murder, and
upon trial were acquitted because you were the only witness to
the deed.
"You say whenever I want you to prove it in court you will do
so.
"I want you to try to prove it, and at once. I demand that you
begin at once. I know you cannot prove what does not exist. Why
you should wait upon my desire, why you should depend upon my
wish to proceed with the performance of what must be to every
good citizen a public duty, I do not know.
"But as you declare that you will proceed only with my consent,
I give you here and now full consent and authority to proceed,
and I go further and ask that you do so.
"I regret that your recent identification with the Citizens'
Alliance and with the corporations anxious to encompass the
defeat of a candidate in a political campaign should have made
you so far forget the regard for truth, justice and decency
which should characterize men in our profession, as to have
induced you to take the chance of ruining for life the
reputation and standing of one who is not rightfully amenable
to your charge, and who has not otherwise heretofore given you
the slightest private or personal provocation for your savage
and mendacious attack.
"A. RUEF.
"San Francisco, November 6th."
[14] To hold that only 28,687 electors of San Francisco wished a
change in the administration of San Francisco would be unjust.
Many who were opposed to Ruef's domination remained away from
the polls, through dissatisfaction with the management of the
fusion movement. Of the more than 40,000 who voted for the
Union Labor ticket, were thousands of union men who were
opposed to the Schmitz-Ruef element. But Ruef cleverly injected
the Citizens' Alliance issue, and the organized labor element
was, because of this, made to vote practically solidly for the
Ruef-selected candidates. The fact that voting machines were
used in every precinct in San Francisco for the first time
contributed to this. Members of labor unions did not understand
the working of the machines, and were afraid to attempt to vote
anything but the straight ticket. This dissatisfied organized
labor element, two years later, contributed in no small degree
to the election of Mayor E. R. Taylor and the re-election of
District Attorney William H. Langdon, thereby making possible
continuation until 1910 of the graft prosecution.