SCHMITZ CONVICTED OF EXTORTION.
One week after Ruef had plead guilty to the charge of extortion, his
co-defendant, Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz, indicted jointly with Ruef, was
brought to trial, under indictment No. 305, to which Ruef had entered
his plea of guilty.
Hiram W. Johnson and J. J. Dwyer appeared with Heney and Langdon for the
Prosecution. The defense was represented by the firm of Campbell, Metson
& Drew, assisted by John J. Barrett and Charles Fairall, all prominent
at the San Francisco bar.
The preliminaries were not unlike those of the Ruef trial, which, at the
point where testimony would have been taken, was stopped by Ruef's plea
of guilty. There were the same allegations of bias, the same attempts to
secure change of venue, the same appeals to the higher courts in habeas
corpus proceedings. But these moves availed Schmitz as little as they
had Ruef. Point by point the upper courts found against the indicted
Mayor; step by step he was dragged to proceedings before a trial jury.
The selection of the jury occupied two weeks. But with the swearing of
the twelfth juror, Schmitz did not stop proceedings with tearful
confession and a plea of guilty. Doggedly the troubled Mayor let the
trial go on. The Prosecution called its witnesses to the stand.
One by one Schmitz's former associates as well as the restaurant men
from whom, through Ruef, he had received money, took the stand and told
the sordid story of the corruption of the Schmitz-Ruef administration.
The specific charge under which Schmitz was tried was that of extortion
from Joseph Malfanti, Charles Kelb and William Lafrenz, proprietors of
Delmonico's Restaurant, of $1,175. The sum was Delmonico's share of the
$5,000 paid to Ruef in 1905, by the French-restaurant keepers to prevent
the liquor licenses, without which their establishments could not be
successfully conducted, being taken from them.
The testimony showed:
(1) That Schmitz had used his power as Mayor over the Police
Commissioners to compel them in the first instance, to withhold
French-restaurant liquor licenses, and that later in the latter part of
January, 1905, he had exerted himself as actively and effectively to
have the licenses granted, even removing from office Police Commissioner
Hutton, who was standing out against the French restaurants.
(2) That attorneys, appearing before the Police Commissioners, to
present the claims of the French-restaurant keepers for licenses, were
unable to secure a hearing. One of these testified to having advised his
client, and other French-restaurant keepers that "there is only one man
who can help you, and that is Mr. Ruef."
(3) That a French-restaurant keeper who owed Ruef money, and at whose
establishment Ruef had his headquarters, approached his fellow
French-restaurant keepers and told them that for $7,000 a year Ruef
would represent them and keep them secure in their business for two
years. The $7,000 demand was finally reduced to $5,000, $10,000 for the
two years.
(4) That the French-restaurant keepers raised $8,000 of the $10,000
demanded, and sent it to Ruef, $5,000 the first year and $3,000 the
next.
(5) That Ruef refused to receive anything but currency, would give no
receipt for the money, and would deal with one man only.
(6) That Ruef claimed to receive the money as a fee from the "French
Restaurant Keepers' Association," but that no such association existed
in San Francisco.
(7) That after the French-restaurant keepers had satisfied Ruef, Ruef
appeared for them before the Police Commissioners and, after
Commissioner Hutton had been removed from office by Mayor Schmitz,
secured for them their licenses.[230]
Having established its case thus far, the Prosecution rested.
The move was unlooked for. Ruef was known to have confessed; it had been
confidently expected that he would be placed on the stand to answer the
question, in whatever form it could be forced into the record: Did you
divide the money which you received from the French-restaurant keepers
with Mayor Schmitz?
But Ruef was not put on the stand. The public marveled, but those behind
the scenes knew that Ruef was not the willing witness for the
Prosecution that the public thought.
Ruef had confessed to Heney that he had given half the $8,000 which he
had received from the French-restaurant keepers to Mayor Schmitz. But
Heney, having trapped Ruef in deception, had very good reason for being
distrustful of him.
Ruef, forever seeking to justify himself, had told Heney that he had
refused to appear before the Police Commissioners on behalf of the
French-restaurant keepers, until the San Francisco Bulletin had
challenged him to dare represent them, and claim the money he received
from them was a fee. Ruef insisted that the Bulletin's challenge led him
to take the case.
In this Heney trapped Ruef in his trickery.
Ruef's purported contract with the mythical "French Restaurant Keepers'
Association," under which the French restaurant keepers had paid him
$8000, bore date of January 6. Ruef insisted to Heney that January 6 was
the true date upon which the contract was signed. The oral agreement had
been made January 5. Heney then confronted Ruef with files of the
Bulletin which showed that the Bulletin had not mentioned Ruef as
appearing on behalf of the French-restaurant keepers until January 7.
This was one day after Ruef had signed the purported contract with the
mythical French Restaurant Keepers' Association.
A stormy scene between Ruef and Heney followed this exposure.[231] Heney
charged Ruef with falsehood and deception, and declared the immunity
agreement canceled. Heney then ordered Ruef from the room, and did not,
until long after the Schmitz trial had closed, have conversation with
him again.
When Schmitz's trial opened, District Attorney Langdon, Hiram Johnson,
all the rest of Heney's associates, urged that Ruef be put on the stand,
insisting that the case would be greatly strengthened if it could be
proved by Ruef that Schmitz had received half the extortion money.
Heney conceded the strength of this contention, but held, on the other
hand, that Ruef would lie so much about other things that he would do
more harm than good to the case. Personally, Heney insisted, he wanted
nothing to do with him.
Thus, in making his opening statement to the jury in the Schmitz case,
Heney refrained from stating that he expected to prove Schmitz received
any part of the money which had been paid to Ruef.
But of the break between Heney and Ruef, the public knew nothing. San
Francisco looked to see Ruef put on the stand. When the Prosecution
rested without calling this supposedly star witness, even the Defense
was taken by surprise and had to ask continuance until the following day
before calling witnesses.
Schmitz took the stand in his own behalf. He denied the statements which
his former Police Commissioners had made against him. The Mayor's story
of denial was soon told. Heney, on cross-examination asked:
"Did Ruef pay you any part of the $5,000 that has been testified he
received from the French restaurants?" and Schmitz replied: "I didn't
know that Mr. Ruef got any $5,000, nor did I receive any part of
it."[232]
And then, in detail, Schmitz denied that he had received any money from
Ruef, or had had any conversation with him regarding a "fee" which Ruef
had received from the French-restaurant keepers.
In rebuttal, Ruef was called to the stand.[233] "Did you," questioned
Heney, "in January or February, 1905, in this City and County of San
Francisco, at the house of Eugene E. Schmitz, the defendant, at number
2849 Fillmore street, give to Eugene E. Schmitz any money, and if so how
much, and in what kind of money?"
"I did," answered Ruef, "$2500 in currency."
"Did you, then and there, tell him," pursued Heney, "that it was his
share of the money you had received from the five French-restaurant
keepers?" "I didn't say to him," replied Ruef, "that it was his share of
the money which I had received from the French restaurants. I did say to
him that I had received from the French restaurants the sum of $5,000,
and that if he would accept half of it I should be glad to give it to
him. Thereupon I gave it to him."
Ruef testified further to paying Schmitz $1500 early in 1906, half of
the second payment made to him by the French-restaurant keepers.
The jurors before whom Mayor Schmitz was tried took one ballot only.
They found the defendant guilty of extortion as charged in the
indictment.
Following the verdict, Schmitz, who eighteen months before had, for the
third time been elected Mayor of San Francisco, was, as a convicted
felon, confined in the county jail.[234]
FOOTNOTES:
[230] For fuller discussion of this testimony see Chapter "Ruef and
Schmitz Indicted."
[231] "You have not," said Heney to the trapped boss, "told us all
the truth in the United Railroads case. You have not told us
all the truth in the case of the gas rate matter. You have not
told us all the truth in the Bay Cities Water deal. You have
not told us all the truth about the deal with Herrin in
relation to the delegates from this city to the Santa Cruz
convention. You have not told us all the truth in the
telephone franchise matter. You lied to us in the Parkside
matter, and I caught you at it before the Grand Jury. You
tried to protect Will Crocker in that matter and told Burns
before you went into the Grand Jury room that you had never
spoken to him on the subject. You swore to the same thing in
the Grand Jury room until you cunningly guessed from my
questions that Will Crocker himself had told the truth to the
Grand Jury, and that I was getting you in a bad hole; you then
suddenly pretended to just remember that you had held one
conversation with Will Crocker on the trolley franchise matter
at the Crocker National Bank that lasted a half an hour, and
that you had held another conversation on the street with Will
Crocker on the same subject at the corner of California and
Kearny streets, which lasted an hour. You had not forgotten
either of those talks, but you did not think Will Crocker
would testify to them and you wanted to curry favor with him
by thus making him think you wanted to protect him, and you
did it because he is rich and powerful. You wanted his
influence hereafter to help keep you out of trouble, because
you have no idea of acting in good faith with the prosecution.
I don't believe you ever acted in good faith with anybody in
your life, but you have over-reached yourself this time."--See
Affidavit of Francis J. Heney, in The People vs. Patrick
Calhoun et als., No. 823.
[232] This answer came in the face of strong objection from
Schmitz's counsel. Mr. Campbell went so far as to direct
Schmitz not to answer. Mr. Barrett's objection was expressed
in a way that caused Judge Dunne to order him to his seat. The
several objections were overruled and the witness was directed
to answer the question.
[233] Heney, in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs.
Patrick Calhoun et al., No. 823, says of Ruef's appearance: "I
did not at any time see or speak to Ruef, except when he was
on the witness stand, and then only from a distance and in
open court in the regular course of the trial and in the
performance of my duty as a prosecuting officer."
[234] Where Schmitz spent the night of Thursday, June 13, the night
of his conviction, is a matter of dispute. Sheriff O'Neil
insists that he spent the night in jail. This has been denied.
The statement has been made, apparently on good authority,
that all of Friday following, Schmitz, accompanied by Dominic
Beban, a deputy sheriff and State Senator from San Francisco,
was about town in an automobile. But on Saturday, Judge Dunne
warned the sheriff that Schmitz was to be treated as any other
prisoner. After that day, pending his appeal to the higher
courts, Schmitz was confined in the county jail. Attorney J.
C. Campbell made a hard fight to keep his client out of jail.
Among other things, Mr. Campbell held that the Mayor had so
much official business to attend to that it was practically
necessary for him to be in his office all the time for the
next month.
Schmitz, under this conviction, was sentenced to serve five
years in the penitentiary.