THE SAN FRANCISCO ELECTION OF 1907.
Scarcely had the prosecution overcome the delaying tactics of the
defense, and forced graft cases to trial, than District Attorney Langdon
had to defend title to his office at the polls.
Langdon had taken office in January, 1906. His term was to expire in
January, 1908. The municipal election, at which Mr. Langdon's successor
was to be elected, was to be held in November.
At that time was to be elected besides the District Attorney, the Mayor,
Supervisors and practically all the other municipal officials.
The old convention system of naming candidates for office still
prevailed in San Francisco. However, California had even then entered
upon the struggle of throwing off the yoke of machine domination through
the convention system of naming candidates. The delegates to the several
conventions had, under primary law provisions, to be elected at the
polls.
San Francisco was divided upon one issue--that of the Graft Prosecution.
The opposition which years of adverse publicity was to develop, did not
then confront those who were standing for vigorous prosecution of the
corrupters of the municipality. But under the hammering of an adverse
press, and the claquer's systematic belittling, the graft defense had
made gains sufficient to give it at least a fighting chance at the
polls.
On the side of the defense, too, was the solid support of the powerful
Southern Pacific Company, and of the various public service
corporations, as well as the purchasable press. On the side of the
prosecution stood the people of San Francisco, not yet worn out, nor
misled, nor yet alienated from the policy of vigorous prosecution of the
corrupters of the municipality. The people recognized that effective
continuance of the prosecution required that Mr. Langdon be re-elected.
That the action of the prosecution in making Taylor Mayor, might be
endorsed at the polls--thus receiving the stamp of public approval--Mr.
Taylor's election became quite as important as that of Mr. Langdon. The
same was true of those of the Taylor-appointed Supervisors who became
candidates for election. But the contest waged about the election of
Taylor and Langdon.
Such was the issue which confronted San Francisco at the 1907 election.
There was but one issue. There were, however, three prominent political
parties, Union Labor, Republican and Democratic. None of the three could
be called the prosecution party, nor for that matter, the defense party;
nor had any faction of any of the parties the temerity to declare
against the prosecution of those trapped in corruption, however
vigorously opposed to the prosecution this or that faction might be. But
each of the three parties did divide on the question of the election of
Langdon and Taylor.
Broadly speaking, the supporters of the prosecution in all parties
demanded that Taylor and Langdon be nominated. The opponents of the
prosecution, while declaring loudly for the prosecution of all
offenders against the law, labored for their defeat. On this issue, not
always clearly defined, the intraparty factions met at the primary
polls. The prosecution, therefore, had three independent political
fights on its hands.
Langdon had been elected by the Union Labor party. Taylor was a
Democrat. But in the confusion of the times the principal primary fight
was within the Republican party.
The Republican opposition to those roughly described as
"pro-prosecution," found expression in the remnants of the old-time
machine--generally called Herrin--element. At its head were many of the
experienced machine leaders. The Republican pro-prosecution forces were
at first without definite leadership. But in this emergency most
effective leadership developed.
Daniel A. Ryan, a young "Irish-American," came to the fore as captain of
the reform forces within the Republican party.
Ryan is of the highest type of his race, as developed under the
advantageous conditions to which the immigrant and his descendants have,
in these United States, been admitted. Well educated, forceful, a
brilliant speaker, effective as an organizer, a lover of the political
game, Ryan was soon the recognized leader of the new movement.
He was trusted implicitly. The selection of candidates for convention
places was left largely in his hands. Under Mr. Ryan's leadership the
fight for effective continuation of the Graft Prosecution was carried on
within the Republican party.
The division in the Union Labor party was scarcely less pronounced. The
party, roughly speaking, divided with P. H. McCarthy heading the
anti-prosecution side, and men of the type of Walter Macarthur, one of
the founders of the party, leading the forces supporting Langdon and his
associates.
But here again there was most confusing division. Thomas F. Eagan,
chairman of the Union Labor Party County Committee, for example, was
quoted within a week of the primaries, as announcing: "Schmitz is an
ideal candidate (for Mayor). If available, he would be nominated by the
delegates that will be elected on the regular Union Labor ticket."
Nevertheless, Mr. Eagan was unalterably opposed to Mr. McCarthy heading
the ticket.
The Democratic division was less pronounced than in either the
Republican or Union Labor party. The side favoring Taylor, without much
reference to Langdon, went to the primary polls under the regular
Democratic leadership, with Thomas W. Hickey, chairman of the Democratic
County Central Committee, at its head. Prominent in the opposition was
Lewis F. Byington, who had preceded Mr. Langdon as District Attorney.
Mr. Byington was brother-in-law of General Tirey L. Ford, even then
under trial for bribery, and one of General Ford's attorneys.
In the confusion of these many-sided contests, the defense had its best
opportunity for success. But the result, so far as the Democratic and
Republican parties were concerned, was overwhelmingly successful for the
prosecution.[320]
Of the delegates to the Republican convention the Ryan (pro-prosecution)
forces elected 142, the "Herrin" (anti-prosecution) forces 7 only. Of
the 164 delegates to the Democratic convention, 161 were elected by the
regular (pro-prosecution) element, and 3 by the Byington
(anti-prosecution) side. The popular vote within these parties was
scarcely less pronounced.[321] On the other hand, within the Union Labor
party the anti-prosecution forces were overwhelmingly successful, the
McCarthy faction electing 185 delegates and the forces led by Walter
Macarthur and his associates 13 only.
Under the alignment, it was expected that the Republicans and Democrats
would unite without hesitation upon Taylor and Langdon, leaving the
cause of the indicted corporation managers to find expression in the
Union Labor party platform and candidates.[322]
But scarcely had the primary returns been made public than the San
Francisco Call, generally regarded as staunchly on the side of the
prosecution, brought confusion upon the pro-prosecution element, by
suggesting the candidacy of Mr. Ryan for Mayor and belittling the
candidacy of Mayor Taylor.
"Ryan," said The Call through its political representative, Mr. George
Van Smith, "has not sought and is not seeking the Republican nomination
for Mayor. He may have it forced upon him and find himself the recipient
of similar endorsement of his powers as a boss-buster, from the
Democratic organization."
The Call, in the same issue, hinted that the Democrats might not
nominate Taylor. Without a Democratic nomination, Taylor could not
expect nomination at the hands of the Republicans.
"That the Democrats will nominate Mayor Taylor," said The Call, "is more
than doubtful. Mayor Taylor was drafted into the city's service. He has
not given any indication of a desire to serve the city as the head of
its government after the time when a popularly selected successor could
be qualified. If the Democrats do not nominate Dr. Taylor, the
Republicans would scarcely be expected to do so. The fact that the men
who will make up an almost exclusive majority of the Republican
convention seem to be committed to the idea of nominating Ryan appears
to preclude the nomination of Taylor by either party."
The source of The Call's information is not apparent. Up to the time of
the publication of its article, August 15, there was no sentiment in San
Francisco for the election of Mr. Ryan to the Mayoralty. On the
contrary, the understanding was that Mr. Ryan had entered the contest
from motives of good citizenship only, and that he was in no sense a
seeker of office for himself.[323] Such had been the understanding
during the primary campaign; such was the sense of the community after
the primary vote had been cast.
All recognized, however, that Mr. Ryan was in a position of great power.
He had been trusted implicitly. The selection of anti-Herrin candidates
for delegates had been left largely in his hands. Few thought, however,
that he had selected delegates for the purpose of giving himself the
Republican nomination for the Mayoralty. Then, again, aside from the
confusion his candidacy would work in the ranks of the anti-Herrin,
pro-prosecution element, Mr. Ryan, while a pleasing young man and
clever politician, it was generally recognized had few qualities usually
looked for in the Mayor of a community of half a million people.
To add to the confusion, The Examiner, which was now in active
opposition to the prosecution, came out strongly against Mr. Ryan's
candidacy, denouncing it as "a grotesque piece of effrontery." "For the
primary leader," said The Examiner, "to appropriate the office to
himself, is like the agent of a charity fund determining that he is the
most worthy object of the charity, and putting[324] the money in his own
pocket."
But Ryan's candidacy was not to be defeated by adverse criticism. Mr.
Ryan had been largely instrumental in selecting the Republican delegates
who were to name the candidates. Besides, he had the clever support, in
its local columns at least, of the San Francisco Call. He had about him
a number of enthusiastic young men who were ambitiously active in urging
his candidacy.
"Every time the Taylor boomers gain a man they lose one," announced
Perry Newberry, Secretary of Mr. Ryan's organization, and Ryan's
right-hand man. "As far as the Republicans are concerned Daniel A. Ryan
is as good as named. It will be Ryan, not Taylor, who will sweep the
city."
With the advocacy of Ryan's candidacy, came quiet, systematic opposition
to the nomination of Langdon.
With Mr. Ryan and his associates in control of the convention that was
to nominate, it began to look as though the victory which the
pro-prosecution Republicans, under Mr. Ryan's leadership, had won at the
primaries, was barren indeed.
Among the Democrats, the opposition to Langdon and Taylor was even more
discouraging. Langdon had been candidate for Governor two years before
on the Independence League ticket. Theodore A. Bell had had the
Democratic and Union Labor nominations. Bell had been defeated by a
plurality. Bell ascribed his defeat to Langdon. The so-called Bell
Democrats accordingly made this an excuse for objecting to Langdon.[325]
As to Taylor, with the ability of the forces at work to defeat the
prosecution considered, opinion gained daily that the failure of the
Republican convention to nominate Taylor, would be followed by a refusal
of the Democrats to give him nomination.
Thus with the supporters of the prosecution overwhelmingly successful at
the Republican and Democratic primaries, there was grave danger that
their purposes would be set aside by political manipulation.
But at this crisis a new element was injected into the situation.
Citizens who stood for enforcement of the law hastily formed a
non-partisan organization to uphold the hands of the prosecution.[326]
They called their organization the Good Government League. Taking for
their motto "CITIZENSHIP ABOVE PARTISANSHIP," they boldly announced
their support of Langdon for District Attorney, and of Taylor for Mayor.
The attitude of San Francisco toward the Graft Prosecution was shown by
the reception given the new organization. Citizens by the thousands sent
in their application for membership. Funds for the purposes of the
campaign were forwarded by men in all walks of life.
The Democratic leaders were the first to appreciate the significance of
the reception given the new movement. What was practically a combination
between the two forces resulted. This insured the nomination of Langdon
and Taylor by the Democrats. It also assured the nomination of Langdon
by the Republicans, for after the stand taken by the Good Government
League, for either Republican or Democratic party to have rejected
Langdon would have been an exhibition of "poor politics." But Ryan still
controlled the Republican convention. The Republican convention
nominated Mr. Ryan for Mayor.
Mr. Ryan's nomination was not accomplished without protest. The citizens
who attended the convention as spectators were overwhelmingly for
Taylor. Taylor received 53 out of the 148 convention votes, 95 being
cast for Mr. Ryan. The minority charged that in the nomination of Mr.
Ryan, the Republicans of San Francisco had been betrayed, and that they
would not be bound by the nomination nor support the nominee.[327]
The Union Labor party, following out its policy of opposition to the
prosecution, nominated P. H. McCarthy[328] for Mayor, and Frank McGowan
for District Attorney.
The planks of the several parties dealing with the prosecution were
characteristic of the conventions from which they issued.
The Union Labor plank definitely pledged its candidate for District
Attorney to prosecution of the Supervisors who had confessed to
bribe-taking although it had been clearly pointed out that such
prosecution would bar effective prosecution of those responsible for the
bribe-giving.[329]
The Republican plank left the reader in doubt as to whether or not the
delinquent Supervisors were to be prosecuted. The Democratic plank alone
pledged unqualified support to the prosecution "in any effort it may
make to convict any guilty person."[330]
The new alignment which followed the clearing of the atmosphere by the
nomination of candidates, and the adoption of platforms, involved some
astonishing changes.
The Examiner, which, on September 19, preceding the nominations, had
described Mr. Ryan's candidacy as "a grotesque piece of effrontery," and
compared him to the custodian of a trust fund who puts the money in his
own pocket, announced its support of Mr. Ryan for Mayor. On October 20,
a month and a day after publication of the custodian-of-a-trust-fund
editorial article, The Examiner "unhesitatingly recommended to all the
voters of San Francisco," Mr. Ryan, "as the man best qualified to be the
next Mayor of the city."
On the other hand, The Call, which was the first to suggest Mr. Ryan's
candidacy, describing him a heroic young "boss buster," to whom the
Democrats could logically turn for a mayoralty candidate, after his
nomination, described him as "a cheap politician itching for
office,"[331] whose candidacy was the one element which threw a doubt
upon the election of Mayor Taylor. Following the conventions, The Call
supported Taylor as against the field.
The Chronicle tactfully refrained from taking sides until after the
nominations were announced.[332] Then The Chronicle gave support to
Taylor. If the shifting policy of the newspapers had raised a doubt as
to where the people of San Francisco stood on the issue, that doubt was
dispelled by the opening meeting of the Taylor-Langdon campaign. The
largest auditorium in San Francisco was packed to the doors,[333] with
citizens whose one purpose, expressed by approving cheers every time
the subject was mentioned, was support of the prosecution which had
broken up the Schmitz-Ruef organization, and which bade fair to bring to
book the corrupters of the municipal government.
The meeting was thoroughly representative. Labor touched elbows with
capital. Among the speakers were representative Labor Union leaders, who
had definitely broken with the Union Labor party.
"It is inconceivable to me," said Walter Macarthur, one of the
organizers of the Union Labor party, in a ringing address, "that any
honest thinking labor man would stand for the proposition that those men
who have debauched the officials of our city should go scot free while
the victims of their cupidity be sent behind the prison bars alone. I
believe that labor will join with all honest people in declaring that if
the corrupt bribe-taker is punished the man who is at the head of this
corruption must be punished also. That is the issue of this campaign and
I believe that election day will prove the virtue of my faith."
That the contest for the District Attorney's office overshadowed in
importance the mayoralty fight was fully recognized. The Union Labor
party, which had nominated and elected Langdon in 1905, had repudiated
him, and named Frank McGowan as Langdon's only serious opponent. The
Republicans and Democrats, who had under a fusion arrangement in 1905
opposed Langdon's election; united, in 1907, to fight for his
continuance in office. The public service corporations, especially those
whose officials were under indictment, generally opposed Mr. Langdon's
election, and supported the candidacy of his Union Labor party
opponent.
This was particularly astonishing in the case of the United Railroads,
whose president, Mr. Patrick Calhoun, was even then posing as a "labor
union buster," while the United Railroads was very effectively grinding
to pieces the San Francisco Carmen's Union.[334]
Nevertheless, there was certain consistency in the political course
taken by the United Railroads. Whatever the differences President
Calhoun, in his role as a "union buster," may have had with the labor
union, there was much in common between him and the San Francisco Union
Labor party as headed by Mr. McCarthy.[335] President Calhoun and his
company opposed the prosecution vigorously. Mr. McCarthy and his party
went quite as far in this opposition. President Calhoun was most
emphatic in his denunciation of those who had made the graft prosecution
possible. Mr. McCarthy was scarcely less emphatic in his denunciation.
Indeed, Mr. McCarthy opened his campaign with an attack upon the graft
prosecution. Inasmuch as the one issue before the people was the
continuance of the graft prosecution along the lines that had proved so
distasteful to Mr. Calhoun and those in the same predicament as himself,
the support of the Union Labor party candidate for District Attorney by
a union-labor-busting corporation was not entirely inconsistent.
And yet, Mr. McGowan, the Union Labor party candidate, definitely
pledged himself to continue the prosecution, but he promised that the
prosecution which he would carry on should not "disturb business," that
Heney[336] should no longer be retained as special prosecutor, that the
Supervisors who had confessed to bribe-giving should be prosecuted[337]
as well as those who had given bribes.
This last was one of the chief arguments advanced in support of Mr.
McGowan's candidacy. On the ground that a mistake had been made, if a
wrong had not been done, when the Supervisors were granted
immunity,[338] it was urged that Mr. Langdon should not be continued in
the District Attorney's office.
The election returns[339] were conclusive of San Francisco's attitude on
the several issues raised. Taylor was elected Mayor, with a clear
majority of 415 over all his competitors. Langdon's majority over all
competitors, including the Socialist candidate, was 13,510, his
plurality over McGowan being 14,808. And with the election of Taylor
and Langdon[340] were elected all the Good Government League candidates
for Supervisors.
The Graft Prosecution had successfully passed another crisis. It had,
too, received overwhelming endorsement of The People at the polls.
FOOTNOTES:
[320] The outcome of the Republican primaries was looked upon as a
victory for good government. Said the Call, in discussing the
returns: "Two things stand out prominently in the returns of
the primary elections yesterday. One is that the Republicans
of San Francisco have had enough of Herrin. The other is that
they have not had enough of the graft prosecution. The victory
for decency and for the independence of the party from the
thralldom in which Herrin has so long held it for the use and
benefit of the Southern Pacific was complete, with a vote
large enough to make it plain to Herrin and to the interests
exposed and to be exposed in the debauchery of public servants
that they must look elsewhere than to the Republicans of San
Francisco for the old corrupt conditions. The Call takes to
itself credit for some share in the accomplishment of this
good work. It was this paper that spoiled Herrin's infamous
apportionment scheme by which he planned to fill the burned
district with his dummies and thus control the municipal
convention. It was this paper that began and carried on to the
last moment a vigorous campaign in behalf of the decent
element of the Republican party, whose leadership was in the
capable and clean hands of Daniel A. Ryan. The Call has no
candidates. It wants only honest, capable independent men. It
made this winning fight because it wanted a clean government
for San Francisco and because it wanted the graft prosecution
carried out to the end."
[321] The primary vote was the largest up to that time cast in San
Francisco. It was as follows:
Anti-Herrin (Ryan) Republican 8,116
Herrin Republicans 3,207
Irregular Republicans 1,549
Regular Democratic 2,438
Byington, Democratic 1,081
McCarthy, Union Labor 3,655
Macarthur, Union Labor 2,197
[322] On the eve of the primary election, P. H. McCarthy, leader of
the anti-Prosecution faction of the Union Labor party, issued
a warning to union men In which he said: "Too much caution
cannot be exercised by you, nor too much diligence displayed
in order to protect your rights at the polls today. One of the
most cunning, deceptive and vicious attacks ever made on
organized labor in this city is now being launched in order
that your wages may be cut and your working hours increased to
suit the millionaires in this city. To do so, those
millionaires have drawn to their side by what force we are
unable to say, certain labor men (Walter Macarthur and his
associates) with a view to shuffling, confusing and thoroughly
misleading the labor union voters and their sympathizers in
this city."
[323] Many Ryan Republican district tickets contained the following
printed statement:
"The candidates on this ticket are pledged to use all their
influence in the convention to secure the nomination of a
ticket of capable men and hope that they will be indorsed by
the conventions of all parties. They do not care who these men
may be, but will vote for no man who can be suspected of
peddling offices or jobs in return for support. They do not
desire nor expect for themselves or for their friends any
offices or jobs. No candidate on this ticket has ever sought
or held a political office or job. The candidates on this
ticket have all accepted the pledge of the Regular Republican
League. Daniel A. Ryan, chairman; Perry H. Newberry,
secretary."
[324] The Examiner, in its issue of September 19, 1907, in
discussing Mr. Ryan's proposed candidacy said: "It is
generally understood that Mr. Dan Ryan proposes to nominate
himself as the Republican candidate for Mayor of San
Francisco. That he has the power to do this thing is one of
the curiosities of our political system.
"The theory is that the delegates to a convention represent
that part of the public which marches under the political
banner of a political party. But Mr. Ryan evidently considers
that the delegates to the Republican convention were chosen to
advance his personal political ambitions.
"The people do not mean that the accidental leaders of a
primary fight should put the offices in their own pockets.
"They elect delegates as agents to select candidates from among
the people. The delegates are the bearers of a trust and
neither they nor the man who happens to captain them in the
scramble between factions has a right to appropriate the
nominations.
"The trust is not fulfilled if the primary leader assumes that
because the people elected his primary ticket they want him in
office. They don't want him, for they don't want primary
politicians in the Mayor's chair.
"The theory of any convention is that it is assembled to choose
the best man in the party for its candidate. The spectacle of
Mr. Dan Ryan holding a caucus with himself, and deciding that
he is better qualified to be Mayor of San Francisco than any
other man in the Republican party, is a grotesque piece of
effrontery.
"All sorts of men rise to the top in primary fights, but most
of them have a sufficient sense of modesty, if not of the
fitness of things, to abstain from making themselves the
recipients of what the delegates have to give.
"For the primary leader to appropriate the office to himself Is
like the agent of a charity fund determining that he is the
most worthy object of the charity and putting the money in his
own pocket."
[325] It was anything to defeat Langdon, even though a
pro-prosecution attorney be employed against him. Hiram W.
Johnson, for example, was suggested as his opponent. But
Johnson let it be understood, and with characteristic
positiveness, that under no considerations would he be a
candidate against Langdon.
[326] The members of the Good Government League Executive Committee
were: E. L. Baldwin, J. E. Cutten, George Renner, Gen. Samuel
W. Backus, George R. Fletcher, Sigmund Bauer, B. H. Gurnette,
Frank W. Marvin, Frank W. Gale, L. C. McAfee, George Uhl, Rev.
Chas. N. Lathrop, Isidor Jacobs, Rudolph Spreckels, Edgar A.
Mathews.
[327] The minority which voted for Taylor, in a memorial to the
convention, charged "that the majority of the delegates to
this convention have betrayed the confidence reposed in them
by their constituents" and gave notice that it would not be
bound by the nomination of the convention for Mayor and would
not support the nominee, but would do all in its power to
further the election of Dr. Edward R. Taylor.
[328] The Union Labor party convention also had its sensations.
Thomas F. Eagan, for example, and his followers bolted the
convention because of McCarthy's nomination. The Carmen's
Union refused to accept the Union Labor party ticket because
Langdon had not been nominated for District Attorney.
[329] Heney, on the eve of election, in reply to McGowan's argument
that the bribe-takers should be prosecuted, effectively
answered this contention. Heney's communication read: "To
Frank McGowan, Esq. Sir: You are reported by the newspapers as
having stated that you will prosecute the boodling Supervisors
and that you will also prosecute Patrick Calhoun and the other
rich bribers, and that you will grant immunity to no one. I
invite you to answer specifically the following questions
either in the newspapers or the next time you make a public
speech:
"1. If you prosecute Supervisor Lonergan (or any other
Supervisor) for accepting a bribe to influence his vote in the
matter of the trolley franchise, what witness, or witnesses,
will you call to prove that he accepted the bribe?
"2. Every child in town now knows that if Lonergan received the
money at all it was from Supervisor Gallagher. Will you prove
the fact by Gallagher? If you call Gallagher as a witness, how
do you expect to induce him to testify without granting him
Immunity?
"3. When you prosecute James L. Gallagher for giving a bribe to
Tom Lonergan or to any other Supervisor to influence his vote
on the trolley franchise matter, by what witness or witnesses,
will you prove that Gallagher paid the money to Lonergan or to
any other Supervisor? Will you call Lonergan or any other
Supervisor as a witness, and when you call him, how will you
induce him to testify without granting him immunity?
"4. By what witness do you expect to convict Gallagher of
giving a bribe, or Tom Lonergan, or any other Supervisor of
accepting a bribe in the matter of fixing the gas rate, or in
the Home Telephone Company franchise matter?
"5. If you prosecute Ruef for giving money to Gallagher to
distribute to the Supervisors to influence their vote on the
trolley franchise, by what witness, or witnesses, will you
prove that Ruef gave the money to Gallagher? Will you put
Gallagher on the stand to prove it, and if so, how will you
induce him to testify without granting him immunity? Will you
put Ford on the stand to prove that he gave the money to Ruef,
and if so, how will you get him to testify without giving him
immunity? Will you put Fat Calhoun on the stand to prove that
he gave the money to Ford to give Ruef to give to the
Supervisors, and if so, how will you induce Pat to testify
without giving him immunity?
"6. You say that you will prosecute Patrick Calhoun for bribing
the Supervisors to influence their votes in the matter of the
trolley franchise. By what witnesses will you prove that the
money was given to Gallagher or to any of the other Supervisors
to influence their votes in this matter? Will you prove by Ford
that he gave the money to Ruef, and if so, how will you induce
Ford to testify without giving him immunity? Will you prove by
Ruef that he gave the money to Gallagher to distribute to the
other Supervisors, and if so, how will you prove it by
Gallagher without giving him immunity? Will you prove by the
other Supervisors that they received money from Gallagher, and
if so, how will you induce each of them to testify without
giving each of them immunity?
"7. Will you prosecute Frank G. Drum and the other officials of
the gas company for bribing the Supervisors for fixing the gas
rates, and if so, how will you prove that the money was paid
without granting immunity to Ruef and to some or all of the
Supervisors?
"8. Will you prosecute A. K. Detweiler for bribing the
Supervisors in the Home Telephone franchise matter, and if so,
how will you prove your case against him without granting
immunity to Ruef and to some or all of the members of the Board
of Supervisors?
"9. Can jurisdiction be conferred on a court by consent, and if
so, how could you proceed with the Ford trial on a legal
holiday?
"10. If you found it necessary to grant immunity to either the
bribe-taker or the bribe-giver in the trolley franchise matter
to prevent an utter failure of justice and the escape of both
the bribe-takers and the bribe-givers, to which side will you
recommend the granting of immunity by the court? Will you
prosecute the friendless, insignificant Supervisors and grant
immunity to ex-Attorney-General Tirey L. Ford and his employer,
Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads of San
Francisco, or will you recommend that the court shall grant
immunity to the friendless and insignificant Supervisors in
order to convict the rich, powerful and influential Patrick
Calhoun and his general counsel, Tirey L. Ford?
"Yours, etc., FRANCIS J. HENEY."
[330] The Republican convention "pledged its party and its nominees
to assist and continue the vigorous prosecution of all persons
guilty of crime, in whatever walk of life, high or low, in San
Francisco," and "to incessant and energetic war on graft in
every form, to the end that this plague may be exterminated
from the body politic."
The Union Labor plank on the Graft Prosecution was as follows:
"We demand the punishment of all offenders against the law,
and we pledge our nominee for District Attorney to prosecute
vigorously all bribers, boodlers and grafters without
distinction, and particularly do we pledge him to prosecute
those public officials, confessed criminals, who have been
guilty of the greatest crime in the city's history, but who
have been permitted to go unwhipped of justice, and to remain
outside the walls of the penitentiary behind which they should
now be imprisoned. We further pledge our nominee for District
Attorney to abolish private prisons, wholesale 'immunity
baths,' and all other institutions created for the benefit and
protection of criminals."
The Democratic Graft Prosecution plank read: "We commend the
work of the prosecution, which has removed from public office
criminals who have dishonored and debauched our city and has
secured convictions that must be forever a warning to official
wrongdoers and those who participate with them in crime; and we
pledge our support to the prosecution in any effort it may make
to convict any guilty person."
[331] "There never would have been doubt anywhere about Taylor's
successor," said the Call In its issue of November 5, "if it
had not been for the grossly selfish and unpatriotic course of
Daniel A. Ryan. The one possibility of McCarthy's election was
opened to him by Ryan. Failing of other support, Ryan turned
renegade to all his party professions and went into an
infamous alliance with that arch enemy of Republicanism,
Hearst. For four weeks he has been scrambling for votes....
Ryan has fully revealed himself as a cheap politician itching
for office. He has boasted of his youth, and yet he was the
first of the candidates to break down and go to bed. He has
declaimed about his own honesty, until his voice is in tatters
and has filled the air with promises of what he would do if
elected. Never has he explained or attempted to explain the
nature of those 'certain concessions' that led him to nominate
himself, although he knew that in so doing he was Jeopardizing
the future of his city."
[332] Said the Chronicle of Mr. Ryan's candidacy in its issue of
October 3, 1907: "The Chronicle has neither apologies nor
regrets for urging its readers to support the Regular
Republican League movement headed by Daniel A. Ryan. We
believed at the time, as others believed, that Mr. Ryan's sole
desire was good government for San Francisco and that such
desire was unsmirched by personal ambition. General confidence
in the sincerity of Mr. Ryan and his associates led to the
triumphant election of the delegates to the Republican
convention named and approved by Mr. Ryan, which was accepted
throughout the country as evidence that the people of San
Francisco were sound at heart.
"When we urged the public to support the Ryan primary tickets,
we did so, not in the interest of Mr. Ryan, but in the
interest of good government. We considered Mr. Ryan in the
light of a useful and public-spirited citizen, upon whom, in
due time, the people would delight to confer official honors
should he be willing to accept them. Those who voted the Ryan
ticket at the primaries did not vote for Mr. Ryan, but for the
cause which he championed. As for considering him a candidate
for Mayor, nobody thought of it. It is no disparagement to a
young man like Mr. Ryan to say that as yet he has no such
standing in the community as justifies him in aspiring to such
an honor."
In its issue of October 5 the Chronicle said: "The moral
collapse of Daniel A. Ryan is deeply regretted by every lover
of San Francisco. It is not a matter of the rise or fall of one
man. It is a question of whether the people will ever again
trust any man who appears as a leader of reform. Few men ever
get such an opportunity as Mr. Ryan has thrown away. Doubtless
the lesson is for the people never again to trust an unknown
man. It is not too much to ask of any aspirant to leadership on
an important scale that he shall have some record of honorable
achievement of some kind as an earnest of what to expect of him
should the confidence reposed in him place him in a position of
power."
[333] The Call, in speaking of the Taylor-Langdon meeting said:
"Young Mr. Ryan ought to have been at that meeting. We have
nothing against Mr. Ryan except that he is not the man of the
hour. We shall not even reproach him with his youth. That is
not his fault and he will get over that. But he is not the man
of the hour. The people have said it. Mr. Ryan embodies no
principle. To the people of San Francisco he means nothing in
particular at this critical time. He might have read that
message in the mighty roar that went up from the meeting in
welcome of Dr. Taylor. Mayor Taylor stands for something,
stands for much. Mr. Ryan has only his own ambition and a
certain command of language."
[334] The San Francisco Call, in its issue of November 5, charged
that orders had gone out from the United Railroads to "vote
for McCarthy and the Union Labor ticket--straight." In the
cars of the United Railroads appeared dodgers which read:
"Workingmen. Workingmen--Are you going to put a big stick into
Spreckels' hands to club you over the head with?"
[335] The same is true of the Los Angeles Times, which has a
national reputation as an opponent of organized labor. The
Times, while at issue with Mr. McCarthy on the question of the
desirability of unions, was scarcely less vehement than he in
denunciation of the San Francisco graft prosecution.
[336] One of the allegations made against Heney was that he would
not prosecute Patrick Calhoun, because Heney's brother-in-law
was employed by Calhoun as a detective. This argument was
intended to weaken Heney and the prosecution with the union
element that Calhoun was endeavoring to crush.
[337] In a political advertisement which appeared in the San
Francisco Call November 3, 1907, Mr. McGowan said: "If elected
District Attorney I will prosecute every man accused of crime,
regardless of his position in life. I will continue the
present graft prosecution with more vigor, and the District
Attorney's office will not be used for politics, nor to
disturb business. I will be the District Attorney in law and
in fact, and I will never allow any man or set of men to
control the office for any purpose. I will honorably enforce
the law without the aid of any millionaire's money."
[338] Langdon, at the opening of the Republican campaign, took up
the question of the prosecution's policy in granting immunity
to the Supervisors. He said:
"In this prosecution we have tried to be practical, to be
effective. What would you have said if we had made a scapegoat
of a petty criminal and let the giants go? What would you have
said if in all this graft and corruption we had arrested and
jailed two or three obscure Supervisors you had never heard of
before they came to office, and will never hear of them again
now that they are retired to private life, and had let escape
the giants in crime?
"There have been graft exposures before in the history of
American municipalities and the graft has gone on. And it was
bound to go on so long as the prosecutions failed to stop the
sources of evil, to gather into the fold of the penitentiary
the corrupt men of business and the corrupt political leaders
who have dared to use weak men for their own ends. These giants
in crime are perfectly willing that the physical life of the
weak men they use shall be fed into the jails of the State to
appease public wrath exactly as they have been willing to use
up the moral life of these men to satisfy their own greedy
needs in the Board of Supervisors. Profiting by the mistakes of
previous prosecutions, this office has struck straight at the
very roots of public graft: at the crooked public service
corporations; but which of the criminals were to be allowed to
give evidence for the State and enjoy its alluring protection;
the giants of crime who have always been most responsible and
who have always escaped or the petty, miserable fellows who
have entered upon these things through ignorance and weakness?
"Immunity had to be given in order that crime might be punished
and it was given to the Supervisors that the very tap roots of
political corruption might be torn from the soil in which they
thrived. We did it because this prosecution has a moral as well
as a legal significance. It is time to stop the cynicism of
common men when they view democracy and say it is for the
powerful and the rich: that the poor must go to jail for the
theft of bread and the rich escape for the theft of privilege,
the purchase of men's souls and the degradation of government.
It is time to stop the brazen and confident effrontery of the
irresponsible criminal rich, who commit crimes and rest back,
thinking they can buy judges as they bought legislators and
executives, and knowing they can buy legal talent to interpose
every technicality in every courtroom until justice is a human
travesty tangled in its own web.
"We are after the 'men higher up' because they are the severest
menace to our institutions, the enduring factors that program
and bribe each Board of Supervisors as they come and go. We are
after the 'men higher up' so as to make criminal acquisition
unprofitable in terms of human desire. We are after the 'men
higher up' so that young men and women growing up in this and
other communities will once more believe with ardent fervor not
only that dishonesty does not pay, but that of all the goods on
this earth the greatest treasure is a straightforward life."
[339] The vote for Mayor and for District Attorney was as follows:
For Mayor--
Taylor 28,766
Ryan 9,255
McCarthy 17,583
Reguin (Soc.) 1,503
For District Attorney--
Langdon 34,923
McGowan 20,115
Kirk (Soc.) 1,298
[340] In commenting upon the outcome of the election, the Examiner,
in its issue of November 6, said: "And this revolt of union
labor against misrepresentation in office began long ago.
Before the primaries, when most of the registering was done,
it was observed that the number of Republicans recorded was
far in excess of the adherents of union labor. The story was
told then. Disgusted with the dishonesty of the men they had
placed in office, finding the local Democratic party a mere
memory, they registered as Republicans because they were
determined to vote against the representatives of Ruef and
Schmitz who had captured their organization.
"Langdon's majority will surprise no one. His election was a
matter of course, for union labor, like all other decent
elements in the community, was determined to sustain the
prosecution of the grafters.
"The swing of union labor to Taylor will surprise the gentlemen
who have been so fond of assuming that the working people would
vote as a class regardless of principle. The fact that they set
aside all class feeling, all personal preference, and rolled up
a big majority in favor of the man considered most likely to
defeat the zebra-striped bandits who had captured their
organization proves that government in America is safe in the
hands of the plain people.
"It is union labor, and union labor chiefly, which has saved
San Francisco from McCarthy and McGowan."
"Yesterday," said the Chronicle the morning after the election,
"was a great day for San Francisco. It was the turn of the
tide. It was the beginning of the ascent to nobler ideals and
better days. The passions of the conflict will soon die away.
With an honest government assured, capital will not shun us but
seek us. And we can look back on the events of the last six
years as we remember a nightmare from which we awake to find
ourselves in security and peace."
"The indicted bribe-givers," said the Call, "may as well make
up their minds that there is no way of escape for them except
through trial and by the verdicts of the juries. The people
have spoken and they have said that the clean-up must be
thorough. The sweeping success of Langdon means that the
prosecution of the grafters will be pressed to its fitting
conclusion upon the facts and under the law. There need be no
delay now. Soon all the cases should be settled and another
chapter added to the history of San Francisco--a chapter in
which will have been written the means, the manner and the
fullness of our atonement for Schmitz-Ruef chapter just before
it, the vindication of the city's good name."