Then again, the corporations involved in the scandals, have a heritage

from the graft defense which seems destined to bring confusion upon them

at every turn of their development. Late in 1912, for example, a year

and a half after the trolley-graft indictments were dismissed, the

United Railroads attempted readjustment of its bonded indebtedness. This

could be done only with the consent of the State Railroad Commission.

The Commission, willing to allow any proper adjustment upon competent

showing, asked that the corporation's books be produced. The books had,

during the days of the prosecution, been sent out of the State. The

United Railroads could not produce the books, and consent to its

petition to readjust its financial affairs was withheld until the books

should be forthcoming. Unofficial assurance was given officials of the

corporation that investigation would not be made of its graft defense

expenditures,[493] nor of any expenditures involved in the scandal of

the alleged bribe-giving. But apparently even this assurance did not

satisfy those connected with the United Railroads whose reputations, at

least, were at stake.[494] The company's books were not opened for the

Commission's inspection.

By far the greatest sufferer from the graft defense was San Francisco.

Here it was demonstrated that even with a District Attorney intent upon

the discharge of his sworn duty, with upright trial judges on the bench,

the machinery of the criminal law broke down when men with practically

unlimited means were brought to bar. To accomplish this required a four

years' contest, in which community resistance to political corruption was

overcome, the people misled, their minds poisoned against that which is

wholesome, and made tolerant of that which is base and bad.

The unhappy effects of this are just beginning to be understood. The

evil of the graft defense will live long in San Francisco after the

dismissal of the indictments. Four years after the defeat of the Graft

Prosecution, Referendum petitions against State laws have been forged in

San Francisco, and the laws, which had been passed by the State

Legislature and signed by the Governor, have been delayed from going

into effect for nearly two years, because of the forgeries. And yet,

although the forgers are known, their prosecution, except in one

instance, has not even been attempted. Governor Johnson has called the

attention of the Attorney-General of the State to this condition, and

has urged him to undertake the prosecution of these forgery cases.

Tenderloin interests at San Francisco now indicate even greater power in

the community than they exerted during the worst days of Ruef-Schmitz

regime. The same is in a measure true of the public service

corporations.

When District Attorney Langdon announced in 1906 that public-spirited

citizens would assist in meeting the expenses of running to earth the

corruptionists that had San Francisco by the throat, prospect of

law-enforcement through the regular channels was welcomed, and ugly talk

of lynch-law prevalent at the time, ceased. The success of the graft

defense meant that the efforts to reach the corrupters of the municipal

government through the courts had failed. San Francisco was beaten. In

the community's present inability to protect itself against the

encroachments of the public service corporations, and to correct vice

conditions which are far worse than in the worst days of the

Schmitz-Ruef regime, the effects of that beating are seen. San Francisco

will be long in recovering from the effects of her defeat. Because of

the results of it, she finds herself handicapped in her race for Pacific

Coast supremacy with Los Angeles, Seattle and even Oakland. And the

prospects are at the close of the year 1914, that the burden of this

handicap will be increased before it is diminished. In the old days an

invading army conquered a city and sacked it. The System conquered San

Francisco and is exploiting it.

The defeat of the graft prosecution was a defeat for San Francisco

alone. It was not a defeat for the State of California.

The evil influence of the graft defense did not reach beyond the

metropolis. On the contrary, the success of the defense uncovered for

the whole State the actual political conditions under which all

California was laboring.

The registration of 47,945 Republicans at San Francisco to defeat Heney

at the primaries, and the Republican vote of 13,766 at the final

election, demonstrated the emptiness of partisan pretense. One of the

immediate results was a uniting of all good citizens regardless of

political affiliations for good government, and Hiram W. Johnson,

Heney's associate in the graft trials, was in 1910, elected Governor of

California. Four years later, James D. Phelan, Rudolph Spreckels's

associate in financing the graft prosecution, was elected United States

Senator from California, while Judge Lawlor was that year elected to the

State Supreme Bench. Judge Dunne was in 1914 re-elected to the Superior

Bench to serve until 1920.

Decisions from the higher courts--to the lay mind astonishing; to

authorities on questions of law, vicious and unwarranted--which set free

men who had been convicted of dangerous felonies; scandals which grew

out of these decisions; the public's demonstrated helplessness against

them, aroused the State. By overwhelming vote California added to her

Constitution a provision under which The People may by direct vote

remove a corrupt or incompetent judge from the bench.

The public had assumed that men trapped in bribe-giving would be

measured by a fixed rule of the law, and their proper punishment in due

course be meted out to them. That anything else could be had not

occurred to the average citizen.

But the astonishing performances at the graft trials, the extraordinary

anti-prosecution publicity campaign, and, finally, the amazing technical

defense, and the failure of the graft defendants to take the stand and

manfully deny under oath the charges brought against them, opened the

eyes of the public to the fact that the methods of criminal procedure

were sadly inadequate.

And the further fact was emphasized that while the weak points in the

methods of bringing an offender to punishment could be used to advantage

by the rich man, they were unavailable to the man without the means to

employ a lawyer to present the technicalities governing his case.

Out of this conviction, came agitation for reform of the methods of

criminal procedure. An elaborate plan for such reform was presented to

the 1909 Legislature.[495] But the machine element controlled the

committee organization of both houses, and the measures were defeated.

At the 1911 session of the Legislature, after Johnson had been elected

Governor, measures for the reform of the criminal procedure similar to

those defeated by indirection at the 1909 session, were introduced. Many

of them became laws. But, unfortunately, certain labor leaders were made

to believe that the measures were aimed at Labor. This led to

opposition which resulted in the defeat of several of the proposed

reforms.

One important constitutional amendment was, however, presented to the

people that goes far toward correcting the abuses which attended the

graft trials. This amendment provides that "no judgment shall be set

aside, or new trial granted in any criminal case on the ground of

misdirection of the jury or the improper admission or rejection of

evidence, or for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure,

unless, after an examination of the entire cause including the evidence,

the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has

resulted in a miscarriage of justice."

Not a vote was cast against this amendment in either house of the

Legislature. The feeling against the use of trifling technicalities for

the release of convicted criminals which the graft cases had displayed

so glaringly, was shown in the popular vote on this amendment; 195,449

voted for the amendment, while only 53,958 voted against it.[496]

The San Francisco graft prosecution succeeded in sending but one of the

corrupters of the municipal government to State prison. He, too, would

in all probability have escaped imprisonment but for the absence from

the State of a single member of the Supreme Court at a critical moment.

But the graft prosecution did something infinitely more important than

the sending of a few corruptionists to cell and stripes. It awakened a

State to its helplessness against a corrupt system. The People arose in

rebellion against the "System," and is laboring to throw the "System"

off.

In 1910 and 1911 a political revolution was worked in California.

But the revolution had its beginning back in 1906, when Rudolph

Spreckels guaranteed the expenses of the prosecution of the corrupters

of the municipal government of San Francisco, and Francis J. Heney, as

his share in the campaign, pledged his services.

Had there been no San Francisco graft prosecution, there would, in 1910,

have been no successful political uprising in California. Hiram W.

Johnson would not have been a candidate for Governor. The accomplished

reforms which are the boast of the State, and the models which other

States are adopting, would still be the unrealized dreams of

"reformers." The "System" would still be in the saddle.

The graft defense has left its mark of ill upon San Francisco. That city

has borne the brunt of the injury because of it.

The graft prosecution, by forcing the "System" out in the open, where

all its power for evil can be seen, worked California inestimable good.

And here, San Francisco, in common with the whole State, gains also.

FOOTNOTES:

[491] The San Francisco Argonaut, one of the principal apologists

for the Graft Defense, in its issue of November 23, 1912, said

of the suggestion of Mr. Phelan's name for the cabinet:

"Ex-Mayor Phelan, of San Francisco, would be in line for

cabinet honors if our local war of the roses were not so

recent and if its unfragrant memories and resentments could be

set aside. But this is not yet."

[492] The Fresno Republican in its issue of December 7, 1912, pays

the following tribute to the graft defense's "get-together"

plans:

"They are going to hold a 'burn the hammer' celebration in San

Francisco on New Year's eve, for the cremation of knocking.

"It is a good idea, and one worth going the limit on. By all

means, burn the hammers! But the only effectual way to get that

done is for each fellow to burn his own. Unfortunately, when we

begin knocking the knockers, the hammer we are after is usually

the one with which the other fellow knocks us. There is no

boosting way to dispose of the other fellow's hammer. If we go

after it, we knock it, to the further multiplication of

knocking. But if we begin at the other end, with our own

hammer, that is real boosting. Besides, it gets the thing done.

What we do to the other fellow's hammer may not succeed, and if

it does, it is merely more knocking. But when we burn or bury

our own, then we know that at least our part of the knocking is

ended.

"The purpose of the 'burn the hammer,' or 'get-together,' is,

of course, to bridge the breach left by the Graft Prosecutions.

And to this end we suggest that----

"The higher-ups of the Pacific Union Club give a dinner at

which Francis J. Heney and Rudolph Spreckels are the guests of

honor.

"The directors of the Panama-Pacific Exposition elect James D.

Phelan one of their number.

"William H. Crocker give a reception to such members of the

Oliver grand jury as have survived the boycott.

"The San Francisco Post issue a congratulatory edition,

commending the achievements of Governor Johnson's

administration.

"Patrick Calhoun offer to take Abe Ruef's place in San Quentin

for a year, and for alternate years hereafter, until they shall

both be purged or pardoned of their joint guilt.

"These suggestions are all purposely addressed to the side

which is most clamorous for 'getting together.' Since they

shout the loudest for 'harmony,' presumably they are the ones

who want it. The way to get it is first to put away their own

implements of discord. And no better pledges of intent to do

this could be conceived than are contained in the suggestions

here offered."

[493] The machine-free press of the State, however, openly insisted

that it would be a good thing if full publicity of the United

Railroads expenditures could be had.

"What the missing books might contain of an interesting sort,"

said The Sacramento Bee in discussing the incident, "may be

gathered from a 'list of expenses' submitted by Calhoun in

lieu of the books, including an item of $314,000 to Patrick

Calhoun for 'services rendered.'

"The character of these 'services' may be surmised by anybody

familiar with the history of the recent bribery and Graft

Prosecutions in San Francisco. But surely the public and the

stockholders and creditors of the United Railroads are entitled

to specifications.

"It is largely that corporations may not bribe in secure

secrecy, or otherwise commit criminal acts without detection,

that the Progressive states are bringing them under strict

regulation and inspection by proper authority."

[494] The Railroad Commission of California, in its Decision 1536,

made May 22, 1914, held "that the methods pursued by the

former officials of applicant in handling the funds in their

care amounts to nothing more than a fraud, not only upon the

public forced to use an inadequate and unserviceable system,

but upon the bond and note holders of such company."

Of one transaction, in which President Calhoun was permitted

to take $1,096,000 of the company's funds, which it was

claimed he had invested in a land project in Solano, in which

Mr. Calhoun was interested, the Commission said:

"No proof was made to this Commission that any part of this

money was actually invested in the so-called Solano project,

but we are confronted by the fact that Mr. Calhoun, under

authority of the board of directors, and ratified by the

stockholders, took from the treasury of applicant $1,096,000,

and whether he invested it in the Solano project or not is

unimportant in the consideration of this railroad company as a

public utility.

"It seems that upon the taking of office by Mr. Jesse

Lilienthal, the present president of the railroad company, Mr.

Calhoun was forced to execute a promissory note for $1,096,000,

payable one day after date, in favor of the railroad company,

secured by stock of the Solano project; but the judgment of the

value of this promissory note is perhaps best indicated by the

fact that Mr. Lilienthal immediately wrote this note down in

the books of the company as of a value of $1.00.

"We hesitate to put in words a proper characterization of this

transaction. In plain terms, Mr. Calhoun took from the funds of

this public utility corporation over $1,000,000, when every

available dollar was sorely needed properly to increase the

facilities of this company so as to serve the community of San

Francisco, and at a time when this same company was urging upon

this Commission the necessity of issuing further bonds to pay

off maturing obligations, and also at a time when admittedly

the outstanding obligations could not be paid at maturity by

approximately $20,000,000."

This enormous sum had been taken in gold at various times,

ranging in amounts from $250 to $85,000.

[495] These measures are described in "The Story of the California

Legislature of 1909." The methods employed to defeat them were

told in detail. See chapter "Defeat of the Commonwealth Club

Bills."

[496] Under the provisions of measures which became laws at the 1911

session, it is held that it will be impossible hereafter to put

grand jurors on trial as was done in the San Francisco graft

cases. Hereafter, too, an indictment or information may be

amended by the District Attorney without leave of the Court at

any time before the defendant pleads; and at any time

thereafter in the discretion of the Court where it can be done

without prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant.

Another measure takes from a witness his privilege of refusing

to give testimony on the grounds that it may incriminate him.

The witness is safeguarded, however, by a provision that he

shall not be liable thereafter to prosecution nor punishment

with respect to the offense regarding which such testimony is

given.

APPENDIX

JUDGE LAWLOR'S RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS GRAFT CASES, AUGUST 3, 1910.

On April 25th, 1910, an application was made by Patrick Calhoun, Tirey

L. Ford, Thornwell Mullally and William M. Abbott to dismiss the

indictments against them. The application is before the Court at this

time for consideration.

When the defendants pleaded not guilty they exercised their statutory

right and each demanded severance from each other and from their

co-defendants, Abraham Ruef and Eugene E. Schmitz. (Sec. 1098 Penal

Code.) There have been five trials--three of Tirey L. Ford and one each

of Abraham Ruef and Patrick Calhoun.

The second trial of Patrick Calhoun was commenced on July 19th, 1909

(case No. 1437). Owing to the illness of one of his counsel the trial

was suspended on August 16th, 1909, and resumed on September 30th, 1909.

On the following day the trial was ordered continued until November

15th, 1909, on motion of the defendant, upon the ground of the pendency

of a municipal campaign.

On January 8th, 1910, Mr. Charles M. Fickert assumed the office of

District Attorney.

On February 7th, 1910, the District Attorney moved the Court to dismiss

the remaining charges against these defendants (Sec. 1385 Penal Code),

which motion was by the Court ordered denied. (Sec. 7, Art. I, and Sec.

19, Art. VI of the Constitution; Secs. 1041, 1042, 1126, 1385, 1386 and

1387 Penal Code.)

On February 14th, 1910, the parties announced that they were ready to

resume the trial in case No. 1437 against Patrick Calhoun, but the Court

continued the case for trial until February 17th, 1910. On the last

named day the cause was ordered continued for trial until April 25th,

1910.

On April 25th, 1910, the four defendants interposed a motion to dismiss

the remaining indictments against them. The further hearing of the

motion was continued until July 29th, 1910. On the latter day the causes

were continued until this time.

Two things are chiefly responsible for the Court's action in respect to

the remaining indictments since the District Attorney moved to dismiss

them on February 7th, 1910--first, the Court's apprehensions based on

the declared attitude of the said District Attorney toward the remaining

indictments, and, second, the absence from the State of James L.

Gallagher, a material and indispensable witness in the said causes. The

second reason will now be considered.

It was the theory of the People in the five trials referred to that

Abraham Ruef represented the defendants in the alleged bribery of the

members of the Board of Supervisors, and that James L. Gallagher, one of

its members, in turn represented Abraham Ruef in the transactions. In

this way the Court is able to determine that the testimony of this

witness is material, and now holds, as a matter of law, that unless

additional testimony is produced, it is indispensable to the

establishment of the res gestae.

In the early part of December, 1909, it became known that the witness

had departed from the State. Up to the present time it has not been

shown whether he had been formally subpoenaed or was otherwise under the

authority of the Court to appear as a witness in the trials of the

remaining indictments. If he is subject to the authority of the Court in

any of these cases his absence would constitute a criminal contempt, and

he could be extradited from any other State having provisions of law

similar to those of this State. (Sub. 4, Sec. 166, and Sec. 1548 Penal

Code.)

In this connection it may be proper to point out that practically ever

since issue was joined on these indictments they have been on the

calendar for trial, and that during the trials referred to the cases not

actually on trial were from time to time called and the witnesses

admonished by the Court to appear on the deferred date. But it has not

been ascertained whether on this manner the missing witness has been so

admonished to appear so far as the remaining indictments are concerned.

In the month of January, 1910, the Court directed that all persons who

could give testimony concerning the absence of the witness be

subpoenaed. On January 24th, 1910, the first hearing was had, and on

several occasions thereafter witnesses have been orally examined on the

subject. From this oral testimony it is difficult to determine the

intentions of the witness concerning his departure from and his return

to the State. It seems that in the latter part of November, 1909, he

left for Europe, accompanied by his wife. Robert F. Gallagher, a brother

of the witness, testified in effect that the witness never stated he

intended to absent himself as a witness in the graft cases and made no

suggestion of that nature; that he, Robert F. Gallagher, gained no such

impression from anything he did say, except that it was a disagreeable

situation for him to be a witness; and that their talk proceeded along

the line that there was not going to be any future trial in the graft

prosecution. This brother testified further:

"He did state on one occasion something to the effect that Burns had

disappeared and that Heney had disappeared and that there wasn't any

prosecution; that the incoming District Attorney would not certainly be

in earnest in the prosecution."

Other witnesses testified to a variety of facts touching the departure

of the witness from San Francisco and his declarations on the general

subject. Dr. Alexander Warner gave testimony to the effect that he went

to Europe on an Atlantic steamer with the witness and his wife. Thomas

J. Gallagher, another brother, among other things quoted the witness to

the effect that he was going to Europe, that he might settle in an

eastern State, that he made no secret of his purpose, and that William

J. Burns, special agent of the former administration in the District

Attorney's office, knew of his intention to leave. Nothing definite

appears in the oral showing concerning his intentions on the subject of

his return, and so far as that showing is concerned the point is more or

less involved in conjecture. But on July 29th, 1910, Frederick L. Berry,

the Assistant District Attorney, assigned to this department of the

Court, filed an affidavit embodying clippings from the local newspapers

of the previous month, which state that the witness was, at the time the

articles were written, in Vancouver, B. C. From these clippings it

appears that the witness intended to permanently locate in Vancouver.

The only tangible evidence from the witness himself, however, is found

in his letter to Thomas J. Gallagher under date of June 29th, 1910, in

which this excerpt appears:

"In reply to your inquiry I cannot state when I shall return to San

Francisco, if at all. I may remain here."

In my judgment a review of the showing up to this time leads to the

inference that the witness left this jurisdiction and is remaining away

because of some form of understanding or agreement. The circumstances

under which he left California clearly show that he was acting

guardedly, notwithstanding the testimony, which there is no reason to

doubt, that he informed several persons of his intention to take a trip.

When the quoted statement of Robert F. Gallagher was first made I was

disposed to assume that the witness left the State principally because

he believed the prosecution was at an end, and that he made his plans

quietly so that the step would not occasion comment. In other words,

that he did not believe there would be any further attempt to prosecute

the so-called graft cases. But from a study of the entire showing I

cannot adhere to that theory. I repeat that up to the time his presence

was discovered in Vancouver, the showing was uncertain as to whether he

really intended to return to California, and if so, when he would

return. It was to be seen that the action of the Court would be

influenced by this uncertainty, so when the exigencies of the situation

called for a definite showing as to the witness' intentions, he seems to

suddenly appear in Vancouver, where, under the treaty conditions, he

would be safe from extradition, and is promptly discovered by the

reporter of a New York paper. In the clippings his quoted statements on

the subject of his intentions are unequivocal. He is to make his home in

Vancouver. But his personal communication to Thomas J. Gallagher,

already referred to, which he probably realized would be produced in

Court, is significant in tenor and he is apparently less certain of his

intentions. This would tend to make his future action consistent should

he hereafter return to California. From the entire showing I do not

entertain any serious doubt as to what his real purpose is. I am

inclined to believe that when the necessity for his presence as a

witness has passed he will return. To entertain any other view, or be in

serious doubt on the point, is to ignore the inherent probabilities of

the showing and to deny a fair consideration to the known history of

this litigation.

Now, it must follow that if the witness has left and is remaining away

from the State because of an arrangement of some nature affecting these

cases, the responsibility for his absence should be placed where it

belongs. On April 25th, 1910, the District Attorney stated to the Court:

"... and it appearing also that James L. Gallagher left with the consent

and connivance of those who had preceded me in office, I at this time do

not wish to assume any responsibility for his disappearance. Whether he

shall return or not I cannot say. Some of the witnesses who were called

here testified that he went away with the intent and with the purpose of

embarrassing my administration and that he was supposed to keep away

until such time as certain persons would request his return...."

The foregoing fairly states the position of the District Attorney on

this point, as repeatedly expressed in Court since he first moved the

dismissal of these indictments. If the charge that the former

administration entered into a bargain with the witness to default be

true, there would be no alternative but to dismiss the indictments

without delay. But I have found no evidence in the showing tending to

support so grave a charge, and upon sound reasoning it would seem to be

opposed to every reasonable probability. According to the showing,

William J. Burns left the State about three weeks in advance of the

witness, and, so far as the Court is advised, he has not since been in

the State. That the former administration may have distrusted the

official intentions of the District Attorney toward these indictments

might be assumed from all the surrounding circumstances. But it does not

seem probable that the former administration would induce a material and

indispensable witness to leave the State and thereby make it easy for

the District Attorney to secure a result which otherwise might entail

serious embarrassment. So far as the showing is concerned there is no

tangible proof tending to support the charge of the District Attorney,

nor is there any proof which would justify such an inference.

Nor, on the other hand, do I find any formal evidence in the showing

which tends to bring the responsibility for the disappearance of the

witness home to these defendants. In the absence of tangible proof

neither side should be charged with so grave an act. But if there has

been complicity on the part of either of the parties, every effort

should be made before disposing of these cases finally to establish the

facts. It has been pointed out that if the former administration entered

into a bargain with the witness looking to his absence, the application

should be granted without delay. And clearly, if the defendants are

responsible for the absence of the witness, under a familiar maxim of

the law, the application should be promptly denied. (Sec. 3517 Civil

Code.)

There being no tangible proof, therefore, before the Court, of the

complicity of the parties, should the pending application be granted at

this time?

A person accused of crime is entitled to a speedy trial. (Sec. 13, Art.

I, Const.)

This fundamental right has been made the subject of statutory provision.

The second subdivision of Section 1382 of the Penal Code provides that:

"=Unless good cause to the contrary is shown=, the court must order the

prosecution to be dismissed if the indictment is not brought to trial

within sixty days after the filing thereof."

More than sixty days have run in favor of this application, and the

question presented at this time is whether the showing touching the

absence of James L. Gallagher shall constitute "good cause" within the

meaning of the law. This term must be construed and applied according to

the peculiar circumstances of each case. It should be interpreted so

that the rights of both parties shall be equally recognized. The absence

of a material and indispensable witness for the People would, under

proper circumstances, constitute good cause, provided that good faith

and diligence are shown in the effort to produce the witness. In re

Bergerow (133 Cal., 349) is a leading authority on this question and is

almost invariably cited in support of applications of this character. It

is proper to point out that in the prevailing opinion the Court

studiously eliminates from the pertinency of the authority the absence

or illness of a witness for the prosecution.

The conclusion I have reached is that under the law, and the surrounding

circumstances, including the recent action of the witness, that another

reasonable continuance should be directed in order, if possible, that

the duty of the Court in the premises shall be rendered more clear. At

this time the Court is not satisfied that the relief sought should be

granted. On the other hand it is realized that a final decision should

not much longer be delayed. In the determination of this matter the

Court, while fully recognizing the rights of the defendants, is mindful

of the rights of the People and its own sense of responsibility, and is

anxious to avoid a decision which will serve as a mischievous precedent.

It is idle to attempt to ignore the inherent probabilities of the

situation presented. A material and indispensable witness is absent from

the State, and the Court is called upon to intervene because the

District Attorney has at practically every turn followed the lead of

these defendants. Through the influence of unusual agencies the law has

broken down, so far as these cases are concerned. The crimes charged are

of the most serious nature, because such criminal activity tends to sap

the very foundations of government. The statute of limitations has run

against these charges and if the application is granted, therefore,

there can be no further prosecution, no matter what developments may

follow. (Sec. 800 Penal Code.) In the trial of Patrick Calhoun the Court

admitted evidence of a most extraordinary character on the theory of the

People that it tended to show guilty consciousness on the part of the

accused. This evidence was not contraverted. It included the dynamiting

of the home of the witness under circumstances which threatened not only

his life, but also the lives of several other persons. A certain other

building, the property of the witness, was subsequently blown up by the

use of dynamite. If the apparent design on the life of the witness had

been successful, the Court would be less perplexed in deciding a

question of this character. It is possible that these experiences and

not the suggested arrangement with the witness are responsible for his

absence. The evidence also included an effort to suppress testimony by

an attempt to induce a witness to leave the jurisdiction of the Court,

and other matters of a serious nature.

And, finally, while the Court is clear that it should not base any

action at this time upon the assumption that either side is responsible

for the absence of the witness, yet reason and the exercise of a sound

discretion dictate that the Court should act with prudence. Before the

indictments should be finally disposed of, every reasonable effort

should be made to get at the truth of the situation. The disposition of

grave charges other than on their merits is not to be encouraged and

should not be allowed, except in the face of a strict legal necessity.

Let the cases be continued until 10 a. m., Monday, August 29th, 1910. So

ordered.

HOW THE SUPERVISORS WERE BRIBED.

Thomas F. Lonergan, when elected to the Schmitz-Ruef Board of

Supervisors, was a driver of a bakery wagon. He recited at the trial of

The People vs. Louis Glass, the manner in which he had been bribed by

agents of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company. Lonergan's

testimony was as follows:

"I reside in Sanchez street, San Francisco. I have lived in San

Francisco since March, 1879. I have a family composed of a wife and

three children. I was in the bakery business. I was in that business

quite a number of years. I worked latterly for Mr. Foley. I worked in a

bake shop quite a while and also drove a wagon for him. I do not hold

any official position now. I did hold the position of Supervisor of the

City and County of San Francisco. I was elected Supervisor in November,

1905, and took office on January 7th or 8th, 1906. I know John Kraus. I

first met him some time after my election at my home. I did not invite

him to come there.

"One morning, some time after my election, the doorbell rang, a

gentleman was at the door and wanted to see me. I went downstairs. He

asked me if I was Mr. Lonergan. I said yes. He says, 'The recently

elected Supervisor?' or words to that effect. I said yes. He says, 'I

don't think you are the man I wanted. I came out here from the East a

few years back with a Mr. Lonergan, and I thought he was the one that

might have been elected.' I said, 'No, you are mistaken, it is the other

one,' or something like that. He then incidentally told me he was

connected with the Pacific States Telephone Company, and would be

pleased to take me around their works at any time that I would find it

convenient. I answered him as well as I recall now, that I possibly

would take it in some time. I subsequently went to the telephone

company's office. To the best of my recollection I saw Mr. Kraus in the

meantime before going there, and made an appointment with him. I don't

well remember meeting him at the telephone company's office. I think

where I met him was on the corner of Mason and Market or Powell and

Market, one or the other, around there. That was by appointment. Then I

went with him to the telephone company's plant on Bush street, I think,

out in the Western Addition at that time. He took me through the works,

showing me the works and the arrangements in connection with it, and how

they treated their help, and stated to me they were installing another

new plant, I forget now whether it was one or two or more. After we left

there I had lunch with Mr. Kraus. I don't well remember where. He spoke

about an opposition company in that talk. The opposition company was

spoken of, considering the appliances they had, and the amount of work

they were then doing, and the new switchboards they would put in, that

it didn't appear necessary to have an opposition company here. Mr. Kraus

paid for the lunch, I believe.

"I am acquainted with Mr. T. V. Halsey. I first met him, I think, either

on Pine or Bush street, to the best of my recollection. I. N. Copus

introduced me to him. To the best of my recollection it was some time

after meeting Kraus and before I took office as Supervisor. That meeting

was by appointment. Mr. Copus made the appointment I believe. To the

best of my recollection that was my first meeting with Mr. Halsey. I

think I was introduced to him by Mr. Copus at the time and place of the

meeting. We adjourned to lunch at a restaurant that we were standing in

front of. We went upstairs in the restaurant, had some lunch. Nothing

particular was spoken of there outside of the current topics. The room

we lunched in was not a public dining room. It was a private room. Copus

went up to lunch with us. I believe Mr. Halsey paid for the lunch. We

were there possibly an hour or an hour and a half. We had Sauterne wine

to drink, as well as I remember. The next time I saw Halsey to the best

of my recollection was at his office on Bush street, in the telephone

building there. It was some time between the 12th and 14th and the 20th

of February, 1906, I should judge. I think I went there on that occasion

on the invitation of Mr. Kraus, as well as I remember, that Mr. Halsey

would like to see me. I found Halsey when I got there. I am not

conversant with the building; I suppose the part of the building I met

him in was his office. I don't remember whether there was any one else

in the room. I had a talk with him in there. No one else was present

while I was talking with him that I am aware of. Mr. Halsey, as well as

I remember, spoke to me about the foolishness of having a second

telephone system in San Francisco. He told me the same as Mr. Kraus had

told me--all they had accomplished, and that they were going to

accomplish, and that it would cost merchants twofold for the other

telephone, and they wanted to know if I would not be friendly toward

them. I told him I was deeply impressed with the workings as I had seen

them, and that I felt that I could be friendly to them. I cannot

remember the exact words he then said at the time. The substance of it

was that it would be to my interest to be friendly, or rather, that they

would make it to my interest to be friendly to them, and I was told--I

think it was at that meeting--that there would be five thousand dollars

in it for my friendship down, and $2,500 the following year, provided I

did not accept a commission, or any such thing as that while I remained

a member of the Board of Supervisors. To the best of my recollection at

that time I received from him one thousand dollars in currency. I put it

in my pocket and took it home. The next time I saw Mr. Halsey was some

few days later. It was the Saturday previous to the passing to print of

the ordinance relative to the Home Telephone Company. That meeting was

held in a room in the Mills Building. I cannot well recollect whether I

was telephoned for or not; I possibly must have been. The meeting was up

in the building some few stories. To the best of my recollection it was

on the side of the building that looked out on Bush street, and not very

far from the corner of Montgomery street. I found Mr. Kraus there when I

went in. There was no one else in the room where Kraus was. That room

was furnished with a table and a couple of chairs. Well, he asked me if

he could depend upon me as to my friendship in regard to the Pacific

States Telephone Company, and I told him I saw no reason why he could

not. I don't remember whether anything was said about the Home Telephone

Company franchise. There may have been. I can't recollect just at this

moment. He told me that he had a sufficiency of the members of the Board

of Supervisors, to the best of my recollection, who were friendly

towards the Pacific States, and that they did not particularly need Mr.

Coffey, except that I had spoken well of him, and depending on my

friendship, he gave me the four thousand dollars in currency. During our

conversation I had mentioned Mr. Coffey as a friend of mine that I

thought was particularly friendly towards them. I don't well remember

whether he then said he would see Mr. Coffey, or not, or whether he made

answer. I do remember that he said at the latter meeting that they did

not particularly need him, that he had a sufficiency of the members. I

took it home and gave it to my wife.

"To the best of my recollection I next saw Mr. Halsey at my home the

latter end of the following week after I got the money. No one else was

present when he talked with me. It was in the front room of my house."

Supervisor Michael W. Coffey was a hack driver. At the Glass trial he

told the manner in which the bribe-givers approached him. He said:

"I have lived in San Francisco about forty years. I have been in the

carriage business driving a hack. I own a hack of my own. My stand was

on Fifth street, right opposite the Mint. I was elected a member of the

Board of Supervisors in November, 1905, and took office early in

January, 1906. I am a married man. My family consists of four girls and

one boy. I am acquainted with T. V. Halsey. I first met him some time in

the month of December at my hackstand. I am acquainted with John Kraus.

I first met him about the same time. At the time that I met Halsey at

the hackstand, Kraus was with him. I am not sure whether it was the

first time, but probably the second time. I think Mr. Kraus came to see

me first, and Mr. Halsey came with him afterwards. Well, he, Kraus, just

came up merely to introduce himself to me, and asked me how business

was. There was nothing said at the time that he brought Halsey to me.

There was nothing said pertaining to telephone matters at that time,

neither; it was simply merely to give me an introduction and ask me up

to have a drink on the corner of Jessie and Fifth streets. Nothing was

said about the telephone service at that time. I next met Halsey a few

days afterwards. Both Halsey and Kraus were there together at that time,

and we spoke--they spoke to me about my telephone service, both home

and in the drugstore in front of which I had my hackstand, and asked

me if the telephone service was satisfactory. I told them it certainly

was, that I couldn't find any fault with either one. The drugstore

'phone I had nothing at all to do with, any more than I had the

privilege of placing the number of the telephone upon my business cards

so that my friends could know where to find me in case they wanted to

telephone me. I paid for no service on that 'phone at all. My hackstand

was right in front of the drugstore. I should judge Halsey and Kraus

came around there to see me between three times and a half-a-dozen. I

received telephone messages from Mr. Halsey several times. He called me

by 'phone, he telephoned to the house, and to the stand, and wanted me

to come down to see him. I went down to see him one time. He after that

invited me around to the telephone company's offices, to view the

system, but I never accepted his offer, I never went with him. The first

occasion that I went down to the telephone company's office to see him

he extended me an invitation to come around amongst the different branch

offices there to see the system, how it was working, and show me the

advantages of a one-system telephone. Kraus was there on one occasion.

Somewhere around in the neighborhood of noon time, Mr. Kraus was there,

and Mr. Halsey asked me if I had lunch. I told him no, not at that time,

so he asked Mr. Kraus to take me out to lunch, excusing himself on the

ground of a previous engagement, that he couldn't go to lunch, but he

asked Mr. Kraus to take me out to lunch and Mr. Kraus did so.

"I had a talk with Halsey in the Mills Building. I can't exactly tell

the date, but it was on a Saturday, in and around noon time. I can't

exactly fix the date. It was some time, I think, in the month of

February. We caucused on the Sunday night, and it was Saturday, either

the week prior to the caucus or the day before the caucus. This caucus

was the Sunday prior to the passing of the ordinance to print which was

on a Monday. I went to the Mills Building by telephone invitation of Mr.

Halsey. When I got down there I took the elevator and went up on, I

think, the seventh floor at the extreme end of the building, on one of

the rooms facing on Bush street, and the other on Montgomery street. I

found Mr. Halsey there and no one else with him. To the best of my

recollection there was either a box or a chair and a table, and a

telephone in there, and no other furniture at all in the room. Mr.

Halsey when I went in, said, 'Good day, Mr. Coffey.' Said I, 'How do you

do, Mr. Halsey?' I says, 'Did you telephone for me?' He says, 'Yes, I

want you to be friendly with the company,' and stepped into another

room, the door leading into the Montgomery street entrance, and then

came out with a parcel, a bundle, and handed it to me, and says, 'I

would like to have your friendship for the company.' I did not open the

package at that time. Nothing was said then about the Home Telephone

Company's application for the franchise. I took this package that he

handed me home and put it in a box in the room. I did not open it when I

got home, not at that time. Subsequently I did. When I opened it I found

in it five thousand dollars in United States currency. That was very

shortly after I had been in the Mills Building on that occasion. I think

it was a few days after that. After putting this money in the box I kept

it there."

GALLAGHER'S ORDER REMOVING LANGDON FROM OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

(October 25, 1906.)

"To the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San

Francisco:

"Gentlemen--Pursuant to the provisions of the Charter of the City and

County of San Francisco, and especially in pursuance of Sections 18 and

19 of Article XVI thereof, I, James L. Gallagher, Mayor of the City and

County of San Francisco, do hereby suspend William H. Langdon, District

Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, and an elected officer

thereof, for cause, as hereinafter assigned and specified, and I hereby

notify you of such suspension and the causes therefor, which are as

hereinafter assigned and specified.

"Said cause is contained in the following specifications, which

specifications I hereby also present to you as the written charges

against said William H. Langdon, District Attorney as aforesaid, and I

hereby present said specifications of causes of such suspension as

written charges against said William H. Langdon, District Attorney,

suspended by me as aforesaid.

"Specification 1:

="Neglect of Duty.=

"In this, that for a period of about 30 days prior to the presentation

of these charges the said William H. Langdon, District Attorney as

aforesaid, has absented himself from the City and County of San

Francisco, without leave, and has neglected his official duties, being

during that time engaged in the canvass and campaign for the office of

Governor of the State of California.

"That during said time, owing to the recent disaster, a large number of

acts of violence have occurred at the hands of criminals congregated in

said city, resulting in an excessive and unusual number of murders,

maimings, assassinations, assaults and other crimes of violence, tending

to render the city unsafe and to injure its reputation, yet the said

District Attorney wilfully, without permission from any of the public

authorities of said city and county, did absent himself a greater

portion of said time from said city and county, and so negligently

conducted and performed the duties of his said office as District

Attorney as to render no active or efficient assistance to said city and

county in the proper prosecution, detection or preventing of any of said

crimes, and during the main portion of said period did leave his said

office without the aid of his superintendence, direction or service,

thereby being guilty of inefficiency in such public office and being

negligent and inattentive in the performance of his public duties at a

time when the unusual activity of those engaged in crimes of violence

demanded and required his personal presence and greatest personal

activity to aid in preventing or attempting to prevent, detecting or

attempting to detect or punish the said crimes or the persons guilty

thereof.

"Specification 2:

="Neglect and Dereliction of Duty.=

"In this, that during the period of about 30 days last past, the

newspapers of the City and County of San Francisco have published and

proclaimed that the said William H. Langdon, as District Attorney, and

others co-operating with him, were, and for months past had been, in the

possession of evidence sufficient to convict certain officials of the

city and county of serious crimes. These charges have been repeated

daily and within the knowledge and cognizance of said District Attorney,

and yet notwithstanding said knowledge and said purposes, the said

District Attorney has failed to cause the arrest of any of said

officials, and if the charges so publicly made are and were not true,

the said District Attorney had knowledge of said falsity and untruth,

and yet notwithstanding said knowledge has failed to cause the arrest of

the publishers or editors of the newspapers for publishing said

statements for criminal libel.

"Specification 3:

="Neglect and Violation of Duty.=

"That under the provisions of the Charter of the City and County of San

Francisco, it is part of the duty of the District Attorney, when

required, to advise the Board of Police Commissioners, the Chief of

Police, the Board of Health, or the Coroner as to the matters relating

to the duties of their respective offices, yet notwithstanding said

official duty, the said William H. Langdon, as such District Attorney,

has entered into a combination and conspiracy for political purposes and

effect to bring unmerited discredit upon said officials or some of them,

and has failed to advise them relative to their duties, and has assumed

a position and attitude inconsistent with his duty to the Police

Commissioners and the Chief of Police, thereby tending to impair and

demoralize the Police Department of said city at a serious and critical

time.

"Specification 4:

"Neglect and Violation of Duty.

"That the said William H. Langdon, being the District Attorney of said

City and County of San Francisco, as aforesaid, during period above

mentioned, in addition to neglecting his public duties, as above set

forth, instead of aiding the authorities of said city and county, did on

the contrary engage in and assist in a combination in the interest of

certain insurance corporations and other persons to injure and defame

the character of the Chief Executive of this city, Mayor Eugene E.

Schmitz, in substance as follows:

"A large number of German insurance companies, having lost many millions

of dollars by the conflagration of April 18, 1906, having denied their

liability, Eugene E. Schmitz, Mayor of the City and County of San

Francisco, deemed it advisable in the interest of the upbuilding and

rehabilitating of the city, to visit the German Empire in his official

capacity for the purpose of stating the true facts concerning said

conflagration to the home officials of said companies and to use his

personal influence wherever the same would be available in the German

Empire, with a view to cause the said insurance companies to pay the

said losses; and deeming said matter one of great public interest, the

said Mayor did obtain from the Board of Supervisors a leave of absence

from the City and County of San Francisco for a period of 60 days from

October 1, 1906; and after he left on said mission, a combination, plot

and plan was formed for the purpose of defaming and injuring and

weakening the standing and reputation of said Eugene E. Schmitz, in

order that his said attempts might be discredited and to destroy

whatever influence the Chief Executive of this city might have in

dealing with the said insurance companies at their home offices and in

obtaining influence abroad to compel said companies to properly

recognize their obligations; and that as a part of said scheme, it was

determined to print and publish in the newspapers of San Francisco

charges against the said Mayor which were false, malicious and

slanderous and known so to be by the parties engaged in said scheme, and

among other things said persons so engaged did cause it to be published

that the Chief Executive of this city was a fugitive from justice and

had absconded from the City and County of San Francisco; and that the

said William H. Langdon, as District Attorney of the City and County of

San Francisco, and acting in his capacity as such, did aid, assist and

abet and further the said scheme as aforesaid, and has become and is an

active party thereto to the end that said Mayor should be induced to

return to San Francisco to defend himself against such charges before he

could have time to accomplish the said purpose for which he went to said

German Empire.

"Specification 5:

="Violation of Duty and Use of Office for Ulterior Purposes.=

"That during the fall of 1905, one Francis J. Heney, in a public speech

in said city and county, aspersed the character and good name of a

prominent citizen of this community, and stated that he knew him to be

corrupt, and said citizen having instantly demanded that said Heney be

compelled to make proof of said assertions and said Heney having been

compelled to appear before the Grand Jury of said City and County of San

Francisco with reference thereto, there admitted that he had made such

statements without any personal knowledge regarding the same, which

facts were widely published at the time, and brought said Heney into

obloquy and contempt, from which time said Heney had been possessed of a

purpose to effect a personal revenge both against the object of his

false charges and against Eugene E. Schmitz, Mayor of San Francisco, and

all of these facts were and are well known to said William H. Langdon,

as District Attorney as aforesaid; yet notwithstanding said knowledge

and within the month of October, 1906, the said William H. Langdon, in

order to enable said Heney to use public office, position and power to

gratify his spirit of revenge and malice, did appoint said Heney

Assistant District Attorney of said city and county, and did turn over

to him the powers of office of said District Attorney in order that he

might gratify his private revenge and malice.

"Specification 6:

"That prior to such appointment as such Assistant District Attorney,

said Francis J. Heney had publicly assailed the Judges of the Superior

Court of the city and county as corrupt and crooked, and had denounced

all or nearly all of them as dishonest and corrupt, and yet has failed

at any time to make proof of such charges, which facts were all well

known to said William H. Langdon, District Attorney as aforesaid, from

the time of the utterance, which was long anterior to the time of said

Heney's appointment by said Langdon, and said Langdon also knew that

said Heney frequently, while intoxicated, made grave and serious charges

involving the personal character of citizens of this city, yet

notwithstanding such knowledge said William H. Langdon did appoint said

Heney to such office, knowing that the said Heney in such office would

be required to appear before the Judges whose character he had thus

aspersed, and to practice in their courts, did appoint said Heney to

said office, which appointment is not conducive to the proper

co-operation which should exist between the Judges of the Superior Court

and the office of District Attorney.

"Specification 7:

"That said Francis J. Heney at and prior to the time of his appointment

as Assistant District Attorney was the representative of the corporation

controlling the street car system of said city and county in a certain

dispute between said corporation and its employes, That the appointment

of said Heney to said office will, in regard to the enforcement of law

against said corporation, be prejudicial and detrimental to the

interests of said city and county.

"Specification 8:

"That prior to the turning over of said District Attorney's office and

its powers to said Francis J. Heney, as hereinabove specified, the City

and County of San Francisco had intended to procure its own water supply

and thereby to prevent the exorbitant charges for water now exacted by

the private corporation controlling the city's water supply, and that it

was about to take proceedings to provide a safe and secure supply of

water for said City and County of San Francisco for domestic use,

extinction of conflagrations, etc., and that such purpose was greatly

to the interest of said City and County of San Francisco, That said

corporation now supplying water to said city and county is bitterly

opposed to the acquiring of a water supply to the City and County of San

Francisco on account of its present monopoly.

"Said Francis J. Heney has been and is attorney employed by said Water

Company, and his attorneyship for such company is inconsistent with the

holding of a place as Assistant District Attorney, and against the best

interests of the people of San Francisco.

"Specification 9:

"That in the interest of the corporations and persons before mentioned,

or some or all of them, together with persons unknown, large sums of

money have been and are being raised for the purpose of slandering,

defaming and injuring the reputation of said Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz,

and of suborning perjury against him, thereby injuring the interests of

said city and county and its residents and inhabitants; and said William

H. Langdon as such District Attorney, knowing said facts, by the

appointment of said Heney, is knowingly aiding and abetting the said

plot and scheme.

"Specification 10:

="Violation of Duty and Ulterior Use of Office.=

"That since the appointment of said F. J. Heney as an Assistant District

Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco by said William H.

Langdon, the said Langdon and the said Heney have caused to be published

or have been parties to the publication of open and covert threats

against the Superior Judges of the City and County of San Francisco for

the purpose of influencing the judicial action of said Judges.

"Specification 11:

"That the appointment of said Heney as such Assistant District Attorney

was made by said Langdon in furtherance of the combination aforesaid,

and at the dictation of certain newspaper influences and individuals,

who have contributed many thousands of dollars to further the political

ambitions and aspirations of said William H. Langdon and other persons,

and to secure through the appointment of said Heney the consummation of

a political plan and the wreaking of their private revenges against

Eugene E. Schmitz, Mayor of San Francisco, and the Board of Supervisors

and the Police Department of the City and County of San Francisco and

their political supporters, and to generally disrupt the business and

proper government of this city, and also for the purpose of attempting

to influence the ensuing election. And said combination is also in

pursuance of a well-defined and organized plan for the purpose of

controlling and subjugating the labor market and the wage-earners.

"And the said William H. Langdon turned over said office of District

Attorney as aforesaid to said Francis J. Heney with the intent and

purpose and with the understanding that said Francis J. Heney would and

should abuse such position, and use his said position as a deputy in a

substantial control of said office of District Attorney to gratify his

own private and personal revenge, and also with the intent that said

Francis J. Heney, through said office, should produce before the Grand

Jury of said city and county illegal and hearsay evidence which by law

said Grand Jury is forbidden to act upon, and procure such Grand Jury to

return indictments against innocent citizens of said city and county

upon such illegal and hearsay evidence for the purpose of gratifying the

private revenge of said Francis J. Heney and the political ambitions of

said William H. Langdon. And said William H. Langdon also further turned

over said office and power to said Francis J. Heney with the intent and

purpose that said Francis J. Heney in such position should advise such

Grand Jury that matters and acts not constituting an offense at law were

indictable offenses, and thus and thereby falsely and unlawfully procure

indictments against innocent citizens of said city and county.

"Specification 12:

"That in addition to the purposes hereinabove specified as a foundation

and reason for the acts set forth, that all the acts hereinabove charged

and set forth as having been done, aided, abetted, procured or assisted

by said William H. Langdon as said District Attorney, were so done and

performed by said William H. Langdon as such District Attorney to

promote his own political ambitions and upon and at the eve of an

election about to occur in the State of California, at which said

William H. Langdon is a candidate for Governor, all with intent to

deceive and mislead electors and voters and to procure an increased vote

for himself as such candidate for Governor.

"Inefficiency in the office of District Attorney, and neglect on the

part of the District Attorney and his office to perform the duties of

his office.

"Dated, San Francisco, October 25, 1906.

"JAMES L. GALLAGHER,

"Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco."

THE RUEF "IMMUNITY CONTRACT."

The "immunity contract" given Ruef was as follows:

"Whereas, Abraham Ruef of the City and County of San Francisco has

agreed to impart to the District Attorney of the City and County of San

Francisco, State of California, a full and fair statement and

disclosure, so far as known to him, of all crimes and offenses involved

in the so-called 'graft' prosecutions or investigations now and

heretofore conducted by said District Attorney by whomsoever such

offenses or crimes may have been committed, and has agreed in making

such disclosure and statement to state fully and wholly all the facts

and circumstances known to him in, about, and surrounding the same, and

in making such statement and disclosure to tell the truth, the whole

truth and nothing but the truth;

"Now, Therefore, In consideration of the premises it is agreed by the

undersigned that if said A. Ruef shall do said things and immediately

make such full and fair disclosure of all such crimes and offenses

involved in the so-called 'graft' prosecutions and investigations above

referred to, and known to him, and shall state and disclose to the

undersigned the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and

shall make full and fair disclosure of all said crimes and offenses

known to him, and of all the facts and circumstances in, about and

surrounding the same and known to him, and shall at all times whenever

called upon, before any court, testify in regard thereto and to the

whole thereof fully and fairly, together with all the facts and

circumstances surrounding the same, so far as the same are known to him,

and shall state, tell and testify on oath the truth, the whole truth,

and nothing but the truth therein, then and in that event the

undersigned, deeming it to be in the interests of public justice, and

believing that said A. Ruef will thereby be equitably entitled to such

consideration in accordance with the time-honored custom and practice of

prosecuting officers in both State and Federal jurisdictions throughout

this country, and in line with common law precedents.

"1. Will grant and obtain for said A. Ruef full and complete immunity

from prosecution or punishment for all and any of said offenses and

crimes involved in said so-called 'graft' prosecutions or

investigations, and will not prosecute him for any thereof.

"2. Will cause said A. Ruef to be jointly and not otherwise indicted

with all and any others against whom indictments have heretofore been or

may hereafter be returned or found for or upon any crimes or offenses in

which said Ruef has participated or is alleged to have participated to

this date; provided, however, that the undersigned shall not be bound to

include any of the present members of the Board of Supervisors in any

such indictments.

"3. Will, as any one of said joint indictments relating to a specific

subject matter shall be taken up for trial, after the jury has been

impaneled and sworn to try the same, dismiss the same and all other

indictments and charges on the same general subject matter as against

the said Ruef, under the provisions of section 1099 of the Penal Code of

the State of California, and will at the same time dismiss all

indictments relating to the same general subject matter, which are now

pending against said Ruef singly.

"Any and all indictments or charges upon any general subject matter of

which one shall not have been brought to trial before December 31st,

1907, shall be dismissed as to said Ruef and said Ruef discharged on or

before December 31st, 1907, under the provisions of section 1099 of the

Penal Code where applicable, or under provisions of other sections of

said code in cases where said section 1099 shall not be applicable.

"It is however expressly agreed that =in any event= all indictments and

charges now pending or hereafter to be brought against said Ruef (except

action No. 305 which is herein otherwise provided for) shall be

dismissed as against said Ruef under the provisions of section 1099 of

the Penal Code where the same may be applicable and when said section is

not applicable shall be dismissed under other provisions of the Code,

all prior to December 31st, 1907; provided, the undersigned District

Attorney shall not be re-elected as such District Attorney in November,

1907, and, in any event, prior to said District Attorney resigning or

otherwise surrendering or giving up his office or terminating his tenure

thereof, it being the understanding and agreement that each and every

indictment and charge now pending or hereafter to be brought against

said Ruef shall be absolutely dismissed.

"Provided, that said Ruef shall have fully performed so far as may have

been in his power the spirit and letter of his agreement herein.

"4. All and any indictments or charges which are to be found or returned

against said Ruef jointly or otherwise, shall be returned and found not

later than October 1st, 1907, unless hereafter otherwise mutually

agreed.

"5. In the event of the prosecution of said Ruef by any other officer or

person on account of any of such crimes or offenses committed or

participated in or alleged to have been committed or participated in by

said Ruef to this date, the undersigned will employ every legitimate

influence and power to secure a dismissal thereof, and in the event that

a conviction shall be had in any thereof, the undersigned hereby agree

to apply to the Governor of the State of California for the pardon of

said Ruef therefor or therein and to use all legitimate influence and

power to secure such pardon.

"6. It is understood and agreed that, notwithstanding the scope and

effect of the language used throughout this agreement, it does not and

shall not be construed to apply in any respect or particular to that

certain indictment No. 305, or the offense charged therein, which is now

pending against said Abraham Ruef jointly with Eugene E. Schmitz, in the

Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, State of

California, in Department No. 6 thereof.

"Dated, May 8th, 1907.

"WM. H. LANGDON,

"District Attorney of the City

and County of San Francisco.

"FRANCIS J. HENEY,

"Assistant District Attorney of the

City and County of San Francisco.

"Agreed to:

"A. RUEF."

"IMMUNITY CONTRACT" GIVEN SUPERVISORS.

"San Francisco, Cal., July 30, 1907.

"Whereas, James L. Gallagher, E. J. Walsh, F. P. Nicholas, C. J.

Harrigan, Max Mamlock, J. J. Furey, Jennings Phillips, Thomas F.

Lonergan, James F. Kelly, L. A. Rea, W. W. Sanderson, Daniel C. Coleman,

Sam Davis, A. M. Wilson, M. F. Coffey, all of the City and County of San

Francisco, State of California, have each made to me a disclosure of

certain crimes and offenses committed by himself, and by himself jointly

with others and by others, which he claims to be a full and fair

disclosure thereof, so far as known to him.

"Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises, deeming it to be in

the interest of public justice, and believing that each of the

above-named parties will thereby become equitably entitled to such

consideration, in accordance with the time-honored custom and practice

of prosecuting officers, in both State and Federal jurisdictions

throughout this country, and in line with common law precedence, it is

agreed by me that if he has made a full and fair disclosure of all of

such crimes and offenses and has stated to me the truth, the whole truth

and nothing but the truth, and if he shall whenever called upon to do so

by me, or by any other officer on behalf of the People of the State of

California, to again make a full and fair disclosure of such crimes and

offenses, together with the facts and circumstances surrounding the same

and the persons therein involved, in any cause, action or proceeding

whatever in regard thereto, fully and fairly, together with the facts

and circumstances surrounding said crimes and offenses and the persons

involved, and tell and testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing

but the truth, then, and in that event, each one of them who so does

shall not be prosecuted, complained against or indicted for any of said

crimes or offenses, or his connection therewith.

"It is understood that the making or verifying of any affidavit or

answer in the case of 'Langdon vs. Ruef, et al.,' heretofore brought in

the Superior Court of this city and county, is included in this

agreement; and it is further understood that Fred P. Nicholas shall not

be further prosecuted in the case now pending against him in which he is

under indictment in this city and county, upon the charge of accepting

and agreeing to accept a bribe from one Holmes.

"Signed: W. H. Langdon, District Attorney: Francis J. Heney, Asst. Dist.

Atty. Witness: James L. Gallagher."

The People vs. Ruef, page 1382.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY LANGDON'S PLAN FOR REORGANIZING

THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.

=(See Chapter XVII.)=

"San Francisco, July 9, 1907.--To the San Francisco Labor Council, the

Merchants' Association, the Building Trades Council, the Chamber of

Commerce, the Board of Trade, the Real Estate Board and the Merchants'

Exchange: Gentlemen--We respectfully submit to your consideration and

ask your co-operation in the carrying out of the following proposed plan

for the selection of a Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco for

the unexpired term of Eugene E. Schmitz, who, having been elected Mayor

of the City and County of San Francisco in November, 1905, was on the

13th day of June, 1907, convicted of a felony; to wit, of the crime of

extortion, by a jury in Department No. 6 of the Superior Court of the

City and County of San Francisco, State of California. Thereafter, upon

the 8th day of July, 1907, judgment upon the conviction was duly

pronounced and entered, by which a sentence was imposed of five years'

imprisonment in the State Prison at San Quentin.

"The Political Code of this State, and the charter of the City and

County of San Francisco, both provide that the office becomes vacant

when the incumbent is convicted of a felony, and in several decisions

our Supreme Court has held that the words 'convicted of a felony,'

signify the verdict of a jury. That court has also held that this

provision of the code and charter is self-acting, and that the vacancy

is created 'eo instanti,' upon the happening of the event, and that all

that is necessary is for the appointing power to fill the vacancy thus

created. By virtue of the conviction of Eugene E. Schmitz, the office of

Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco became vacant. Upon the

9th day of July, 1907, the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to the

charter, elected as Mayor to fill the vacancy thus created Dr. Charles

Boxton. This action was taken to avoid legal complications in the

interim, before a permanent selection of Mayor could be made, and it is

thoroughly well understood that the selection of Dr. Charles Boxton is

merely temporary.

"The conditions surrounding the present Board of Supervisors have been

so completely explained, through the public press, that it is

unnecessary to go into further detail in that regard than to say that

Dr. Boxton has offered to resign his office as Mayor, as soon as a

suitable successor has been found. In the present unprecedented

condition of the municipal government, circumstances have made it the

duty of the District Attorney, in the interest of the public welfare, to

take the initiative, in the endeavor to find such a successor.

"It is the desire of the District Attorney as speedily as possible to

confine the operations of his office entirely to those duties ordinarily

incumbent upon it. The next election for city officers takes place in

November of this year, but the situation of the city government, and the

material conditions obtaining in the city with regard to necessary

public improvements, render it absolutely indispensable that we proceed

with the utmost energy to obtain for the office of Mayor a man of

unblemished integrity and great executive ability.

"The District Attorney and his associates, realizing that the selection

of a Mayor to fill the unexpired term in question should be made by as

representative a body of the people as possible, have deemed it wise to

call together a convention that will be, as nearly as circumstances and

the time at our disposal permit, fairly representative of the community

at large. For that purpose they have decided to call together a

convention composed of thirty delegates, fifteen of whom shall represent

labor, and the remaining fifteen shall represent employers generally.

"It is, of course, impossible on account of the limited time at our

disposal to accord representation to all the organized bodies in the

city entitled to the same. All that we can reasonably be expected to do

is to make a sincere and earnest effort to have the convention composed

of delegates from such well-known organized bodies, large and varied in

membership, that the people generally will be satisfied that the plan of

selection is fair, reasonable and democratic.

"The prosecution in the graft cases feels that it is highly desirable to

keep politics out of the organization of the city government as much as

possible until the people, in the manner ordained by law, have an

opportunity at the ballot-box again to express their will directly.

"We address this communication and invitation to the following bodies,

to wit: The San Francisco Labor Council, the Merchants' Association, the

Building Trades Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade,

the Real Estate Board and the Merchants' Exchange. We respectfully

request the foregoing associations to send delegates to the proposed

convention on the following basis of apportionment, that is to say, that

the two bodies representing labor shall select fifteen delegates, eight

of whom shall be selected by the San Francisco Labor Council and seven

by the Building Trades Council, and the remaining fifteen members of the

convention shall be selected, three each, by the remaining five bodies

above mentioned.

"It will be appreciated that it is necessary to impose a time limit

within which the selection of delegates shall be made, and the

subsequent nomination of a Mayor by the convention shall be

accomplished. In that view we ask that a response to this invitation,

containing the names of the delegates selected, be delivered to the

District Attorney's office, 2181 Fillmore street, on or before Saturday,

July 13, 1907, and that the Mayor be nominated within five days

thereafter. The success of this plan, in our judgment, depends

absolutely upon the harmonious co-operation of all sections of our

people, who, we believe, are fairly represented by one or more of the

foregoing associations. Consequently we deem it essential to prescribe

as a condition for the assembling of the proposed convention that this

invitation shall be accepted by all of these bodies.

"This plan for the selection of a Mayor is the result of most patient,

thorough and anxious deliberation on the part of those associated in the

graft prosecution, and its single purpose is to satisfy, so far as in

our power, the desire of all good citizens to sink factional and

political differences and choose for Mayor a man who will be generally

recognized and accepted as representative of the whole people, who will

bring to all industrial disputes a spirit of conciliation and harmony,

and who will be possessed of the capacity, energy and honesty needed in

the great work of rehabilitating our city and restoring it to normal

conditions. We desire that perfect freedom and independence of action

shall govern the convention from its inception to its close, and

accordingly the District Attorney and his associates will wholly refrain

from any participation after the convention has assembled. I have the

honor to be,

"Yours very truly,

"W. H. LANGDON, District Attorney."

ROOSEVELT'S LETTER TO SPRECKELS ON THE GRAFT SITUATION.

"The White House, Washington, June 8, 1908.

"My Dear Mr. Spreckels--Now and then you and Mr. Heney and the others

who are associated with you must feel down-hearted when you see men

guilty of atrocious crimes who from some cause or other succeed in

escaping punishment, and especially when you see men of wealth, of high

business and, in a sense, of high social standing, banded together

against you.

"My dear sir, I want you to feel that your experience is simply the

experience of all of us who are engaged in this fight. There is no form

of slander and wicked falsehood which will not as a matter of course be

employed against all men engaged in such a struggle, and this not only

on the part of men and papers representing the lowest type of demagogy,

but, I am sorry to say, also on the part of men and papers representing

the interests that call themselves pre-eminently conservative,

pre-eminently cultured.

"In such a struggle it is too often true that the feeling against those

engaged in it becomes peculiarly bitter, not merely in the business

houses of the great financiers who directly profit by the wrongdoing,

but also in the clubs, in certain newspaper offices where business

interests exercise an unhealthy control and, I regret to add, in other

newspaper offices which like to be considered as to a marked degree the

representatives of the cultivation and high social standing of the

country.

"Now, I do hope that you and your colleagues will treat all this

bitterness with entire disregard. It is of small consequence to you, or

to any of us who are engaged in this work, whether men think well or ill

of us personally; but it is of very great consequence that we should do

the work without flinching, on the one hand, and on the other hand,

without losing our good-humored common sense, without becoming angered

and irritated to a degree that will in any way cause us to lose our

heads.

"Therefore, I hope that you and Heney and your associates will keep

reasonably good-natured; but that above all things you will not lose

heart. You must battle on valiantly, no matter what the biggest business

men may say, no matter what the mob may say, no matter what may be said

by that element which may be regarded as socially the highest element.

You must steadfastly oppose those foolish or wicked men who would

substitute class consciousness and loyalty to class interest, for

loyalty to American citizenship as a whole, for loyalty to the immutable

laws of righteousness, of just and fair dealing as between man and man.

"It is just as bad to be ruled by a plutocracy as by a mob. It is

profoundly un-American and, in a social sense, profoundly immoral, to

stand for or against a given man, not because he is or is not a brave,

upright and able man, but because he does or does not belong to a labor

union or does or does not represent the big business interests. In their

essence, down at the foundation of things, the ties that are

all-important are those that knit honest men, brave men, square-dealing

men, together, and it is a mighty poor substitute if we replace these

ties by those that bind men together, whether they are good or bad,

simply because they follow a particular business, have a given social

standing or belong to a particular organization. It is an evil and a

dreadful thing for laboring men to endeavor to secure the political

dominance of labor unions by conniving at crookedness or violence, by

being 'loyal' to crooked labor leaders, for to be 'loyal' to the fancied

interests of the unions when they are against the laws of morality and

the interests of the whole people means ultimately the destruction of

the unions themselves, as an incident to the destruction of all good

citizenship.

"But it is, if anything, an even more evil and dreadful thing to have

the merchants, the business men, the captains of industry accessories to

crime and shielders and supporters of criminals; it is an even more

dreadful thing to see the power of men high in State politics, high in

finance, high in the social life of the rich and fashionable, united to

stifle the prosecution of offenders against civic integrity if these

offenders happen to be their friends and associates; and most evil of

all is it when we see crooks of a labor party in offensive and defensive

alliance with the crooks of a corporation party. Labor unions and

corporations alike should be heartily supported when they do good work,

and fearlessly opposed when they stand for what is evil. The best kind

of wage worker, the best kind of laboring man, must stand shoulder to

shoulder with the best kind of professional man, with the best kind of

business man, in putting a stop to the undermining of civic decency, and

this without any regard to whether it is a labor union or a corporation

which is undermining it, without any regard to whether the offender is a

rich man or a poor man.

"Indeed, if there can be any degrees in the contemptuous abhorrence with

which right thinking citizens should regard corruption, it must be felt

in its most extreme form for the so-called 'best citizens,' the men high

in business and social life, who by backing up or by preventing the

punishment of wealthy criminals set the seal of their approval on crime

and give honor to rich felons. The most powerful ally of lawlessness and

mob violence is the man, whoever he may be, politician or business man,

judge or lawyer, capitalist or editor, who in any way or shape works so

as to shield wealthy and powerful wrongdoers from the consequences of

their misconduct.

"You have heart-breaking difficulties with which to contend. You have to

fight not only the banded powers of evil, but, alas, that it should be

said, the supineness and indifference of many good men upon whose

zealous support you had a right to feel that you could rely. Do not be

discouraged; do not flinch. You are in a fight for plain decency, for

the plain democracy of the plain people, who believe in honesty and in

fair dealing as between man and man. Do not become disheartened. Keep up

the fight.

"Very sincerely yours,

"THEODORE ROOSEVELT.

"Rudolph Spreckels, Esq.,

"San Francisco, Cal."

GOVERNOR JOHNSON'S STATEMENT REGARDING RUEF'S IMPRISONMENT.

=(See Chapter XXIX, page 453.)=

Ever since Abraham Ruef was taken to San Quentin an organized and

systematic agitation has been carried on to effect his release, and all

that power, influence and money and favorable publicity could do to

manufacture public sentiment for him has been done. His case has ever

been before the people, and never since his confinement at San Quentin

has he been permitted to be in the category of the ordinary prisoner.

Purposely have I heretofore refrained from any public utterance upon the

subject, and this for reasons that may be obvious. Ruef's partisans now

charge his failure to obtain his release to me.

In so far as I have expressed my views to certain members of the Prison

Directors, and their views accord with mine, I accept the

responsibility.

I do not believe that Ruef should be paroled at this time. I insist that

he shall be treated just like any ordinary prisoner, neither more

harshly nor more leniently.

As vigorously as I am able, I demand that there shall be no special

privilege in the prisons of the State of California, and that when

special privilege has been banished from every department of government,

it shall not be permitted, no matter what the power or threats, to creep

into our penitentiary.

The grossest injustice that could be committed against the other 3,300

men confined in our State prisons would be to single out the one rich,

powerful and conspicuous offender and, because of his riches and his

influence, grant him what is denied to the humble and friendless

prisoner. If prisons are to be maintained, and the system in vogue

continued, all prisoners most be treated exactly alike.

Since the parole law went into effect, the Prison Directors have

continuously acted under a rule which required, save in exceptional

cases, the service of half of the net sentence before an application can

be heard. In the Roberts case, recently decided, the Supreme Court held

this rule to be illegal, but also held that paroles rested in the

absolute discretion of the Prison Directors, and that in determining

whether or not parole shall be granted, it was the right and duty of the

Board to take into account the length of sentence, the time served, etc.

As I understand the attitude of the Directors, they insist that in the

matter of granting paroles, although applications may be made after one

year, it is neither unjust nor unfair nor illegal that prisoners be

required, save in exceptional cases, to serve half the net sentence.

This rule is applicable to 3,300 prisoners, most of them unknown and

unheard of. It is demanded that another rule be made for Ruef.

Ruef's sentence was fourteen years. His net sentence will be eight years

and ten months. Half of the net sentence will be four years and five

months. He was received in San Quentin about March, 1911. If required to

serve half his net sentence, presumably he will be paroled about August,

1915. Purposely, apparently, misapprehension has been created about the

recent parole of Dalton. Dalton desired to be liberated before half his

net sentence had been served, and was not. He was granted a parole at

the last meeting of the Prison Directors, which takes effect some months

after the completion of half of his net sentence.

The Recent Action of the Prison Board.

In behalf of the parole of Ruef it is insisted that any man is entitled

as a matter of right to a parole after one year's imprisonment. I will

not subscribe to this doctrine. It has been asserted that the Supreme

Court has so decided. This is not true. The Supreme Court simply

determined that after one year the prisoner had the right to make his

application, but that his parole rested absolutely thereafter in the

discretion of the Prison Board.

At the last meeting of the Prison Directors 78 men applied for parole,

Ruef among them. None of these had served half his net time and this

fact was known to all the members of the Prison Board. To four members

of the Prison Board before that time every application had been

presented with the history of the case, and with all the facts that had

been filed concerning it. Every man, prison director or other, knows the

facts of the Ruef case. The 78 were all denied parole. When the Ruef

people assert he had no hearing, they mean he had no such hearing as

Ruef desired. When they shout that his case was not considered, they

mean not considered as Ruef demanded. If the hearing had been as Ruef

and his partisans had staged it; if Ruef had delivered an oration, taken

down by the shorthand reporter, brought for the purpose; if Ruef had

dominated the entire situation, and the Directors had yielded to his

power and his influence; if Ruef had been paroled, what a virtuous and

glorious Prison Board it would have been! But the hearing being

otherwise than had been staged, the determination being other than what

the power of Ruef demanded, the Prison Board is abused and denounced;

not denounced or abused because 77 other men were not paroled (they are

unknown, poor, helpless, without friends), but abused and denounced

because one man, Ruef, was not paroled; because one man, Ruef, was

treated exactly as all others were treated.

The Charge of Bitterness and Vengeance.

I resent any imputation of bitterness or revenge on my part toward Ruef.

I have neither. More than two years ago I expressed what I write

to-day--that for the sake of society and the unfortunates confined in

prison, Ruef must be treated like all others similarly situated. To

yield because of fear to the persuasion, cajolery or the threats of a

powerful prisoner, is to cause the iron to enter the soul of every

obscure and friendless prisoner, and to make every other one of the

3,300 men in our jails know that even in prisons class distinctions

prevail, and to add to the bitterness and the hopelessness of men

confined.

The bitterness and revenge are on the other side of this controversy. It

has become necessary to make this statement because of the unmerited

abuse of the Prison Board, and because some individuals, while begging

mercy for Ruef, have without mercy sought Ruef's release by threats of

annihilation and destruction of all opposed.

The Plea That the Past Be Forgotten.

Often we hear that Ruef is the only one who has been punished of those

guilty of the particular crimes of which he was a part, and that for

this reason should be liberated.

If three men committed a murder, two escape and are never found, and the

third is convicted, ought he to be released because he is the only one

punished?

It is unnecessary, however, to discuss this phase of the case. After

conviction and imprisonment, if clemency be asked, ordinarily the only

question that can be considered is whether the prisoner is guilty or

innocent. Does any person claim Ruef to be innocent? If guilty, then to

him must apply the usual prison discipline and rules.

There is to-day in the same prison with Ruef a poor, uneducated,

friendless Greek, the product of the graft prosecution just as Ruef is.

Claudianes is serving a life sentence for dynamiting Gallagher's

residence and almost murdering seven people. Claudianes was paid to do

the dynamiting that Gallagher might be put out of the way. He was the

ignorant, sodden instrument of men who would not stop even at murder;

but he was only the miserable tool after all. No appeal has been made to

me for Claudianes. No petitions have been presented in his behalf, no

organized effort for his release, no threats of political annihilation

unless clemency be extended to him. Why? Is it because Claudianes is

unknown, ignorant, friendless, moneyless?

The Unjust Charge of Racial Prejudice.

Every cheap politician has been quick to seize upon the Ruef case and

endeavor to make political capital for himself or create hostility to me

out of it. Among the baseless and outrageous things that have been

published is that Ruef is not granted special privileges and immunities

because of racial prejudice. When Ruef was denied parole, denied with

him were men of many races. No one has claimed that these were denied

parole because of race prejudice.

In San Quentin to-day are thirty-one Jews. Thirteen of these, for one

reason or another, have at times lost their privileges. Is it possible

that Ruef is the only man to be considered? No complaint is made for the

thirty-one, or for the thirteen. Since February 1, 1912, twenty-seven

Jews have been paroled from San Quentin. Six of these have been returned

for violations of parole. In relation to the twenty-seven or the six

there has been neither outcry nor protest nor publicity nor effort of

any sort. Why the astounding, organized effort and publicity campaign

for Ruef alone?

The appointments that have been made by this administration include

Rabbi Meyer, H. Weinstock, Paul Sinsheimer, Simon Lubin, Miss Steinhart,

Julius Jacobs, E. Franklin, Louis Frankenheimer, A. Sapiro, Jacob

Alexander, A. Bonnheim, Miss Peixotto, Judge Cerf and many others. No

list of more able and patriotic men and women in the service of any

State could be furnished than this.

Is Ruef the sole test of every question?

To two young men of Jewish faith lately have been granted pardons. No

tremendous petitions loaded down with the names of politicians, no

extraordinary publicity was presented in their behalf.

Is there no man in the list of appointees to whom in pride we may all

yield our praise? Is there no man among the 3,300 prisoners in San

Quentin and Folsom who justly can arouse efforts in his behalf? Or is

the sole test of official action by the Prison Directors of California

or the Chief Executive of the State to be the disregard of every other

man's rights and the granting to Ruef alone of a privilege that none

other enjoys?

California Prisons To-day.

In the discussion that has ensued from the Ruef case and because of the

Ruef case, the prisons have been said to be the one part of the present

administration that is not progressive, and that they are yet a relic of

the Herrin machine. Nothing could be further from the fact. I challenge

contradiction of the following statements:

California is in the forefront of all the States in the management of

her prisons. In matters of food, shelter, clothing, employment,

recreation, medical attention, opportunities for education, general

freedom consistent with discipline, encouragement of decent tendencies,

and =in the number of paroles= (although these have been granted under the

half term rule), no State has gone further.

Within the past three years the strait-jacket, the water-cure and the

hooks, once so freely used, have not been tolerated. Every form of

corporal punishment has been abolished. When prisoners are received the

effort is made to get the history of the crime and possible cause of it,

and then to apply corrective measures intelligently. As soon as

received, every newcomer is given a thorough physical examination and

his teeth are looked after by a dentist. It not infrequently happens

that the first place a man is quartered in is the hospital. Special

attention is given to tuberculars, alcoholics and dope fiends.

Wassermann tests are made for the slightest indication of blood taint,

and the best treatment afforded. After the physician and dentist

conclude their examinations, the newcomer is turned over to the Director

of Education, who endeavors to take the man's mental measurement and get

at his moral status. There are now 200 pupils in the day school at San

Quentin, and three rooms of thirty each in the night school. The

educational facilities are being constantly increased. Two hundred and

twenty-six are enrolled in the academic courses with the University of

California and by correspondence are receiving their training from our

great institutions of learning. The State Use system, which was enacted

in 1911, furnishes work in industries for the State. In the matter of

food the State purchases the best and the rations issued are abundant.

Sanitary conditions are a model in the newly constructed portions of the

prison and the best possible in the old construction.

In the last three years 1372 paroles have been granted by this harsh,

cruel and outrageous Prison Board, as against 1132 granted in all the

years from 1893 to 1910 inclusive. The paroles have been granted,

however, justly. Because one was not granted unjustly and unfairly, the

record of the Prison Board counts for naught.

I have purposely refrained from discussing the character of Ruef's

crimes or any matters extraneous to the one issue presented. I have

tried to make clear that I believe Ruef should be treated just as the

least known prisoner is treated. That his advocates wish him to be

treated otherwise because he is Ruef will be clear to any who will

reflect that had Ruef been paroled and the other 77 denied parole there

would have been no agitation; if Ruef were granted what others were

denied, there would be no fulminations against the Prison Board and

petty politicians would not have seized upon recent events to bow and

scrape and bend and crawl to the organized power of Ruef.

SCHMITZ'S ATTEMPT TO CONTROL SAN FRANCISCO RELIEF FUNDS.

In the early part of June, 1906, it was agreed that a committee

consisting of Benjamin Ide Wheeler, Judge W. W. Morrow and James D.

Phelan should go to Washington, in order to interest Congress in some

project for financing the rebuilding of San Francisco.

Before their departure, Mayor Schmitz invited them and other members of

the Committee of Fifty to his residence, where a luncheon was served.

During the luncheon he stated that the Board of Supervisors were about

to resume their public functions for which they were elected by the

people, and the private persons who were administering the affairs of

the city doubtless would employ their abilities for the rehabilitation

of their own business, and he suggested that the relief fund be turned

over to the Board of Supervisors for distribution. Judge Morrow, Mr.

Phelan and others protested that it was not the function of the

Supervisors to distribute relief, and that there was a trust

relationship existing between the donors and the finance committee of

the Relief and Red Cross Funds. After the luncheon, the Mayor handed Mr.

Phelan his transportation, but later in the afternoon Mr. Phelan,

suspicious of his purpose, sent word to the Mayor that he had decided to

remain in the city. He remained behind to protect the funds.

As subsequently developed in the graft investigations, the Supervisors

had accused the Mayor of abandoning the city government to his enemies,

and insisted upon the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of

their office, and that the work of distributing relief at that time was

the principal business of the city.

RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS OF PROSECUTION FROM

JUNE, 1906, TO MAY 17, 1909

(As shown by testimony taken at trial of Patrick Calhoun.)

RECEIPTS.

Subscription account $ 73,384.75

Subscription account R. Spreckels 138,478.05

Cash received by W. J. Burns 1,278.70

Refunded by the Bulletin account Older case 250.00

-----------

$213,391.50

DISBURSEMENTS.

W. J. BURNS ACCOUNT: W. J. Burns account, personal, $12,357.45; office

expenses, $1,911.43; office furniture, $671.50; carriage hire, $27.25;

auto hire, $2,700.75; auto expense, $4,162.36; traveling expense,

$1,302.15; telegrams, $797.79; The Bulletin, $309.55; incidentals,

$158.50; paid for account City and County of San Francisco, $223.52;

detective services, $70,572.65; detective expenses, $27,277.35; extra

salaries, $778.55. Total, $123,250.80.

F. J. HENEY ACCOUNT: Rent, $3,186.25; office expense, $1,522.02; private

exchange and operator, $1,949.22; telegrams, $316.82; postage and

messenger expense, $280.26; traveling expense, $118.45; office salaries,

$8,684.67; office furniture, $433.50; auto and carriage hire, $957.05;

stenographic and legal expense, $2,147.37; detective expense, $4,232.61.

Total, $23,828.22.

SUNDRY DISBURSEMENTS: P. Dolman, $5,087.65; Hiram W. Johnson,

$11,000.00; J. J. Dwyer, $13,400.00; C. W. Cobb, $10,000.00; legal

expense, official count for judges, $191.50; George J. Cleary, $70.00;

L. Kavanaugh, $506.20; D. M. Duffy, $1,878.85; W. J. Burns, $17,195.00;

Jas. Foley, $1,010.00; Miler & Co., $40.00; automobiles, $5,100.00; auto

expense, $815.98. Total, $66,295.18.

Total disbursements $213,374.20

Balance, cash 17.30

-----------

$213,391.50

ITEMS, W. J. BURNS ACCOUNT.

=Personal=: Salary, $8,548.80; subsistence, $2,081.75; rent, $1,726.90.

Total, $12,357.45.

=Office Expenses=: Rent (R. L. Radke Co.), $935.00; telephone, P. S. T. &

T. Co., $398.93; light and heat--E. D. Feil, $25.00; W. G. Stafford,

$8.00; mantels, $0.95--$33.95; towels (Star Towel Sup. Co.), $15.80;

newspapers, $46.40; P. O. Box, U. S. A., $12.00; stamps, U. S. A.,

$20.40; Purity Water Co., $12.00; advertising--Call, $1.60; Examiner,

$3.40--$5.00; car fare, $3.20; stationery--Library Bureau, $7.40;

Mysell-Rollins, $3.00; Barry Co., $9.75; Brown & Power, $59.90; E. H.

Wobber and others, $76.70--$156.75; typewriter expense-Vaughn, $56.30;

Revalk, $77.10; Underwood, $5.50--$138.90; stenographic, $43.80 (L. F.

Hurlburt, et al.); incidentals--pans, $0.40; opening Marchand's safe,

$10.00; safe dep. Crocker, $6.00; painting floor, $1.00; N. Y. Exchange,

$0.95; express charges, $8.40; keys, $3.25; paint, $1.00; tel.

directory, $1.50; stars (spec.), $5.25; city directories, $9.00; elect.

buzzer, $1.35; show cards (A. Unsworth), $18.50; show card frames (Young

& Rhodes), $2.00; whetstone, $0.70; hauling, $5.00; moving safe (Gorham

& Thomas), $15.00--$89.30. Total office expenses, $1,911.43.

=Office Furniture=: Lamp, $3.55; two desk lamps, $7.80; J. Breuner Co.,

$68.00; water heater, $19.20; Library Bureau, $78.00; Ladd's Gun Store,

$55.50; safe (Freeman, Brewster, McCabe), $165.00; 2 gas heaters,

$13.10; Spencer Desk Co., $37.50; Geo. Walcom (curtains) $3.35; E.

Emerson (desk), $10.00; Olympic Arms Co., $28.55; Library Bureau,

$40.50; L. & E. Emanuel, $12.00; Acme Furn. Co., $96.75; Hale's, $23.20;

C. P. Stanton, $9.50. Total, $671.50.

=Carriage Hire=: Kelly, $2.50, $4.00, $5.00, $3.00, $12.75. Total, $27.25.

=Auto Hire=: Scott, $15.00, $5.00, $50.00, $65.00, $10.00; H. M. Owens,

$20.00; W. J. Burns, $90.00; March 30th, $207.50; Ruef's arrest, $10.00;

F. J. Heney, $10.00; W. J. Burns, $5.00; April 27th, $32.50; L.

Heidinger, $25.00; Auto Livery Co., $73.50, $92.50; Kelly, $32.50; Otis

Patkhill, $45.00; Auto L. Co., $538.00; A. S. Lathaw, $105.00; Auto

Livery Co., $296.50, $60.00, $20.00; M. Mamlock, $17.50; Auto Livery,

$78.00; Cal. & Coulter, $25.00; F. Coulter, $42.50; Auto Livery Co.,

$25.00; Auto Livery Co., $288.00; Zimmerline Bros., $5.75; Auto Livery

Co., $132.50, $22.50, $190.50, $35.00, $22.50; Broadway Garage, $8.00.

Total, $2,700.75.

=Auto Expense=: Goggles, $3.50; sundries, $9.35; Harris Rubber Co.,

$120.98; Harris Rubber Co., $70.10; Geo. P. Moore Co., $12.30; Geo. P.

Moore Co., $9.35; Harris Rubber Co., $48.58; Chanslor Lyon, $30.88;

Harris Rubber Co., $24.39; Bauer Lamp, $1.50; Bauer Lamp, $4.50; Auto

Livery, $132.00; Auto Livery, $2.00; Chans. & Lyon, $12.75; Chans. &

Lyon, $14.05; G. P. Moore, $26.90; G. P. Moore, $6.12; Arcade Garage,

$51.20; towing auto, $5.00; Irvine Mch. Wks., $114.60; Harris Rubber

Co., $6.00; Franklin Car, $59.12; Gillig & Son, $9.00; Gillig & Son,

$5.00; Arcade Garage, $149.45; Arcade Garage, $134.25; G. P. Moore Co.,

$3.00; H. W. Bogen, $103.50; H. W. Bogen, $127.00; Pioneer Auto Co.,

$0.75; Pioneer Auto Co., $5.40; Gorham Rubber Co., $35.00; Berg Auto

Supply Co., $1.50; Pioneer Garage, $6.00; Keenan Bros., $51.80; Keenan

Bros., $23.05; Pioneer Garage, $186.70; Diamond Rubber Co., $222.50;

Pioneer Auto Co., $2.50; Pioneer Auto Co., $24.00; Auto Livery Co.,

$166.00; G. P. Moore, $2.50; G. P. Moore, $4.50; Harris Rubber Co.,

$2.25; Arcade, $151.60; Arcade, $151.50; Bogan, $9.75; Bogan, $39.00;

Pioneer, $3.00; Pioneer, $1.00; tire repair, $0.75; Pacific Gar.,

$12.85; Pacific Gar., $97.40; Arcade, $123.35; Keenan, $11.00; Keenan,

$13.95; Chans. & L., $3.25; Chans. & L., $2.50; Bogen, $9.85; Bogen,

$7.00; Osen & Hunter, $109.45; Pacific Gar., $5.25; Pacific Gar.,

$70.00; Irvington Garage, $71.50; Pioneer, $8.50; Pioneer, $6.00; J. E.

Elkington & Sons, $55.50; Continental R. Co., $88.88; Schwartz &

Gotlieb, $8.00; C. & L., $12.45; Pacific, $9.75; Pacific, $11.25;

Spreckels Garage, $384.85; Sunset Garage, $14.50; Spreckels Garage,

$82.65; Pioneer, $7.00; Letcher, S. Jose, $4.00; Keenan, $104.05;

Pioneer Auto Co., $10.50; Pacific, $29.10; Halls Auto Rep., $32.30;

Studebaker, $17.91; Arcade, $159.15; Spreckels Garage, $185.25; Jerome

Garage, $2.25; Miller Bros., $8.75; Goodyear, $5.00; Cr. H. W. Bogen,

$10.00. Net total, $4,162.36.

=Traveling Expense=: Kendall to Portland, $20.00; Ferry, $1.05; Halsey,

$493.40; Geo. Burns, round trip home, $130.00; baggage transfer, $1.50;

trip to Oakland, auto, etc., $7.10; trip to Oakland, auto, etc., $6.60;

B. T. Block to San Jose, $2.15; ferryage auto, etc., $15.35; ferryage

auto, etc., $6.60; F. A. Leach, $230.00; B. A. Libby, $100.00; ferryage,

auto. etc., $1.90; ferryage auto, etc., $1.90; ferryage auto, etc.,

$1.00; W. J. Burns to Los Angeles, $57.40; W. J. Burns, $2.10; Slater

witness Ford case, $168.90; trips Okd. Gallagher case, $13.20; Marie

Ware McK. Port. S. F. Ret., $50.00; Cr. F. H. Leach, witness Ford case,

$8.00. Net total, $1,302.15.

=Telegrams=: $797.79.

=The Bulletin=: 30,000 papers (10-31, 1908) $309.55.

=Incidentals=: Christmas turkeys, $37.85; 5 glove orders, $10.00; theater

party, $6.00; C. P. Stanton (burglar alarm), $57.25; S. F. Call 1400

Jones, $2.25; expense account Blake case, $3.50; lunches, W. J. Burns et

al., $41.65. Total, $158.50.

=Paid for account City and County of San Francisco=: Exchange on

Washington, D. C., sent to F. A. Leach, witness, to cover expenses to S.

F., $250.00; less amount refunded by City and County of San Francisco,

$26.48--$223.52.

=Detective Services and Expenses=: D. F. Cecil, services $2,396.00,

expenses $942.50; H. J. Woolman, services $476.00, expenses $328.00; R.

J. Bergen, services $708.00, expenses $510.50; R. H. Perry, $3,095.00,

expenses $1,318.05; I. H. Henderson, services $350.00, expenses $188.85;

E. S. Spaulding, services $2,820.00, expenses $550.70; W. W. Farrell,

services $704.00, expenses $196.50; L. G. Carpenter, services $225.00;

expenses, $170.20; R. S. Spaulding, services $2,042.00, expenses

$378.25; J. G. Lawlor, services $2,837.50, expenses $1,221.63; I. J.

Scott, expenses $30.00; E. G. Borden, services $78.00; P. Hendirard,

services $202.00, expenses $200.55; R. J. Burns, $2,810.00, expenses

$2,076.47; S. S. Simon, services $206.00; B. Kohlman, services $248.00,

expenses $18.75; G. E. Burns, services $2,510.00, expenses $4,369.62; C.

F. Oliver, services $2,920.00, expenses $833.85; C. P. Fox, services

$472.50, expenses $265.35; S. G. R. Ollsen, $40.00; G. W. Hess,

$1,595.00, expenses $1,250.22; J. McCarthy, services $1,313.00, expenses

$227.35; J. C. Saulman, services $110.00, expenses $1.20; L. Pring,

services $44.00; L. Cullen, services $60.00; M. C. Doyle, services

$52.00; D. M. Duffy, services $150.00; Chas. Wyman, services $20.00; A.

Steffens, $45.00; A. Greggains, services $780.00, expenses $665.85; J.

H. Shiner, services $480.00, expenses $310.80; P. F. Roller, $290.00,

expenses $349,20; P. E. Sowers, services $410.00, expenses $284.10; T.

R. Sullivan, services $320.00, expenses $328.55; D. McCarthy, services

$948.00, expenses $114.21; J. Compton, services $1,880.00, expenses

$81.40; R. Ellis, services $246.00, expenses $6.00; P. Bergin, services

$20.00, expenses $17.00; C. P. Stanton, services $2,645.00, expenses

$4.20; H. Sullivan, services $95.00, expenses $1.70; J. S. Hensley,

services $140.00; James Foley, services $2,335.00, expenses $134.10; J.

F. Severney, services $285.00, expenses $15.55; A. Hornberg, services

$44.00; E. W. Stow, services $342.00, expenses $216.60; G. M. Insley,

$1,417.00, expenses $414.45; B. F. Daman, services $1,148.00, expenses

$529.80; L. C. Caldwell, $896.00, expenses $360.25; R. N. Hamlin,

services $1,902.00, expenses $50.00; F. Kingsberg, services $90.00; W.

Bettiee, services $1,068.00, expenses $164.25; W. J. Dewer, services

$160.00; J. F. Clark, services $1,072.00, expenses $501.29; W. J. Biggy,

Jr., services $260.00, expenses $35.40; M. C. Perry, services $144.00,

expenses $109.00; C. A. Spaulding, services $336.00, expenses $109.70;

E. T. Newsome, services $364.00, expenses $58.85; F. J. Barry, services

$32.00; J. H. Hamilton, services $26.00; R. C. Schindler, services

$1,483.00, expenses $706.85; W. S. Schindler, services, $1,161.00,

expenses $224.15; O. G. Schleicher, services $340.00, expenses $122.66;

E. A. Platt, services $1,205.00, expenses $315.20; W. H. Russell,

services $1,305.00, expenses $298.30; S. B. Priest, services $210.00,

expenses $1.40; E. J. Whiskatchies, services $1,200.00, expenses

$484.85; E. W. Madden, services $255.00, expenses $33.35; J. M.

Creighton, services $1,494.00, expenses $667.60; G. E. Madden, services

$30.00, expenses $1.70; J. Crawford, services $35.00; E. Graf, services

$20.00; expenses $7.00; W. Duchion, services $100.00; J. V. Thompson,

services $72.00, expenses $13.00; F. C. Boden, expenses $62.35; F. F.

McGee, services $50.00; M. L. Doyle, services $286.00; E. M. Burgoyne,

services $84.00, expenses $53.95; C. Bernstein, services $64.00; E.

Goldstein, services $92.00, expenses $15.25; H. C. Willer, services

$216.00; J. W. F. Jackson, services $384.00, expenses $178.50; D. L.

Chiles, services $20.00; Mrs. May Schindler, services $154.50, expenses

$3.50; L. Gold, services $805.00, expenses $58.65; J. M. Ullmache,

services $40.00, expenses $93.20; C. P. Snell, services $12.00, expenses

$0.65; W. C. Heney, services $1,939.00, expenses $20.05; E. C. Lange,

services $42.00; expenses $2.60; E. Emerson, services $365.00, expenses

$79.15; J. McKenzie, services $47.00; O. Hooper, services $85.00,

expenses $12.45; Geo. Mane, services $15.00; Chas. Cook, services

$40.00, expenses $0.80; C. T. Oliver, Jr., services $236.00, expenses

$25.80; D. W. Armstrong, services $5.00; F. A. Neary, services $280.00,

expenses $42.50; P. D. Code, services $280.00, expenses $35.65; Martin

Judge, services $40.00; J. D. Silverthew, services $14.00, expenses

$1.71; G. Hague, services $68.00; W. J. Kelly, services $199.00,

expenses $3.75; S. G. Whitney, services $52.00, expenses $6.65; C. F.

Schneider, services $148.00, expenses $9.30; L. R. Mower, services

$34.00, expenses $26.50; G. L. Doolittle, services $26.00, expenses

$7.10; W. A. Conneau, services $25.00, expenses $2.20; E. S. Newsome,

services $125.00; J. M. Creighton, services $615.00, expenses $200.00;

H. Beasly, services $175.00; L. J. Cass, services $155.00; L. Murphy,

services $230.00; Ed. Hornback, services $71.00; E. M. ----, services

$435.00, expenses $44.80; P. Berr, services $36.00; S. J. Rohan,

services $70.00; Geo. Yearaner, services $237.50, expenses $11.60; E.

Vetisarator, services $63.00; F. C. Boden, services $150.00; T. C.

McGiff, services $12.00; H. J. Loventzen, services $680.00, expenses

$471.25; A. H. Barr, services $748.00, expenses $2.00; P. M. McGee,

expenses $100.50; N. Komgold, services $525.00, expenses $37.35; E.

Gensler, services $15.00, W. J. Otts, services $510.00, expenses

$423.85; J. H. Dewey, services $30.00, expenses $6.75; W. C. Knox,

services $180.00; M. F. ----, services $1,162.50, expenses $363.00; J.

M. Kelly, services $35.00; R. H. Schouatt, services $161.00, expenses

$2.25; D. S. Hutchins, services $80.00, expenses $40.45; Chas. Goff,

services $127.15; C. P. Morey, Jr., services $10.00; S. F. ----,

services $95; Jesse A. Gahans, services $30.00; A. Setrakian, services

$12.00, expenses $14.50; E. E. Kam, services $10.00; J. Walsh, services

$25.00. Total services, $70,572.65; expenses, $27,277.35.

=Extra Salaries=: O. F. Holmes, $25.00; S. S. Simon, $5.00; O. F. Holmes,

$48.25; W. J. Flynn and 2 assts., $73.00; Wyman, $20.00; Steffen,

$20.00; T. Lonergan, $50.00; T. Lonergan, $50.00; T. Lonergan, $50.00;

Cullen-Watchman, $28.00; A. Fromberg, $8.00; G. H. Knox, $5.00; A. B.

Lycaw, $48.80; W. J. Flynn, $50.00; securing information at Roys, $5.50;

D. M. Duffy, $104.50; C. A. Sage, $30.20; B. Bergen, $20.80; P.

Callender, $25.00; P. Callender, $2.00; J. C. Brown, $30.00; D. W.

Armstrong, $10.00; D. W. Armstrong, $25.00; D. E. Scales, $5.00; Bob

Ellis, $15.00; D. W. Armstrong, $1.00; S. Hitchcock, $1.00; D. Wilkie,

$25.00. Total, $778.55.

ITEMS FRANCIS J. HENEY ACCOUNT.

=Rent of Office=: $3,186.25.

=Office Expenses=: Water, light, heat (repairs gas fixtures, $4.88; purity

water, $22.75; Stafford & Co., $297.93; S. F. G. & E. Co., $209.59; gas

regulator, $4.76; Gas Appliance Co., $18.00; gas mantels, $3.00; Bush &

Lind, $17.00); stationery (E. H. Wobber & Co., et al., $314.90;

numbering machine, $5.00; I. Upham Co., $97.23; Brown & Power, $1.00;

Schmidt L. & L. Co., $6.00; Badescu Prtg. Co., $2.50); typewriter,

rental and supplies (Remington T. W. Co., $139.80; Smith Premier, T. W.,

$8.00; Typewritorium, $7.50); newspapers, $126.15; janitor supplies

(scavenger, $16.59; towels, $26.44; C. Brown & Sons, $19.80; J. H.

Reardon, $2.40; W. E. Johnson, $3.35; Greenblatt & Co., $1.80; Newman &

Levinson, $2.55; Brittain & Co., $19.00; O'Connor, Moffatt, $3.00; W. T.

Wiley, $3.00; H. G. Root, $14.33; S. P. Co., $1.33; carpet-cleaning,

$7.55; Hill & Co., $18.50); sundries, C. P. Stanton et al., $85.14;

glazing, $11.25. Total, $1,522.02.

=Private Exchange, Telephone and Operator=: $1,949.22.

=Telegrams=: $316.82.

=Postage and Messenger Service=: $280.26.

=Traveling Expenses=: $118.45.

=Office Salaries=: J. H. Reardon, $1,050.00; W. E. Johnson, $1,650.00;

Miss O. O. McShane, $1,934.66; Mrs. Smith, $806.25; Mrs. L. E. Russell,

$2,085.00; C. H. Stanton, $377.51; janitress, $156.25; voucher No. 1,

Jany. 31, 1907; no detail, $625.00. Total, $8,684.67.

=Office Furniture=: J. Behrn & Co., $15.75; Fuller Desk Co., $27.00;

Rucker Desk Co., $142.25; J. Breuner Co., $28.50; O'Connor, Moffatt,

$91.65; Goodyear Rubber Co., $3.50; Sloane & Co., $52.37; G. Lipman,

$7.50; Bush & Lind, $27.89; C. Brown & Sons, $6.05; shelving $10.00;

Jewel Gas Appliance Co., $21.04. Total, $433.50.

=Auto and Carriage Hire=: United Carriage Co., $100.25; Pacific Garage,

$100.00; Auto Livery, $70.00; Kelly's, $8.50; Arcade Garage, $5.00; Tom

Sawyer, $17.50; J. W. Burke, $3.00; Max Mamlock, $15.00; T. White,

$5.00; L. D. Crane, $632.80. Total, $957.05.

=Stenographic and Legal Expense=: L. Kavanaugh, $1,031.00; T. B. Elderkin;

$83.40; G. W. Smith, $28.00; State of California, $3.50; H. Hernon,

$18.10; County Clerk, $6.00; citation for Codes, $0.37; express on

briefs, $2.65; F. L. Gauhey, $2.00; F. M. Handy, $1.50; R. B. Treat,

$1.75; D. W. Burchard, $200.00; S. Potter, $15.00; notary fees, $2.00;

H. Harper, $96.15; C. Bennett, $5.00; A. W. Reynolds, $13.20; W. C.

Bristol, $77.15; H. C. Finkler, $6.40; Richards & Carrier, $258.20; Mrs.

M. Moore, $10.00; Mr. Webb, $3.00; Mrs. C. Jellison, $5.80; D. Young,

expert, $25.00; C. D. Stewart, expert, $189.00; G. W. Reynolds, expert,

$63.00. Total, $2,147.37.

=Detective Expense=: W. J. Burns, $2,416.95; I. Rittenhouse et al.,

$1,815.66. Total, $4,232.61.

Transcriber's Note

Footnotes 355 and 477 are missing. Footnote 301 has duplicate anchors.

The misnumbering is retained as printed. Footnote 427 refers to "Chapter

XV 'The Ford Trials'." Chapter XX is entitled "The Ford Trials and

Acquittals". The apparent reference, however, may be to a separate

volume, so it has been retained.

Some words are spelled multiple ways (e.g. 'indorse'/'endorse',

'employe'/'employee', 'Beaney'/'Beany'). These variants are retained.

Some words (e.g. 'increditably' for 'incredibly') are likely mistakes

and are corrected and noted. The author regularly elides the second 'l'

in words like 'wilfully' and 'skilfully'. Where the word (e.g.,

'subpoenaes') appears in quoted material, it appears as printed.

'Pittsburg' (PA), without the ending 'h' is left as printed, since the

letter had been officially removed in 1890, but was restored only in

1911 as this text was being written.

Hyphenation is also somewhat irregular. Occurrences of hyphens at line

breaks are resolved according to other instances in the text, or if

there are none, in accordance with modern usage.

The following list includes apparent errors found in the original text.

Where there is an obvious typographical error, as opposed to a spelling

variant, the correction has been made and appear in the text as like

this. Where the error occurs in a note, the page referred to is the

location of the page where the note begins, though the error may appear

in a continuation on a following page. The [] brackets are used to

denote the error, either by changing, omitting, adding or reversing

characters. A slash (/) denotes the change required to gain a correct

usage.

a[c]count (33 n30); proper[t]y-owners (39, n28); fi[r]st (103, n108);

any felony or [or/of] any misdemeanors (107, n113); Commis[s]ioner (112

n120); el[e]cting (127 n140); intere[r/s]ts (182 n204); convi[n]ction

(221 n239); bri[k/b]e-taking (231 n251); incredi[ta]bly (256);

assoc[i]ates (273); seriou[t/s] (276); I though[t] it was (291);

sta[u]nchly (305); dum[b]founded (326); hundr[e]d (351, n354);

offer[i]ng (338 n360); dir[e]ct (342 n368); kidnap[p]ing (379 n415);

advan[at/ta]ge (390 n424); embar[r]assment (426 n458); an[n]ouncement

(428 n461); parol[l]ed (441); poli[ti]cal (459); testimo[u/n]y (xxxiv);

station[a/e]ry (xxxv); [a/A] uto Livery (xxxv)

The following is a list of punctuation corrections, where the printed

image is ambiguous, or simply wrong, in favor of correct usage. Court

transcripts were not entirely consistent in the handling of quotations,

especially hear-say quotations.

p. 74 n77 The People vs. Patrick Calhoun[./,]

p. 75 n79 pages 3837 and on[,] 3746, 3743

p. 100 n107 ['/"]butt in['/"]

it was Ford who did it.[']"

p. 125 n136 a writ of habeas corpus (150 California, p. 665[.)/).]

p. 158 n171 He (Ruef) said, ["/']All right, if he comes around I

will talk with him.[']"

p. 174 a third telephone company[./,]

p. 222 n240 Ten per cent[.] of the amount subscribed

p. 245 n265 putting the United Railroads out of business.['/"]

p. 331 n354 notorious. [i/I]n not so doing

p. 339 n363 I don't want to hear anything more about Ruef's

testimony.[']"

p. 358 n391 he did telephone to Mr. Langdon.["]

p. 367 n402 have the $10,000.["]

["/']One year after date

The notes read, ["/']One year