[101]See Ruef’s statement as published in the San Francisco Chronicle, October 26, 1906.[102]Mr. Langdon, on arriving in San Francisco, issued the following statement:“No person in California believes that my alleged suspension is due to neglect or inefficiency. No dissent is necessary before the people. It is plain that my removal is deemed necessary by Ruef and Gallagher to prevent an honest, searching investigation of conditions that prevail in municipal affairs in San Francisco. Their plan will come to naught, however.“As District Attorney I shall pursue this investigation to the end. I deny the legal right of the Mayor or the Board of Supervisors to suspend or dismiss me. The provision of the Charter purporting to give that authority is clearly unconstitutional. The citizens must determine whether or not they will countenance this high-handed proceeding in a community which is supposed to be governed by the law, and not by the will of a boss and his puppet.”[103]The San Francisco Chronicle in its issue of October 27 thus described the crowd: “Every man the police put out of the building was cheered by the crowd and every time policemen laid hands on anyone they were hissed. However, it was evident that the citizens who gathered outside the Temple Israel yesterday afternoon did not come prepared to fight with the police force. In the crowd standing outside almost every man prominent in the business and professional life of the city could be seen. Manufacturers, merchants, lawyers, doctors, men engaged in all the various lines of wholesale and retail business, and all the professions, included among the latter being many Protestant ministers, Catholic priests and Jewish rabbis. Here and there in the great concourse of people were scattered little groups of men of the type that may be seen hanging around the tenderloin.”[104]Detectives Steve Bunner and Tim Riordan. These men accompanied Ruef for nearly a month. Late in November, after Ruef had been indicted, they were sent back to active duty.[105]While the crowd was pressing into the room, a deputy sheriff undertook to search Heney for concealed weapons. Heney complained of the officer’s conduct, protested vigorously. “That is the man standing there,” cried Heney, “he did so at the request of Abe Ruef.”“Who was informed that Mr. Heney was armed,” responded Ruef.It developed that Heney was not armed, and the incident went no further. But it indicated the sharpness of the division between the two factions.[106]The Chronicle of October 27, 1906, contains the following account of Heney’s reply to Ruef: “‘I now announce to the court,’ said Heney fervently, ‘that I intend as Assistant District Attorney, to present charges of felony and misdemeanor against Abraham Ruef, and I desire to examine the members of this panel to determine if any member entertains bias or prejudice for or against Abraham Ruef in the matter of the charges which are to be presented by the District Attorney’s office. I understand that there is no question as to Abraham Ruef’s right to have the indictment set aside if any member of the Grand Jury is biased or prejudiced against him. It would be a farce,’ Heney went on, his voice swelling, ‘it would be adding to the comedy of errors enacted last night (the attempted removal of Langdon from office), if we have a Grand Jury which is biased or prejudiced. It has become public through the newspapers—to some extent, at least—that Abraham Ruef is to be investigated. The People have the same right as the defendant to examine the members of the panel as to their qualifications. I know that a number of the members do not possess the qualifications provided by the statute, as they are not on the assessment roll, and I desire to question them on that point. The Court has the right to excuse a juror if he is not on the assessment roll. The Supreme Court has decided that a man has the right to be investigated by a Grand Jury of nineteen men who are qualified according to the statute and none others. It is not necessary to take for grand jurors the nineteen whose names are first drawn from the box. We should examine them, so that a member who has a bias or prejudice as to a particular person may be instructed that he shall not participate in the investigation of that person.’”[107]Under the California law, the Attorney-General may at his discretion, take the prosecution of a criminal case out of the hands of a District Attorney. It was within General Webb’s province to have taken charge of the San Francisco graft trials. In a statement given wide publicity at the time, General Webb stated that he had no intention of taking charge of the graft trials unless Ruef succeeded in seizing the District Attorney’s office. Long after, however, Heney, in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, Thornwell Mullally, Tirey L. Ford, William M. Abbott, Abraham Ruef and Eugene E. Schmitz, No. 823, set forth a statement made to him by Ruef when Ruef was pleading for immunity, in which Webb’s presence at the impaneling of the Grand Jury was touched upon as follows:“Ruef said in reply in substance, ‘You are prejudiced against me, Heney, ever since we had that quarrel during last election. You know that the public-service corporations are responsible for the conditions which exist in San Francisco and that I can help you send some of the officials of those corporations to the penitentiary, and I can also help you to clean up this city and make it impossible for corruption to get a foothold here again for a long time. You are afraid to trust me, but you are making a mistake. The moment it becomes known that I have gone over to the prosecution the most powerful influences in this State will all be arrayed against us, and particularly against me. The moment you attack Pat Calhoun you in fact attack Herrin. You don’t know the relation between these parties and the corporation as well as I do. I am very fond of Tirey Ford, but I don’t care a rap about Pat Calhoun, and would just as soon testify against him as not. But the moment it becomes known that I am ready to do so my life will no longer be safe. I will have to stick to the prosecution from the moment I start in with it. You don’t know what desperate means these people are capable of resorting to. My life will not be safe. If they keep me in the county jail with O’Neil as Sheriff they will kill me to a certainty. You don’t know how many influential people are involved in this thing. You and Burns think you know, but there are a lot of people whom you don’t know anything about who are mixed up in it. I tell you that the combined influence of all these people will make it next to impossible to secure convictions, and will make it very dangerous for all of us. It will not do to lessen the weight of my testimony any by having me plead guilty in that extortion case. Besides that, the Court would not allow me bail after I had pleaded guilty, and the Supreme Court may knock out the elisor, and then I would be absolutely in the hands of the other people, and they would surely kill me. Sheriff O’Neil is loyal to me now, but the moment he knew I was going to testify against Schmitz he would be very bitter against me, and would do whatever those people wanted him to do. Moreover, Herrin will get Attorney-General Webb to come down and take these cases out of the hands of Langdon and yourself, and he will declare the immunity contract off upon the ground that the District Attorney has no power to make one and will prosecute me on some of the bribery cases now pending against me, and if they convict me Herrin will see to it that I am not pardoned by the Governor. He now controls the Governor and the chances are he will continue to name the Governor and control him for the next twenty years. Webb was a deputy in Ford’s office when Ford was Attorney-General, and it was Ford who got him to come down here and “butt in” at the time you were impaneling the Grand Jury. I know you fellows thought it was I who got him to come down here, but as a matter of fact I did not know any more about it than you did until he appeared there, and I am sure it was Ford who did it.’”[108]While Ruef was struggling through the crowd to reach his automobile Dr. Shadwick O. Beasley, Instructor in Anatomy at the Cooper Medical College, was assaulted by some unidentified person. Dr. Beasley turned, shook hisfistat Ruef and hissed him. The doctor was immediately placed under arrest. Dr. Beasley, on his part, swore out a warrant charging an unknown deputy sheriff with battery. Beasley was then made subject of petty persecution. He was, for example, held up on the street by a deputy sheriff and charged with carrying a concealed weapon. He was searched by two men, but nothing more deadly than a case of surgical instruments was found upon him. Dr. Beasley complained bitterly of the rough treatment from the officers.The San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of October 27, 1906, thus describes the scene which followed Ruef’s appearance before the crowd:“With fists and clubs Chief of Police Dinan and his squad from the Central Police Station fought off the crowd of angry citizens assembled about the Temple Israel who sought to lay violent hands on Abe Ruef when the curly-headed usurper of the functions of the municipal government was leaving the scene of the Grand Jury meeting yesterday afternoon. And in the wake of the police were the Ruef heelers from the tenderloin with their hands on their pistols, threatening to shoot down the citizens of the city of San Francisco who should dare to approach too near the sacred person of their tenderloin idol.“It was one of the most remarkable scenes ever witnessed in any city of this country. Stung with the outrageous assumption of the powers of the public prosecutor when he was about to be placed on trial himself for crime, the citizens of the city, among whom are names that stand highest in business and professional circles, sought to make him realize the impudence of his conduct. That he escaped a swift punishment for his arrogant seizure of the office of the District Attorney is solely due to the presence and strenuous efforts of the police.”[109]In sending his officers to handle this crowd, Chief of Police Dinan gave the following instructions:“The captains, sergeants and officers so detailed are instructed that they are sent to the place designated for the purpose of doing strict police duty. They will see that the streets and sidewalks are not obstructed, and that no violations of the law are permitted.”[110]Under the San Francisco municipal charter, the District Attorney has charge of criminal cases, and the City Attorney of civil cases in which the city is concerned. The City Attorney also acts as adviser to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. The two are independent offices.[111]Shortridge stated that asamicus curiae, it was his duty to see that the proceedings were without flaw. Heney refused to take him seriously, however, referred to him facetiously as the “curious friend of the Court.” and suggested that the Court unassisted might be able to determine what was competent evidence.[112]The following nineteen citizens composed the Grand Jury that conducted the investigation of San Francisco “graft” charges:E. J. Gallagher, photographic supply dealer; Frank A. Dwyer, real estate; Herman H. Young, baker and restaurant proprietor; Mendle Rothenburg, liquor dealer; James E. Gordon, merchant; Alfred Greenebaum, merchant; Wallace Wise, haberdasher; Jeremiah Deasy, insurance agent; Rudolph Mohr, brewer; C. G. Burnett, capitalist; Charles Sonntag, merchant; Morris A. Levingston, liquor dealer; B. P. Oliver, real estate; W. P. Redington, druggist; Christian P. Rode, drayman; Ansel C. Robinson, merchant; Dewey Coffin, real estate; F. G. Sanborn, law book publisher; Maurice Block, merchant.[113]The Supervisors who signed the affidavits exonerating Ruef and themselves were: Charles Boxton, Jennings J. Phillips, W. W. Sanderson, F. P. Nicholas, L. A. Rea, Edward I. Walsh, Andrew M. Wilson, J. J. Furey, Sam Davis, C. J. Harrigan, James T. Kelly, P. M. McGushin, Thomas F. Lonergan, Daniel G. Coleman, Max Mamlock and M. W. Coffey. Each of them made declaration as follows:“This affiant has never committed a felony of any kind or character, and has never been a party thereto, and there is not and can be no evidence presented of or concerning any felony committed by the undersigned or threatened by the undersigned. It is not true that this affiant has ever been party to the commission of any crime or any misdemeanor.“This affiant further says that any and all charges, assertions and innuendoes contained in the complaint and contained in the public press of and concerning any alleged felonies, misdemeanors or wrongful acts committed or alleged to have been committed by this defendant are absolutely untrue and false, and this affiant has never been guilty of any violation of the law, and, so far as the knowledge of this affiant is concerned, each and all of the other defendants named herein are absolutely innocent of the commission of any crime or felony or offense against the laws of the State of California; and this affiant further says that he has no knowledge, direct or indirect, of the commission of any felony orofany misdemeanors or of any violations of the laws of the State of California, or any thereof, or of the City and County of San Francisco, by either or any of the defendants named herein.”At the graft trials it developed that the Supervisors had signed this affidavit without reading it. At the trial of The People vs. Glass, No. 675, Supervisor Michael Coffey testified that “On the afternoon that affidavit was signed, I came down late to a meeting of the board and the members of the board were in the Notary Public’s office. I went over there and met Mr. Keane, and Mr. Keane produced that paper and asked me to sign it, and I signed it and gave him a dollar to pay the Notary fees. I did not read the affidavit at that time. It was not read aloud to me while I was there. I did not talk with any person about what was in this affidavit before it was prepared. I did not know who prepared it.” See page 237 of transcript on appeal.Supervisor Wilson testified: “Mr. Ruef got up that affidavit, I believe. I signed it because there was a rumor going about that some of the Supervisors had gone over to the prosecution. It was so stated in the public press and there was a little excitement among the members of the board and we understood this was sent down by Mr. Ruef to stiffen them up and to find out if that was so. It was not read at the notary’s office while I was there. I did not read it before signing it.” See Transcript on Appeal The People vs. Glass, page 278.Supervisor Boxton testified: “I signed the affidavit just shown me at the request of the clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Mr. George Keane. I do not know who prepared the affidavit. No one had talked with me as to the facts that were to be put in it. I knew nothing about its contents at all. It was supposed generally amongst the members there was some talk about it, that there was some of the members there that were a bit weak-kneed, and would probably tell all they knew, so this affidavit was framed up, as I understand it, to tie them down a little tighter.” See Transcript on Appeal, The People vs. Glass, page 251.Practically the same testimony was given by other Supervisors at the various graft trials.[114]See footnote95,page 87.[115]The passage between Heney and Ruef’s lawyers which followed Judge Seawell’s ruling is thus set forth in the San Francisco Chronicle of November 3rd:“‘You can ask Mr. Ruef if he is guilty of any crimes or felonies,’ Ach suggested to Heney.“‘I suppose he’ll plead guilty here?’ responded Heney skeptically.“Samuel M. Shortridge, of Ruef’s legal staff, took this remark to heart and hotly said to Heney, ‘You’ll plead guilty before he does.’ The Judge informed Shortridge that Heney obviously spoke in jest, but Shortridge thought it a poor joke. Ruef considered Heney’s whole proceeding a joke.”[116]Judge Seawell in his decision said:“I am clearly of the opinion that the Charter, in so far as it relates to removal and suspension, does not apply to the District Attorney. I am firmly convinced that neither the Mayor nor the Board of Supervisors has any power to remove or suspend him. The District Attorney should not be left to the investigation of the municipal authorities. I can conceive how he might be compelled to proceed against the very persons who might be conducting an inquiry. I will grant the injunction as prayed for against Mr. Ruef.”[117]A movement to secure Heney’s dismissal from the District Attorney’s office, on the ground that he had accepted a fee in addition to his salary as Assistant District Attorney, to act as prosecutor was started. But the allegation was not sustained and another failure was scored by the defense.[118]See Transcript on Appeal The People of the State of California vs. Eugene E. Schmitz, pp. 500 and 557.[119]Ruef stated that he appeared as attorney for the French Restaurant Keepers’ Association. But those who paid him the money for his efforts in this instance testified at the trial of The People vs. Eugene E. Schmitz that they held membership in no such organization, nor had they heard of it. In May, 1907, Ruef stated to Heney that he had closed the bargain with the French-restaurant keepers to represent them on JANUARY 6, 1905. He insisted that he had at first flatly refused to represent them; that he had had no intention whatever of so doing until the San Francisco Bulletin denounced him for having had the licenses held up and challenged him to take the cases and to attempt to defend himself upon the theory that the money so obtained by him was received as an attorney’s fee.Heney examined the Bulletin files and found that the first time the Bulletin had mentioned the French-restaurant hold-up as an attempt on the part of Ruef to extort money from the restaurant proprietors was in the last edition of The Bulletin for JANUARY 7. 1905. (See Heney’s affidavit in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, et als., No. 823, pp. 141 to 143, inclusive.)[120]CommissionerHarry W. Hutton.[121]These Ruef-provided rules directed that no liquors be served in supper bedrooms on the first and second floors of the establishments, and required the French restaurants to take out hotel licenses and to keep registers the same as hotels. What the keepers of the places thought of the regulations came out at the Schmitz trial. Joe Malfanti of Delmonico’s, for example, testified: “They (the Ruef rules) made no change in the running of my business—not a single change. I had a hotel license for years before and I always had a register, so there was no change in my place whatever.”[122]The Andrews Grand Jury, named from its foreman, T. P. Andrews. The work of the Andrews Grand Jury was not lost, however. It served as basis for much of the investigation conducted by the Oliver Grand Jury.[123]Rosenthal testified at the Schmitz trial: “I told them from my observations and how things were going in the city and had been going for some years, that there was only one man who could help them—it was a question of life and death with them—and I said there is only one man who could help you, and that is Mr. Ruef.”Rosenthal, when examined on this point before the Grand Jury, refused to testify on the ground that conversation between attorney and client was privileged. Adler got into trouble with the Grand Jury over his testimony on this point. Both Rosenthal and Adler, however, testified at Schmitz’s trial.[124]N. M. Adler, proprietor of the Bay State Restaurant, testified at the Schmitz trial as to Loupy’s negotiations. Loupy called upon him twice. “The first time he came,” Adler testified, “he told me that things were very serious, and we would have to put up some money and hire Mr. Ruef; that he was the only man that could help us. I told him that I could not understand the proposition; that I had run my business for twenty years, and didn’t think that they could do me any harm. At that time Ruef was making his headquarters at the Pup restaurant. I could see that from my place across the street. He went there regularly.”Then Adler testified to the meeting before the Police Commissioners at which his attorney, Rosenthal, had not been permitted to speak, and continued: “Afterwards, Loupy came to me again, and told me that Tortoni had closed up, and that we should put up the money or we would be all closed. This was after we had been to the meeting of the Police Commissioners.”[125]The testimony brought out at the graft trials showed that Ruef received $8500 from the French restaurants, $5000 the first year from the five in the combine; $3000 the second, and $500 additional from Camille Mailhebeau. Ruef stated to Heney later and so testified at the Schmitz trial, that half of the $8000 received from the combine he turned over to Schmitz.[126]The five restaurant keepers were asked at the Schmitz trial whether they had employed Ruef because he was a lawyer or because of his recognized power as political boss. They testified as follows:A. B. Blanco of the “New Poodle Dog”—“Well, being a political boss we thought he had influence enough to get our licenses.”N. M. Adler, of the “Bay State”—“Well, the way I took it, Mr. Ruef is a boss. He had an influence over the commission. He was the only man who could help us.” On cross-examination: “I understood that if I did not employ Ruef I would not get my license. I understood that Mr. Ruef was the only man who could get my license.”Michel Debret of “Marchand’s”—“Well, I agreed to (pay the money to Ruef) because having consulted we saw we had no way to get out of it unless we paid Ruef, as he was a political boss, to protect ourselves.” “Because we thought—we thought if we didn’t pay the money we would be treated like Tortoni’s, we would be closed; we had no way to get out of it.” “I believed that Ruef and the Mayor controlled the Police Commissioners.”Joe Malfanti of “Delmonico’s”—“I did not pay this $1175 for fun; I had to save my license. I had about $400,000 invested there. I never figured on what effect it would have upon my business if I did not get a license. If it was for myself alone I would close the place, but I figured on my partners, what they had paid. They had a lease for five years and could not go through with it and I did it as a favor. If I was alone I would close. I would not make any fight. Numerous friends advised me to see Ruef.” “I went to Ruef—Ruef was the man that controlled the administration—Ruef was the one that could do the thing. His relation with the Mayor was so he could do what he pleased.”Jean Loupy was asked by Heney: “Did you go to him (Ruef) because he was a lawyer or because he was a political boss?” “Because he was a political boss,” replied Loupy.[127]Ruef would not take a check, neither would he accept gold—he insisted upon having currency—neither would he give a receipt. The money was taken to him by Pierre Priet, a French-restaurant keeper. Regarding the transfer of the money, Joe Malfanti, at the Schmitz trial, gave the following testimony:“Mr. Heney—Q. What did he say you were to get for the five thousand dollars, Priet? A. Yes.“Q. Yes, what did Priet say you were to get for your money? A. We were going to get the license.“Q. For two years? A. No, we were going to have no trouble for two years about a license.“Q. Five thousand dollars a year? A. Yes, sir.“Q. Now, then, what was said about how the money was to be paid? What did Priet say about how the money was to be paid? A. In currency.“Mr. Campbell—That is under the same objection and exception.“The Witness—And that two people, not three, only two people, not three.“Mr. Heney—Q. What do you mean, that no one was to go with him to Ruef? A. Yes.“The Witness—Priet said the money should be brought there in currency and paid with two people.“Q. Did Priet get you a receipt? A. I don’t think he ever looked for any. I asked him about that when he came back. He said: ‘Well, you should be glad to get his word of honor.’ That is what I got from Priet.”[128]Regan testified at the Schmitz trial:“The Mayor asked me to vote for the French liquor licenses. The first time he did so he put it on political grounds. He requested me to vote for them, saying it would hurt him politically if the license was not granted; and that they had so many friends and so many rich people frequented those places that it would be a very unpopular thing to take the licenses away, and he requested me to vote for them. That it would be unpopular to take them, the licenses, away, as they, the restaurants, had so many friends and so many rich people frequented the places. I said I didn’t think it was right, that he knew he got me to close those places up. That I could not vote for them, as they were immoral and should be closed. The second conversation was all of the same tenor.”[129]Commissioner Poheim took papers from Ruef’s office to the Mayor on the day of Hutton’s removal. Poheim testified at the Schmitz trial:“I took papers from Mr. Ruef’s office that I believe were the papers of removal. He told me that they were. That was the day of Hutton’s removal.”[130]The Chronicle in its issue of February 1, 1907, thus summarized the evidence against Schmitz and Ruef, and the nature of their defense:“Those operations are these: There are in this as in all other cities certain dens of vice, ranging from the very fashionable down to those patronized by the dregs of society, which can exist only when licensed to sell liquor. To give or withhold the license is within the discretion of the Police Commissioners, and from their action there is no effectual appeal. Since Ruef got control of the majority of these commissioners they have been mere puppets, giving or withholding the licenses of these places as directed by Schmitz. That being the case, when renewals of licenses were necessary, the applicants were refused. That meant the ruin of their business. In the end, either from their general knowledge, or because as advised, they applied to Ruef. When the fee was settled and paid—in the case of the French restaurants $5,000 a year—Ruef notified Schmitz, who, as the prosecution is evidently prepared to prove, then directed the licenses to issue, and they were issued. In the aggregate, enormous sums were annually collected from these places by Ruef or his agents, and without that payment they could not have continued business. The revenues thus obtained were evidently the sources of Schmitz’s suddenly acquired wealth. Presumably some small share was paid to the subordinates.“Certainly that is extortion, and extortion of the most villainous kind. To the ordinary reader it is completely covered by the language of the statute. The contention of Ruef and Schmitz is not that they did not get the money, or that it was not a villainous thing, but merely that it was not a villainy expressly forbidden by statute, and that therefore to indict them for it is ‘persecution.’ If there are any people in the city who uphold or condone such things they are no better than Ruef or Schmitz themselves.”[131]The press throughout the State was a unit in approving the Grand Jury’s action. The San Francisco Chronicle fairly expressed the general sentiment. It said:“Every decent man in San Francisco breathes freer to-day. The fact cannot be concealed that there was an uneasy feeling in the community that the machinations of the boss would again secure immunity for himself and those who were with him in the grafting business. The facility with which he turned the Grand Jury preceding the present one into an instrument to accomplish his own purposes inspired the fear that by hook or crook he may have obtained control of the one now sitting; but the promptitude with which the first indictment was brought allays all apprehension and converts it into confidence that the body now in session is in deadly earnest and that it will earn the gratitude of its fellow citizens and cover itself with glory by striking an effective blow which will put an end to flagrant venality in office and restore the good name of San Francisco.”The San Francisco Examiner said of the indictment of Schmitz and Ruef: “The light breaks, the reign of political terror seems at an end. Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz and Abe Ruef, his mentor and master, have been indicted for extortion. The move of political regeneration and civic reform that has been sweeping the country has hit San Francisco with the force of all the other successes behind it. In other cities and other States the powerful rascals as well as their satellites have been sent to prison. Evidently San Francisco and California are to rid themselves of the arch political criminals.... Thursday, November 15, 1906 (the day on which Ruef and Schmitz were indicted), is a day to be remembered. It marks the beginning of San Francisco’s regeneration. It is a day of heroic events to be told to children and grandchildren. It is the day of the declaration of independence of California’s great metropolis.”[132]Ruef denounced his indictment as absurd, insisting that he had merely taken fees for services rendered. In an interview published in the San Francisco Chronicle of November 16, 1906, he said:“The whole thing is absurd. I was simply acting in the relation of attorney to a client. I took my fee for rendering legal services. I was retained by a contract as attorney by the restaurant keepers. If it is extortion for an attorney to accept a fee from his client, we all might as well go out of business. This is exactly the same charge that was made against me once before and was found baseless. I have nothing to fear.”On November 17 the Chronicle, touching upon Ruef’s defense, said: “Every branch of the city government which is controlled by Ruef men is known to be utterly rotten. The only question has been whether under the advice and direction of low legal cunning, the grafters have kept themselves immune from the law. And the question is about to be settled.”[133]On his arrival in New York after being indicted for extortion in the French Restaurant cases, Mayor Schmitz in an interview widely published at the time gave his attitude toward the French Restaurants. The Mayor explained that these restaurants had existed so long in the city that they had become a recognized adjunct of a gay life of a gay town. He had not favored their suppression, and whenever the Police Commissioners agitated the revoking of their liquor licenses, he had opposed them.“The French restaurants did no great harm,” he is quoted as saying, “and to destroy them would be to ruin the men who had invested money in them.” The character of some of the heavy investors in these establishments was brought out in the report of the commission appointed by Mayor E. R. Taylor to ascertain causes of municipal corruption in San Francisco, as disclosed by the investigations of the Oliver Grand Jury. The report set forth:“The business (of the French restaurants) is very prosperous, and, as is usual, the landlord shares in its prosperity. People of social prominence were known to accept a portion of the profits of such establishments, through the extremely liberal rentals paid, and the system is received with easy toleration. One of the largest of these assignation places was located on a prominent corner of the downtown shopping district where hundreds of women daily passed its doors. The building, five stories in height, had four stories devoted to the private supper bedrooms. The land was owned in trust by one of the largest, if not the largest, trust company in the West. A lease was sought and obtained by a man notorious in the line of business above described; the building was constructed by the trust company according to plans satisfactory to him for this purpose, and the enterprise was conducted there for seven years until the building was destroyed by fire. The significant thing about such a transaction is, not that there are people who are willing to accept money from such a source, or financiers willing to put trust moneys to such uses, but that the facts, though well known, did not seem to detract in the slightest from the social recognition accorded to the persons so taking a share of the profits, while the officer of the trust company which made the lease of that particular house situated in the shopping district, was appointed a regent of the State University.”[134]During the reading of the first of the five indictments, Schmitz stood, but Ruef remained seated. When the second indictment was read, both the defendants kept their seats. Heney demanded to know what was going on. Judge Dunne announced that the arraignment must proceed as in ordinary cases. During the reading of the remaining indictments both defendants remained standing, but Ruef kept his back turned toward the court. Commenting upon this incident, the Chronicle, in its issue of December 8, 1906, said in an editorial article:“In Judge Dunne’s court a rogue on trial insolently refused to stand and be arraigned like any other criminal, apparently on the assumption that a political boss was above the courts. He was finally compelled to stand and let his shame be seen. He sat, however, through one arraignment, and the people have reason to complain that the trial Judge did not earlier enforce the respect due to the majesty of the law. In another instance there is a more grave offense. A lawyer presumed to bandy words with the Judge on the bench, and is reported to have said to the Court in a loud and insolent tone, evincing evident disrespect, ‘And I have heard considerable oratory from you.’ Nothing was done about it, and Judge Dunne owes it to the people to explain why he did not promptly commit the insolent fellow to jail. The Judge on the bench represents the majesty of the law. He sits for the people in solemn judgment on offenders. He is expected to enforce due respect for the tribunal, and for that purpose is invested with the power of summary punishment for contempt. Our alleged administration of criminal justice is disgraceful, and the evil permeates the entire machinery, from the policeman on his beat to the highest tribunal.”[135]The attack upon the Grand Jury had, however, been begun the day before, and was progressing in another department of the court even as Ruef and Schmitz were arraigned. Investigation into graft conditions had by this time got beyond the tenderloin. Several minor indictments had been brought. Supervisor Fred P. Nicholas had been indicted for accepting a bribe of $26.10. As chairman of the Public Building and Grounds Committee, the Grand Jury found he had accepted a 10 per cent. commission on $261 worth of furniture purchased for the city. Several witnesses had been indicted for perjury in connection with the graft investigation. That the investigation was going far was now conceded. The defense concentrated to disqualify the Grand Jury. On behalf of Nicholas and Duffy, the Grand Jurors were haled into Judge William P. Lawlor’s court December 5, the day before Schmitz and Ruef were arraigned. The defendants were represented by Frank J. Murphy, who was to play a prominent part in the graft defense. The following taken from the examination of Foreman B. P. Oliver, as printed in the San Francisco Chronicle of December 7, is a fair sample of the nature of the inquiry:“Did you say to anyone that this is just the beginning of the investigation of municipal corruption?”“I have said that from the statements I have heard in the Grand Jury room that the corruption of the municipal administration was so great that the present Grand Jury could hardly expect to make any impression upon it. As to when and where I made that statement I cannot tell,” replied Oliver, who proceeded: “As to myself, the mere testimony I have heard in the Grand Jury room has filled me with horror and disgust.”“Does it fill you with such horror that you believe everyone connected with the administration is corrupt?” asked Lawyer Fairall of counsel for the defense. “I do not believe anyone to be corrupt until he is proved to be so.”“Could you act fairly and impartially, as a Grand Juror, while having your present feeling of horror and disgust?” “Yes, absolutely so, for I have a conscience.”“You feel that your conscience would enable you to act fairly?” “I do. If I erred at all it would be on the other side, so as to be sure that I did the accused no injustice.”This examination went on for several days. The same examination of the Grand Jurors followed in the case of Ruef and Schmitz, and was repeated for the third time on behalf of public-service corporation agents who were indicted later.[136]The question of the eligibility of Grand Juror Wise was finally decided by the State Supreme Court in the matter of the application of A. Ruef for a writ of habeas corpus (150 California, p. 665.) The Court held that the presence on the Grand Jury of a member who had served and been discharged as a juror by a court of record within a year of the time that he had been summoned and impaneled to act as a grand juror does not affect the validity of an indictment found by the Grand Jury.[137]The Chronicle, in its issue of December 18, 1906, said of the attack upon the Grand Jury:“The fact that the felons whom we are trying to convict are officials has nothing to do with their demonstration of the fact that it is impossible, under the laws, to put thieves in the penitentiary, when there is a large band rounded up at one time and they all fight. Under our laws the half-dozen rascals who have already been indicted for their share in the orgy of official plunder in this city can block our criminal courts. The disgraceful farce of putting the Grand Jurors and the District Attorney on trial instead of the scoundrels who have been indicted can apparently be protracted for weeks. Happily the Legislature meets early next month, and if it does not put a speedy end to it we are mistaken. We are getting an object lesson which, perhaps, was needed. The whole miserable machinery of obstruction must be swept away. Whoever is indicted by a Grand Jury must go to trial, unless, in the opinion of the trial Judge, extraordinary conditions indicate that some inquiry should be made to be conducted solely by himself. The public will be satisfied with nothing short of that, nor will it be satisfied with that. The abuses of appeal must be ended.”[138]Mr. Spreckels testified in part as follows: “I am not interested in the downfall of any man, either Eugene E. Schmitz or Abraham Ruef. I did guarantee the sum of $100,000 to detect any wrongdoing whatsoever in the city of San Francisco. I indicated that to Mr. Heney. I cannot recollect as to dates, but I think it was a short while before the commencement of these proceedings. It was since the calamity of April 18. I had been interested for a long while before that in starting an investigation.... I did not guarantee to Mr. Heney $100,000, but I did guarantee that for the purpose of investigation for the collection of evidence, I would personally guarantee $100,000 for the expenses.... My object was merely to ascertain the truth or falsity of things that had been generally stated. Some of the things I had known of myself. I knew there was an effort made in the city here of doing things in the past. Mr. Ruef, himself, had had a conversation with me which indicated that he was in a position to do certain things, and knowing these things I was willing that an investigation should proceed to the bottom, and to furnish the money necessary to collect the evidence. I have stated publicly relative to this fund of $100,000.”[139]The San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of January 17, 1907, said of the Change of Venue bill:“Assemblyman Grove L. Johnson of Sacramento, and Senator L. A. Wright of San Diego, have introduced identical bills which provide in brief, that in any criminal trial the accused may displace the Judge upon his mere affidavit that he ‘believes he cannot have a fair and impartial trial.’ Upon the filing of such an affidavit the services of some other Judge must be secured, provided that in counties having more than one department of the Superior Court the case shall be transferred to some other department of the same county. The bill provides that the act shall take effect immediately upon its passage. The obvious intent of the law is to enable the indicted boodlers of this city to select the Judge who shall try them, to set aside all that has thus far been done to get them before a jury and have their cases retried from the beginning.”
[101]See Ruef’s statement as published in the San Francisco Chronicle, October 26, 1906.
See Ruef’s statement as published in the San Francisco Chronicle, October 26, 1906.
[102]Mr. Langdon, on arriving in San Francisco, issued the following statement:“No person in California believes that my alleged suspension is due to neglect or inefficiency. No dissent is necessary before the people. It is plain that my removal is deemed necessary by Ruef and Gallagher to prevent an honest, searching investigation of conditions that prevail in municipal affairs in San Francisco. Their plan will come to naught, however.“As District Attorney I shall pursue this investigation to the end. I deny the legal right of the Mayor or the Board of Supervisors to suspend or dismiss me. The provision of the Charter purporting to give that authority is clearly unconstitutional. The citizens must determine whether or not they will countenance this high-handed proceeding in a community which is supposed to be governed by the law, and not by the will of a boss and his puppet.”
Mr. Langdon, on arriving in San Francisco, issued the following statement:
“No person in California believes that my alleged suspension is due to neglect or inefficiency. No dissent is necessary before the people. It is plain that my removal is deemed necessary by Ruef and Gallagher to prevent an honest, searching investigation of conditions that prevail in municipal affairs in San Francisco. Their plan will come to naught, however.
“As District Attorney I shall pursue this investigation to the end. I deny the legal right of the Mayor or the Board of Supervisors to suspend or dismiss me. The provision of the Charter purporting to give that authority is clearly unconstitutional. The citizens must determine whether or not they will countenance this high-handed proceeding in a community which is supposed to be governed by the law, and not by the will of a boss and his puppet.”
[103]The San Francisco Chronicle in its issue of October 27 thus described the crowd: “Every man the police put out of the building was cheered by the crowd and every time policemen laid hands on anyone they were hissed. However, it was evident that the citizens who gathered outside the Temple Israel yesterday afternoon did not come prepared to fight with the police force. In the crowd standing outside almost every man prominent in the business and professional life of the city could be seen. Manufacturers, merchants, lawyers, doctors, men engaged in all the various lines of wholesale and retail business, and all the professions, included among the latter being many Protestant ministers, Catholic priests and Jewish rabbis. Here and there in the great concourse of people were scattered little groups of men of the type that may be seen hanging around the tenderloin.”
The San Francisco Chronicle in its issue of October 27 thus described the crowd: “Every man the police put out of the building was cheered by the crowd and every time policemen laid hands on anyone they were hissed. However, it was evident that the citizens who gathered outside the Temple Israel yesterday afternoon did not come prepared to fight with the police force. In the crowd standing outside almost every man prominent in the business and professional life of the city could be seen. Manufacturers, merchants, lawyers, doctors, men engaged in all the various lines of wholesale and retail business, and all the professions, included among the latter being many Protestant ministers, Catholic priests and Jewish rabbis. Here and there in the great concourse of people were scattered little groups of men of the type that may be seen hanging around the tenderloin.”
[104]Detectives Steve Bunner and Tim Riordan. These men accompanied Ruef for nearly a month. Late in November, after Ruef had been indicted, they were sent back to active duty.
Detectives Steve Bunner and Tim Riordan. These men accompanied Ruef for nearly a month. Late in November, after Ruef had been indicted, they were sent back to active duty.
[105]While the crowd was pressing into the room, a deputy sheriff undertook to search Heney for concealed weapons. Heney complained of the officer’s conduct, protested vigorously. “That is the man standing there,” cried Heney, “he did so at the request of Abe Ruef.”“Who was informed that Mr. Heney was armed,” responded Ruef.It developed that Heney was not armed, and the incident went no further. But it indicated the sharpness of the division between the two factions.
While the crowd was pressing into the room, a deputy sheriff undertook to search Heney for concealed weapons. Heney complained of the officer’s conduct, protested vigorously. “That is the man standing there,” cried Heney, “he did so at the request of Abe Ruef.”
“Who was informed that Mr. Heney was armed,” responded Ruef.
It developed that Heney was not armed, and the incident went no further. But it indicated the sharpness of the division between the two factions.
[106]The Chronicle of October 27, 1906, contains the following account of Heney’s reply to Ruef: “‘I now announce to the court,’ said Heney fervently, ‘that I intend as Assistant District Attorney, to present charges of felony and misdemeanor against Abraham Ruef, and I desire to examine the members of this panel to determine if any member entertains bias or prejudice for or against Abraham Ruef in the matter of the charges which are to be presented by the District Attorney’s office. I understand that there is no question as to Abraham Ruef’s right to have the indictment set aside if any member of the Grand Jury is biased or prejudiced against him. It would be a farce,’ Heney went on, his voice swelling, ‘it would be adding to the comedy of errors enacted last night (the attempted removal of Langdon from office), if we have a Grand Jury which is biased or prejudiced. It has become public through the newspapers—to some extent, at least—that Abraham Ruef is to be investigated. The People have the same right as the defendant to examine the members of the panel as to their qualifications. I know that a number of the members do not possess the qualifications provided by the statute, as they are not on the assessment roll, and I desire to question them on that point. The Court has the right to excuse a juror if he is not on the assessment roll. The Supreme Court has decided that a man has the right to be investigated by a Grand Jury of nineteen men who are qualified according to the statute and none others. It is not necessary to take for grand jurors the nineteen whose names are first drawn from the box. We should examine them, so that a member who has a bias or prejudice as to a particular person may be instructed that he shall not participate in the investigation of that person.’”
The Chronicle of October 27, 1906, contains the following account of Heney’s reply to Ruef: “‘I now announce to the court,’ said Heney fervently, ‘that I intend as Assistant District Attorney, to present charges of felony and misdemeanor against Abraham Ruef, and I desire to examine the members of this panel to determine if any member entertains bias or prejudice for or against Abraham Ruef in the matter of the charges which are to be presented by the District Attorney’s office. I understand that there is no question as to Abraham Ruef’s right to have the indictment set aside if any member of the Grand Jury is biased or prejudiced against him. It would be a farce,’ Heney went on, his voice swelling, ‘it would be adding to the comedy of errors enacted last night (the attempted removal of Langdon from office), if we have a Grand Jury which is biased or prejudiced. It has become public through the newspapers—to some extent, at least—that Abraham Ruef is to be investigated. The People have the same right as the defendant to examine the members of the panel as to their qualifications. I know that a number of the members do not possess the qualifications provided by the statute, as they are not on the assessment roll, and I desire to question them on that point. The Court has the right to excuse a juror if he is not on the assessment roll. The Supreme Court has decided that a man has the right to be investigated by a Grand Jury of nineteen men who are qualified according to the statute and none others. It is not necessary to take for grand jurors the nineteen whose names are first drawn from the box. We should examine them, so that a member who has a bias or prejudice as to a particular person may be instructed that he shall not participate in the investigation of that person.’”
[107]Under the California law, the Attorney-General may at his discretion, take the prosecution of a criminal case out of the hands of a District Attorney. It was within General Webb’s province to have taken charge of the San Francisco graft trials. In a statement given wide publicity at the time, General Webb stated that he had no intention of taking charge of the graft trials unless Ruef succeeded in seizing the District Attorney’s office. Long after, however, Heney, in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, Thornwell Mullally, Tirey L. Ford, William M. Abbott, Abraham Ruef and Eugene E. Schmitz, No. 823, set forth a statement made to him by Ruef when Ruef was pleading for immunity, in which Webb’s presence at the impaneling of the Grand Jury was touched upon as follows:“Ruef said in reply in substance, ‘You are prejudiced against me, Heney, ever since we had that quarrel during last election. You know that the public-service corporations are responsible for the conditions which exist in San Francisco and that I can help you send some of the officials of those corporations to the penitentiary, and I can also help you to clean up this city and make it impossible for corruption to get a foothold here again for a long time. You are afraid to trust me, but you are making a mistake. The moment it becomes known that I have gone over to the prosecution the most powerful influences in this State will all be arrayed against us, and particularly against me. The moment you attack Pat Calhoun you in fact attack Herrin. You don’t know the relation between these parties and the corporation as well as I do. I am very fond of Tirey Ford, but I don’t care a rap about Pat Calhoun, and would just as soon testify against him as not. But the moment it becomes known that I am ready to do so my life will no longer be safe. I will have to stick to the prosecution from the moment I start in with it. You don’t know what desperate means these people are capable of resorting to. My life will not be safe. If they keep me in the county jail with O’Neil as Sheriff they will kill me to a certainty. You don’t know how many influential people are involved in this thing. You and Burns think you know, but there are a lot of people whom you don’t know anything about who are mixed up in it. I tell you that the combined influence of all these people will make it next to impossible to secure convictions, and will make it very dangerous for all of us. It will not do to lessen the weight of my testimony any by having me plead guilty in that extortion case. Besides that, the Court would not allow me bail after I had pleaded guilty, and the Supreme Court may knock out the elisor, and then I would be absolutely in the hands of the other people, and they would surely kill me. Sheriff O’Neil is loyal to me now, but the moment he knew I was going to testify against Schmitz he would be very bitter against me, and would do whatever those people wanted him to do. Moreover, Herrin will get Attorney-General Webb to come down and take these cases out of the hands of Langdon and yourself, and he will declare the immunity contract off upon the ground that the District Attorney has no power to make one and will prosecute me on some of the bribery cases now pending against me, and if they convict me Herrin will see to it that I am not pardoned by the Governor. He now controls the Governor and the chances are he will continue to name the Governor and control him for the next twenty years. Webb was a deputy in Ford’s office when Ford was Attorney-General, and it was Ford who got him to come down here and “butt in” at the time you were impaneling the Grand Jury. I know you fellows thought it was I who got him to come down here, but as a matter of fact I did not know any more about it than you did until he appeared there, and I am sure it was Ford who did it.’”
Under the California law, the Attorney-General may at his discretion, take the prosecution of a criminal case out of the hands of a District Attorney. It was within General Webb’s province to have taken charge of the San Francisco graft trials. In a statement given wide publicity at the time, General Webb stated that he had no intention of taking charge of the graft trials unless Ruef succeeded in seizing the District Attorney’s office. Long after, however, Heney, in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, Thornwell Mullally, Tirey L. Ford, William M. Abbott, Abraham Ruef and Eugene E. Schmitz, No. 823, set forth a statement made to him by Ruef when Ruef was pleading for immunity, in which Webb’s presence at the impaneling of the Grand Jury was touched upon as follows:
“Ruef said in reply in substance, ‘You are prejudiced against me, Heney, ever since we had that quarrel during last election. You know that the public-service corporations are responsible for the conditions which exist in San Francisco and that I can help you send some of the officials of those corporations to the penitentiary, and I can also help you to clean up this city and make it impossible for corruption to get a foothold here again for a long time. You are afraid to trust me, but you are making a mistake. The moment it becomes known that I have gone over to the prosecution the most powerful influences in this State will all be arrayed against us, and particularly against me. The moment you attack Pat Calhoun you in fact attack Herrin. You don’t know the relation between these parties and the corporation as well as I do. I am very fond of Tirey Ford, but I don’t care a rap about Pat Calhoun, and would just as soon testify against him as not. But the moment it becomes known that I am ready to do so my life will no longer be safe. I will have to stick to the prosecution from the moment I start in with it. You don’t know what desperate means these people are capable of resorting to. My life will not be safe. If they keep me in the county jail with O’Neil as Sheriff they will kill me to a certainty. You don’t know how many influential people are involved in this thing. You and Burns think you know, but there are a lot of people whom you don’t know anything about who are mixed up in it. I tell you that the combined influence of all these people will make it next to impossible to secure convictions, and will make it very dangerous for all of us. It will not do to lessen the weight of my testimony any by having me plead guilty in that extortion case. Besides that, the Court would not allow me bail after I had pleaded guilty, and the Supreme Court may knock out the elisor, and then I would be absolutely in the hands of the other people, and they would surely kill me. Sheriff O’Neil is loyal to me now, but the moment he knew I was going to testify against Schmitz he would be very bitter against me, and would do whatever those people wanted him to do. Moreover, Herrin will get Attorney-General Webb to come down and take these cases out of the hands of Langdon and yourself, and he will declare the immunity contract off upon the ground that the District Attorney has no power to make one and will prosecute me on some of the bribery cases now pending against me, and if they convict me Herrin will see to it that I am not pardoned by the Governor. He now controls the Governor and the chances are he will continue to name the Governor and control him for the next twenty years. Webb was a deputy in Ford’s office when Ford was Attorney-General, and it was Ford who got him to come down here and “butt in” at the time you were impaneling the Grand Jury. I know you fellows thought it was I who got him to come down here, but as a matter of fact I did not know any more about it than you did until he appeared there, and I am sure it was Ford who did it.’”
[108]While Ruef was struggling through the crowd to reach his automobile Dr. Shadwick O. Beasley, Instructor in Anatomy at the Cooper Medical College, was assaulted by some unidentified person. Dr. Beasley turned, shook hisfistat Ruef and hissed him. The doctor was immediately placed under arrest. Dr. Beasley, on his part, swore out a warrant charging an unknown deputy sheriff with battery. Beasley was then made subject of petty persecution. He was, for example, held up on the street by a deputy sheriff and charged with carrying a concealed weapon. He was searched by two men, but nothing more deadly than a case of surgical instruments was found upon him. Dr. Beasley complained bitterly of the rough treatment from the officers.The San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of October 27, 1906, thus describes the scene which followed Ruef’s appearance before the crowd:“With fists and clubs Chief of Police Dinan and his squad from the Central Police Station fought off the crowd of angry citizens assembled about the Temple Israel who sought to lay violent hands on Abe Ruef when the curly-headed usurper of the functions of the municipal government was leaving the scene of the Grand Jury meeting yesterday afternoon. And in the wake of the police were the Ruef heelers from the tenderloin with their hands on their pistols, threatening to shoot down the citizens of the city of San Francisco who should dare to approach too near the sacred person of their tenderloin idol.“It was one of the most remarkable scenes ever witnessed in any city of this country. Stung with the outrageous assumption of the powers of the public prosecutor when he was about to be placed on trial himself for crime, the citizens of the city, among whom are names that stand highest in business and professional circles, sought to make him realize the impudence of his conduct. That he escaped a swift punishment for his arrogant seizure of the office of the District Attorney is solely due to the presence and strenuous efforts of the police.”
While Ruef was struggling through the crowd to reach his automobile Dr. Shadwick O. Beasley, Instructor in Anatomy at the Cooper Medical College, was assaulted by some unidentified person. Dr. Beasley turned, shook hisfistat Ruef and hissed him. The doctor was immediately placed under arrest. Dr. Beasley, on his part, swore out a warrant charging an unknown deputy sheriff with battery. Beasley was then made subject of petty persecution. He was, for example, held up on the street by a deputy sheriff and charged with carrying a concealed weapon. He was searched by two men, but nothing more deadly than a case of surgical instruments was found upon him. Dr. Beasley complained bitterly of the rough treatment from the officers.
The San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of October 27, 1906, thus describes the scene which followed Ruef’s appearance before the crowd:
“With fists and clubs Chief of Police Dinan and his squad from the Central Police Station fought off the crowd of angry citizens assembled about the Temple Israel who sought to lay violent hands on Abe Ruef when the curly-headed usurper of the functions of the municipal government was leaving the scene of the Grand Jury meeting yesterday afternoon. And in the wake of the police were the Ruef heelers from the tenderloin with their hands on their pistols, threatening to shoot down the citizens of the city of San Francisco who should dare to approach too near the sacred person of their tenderloin idol.
“It was one of the most remarkable scenes ever witnessed in any city of this country. Stung with the outrageous assumption of the powers of the public prosecutor when he was about to be placed on trial himself for crime, the citizens of the city, among whom are names that stand highest in business and professional circles, sought to make him realize the impudence of his conduct. That he escaped a swift punishment for his arrogant seizure of the office of the District Attorney is solely due to the presence and strenuous efforts of the police.”
[109]In sending his officers to handle this crowd, Chief of Police Dinan gave the following instructions:“The captains, sergeants and officers so detailed are instructed that they are sent to the place designated for the purpose of doing strict police duty. They will see that the streets and sidewalks are not obstructed, and that no violations of the law are permitted.”
In sending his officers to handle this crowd, Chief of Police Dinan gave the following instructions:
“The captains, sergeants and officers so detailed are instructed that they are sent to the place designated for the purpose of doing strict police duty. They will see that the streets and sidewalks are not obstructed, and that no violations of the law are permitted.”
[110]Under the San Francisco municipal charter, the District Attorney has charge of criminal cases, and the City Attorney of civil cases in which the city is concerned. The City Attorney also acts as adviser to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. The two are independent offices.
Under the San Francisco municipal charter, the District Attorney has charge of criminal cases, and the City Attorney of civil cases in which the city is concerned. The City Attorney also acts as adviser to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. The two are independent offices.
[111]Shortridge stated that asamicus curiae, it was his duty to see that the proceedings were without flaw. Heney refused to take him seriously, however, referred to him facetiously as the “curious friend of the Court.” and suggested that the Court unassisted might be able to determine what was competent evidence.
Shortridge stated that asamicus curiae, it was his duty to see that the proceedings were without flaw. Heney refused to take him seriously, however, referred to him facetiously as the “curious friend of the Court.” and suggested that the Court unassisted might be able to determine what was competent evidence.
[112]The following nineteen citizens composed the Grand Jury that conducted the investigation of San Francisco “graft” charges:E. J. Gallagher, photographic supply dealer; Frank A. Dwyer, real estate; Herman H. Young, baker and restaurant proprietor; Mendle Rothenburg, liquor dealer; James E. Gordon, merchant; Alfred Greenebaum, merchant; Wallace Wise, haberdasher; Jeremiah Deasy, insurance agent; Rudolph Mohr, brewer; C. G. Burnett, capitalist; Charles Sonntag, merchant; Morris A. Levingston, liquor dealer; B. P. Oliver, real estate; W. P. Redington, druggist; Christian P. Rode, drayman; Ansel C. Robinson, merchant; Dewey Coffin, real estate; F. G. Sanborn, law book publisher; Maurice Block, merchant.
The following nineteen citizens composed the Grand Jury that conducted the investigation of San Francisco “graft” charges:
E. J. Gallagher, photographic supply dealer; Frank A. Dwyer, real estate; Herman H. Young, baker and restaurant proprietor; Mendle Rothenburg, liquor dealer; James E. Gordon, merchant; Alfred Greenebaum, merchant; Wallace Wise, haberdasher; Jeremiah Deasy, insurance agent; Rudolph Mohr, brewer; C. G. Burnett, capitalist; Charles Sonntag, merchant; Morris A. Levingston, liquor dealer; B. P. Oliver, real estate; W. P. Redington, druggist; Christian P. Rode, drayman; Ansel C. Robinson, merchant; Dewey Coffin, real estate; F. G. Sanborn, law book publisher; Maurice Block, merchant.
[113]The Supervisors who signed the affidavits exonerating Ruef and themselves were: Charles Boxton, Jennings J. Phillips, W. W. Sanderson, F. P. Nicholas, L. A. Rea, Edward I. Walsh, Andrew M. Wilson, J. J. Furey, Sam Davis, C. J. Harrigan, James T. Kelly, P. M. McGushin, Thomas F. Lonergan, Daniel G. Coleman, Max Mamlock and M. W. Coffey. Each of them made declaration as follows:“This affiant has never committed a felony of any kind or character, and has never been a party thereto, and there is not and can be no evidence presented of or concerning any felony committed by the undersigned or threatened by the undersigned. It is not true that this affiant has ever been party to the commission of any crime or any misdemeanor.“This affiant further says that any and all charges, assertions and innuendoes contained in the complaint and contained in the public press of and concerning any alleged felonies, misdemeanors or wrongful acts committed or alleged to have been committed by this defendant are absolutely untrue and false, and this affiant has never been guilty of any violation of the law, and, so far as the knowledge of this affiant is concerned, each and all of the other defendants named herein are absolutely innocent of the commission of any crime or felony or offense against the laws of the State of California; and this affiant further says that he has no knowledge, direct or indirect, of the commission of any felony orofany misdemeanors or of any violations of the laws of the State of California, or any thereof, or of the City and County of San Francisco, by either or any of the defendants named herein.”At the graft trials it developed that the Supervisors had signed this affidavit without reading it. At the trial of The People vs. Glass, No. 675, Supervisor Michael Coffey testified that “On the afternoon that affidavit was signed, I came down late to a meeting of the board and the members of the board were in the Notary Public’s office. I went over there and met Mr. Keane, and Mr. Keane produced that paper and asked me to sign it, and I signed it and gave him a dollar to pay the Notary fees. I did not read the affidavit at that time. It was not read aloud to me while I was there. I did not talk with any person about what was in this affidavit before it was prepared. I did not know who prepared it.” See page 237 of transcript on appeal.Supervisor Wilson testified: “Mr. Ruef got up that affidavit, I believe. I signed it because there was a rumor going about that some of the Supervisors had gone over to the prosecution. It was so stated in the public press and there was a little excitement among the members of the board and we understood this was sent down by Mr. Ruef to stiffen them up and to find out if that was so. It was not read at the notary’s office while I was there. I did not read it before signing it.” See Transcript on Appeal The People vs. Glass, page 278.Supervisor Boxton testified: “I signed the affidavit just shown me at the request of the clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Mr. George Keane. I do not know who prepared the affidavit. No one had talked with me as to the facts that were to be put in it. I knew nothing about its contents at all. It was supposed generally amongst the members there was some talk about it, that there was some of the members there that were a bit weak-kneed, and would probably tell all they knew, so this affidavit was framed up, as I understand it, to tie them down a little tighter.” See Transcript on Appeal, The People vs. Glass, page 251.Practically the same testimony was given by other Supervisors at the various graft trials.
The Supervisors who signed the affidavits exonerating Ruef and themselves were: Charles Boxton, Jennings J. Phillips, W. W. Sanderson, F. P. Nicholas, L. A. Rea, Edward I. Walsh, Andrew M. Wilson, J. J. Furey, Sam Davis, C. J. Harrigan, James T. Kelly, P. M. McGushin, Thomas F. Lonergan, Daniel G. Coleman, Max Mamlock and M. W. Coffey. Each of them made declaration as follows:
“This affiant has never committed a felony of any kind or character, and has never been a party thereto, and there is not and can be no evidence presented of or concerning any felony committed by the undersigned or threatened by the undersigned. It is not true that this affiant has ever been party to the commission of any crime or any misdemeanor.
“This affiant further says that any and all charges, assertions and innuendoes contained in the complaint and contained in the public press of and concerning any alleged felonies, misdemeanors or wrongful acts committed or alleged to have been committed by this defendant are absolutely untrue and false, and this affiant has never been guilty of any violation of the law, and, so far as the knowledge of this affiant is concerned, each and all of the other defendants named herein are absolutely innocent of the commission of any crime or felony or offense against the laws of the State of California; and this affiant further says that he has no knowledge, direct or indirect, of the commission of any felony orofany misdemeanors or of any violations of the laws of the State of California, or any thereof, or of the City and County of San Francisco, by either or any of the defendants named herein.”
At the graft trials it developed that the Supervisors had signed this affidavit without reading it. At the trial of The People vs. Glass, No. 675, Supervisor Michael Coffey testified that “On the afternoon that affidavit was signed, I came down late to a meeting of the board and the members of the board were in the Notary Public’s office. I went over there and met Mr. Keane, and Mr. Keane produced that paper and asked me to sign it, and I signed it and gave him a dollar to pay the Notary fees. I did not read the affidavit at that time. It was not read aloud to me while I was there. I did not talk with any person about what was in this affidavit before it was prepared. I did not know who prepared it.” See page 237 of transcript on appeal.
Supervisor Wilson testified: “Mr. Ruef got up that affidavit, I believe. I signed it because there was a rumor going about that some of the Supervisors had gone over to the prosecution. It was so stated in the public press and there was a little excitement among the members of the board and we understood this was sent down by Mr. Ruef to stiffen them up and to find out if that was so. It was not read at the notary’s office while I was there. I did not read it before signing it.” See Transcript on Appeal The People vs. Glass, page 278.
Supervisor Boxton testified: “I signed the affidavit just shown me at the request of the clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Mr. George Keane. I do not know who prepared the affidavit. No one had talked with me as to the facts that were to be put in it. I knew nothing about its contents at all. It was supposed generally amongst the members there was some talk about it, that there was some of the members there that were a bit weak-kneed, and would probably tell all they knew, so this affidavit was framed up, as I understand it, to tie them down a little tighter.” See Transcript on Appeal, The People vs. Glass, page 251.
Practically the same testimony was given by other Supervisors at the various graft trials.
[114]See footnote95,page 87.
See footnote95,page 87.
[115]The passage between Heney and Ruef’s lawyers which followed Judge Seawell’s ruling is thus set forth in the San Francisco Chronicle of November 3rd:“‘You can ask Mr. Ruef if he is guilty of any crimes or felonies,’ Ach suggested to Heney.“‘I suppose he’ll plead guilty here?’ responded Heney skeptically.“Samuel M. Shortridge, of Ruef’s legal staff, took this remark to heart and hotly said to Heney, ‘You’ll plead guilty before he does.’ The Judge informed Shortridge that Heney obviously spoke in jest, but Shortridge thought it a poor joke. Ruef considered Heney’s whole proceeding a joke.”
The passage between Heney and Ruef’s lawyers which followed Judge Seawell’s ruling is thus set forth in the San Francisco Chronicle of November 3rd:
“‘You can ask Mr. Ruef if he is guilty of any crimes or felonies,’ Ach suggested to Heney.
“‘I suppose he’ll plead guilty here?’ responded Heney skeptically.
“Samuel M. Shortridge, of Ruef’s legal staff, took this remark to heart and hotly said to Heney, ‘You’ll plead guilty before he does.’ The Judge informed Shortridge that Heney obviously spoke in jest, but Shortridge thought it a poor joke. Ruef considered Heney’s whole proceeding a joke.”
[116]Judge Seawell in his decision said:“I am clearly of the opinion that the Charter, in so far as it relates to removal and suspension, does not apply to the District Attorney. I am firmly convinced that neither the Mayor nor the Board of Supervisors has any power to remove or suspend him. The District Attorney should not be left to the investigation of the municipal authorities. I can conceive how he might be compelled to proceed against the very persons who might be conducting an inquiry. I will grant the injunction as prayed for against Mr. Ruef.”
Judge Seawell in his decision said:
“I am clearly of the opinion that the Charter, in so far as it relates to removal and suspension, does not apply to the District Attorney. I am firmly convinced that neither the Mayor nor the Board of Supervisors has any power to remove or suspend him. The District Attorney should not be left to the investigation of the municipal authorities. I can conceive how he might be compelled to proceed against the very persons who might be conducting an inquiry. I will grant the injunction as prayed for against Mr. Ruef.”
[117]A movement to secure Heney’s dismissal from the District Attorney’s office, on the ground that he had accepted a fee in addition to his salary as Assistant District Attorney, to act as prosecutor was started. But the allegation was not sustained and another failure was scored by the defense.
A movement to secure Heney’s dismissal from the District Attorney’s office, on the ground that he had accepted a fee in addition to his salary as Assistant District Attorney, to act as prosecutor was started. But the allegation was not sustained and another failure was scored by the defense.
[118]See Transcript on Appeal The People of the State of California vs. Eugene E. Schmitz, pp. 500 and 557.
See Transcript on Appeal The People of the State of California vs. Eugene E. Schmitz, pp. 500 and 557.
[119]Ruef stated that he appeared as attorney for the French Restaurant Keepers’ Association. But those who paid him the money for his efforts in this instance testified at the trial of The People vs. Eugene E. Schmitz that they held membership in no such organization, nor had they heard of it. In May, 1907, Ruef stated to Heney that he had closed the bargain with the French-restaurant keepers to represent them on JANUARY 6, 1905. He insisted that he had at first flatly refused to represent them; that he had had no intention whatever of so doing until the San Francisco Bulletin denounced him for having had the licenses held up and challenged him to take the cases and to attempt to defend himself upon the theory that the money so obtained by him was received as an attorney’s fee.Heney examined the Bulletin files and found that the first time the Bulletin had mentioned the French-restaurant hold-up as an attempt on the part of Ruef to extort money from the restaurant proprietors was in the last edition of The Bulletin for JANUARY 7. 1905. (See Heney’s affidavit in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, et als., No. 823, pp. 141 to 143, inclusive.)
Ruef stated that he appeared as attorney for the French Restaurant Keepers’ Association. But those who paid him the money for his efforts in this instance testified at the trial of The People vs. Eugene E. Schmitz that they held membership in no such organization, nor had they heard of it. In May, 1907, Ruef stated to Heney that he had closed the bargain with the French-restaurant keepers to represent them on JANUARY 6, 1905. He insisted that he had at first flatly refused to represent them; that he had had no intention whatever of so doing until the San Francisco Bulletin denounced him for having had the licenses held up and challenged him to take the cases and to attempt to defend himself upon the theory that the money so obtained by him was received as an attorney’s fee.
Heney examined the Bulletin files and found that the first time the Bulletin had mentioned the French-restaurant hold-up as an attempt on the part of Ruef to extort money from the restaurant proprietors was in the last edition of The Bulletin for JANUARY 7. 1905. (See Heney’s affidavit in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, et als., No. 823, pp. 141 to 143, inclusive.)
[120]CommissionerHarry W. Hutton.
CommissionerHarry W. Hutton.
[121]These Ruef-provided rules directed that no liquors be served in supper bedrooms on the first and second floors of the establishments, and required the French restaurants to take out hotel licenses and to keep registers the same as hotels. What the keepers of the places thought of the regulations came out at the Schmitz trial. Joe Malfanti of Delmonico’s, for example, testified: “They (the Ruef rules) made no change in the running of my business—not a single change. I had a hotel license for years before and I always had a register, so there was no change in my place whatever.”
These Ruef-provided rules directed that no liquors be served in supper bedrooms on the first and second floors of the establishments, and required the French restaurants to take out hotel licenses and to keep registers the same as hotels. What the keepers of the places thought of the regulations came out at the Schmitz trial. Joe Malfanti of Delmonico’s, for example, testified: “They (the Ruef rules) made no change in the running of my business—not a single change. I had a hotel license for years before and I always had a register, so there was no change in my place whatever.”
[122]The Andrews Grand Jury, named from its foreman, T. P. Andrews. The work of the Andrews Grand Jury was not lost, however. It served as basis for much of the investigation conducted by the Oliver Grand Jury.
The Andrews Grand Jury, named from its foreman, T. P. Andrews. The work of the Andrews Grand Jury was not lost, however. It served as basis for much of the investigation conducted by the Oliver Grand Jury.
[123]Rosenthal testified at the Schmitz trial: “I told them from my observations and how things were going in the city and had been going for some years, that there was only one man who could help them—it was a question of life and death with them—and I said there is only one man who could help you, and that is Mr. Ruef.”Rosenthal, when examined on this point before the Grand Jury, refused to testify on the ground that conversation between attorney and client was privileged. Adler got into trouble with the Grand Jury over his testimony on this point. Both Rosenthal and Adler, however, testified at Schmitz’s trial.
Rosenthal testified at the Schmitz trial: “I told them from my observations and how things were going in the city and had been going for some years, that there was only one man who could help them—it was a question of life and death with them—and I said there is only one man who could help you, and that is Mr. Ruef.”
Rosenthal, when examined on this point before the Grand Jury, refused to testify on the ground that conversation between attorney and client was privileged. Adler got into trouble with the Grand Jury over his testimony on this point. Both Rosenthal and Adler, however, testified at Schmitz’s trial.
[124]N. M. Adler, proprietor of the Bay State Restaurant, testified at the Schmitz trial as to Loupy’s negotiations. Loupy called upon him twice. “The first time he came,” Adler testified, “he told me that things were very serious, and we would have to put up some money and hire Mr. Ruef; that he was the only man that could help us. I told him that I could not understand the proposition; that I had run my business for twenty years, and didn’t think that they could do me any harm. At that time Ruef was making his headquarters at the Pup restaurant. I could see that from my place across the street. He went there regularly.”Then Adler testified to the meeting before the Police Commissioners at which his attorney, Rosenthal, had not been permitted to speak, and continued: “Afterwards, Loupy came to me again, and told me that Tortoni had closed up, and that we should put up the money or we would be all closed. This was after we had been to the meeting of the Police Commissioners.”
N. M. Adler, proprietor of the Bay State Restaurant, testified at the Schmitz trial as to Loupy’s negotiations. Loupy called upon him twice. “The first time he came,” Adler testified, “he told me that things were very serious, and we would have to put up some money and hire Mr. Ruef; that he was the only man that could help us. I told him that I could not understand the proposition; that I had run my business for twenty years, and didn’t think that they could do me any harm. At that time Ruef was making his headquarters at the Pup restaurant. I could see that from my place across the street. He went there regularly.”
Then Adler testified to the meeting before the Police Commissioners at which his attorney, Rosenthal, had not been permitted to speak, and continued: “Afterwards, Loupy came to me again, and told me that Tortoni had closed up, and that we should put up the money or we would be all closed. This was after we had been to the meeting of the Police Commissioners.”
[125]The testimony brought out at the graft trials showed that Ruef received $8500 from the French restaurants, $5000 the first year from the five in the combine; $3000 the second, and $500 additional from Camille Mailhebeau. Ruef stated to Heney later and so testified at the Schmitz trial, that half of the $8000 received from the combine he turned over to Schmitz.
The testimony brought out at the graft trials showed that Ruef received $8500 from the French restaurants, $5000 the first year from the five in the combine; $3000 the second, and $500 additional from Camille Mailhebeau. Ruef stated to Heney later and so testified at the Schmitz trial, that half of the $8000 received from the combine he turned over to Schmitz.
[126]The five restaurant keepers were asked at the Schmitz trial whether they had employed Ruef because he was a lawyer or because of his recognized power as political boss. They testified as follows:A. B. Blanco of the “New Poodle Dog”—“Well, being a political boss we thought he had influence enough to get our licenses.”N. M. Adler, of the “Bay State”—“Well, the way I took it, Mr. Ruef is a boss. He had an influence over the commission. He was the only man who could help us.” On cross-examination: “I understood that if I did not employ Ruef I would not get my license. I understood that Mr. Ruef was the only man who could get my license.”Michel Debret of “Marchand’s”—“Well, I agreed to (pay the money to Ruef) because having consulted we saw we had no way to get out of it unless we paid Ruef, as he was a political boss, to protect ourselves.” “Because we thought—we thought if we didn’t pay the money we would be treated like Tortoni’s, we would be closed; we had no way to get out of it.” “I believed that Ruef and the Mayor controlled the Police Commissioners.”Joe Malfanti of “Delmonico’s”—“I did not pay this $1175 for fun; I had to save my license. I had about $400,000 invested there. I never figured on what effect it would have upon my business if I did not get a license. If it was for myself alone I would close the place, but I figured on my partners, what they had paid. They had a lease for five years and could not go through with it and I did it as a favor. If I was alone I would close. I would not make any fight. Numerous friends advised me to see Ruef.” “I went to Ruef—Ruef was the man that controlled the administration—Ruef was the one that could do the thing. His relation with the Mayor was so he could do what he pleased.”Jean Loupy was asked by Heney: “Did you go to him (Ruef) because he was a lawyer or because he was a political boss?” “Because he was a political boss,” replied Loupy.
The five restaurant keepers were asked at the Schmitz trial whether they had employed Ruef because he was a lawyer or because of his recognized power as political boss. They testified as follows:
A. B. Blanco of the “New Poodle Dog”—“Well, being a political boss we thought he had influence enough to get our licenses.”
N. M. Adler, of the “Bay State”—“Well, the way I took it, Mr. Ruef is a boss. He had an influence over the commission. He was the only man who could help us.” On cross-examination: “I understood that if I did not employ Ruef I would not get my license. I understood that Mr. Ruef was the only man who could get my license.”
Michel Debret of “Marchand’s”—“Well, I agreed to (pay the money to Ruef) because having consulted we saw we had no way to get out of it unless we paid Ruef, as he was a political boss, to protect ourselves.” “Because we thought—we thought if we didn’t pay the money we would be treated like Tortoni’s, we would be closed; we had no way to get out of it.” “I believed that Ruef and the Mayor controlled the Police Commissioners.”
Joe Malfanti of “Delmonico’s”—“I did not pay this $1175 for fun; I had to save my license. I had about $400,000 invested there. I never figured on what effect it would have upon my business if I did not get a license. If it was for myself alone I would close the place, but I figured on my partners, what they had paid. They had a lease for five years and could not go through with it and I did it as a favor. If I was alone I would close. I would not make any fight. Numerous friends advised me to see Ruef.” “I went to Ruef—Ruef was the man that controlled the administration—Ruef was the one that could do the thing. His relation with the Mayor was so he could do what he pleased.”
Jean Loupy was asked by Heney: “Did you go to him (Ruef) because he was a lawyer or because he was a political boss?” “Because he was a political boss,” replied Loupy.
[127]Ruef would not take a check, neither would he accept gold—he insisted upon having currency—neither would he give a receipt. The money was taken to him by Pierre Priet, a French-restaurant keeper. Regarding the transfer of the money, Joe Malfanti, at the Schmitz trial, gave the following testimony:“Mr. Heney—Q. What did he say you were to get for the five thousand dollars, Priet? A. Yes.“Q. Yes, what did Priet say you were to get for your money? A. We were going to get the license.“Q. For two years? A. No, we were going to have no trouble for two years about a license.“Q. Five thousand dollars a year? A. Yes, sir.“Q. Now, then, what was said about how the money was to be paid? What did Priet say about how the money was to be paid? A. In currency.“Mr. Campbell—That is under the same objection and exception.“The Witness—And that two people, not three, only two people, not three.“Mr. Heney—Q. What do you mean, that no one was to go with him to Ruef? A. Yes.“The Witness—Priet said the money should be brought there in currency and paid with two people.“Q. Did Priet get you a receipt? A. I don’t think he ever looked for any. I asked him about that when he came back. He said: ‘Well, you should be glad to get his word of honor.’ That is what I got from Priet.”
Ruef would not take a check, neither would he accept gold—he insisted upon having currency—neither would he give a receipt. The money was taken to him by Pierre Priet, a French-restaurant keeper. Regarding the transfer of the money, Joe Malfanti, at the Schmitz trial, gave the following testimony:
“Mr. Heney—Q. What did he say you were to get for the five thousand dollars, Priet? A. Yes.
“Q. Yes, what did Priet say you were to get for your money? A. We were going to get the license.
“Q. For two years? A. No, we were going to have no trouble for two years about a license.
“Q. Five thousand dollars a year? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Now, then, what was said about how the money was to be paid? What did Priet say about how the money was to be paid? A. In currency.
“Mr. Campbell—That is under the same objection and exception.
“The Witness—And that two people, not three, only two people, not three.
“Mr. Heney—Q. What do you mean, that no one was to go with him to Ruef? A. Yes.
“The Witness—Priet said the money should be brought there in currency and paid with two people.
“Q. Did Priet get you a receipt? A. I don’t think he ever looked for any. I asked him about that when he came back. He said: ‘Well, you should be glad to get his word of honor.’ That is what I got from Priet.”
[128]Regan testified at the Schmitz trial:“The Mayor asked me to vote for the French liquor licenses. The first time he did so he put it on political grounds. He requested me to vote for them, saying it would hurt him politically if the license was not granted; and that they had so many friends and so many rich people frequented those places that it would be a very unpopular thing to take the licenses away, and he requested me to vote for them. That it would be unpopular to take them, the licenses, away, as they, the restaurants, had so many friends and so many rich people frequented the places. I said I didn’t think it was right, that he knew he got me to close those places up. That I could not vote for them, as they were immoral and should be closed. The second conversation was all of the same tenor.”
Regan testified at the Schmitz trial:
“The Mayor asked me to vote for the French liquor licenses. The first time he did so he put it on political grounds. He requested me to vote for them, saying it would hurt him politically if the license was not granted; and that they had so many friends and so many rich people frequented those places that it would be a very unpopular thing to take the licenses away, and he requested me to vote for them. That it would be unpopular to take them, the licenses, away, as they, the restaurants, had so many friends and so many rich people frequented the places. I said I didn’t think it was right, that he knew he got me to close those places up. That I could not vote for them, as they were immoral and should be closed. The second conversation was all of the same tenor.”
[129]Commissioner Poheim took papers from Ruef’s office to the Mayor on the day of Hutton’s removal. Poheim testified at the Schmitz trial:“I took papers from Mr. Ruef’s office that I believe were the papers of removal. He told me that they were. That was the day of Hutton’s removal.”
Commissioner Poheim took papers from Ruef’s office to the Mayor on the day of Hutton’s removal. Poheim testified at the Schmitz trial:
“I took papers from Mr. Ruef’s office that I believe were the papers of removal. He told me that they were. That was the day of Hutton’s removal.”
[130]The Chronicle in its issue of February 1, 1907, thus summarized the evidence against Schmitz and Ruef, and the nature of their defense:“Those operations are these: There are in this as in all other cities certain dens of vice, ranging from the very fashionable down to those patronized by the dregs of society, which can exist only when licensed to sell liquor. To give or withhold the license is within the discretion of the Police Commissioners, and from their action there is no effectual appeal. Since Ruef got control of the majority of these commissioners they have been mere puppets, giving or withholding the licenses of these places as directed by Schmitz. That being the case, when renewals of licenses were necessary, the applicants were refused. That meant the ruin of their business. In the end, either from their general knowledge, or because as advised, they applied to Ruef. When the fee was settled and paid—in the case of the French restaurants $5,000 a year—Ruef notified Schmitz, who, as the prosecution is evidently prepared to prove, then directed the licenses to issue, and they were issued. In the aggregate, enormous sums were annually collected from these places by Ruef or his agents, and without that payment they could not have continued business. The revenues thus obtained were evidently the sources of Schmitz’s suddenly acquired wealth. Presumably some small share was paid to the subordinates.“Certainly that is extortion, and extortion of the most villainous kind. To the ordinary reader it is completely covered by the language of the statute. The contention of Ruef and Schmitz is not that they did not get the money, or that it was not a villainous thing, but merely that it was not a villainy expressly forbidden by statute, and that therefore to indict them for it is ‘persecution.’ If there are any people in the city who uphold or condone such things they are no better than Ruef or Schmitz themselves.”
The Chronicle in its issue of February 1, 1907, thus summarized the evidence against Schmitz and Ruef, and the nature of their defense:
“Those operations are these: There are in this as in all other cities certain dens of vice, ranging from the very fashionable down to those patronized by the dregs of society, which can exist only when licensed to sell liquor. To give or withhold the license is within the discretion of the Police Commissioners, and from their action there is no effectual appeal. Since Ruef got control of the majority of these commissioners they have been mere puppets, giving or withholding the licenses of these places as directed by Schmitz. That being the case, when renewals of licenses were necessary, the applicants were refused. That meant the ruin of their business. In the end, either from their general knowledge, or because as advised, they applied to Ruef. When the fee was settled and paid—in the case of the French restaurants $5,000 a year—Ruef notified Schmitz, who, as the prosecution is evidently prepared to prove, then directed the licenses to issue, and they were issued. In the aggregate, enormous sums were annually collected from these places by Ruef or his agents, and without that payment they could not have continued business. The revenues thus obtained were evidently the sources of Schmitz’s suddenly acquired wealth. Presumably some small share was paid to the subordinates.
“Certainly that is extortion, and extortion of the most villainous kind. To the ordinary reader it is completely covered by the language of the statute. The contention of Ruef and Schmitz is not that they did not get the money, or that it was not a villainous thing, but merely that it was not a villainy expressly forbidden by statute, and that therefore to indict them for it is ‘persecution.’ If there are any people in the city who uphold or condone such things they are no better than Ruef or Schmitz themselves.”
[131]The press throughout the State was a unit in approving the Grand Jury’s action. The San Francisco Chronicle fairly expressed the general sentiment. It said:“Every decent man in San Francisco breathes freer to-day. The fact cannot be concealed that there was an uneasy feeling in the community that the machinations of the boss would again secure immunity for himself and those who were with him in the grafting business. The facility with which he turned the Grand Jury preceding the present one into an instrument to accomplish his own purposes inspired the fear that by hook or crook he may have obtained control of the one now sitting; but the promptitude with which the first indictment was brought allays all apprehension and converts it into confidence that the body now in session is in deadly earnest and that it will earn the gratitude of its fellow citizens and cover itself with glory by striking an effective blow which will put an end to flagrant venality in office and restore the good name of San Francisco.”The San Francisco Examiner said of the indictment of Schmitz and Ruef: “The light breaks, the reign of political terror seems at an end. Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz and Abe Ruef, his mentor and master, have been indicted for extortion. The move of political regeneration and civic reform that has been sweeping the country has hit San Francisco with the force of all the other successes behind it. In other cities and other States the powerful rascals as well as their satellites have been sent to prison. Evidently San Francisco and California are to rid themselves of the arch political criminals.... Thursday, November 15, 1906 (the day on which Ruef and Schmitz were indicted), is a day to be remembered. It marks the beginning of San Francisco’s regeneration. It is a day of heroic events to be told to children and grandchildren. It is the day of the declaration of independence of California’s great metropolis.”
The press throughout the State was a unit in approving the Grand Jury’s action. The San Francisco Chronicle fairly expressed the general sentiment. It said:
“Every decent man in San Francisco breathes freer to-day. The fact cannot be concealed that there was an uneasy feeling in the community that the machinations of the boss would again secure immunity for himself and those who were with him in the grafting business. The facility with which he turned the Grand Jury preceding the present one into an instrument to accomplish his own purposes inspired the fear that by hook or crook he may have obtained control of the one now sitting; but the promptitude with which the first indictment was brought allays all apprehension and converts it into confidence that the body now in session is in deadly earnest and that it will earn the gratitude of its fellow citizens and cover itself with glory by striking an effective blow which will put an end to flagrant venality in office and restore the good name of San Francisco.”
The San Francisco Examiner said of the indictment of Schmitz and Ruef: “The light breaks, the reign of political terror seems at an end. Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz and Abe Ruef, his mentor and master, have been indicted for extortion. The move of political regeneration and civic reform that has been sweeping the country has hit San Francisco with the force of all the other successes behind it. In other cities and other States the powerful rascals as well as their satellites have been sent to prison. Evidently San Francisco and California are to rid themselves of the arch political criminals.... Thursday, November 15, 1906 (the day on which Ruef and Schmitz were indicted), is a day to be remembered. It marks the beginning of San Francisco’s regeneration. It is a day of heroic events to be told to children and grandchildren. It is the day of the declaration of independence of California’s great metropolis.”
[132]Ruef denounced his indictment as absurd, insisting that he had merely taken fees for services rendered. In an interview published in the San Francisco Chronicle of November 16, 1906, he said:“The whole thing is absurd. I was simply acting in the relation of attorney to a client. I took my fee for rendering legal services. I was retained by a contract as attorney by the restaurant keepers. If it is extortion for an attorney to accept a fee from his client, we all might as well go out of business. This is exactly the same charge that was made against me once before and was found baseless. I have nothing to fear.”On November 17 the Chronicle, touching upon Ruef’s defense, said: “Every branch of the city government which is controlled by Ruef men is known to be utterly rotten. The only question has been whether under the advice and direction of low legal cunning, the grafters have kept themselves immune from the law. And the question is about to be settled.”
Ruef denounced his indictment as absurd, insisting that he had merely taken fees for services rendered. In an interview published in the San Francisco Chronicle of November 16, 1906, he said:
“The whole thing is absurd. I was simply acting in the relation of attorney to a client. I took my fee for rendering legal services. I was retained by a contract as attorney by the restaurant keepers. If it is extortion for an attorney to accept a fee from his client, we all might as well go out of business. This is exactly the same charge that was made against me once before and was found baseless. I have nothing to fear.”
On November 17 the Chronicle, touching upon Ruef’s defense, said: “Every branch of the city government which is controlled by Ruef men is known to be utterly rotten. The only question has been whether under the advice and direction of low legal cunning, the grafters have kept themselves immune from the law. And the question is about to be settled.”
[133]On his arrival in New York after being indicted for extortion in the French Restaurant cases, Mayor Schmitz in an interview widely published at the time gave his attitude toward the French Restaurants. The Mayor explained that these restaurants had existed so long in the city that they had become a recognized adjunct of a gay life of a gay town. He had not favored their suppression, and whenever the Police Commissioners agitated the revoking of their liquor licenses, he had opposed them.“The French restaurants did no great harm,” he is quoted as saying, “and to destroy them would be to ruin the men who had invested money in them.” The character of some of the heavy investors in these establishments was brought out in the report of the commission appointed by Mayor E. R. Taylor to ascertain causes of municipal corruption in San Francisco, as disclosed by the investigations of the Oliver Grand Jury. The report set forth:“The business (of the French restaurants) is very prosperous, and, as is usual, the landlord shares in its prosperity. People of social prominence were known to accept a portion of the profits of such establishments, through the extremely liberal rentals paid, and the system is received with easy toleration. One of the largest of these assignation places was located on a prominent corner of the downtown shopping district where hundreds of women daily passed its doors. The building, five stories in height, had four stories devoted to the private supper bedrooms. The land was owned in trust by one of the largest, if not the largest, trust company in the West. A lease was sought and obtained by a man notorious in the line of business above described; the building was constructed by the trust company according to plans satisfactory to him for this purpose, and the enterprise was conducted there for seven years until the building was destroyed by fire. The significant thing about such a transaction is, not that there are people who are willing to accept money from such a source, or financiers willing to put trust moneys to such uses, but that the facts, though well known, did not seem to detract in the slightest from the social recognition accorded to the persons so taking a share of the profits, while the officer of the trust company which made the lease of that particular house situated in the shopping district, was appointed a regent of the State University.”
On his arrival in New York after being indicted for extortion in the French Restaurant cases, Mayor Schmitz in an interview widely published at the time gave his attitude toward the French Restaurants. The Mayor explained that these restaurants had existed so long in the city that they had become a recognized adjunct of a gay life of a gay town. He had not favored their suppression, and whenever the Police Commissioners agitated the revoking of their liquor licenses, he had opposed them.
“The French restaurants did no great harm,” he is quoted as saying, “and to destroy them would be to ruin the men who had invested money in them.” The character of some of the heavy investors in these establishments was brought out in the report of the commission appointed by Mayor E. R. Taylor to ascertain causes of municipal corruption in San Francisco, as disclosed by the investigations of the Oliver Grand Jury. The report set forth:
“The business (of the French restaurants) is very prosperous, and, as is usual, the landlord shares in its prosperity. People of social prominence were known to accept a portion of the profits of such establishments, through the extremely liberal rentals paid, and the system is received with easy toleration. One of the largest of these assignation places was located on a prominent corner of the downtown shopping district where hundreds of women daily passed its doors. The building, five stories in height, had four stories devoted to the private supper bedrooms. The land was owned in trust by one of the largest, if not the largest, trust company in the West. A lease was sought and obtained by a man notorious in the line of business above described; the building was constructed by the trust company according to plans satisfactory to him for this purpose, and the enterprise was conducted there for seven years until the building was destroyed by fire. The significant thing about such a transaction is, not that there are people who are willing to accept money from such a source, or financiers willing to put trust moneys to such uses, but that the facts, though well known, did not seem to detract in the slightest from the social recognition accorded to the persons so taking a share of the profits, while the officer of the trust company which made the lease of that particular house situated in the shopping district, was appointed a regent of the State University.”
[134]During the reading of the first of the five indictments, Schmitz stood, but Ruef remained seated. When the second indictment was read, both the defendants kept their seats. Heney demanded to know what was going on. Judge Dunne announced that the arraignment must proceed as in ordinary cases. During the reading of the remaining indictments both defendants remained standing, but Ruef kept his back turned toward the court. Commenting upon this incident, the Chronicle, in its issue of December 8, 1906, said in an editorial article:“In Judge Dunne’s court a rogue on trial insolently refused to stand and be arraigned like any other criminal, apparently on the assumption that a political boss was above the courts. He was finally compelled to stand and let his shame be seen. He sat, however, through one arraignment, and the people have reason to complain that the trial Judge did not earlier enforce the respect due to the majesty of the law. In another instance there is a more grave offense. A lawyer presumed to bandy words with the Judge on the bench, and is reported to have said to the Court in a loud and insolent tone, evincing evident disrespect, ‘And I have heard considerable oratory from you.’ Nothing was done about it, and Judge Dunne owes it to the people to explain why he did not promptly commit the insolent fellow to jail. The Judge on the bench represents the majesty of the law. He sits for the people in solemn judgment on offenders. He is expected to enforce due respect for the tribunal, and for that purpose is invested with the power of summary punishment for contempt. Our alleged administration of criminal justice is disgraceful, and the evil permeates the entire machinery, from the policeman on his beat to the highest tribunal.”
During the reading of the first of the five indictments, Schmitz stood, but Ruef remained seated. When the second indictment was read, both the defendants kept their seats. Heney demanded to know what was going on. Judge Dunne announced that the arraignment must proceed as in ordinary cases. During the reading of the remaining indictments both defendants remained standing, but Ruef kept his back turned toward the court. Commenting upon this incident, the Chronicle, in its issue of December 8, 1906, said in an editorial article:
“In Judge Dunne’s court a rogue on trial insolently refused to stand and be arraigned like any other criminal, apparently on the assumption that a political boss was above the courts. He was finally compelled to stand and let his shame be seen. He sat, however, through one arraignment, and the people have reason to complain that the trial Judge did not earlier enforce the respect due to the majesty of the law. In another instance there is a more grave offense. A lawyer presumed to bandy words with the Judge on the bench, and is reported to have said to the Court in a loud and insolent tone, evincing evident disrespect, ‘And I have heard considerable oratory from you.’ Nothing was done about it, and Judge Dunne owes it to the people to explain why he did not promptly commit the insolent fellow to jail. The Judge on the bench represents the majesty of the law. He sits for the people in solemn judgment on offenders. He is expected to enforce due respect for the tribunal, and for that purpose is invested with the power of summary punishment for contempt. Our alleged administration of criminal justice is disgraceful, and the evil permeates the entire machinery, from the policeman on his beat to the highest tribunal.”
[135]The attack upon the Grand Jury had, however, been begun the day before, and was progressing in another department of the court even as Ruef and Schmitz were arraigned. Investigation into graft conditions had by this time got beyond the tenderloin. Several minor indictments had been brought. Supervisor Fred P. Nicholas had been indicted for accepting a bribe of $26.10. As chairman of the Public Building and Grounds Committee, the Grand Jury found he had accepted a 10 per cent. commission on $261 worth of furniture purchased for the city. Several witnesses had been indicted for perjury in connection with the graft investigation. That the investigation was going far was now conceded. The defense concentrated to disqualify the Grand Jury. On behalf of Nicholas and Duffy, the Grand Jurors were haled into Judge William P. Lawlor’s court December 5, the day before Schmitz and Ruef were arraigned. The defendants were represented by Frank J. Murphy, who was to play a prominent part in the graft defense. The following taken from the examination of Foreman B. P. Oliver, as printed in the San Francisco Chronicle of December 7, is a fair sample of the nature of the inquiry:“Did you say to anyone that this is just the beginning of the investigation of municipal corruption?”“I have said that from the statements I have heard in the Grand Jury room that the corruption of the municipal administration was so great that the present Grand Jury could hardly expect to make any impression upon it. As to when and where I made that statement I cannot tell,” replied Oliver, who proceeded: “As to myself, the mere testimony I have heard in the Grand Jury room has filled me with horror and disgust.”“Does it fill you with such horror that you believe everyone connected with the administration is corrupt?” asked Lawyer Fairall of counsel for the defense. “I do not believe anyone to be corrupt until he is proved to be so.”“Could you act fairly and impartially, as a Grand Juror, while having your present feeling of horror and disgust?” “Yes, absolutely so, for I have a conscience.”“You feel that your conscience would enable you to act fairly?” “I do. If I erred at all it would be on the other side, so as to be sure that I did the accused no injustice.”This examination went on for several days. The same examination of the Grand Jurors followed in the case of Ruef and Schmitz, and was repeated for the third time on behalf of public-service corporation agents who were indicted later.
The attack upon the Grand Jury had, however, been begun the day before, and was progressing in another department of the court even as Ruef and Schmitz were arraigned. Investigation into graft conditions had by this time got beyond the tenderloin. Several minor indictments had been brought. Supervisor Fred P. Nicholas had been indicted for accepting a bribe of $26.10. As chairman of the Public Building and Grounds Committee, the Grand Jury found he had accepted a 10 per cent. commission on $261 worth of furniture purchased for the city. Several witnesses had been indicted for perjury in connection with the graft investigation. That the investigation was going far was now conceded. The defense concentrated to disqualify the Grand Jury. On behalf of Nicholas and Duffy, the Grand Jurors were haled into Judge William P. Lawlor’s court December 5, the day before Schmitz and Ruef were arraigned. The defendants were represented by Frank J. Murphy, who was to play a prominent part in the graft defense. The following taken from the examination of Foreman B. P. Oliver, as printed in the San Francisco Chronicle of December 7, is a fair sample of the nature of the inquiry:
“Did you say to anyone that this is just the beginning of the investigation of municipal corruption?”
“I have said that from the statements I have heard in the Grand Jury room that the corruption of the municipal administration was so great that the present Grand Jury could hardly expect to make any impression upon it. As to when and where I made that statement I cannot tell,” replied Oliver, who proceeded: “As to myself, the mere testimony I have heard in the Grand Jury room has filled me with horror and disgust.”
“Does it fill you with such horror that you believe everyone connected with the administration is corrupt?” asked Lawyer Fairall of counsel for the defense. “I do not believe anyone to be corrupt until he is proved to be so.”
“Could you act fairly and impartially, as a Grand Juror, while having your present feeling of horror and disgust?” “Yes, absolutely so, for I have a conscience.”
“You feel that your conscience would enable you to act fairly?” “I do. If I erred at all it would be on the other side, so as to be sure that I did the accused no injustice.”
This examination went on for several days. The same examination of the Grand Jurors followed in the case of Ruef and Schmitz, and was repeated for the third time on behalf of public-service corporation agents who were indicted later.
[136]The question of the eligibility of Grand Juror Wise was finally decided by the State Supreme Court in the matter of the application of A. Ruef for a writ of habeas corpus (150 California, p. 665.) The Court held that the presence on the Grand Jury of a member who had served and been discharged as a juror by a court of record within a year of the time that he had been summoned and impaneled to act as a grand juror does not affect the validity of an indictment found by the Grand Jury.
The question of the eligibility of Grand Juror Wise was finally decided by the State Supreme Court in the matter of the application of A. Ruef for a writ of habeas corpus (150 California, p. 665.) The Court held that the presence on the Grand Jury of a member who had served and been discharged as a juror by a court of record within a year of the time that he had been summoned and impaneled to act as a grand juror does not affect the validity of an indictment found by the Grand Jury.
[137]The Chronicle, in its issue of December 18, 1906, said of the attack upon the Grand Jury:“The fact that the felons whom we are trying to convict are officials has nothing to do with their demonstration of the fact that it is impossible, under the laws, to put thieves in the penitentiary, when there is a large band rounded up at one time and they all fight. Under our laws the half-dozen rascals who have already been indicted for their share in the orgy of official plunder in this city can block our criminal courts. The disgraceful farce of putting the Grand Jurors and the District Attorney on trial instead of the scoundrels who have been indicted can apparently be protracted for weeks. Happily the Legislature meets early next month, and if it does not put a speedy end to it we are mistaken. We are getting an object lesson which, perhaps, was needed. The whole miserable machinery of obstruction must be swept away. Whoever is indicted by a Grand Jury must go to trial, unless, in the opinion of the trial Judge, extraordinary conditions indicate that some inquiry should be made to be conducted solely by himself. The public will be satisfied with nothing short of that, nor will it be satisfied with that. The abuses of appeal must be ended.”
The Chronicle, in its issue of December 18, 1906, said of the attack upon the Grand Jury:
“The fact that the felons whom we are trying to convict are officials has nothing to do with their demonstration of the fact that it is impossible, under the laws, to put thieves in the penitentiary, when there is a large band rounded up at one time and they all fight. Under our laws the half-dozen rascals who have already been indicted for their share in the orgy of official plunder in this city can block our criminal courts. The disgraceful farce of putting the Grand Jurors and the District Attorney on trial instead of the scoundrels who have been indicted can apparently be protracted for weeks. Happily the Legislature meets early next month, and if it does not put a speedy end to it we are mistaken. We are getting an object lesson which, perhaps, was needed. The whole miserable machinery of obstruction must be swept away. Whoever is indicted by a Grand Jury must go to trial, unless, in the opinion of the trial Judge, extraordinary conditions indicate that some inquiry should be made to be conducted solely by himself. The public will be satisfied with nothing short of that, nor will it be satisfied with that. The abuses of appeal must be ended.”
[138]Mr. Spreckels testified in part as follows: “I am not interested in the downfall of any man, either Eugene E. Schmitz or Abraham Ruef. I did guarantee the sum of $100,000 to detect any wrongdoing whatsoever in the city of San Francisco. I indicated that to Mr. Heney. I cannot recollect as to dates, but I think it was a short while before the commencement of these proceedings. It was since the calamity of April 18. I had been interested for a long while before that in starting an investigation.... I did not guarantee to Mr. Heney $100,000, but I did guarantee that for the purpose of investigation for the collection of evidence, I would personally guarantee $100,000 for the expenses.... My object was merely to ascertain the truth or falsity of things that had been generally stated. Some of the things I had known of myself. I knew there was an effort made in the city here of doing things in the past. Mr. Ruef, himself, had had a conversation with me which indicated that he was in a position to do certain things, and knowing these things I was willing that an investigation should proceed to the bottom, and to furnish the money necessary to collect the evidence. I have stated publicly relative to this fund of $100,000.”
Mr. Spreckels testified in part as follows: “I am not interested in the downfall of any man, either Eugene E. Schmitz or Abraham Ruef. I did guarantee the sum of $100,000 to detect any wrongdoing whatsoever in the city of San Francisco. I indicated that to Mr. Heney. I cannot recollect as to dates, but I think it was a short while before the commencement of these proceedings. It was since the calamity of April 18. I had been interested for a long while before that in starting an investigation.... I did not guarantee to Mr. Heney $100,000, but I did guarantee that for the purpose of investigation for the collection of evidence, I would personally guarantee $100,000 for the expenses.... My object was merely to ascertain the truth or falsity of things that had been generally stated. Some of the things I had known of myself. I knew there was an effort made in the city here of doing things in the past. Mr. Ruef, himself, had had a conversation with me which indicated that he was in a position to do certain things, and knowing these things I was willing that an investigation should proceed to the bottom, and to furnish the money necessary to collect the evidence. I have stated publicly relative to this fund of $100,000.”
[139]The San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of January 17, 1907, said of the Change of Venue bill:“Assemblyman Grove L. Johnson of Sacramento, and Senator L. A. Wright of San Diego, have introduced identical bills which provide in brief, that in any criminal trial the accused may displace the Judge upon his mere affidavit that he ‘believes he cannot have a fair and impartial trial.’ Upon the filing of such an affidavit the services of some other Judge must be secured, provided that in counties having more than one department of the Superior Court the case shall be transferred to some other department of the same county. The bill provides that the act shall take effect immediately upon its passage. The obvious intent of the law is to enable the indicted boodlers of this city to select the Judge who shall try them, to set aside all that has thus far been done to get them before a jury and have their cases retried from the beginning.”
The San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of January 17, 1907, said of the Change of Venue bill:
“Assemblyman Grove L. Johnson of Sacramento, and Senator L. A. Wright of San Diego, have introduced identical bills which provide in brief, that in any criminal trial the accused may displace the Judge upon his mere affidavit that he ‘believes he cannot have a fair and impartial trial.’ Upon the filing of such an affidavit the services of some other Judge must be secured, provided that in counties having more than one department of the Superior Court the case shall be transferred to some other department of the same county. The bill provides that the act shall take effect immediately upon its passage. The obvious intent of the law is to enable the indicted boodlers of this city to select the Judge who shall try them, to set aside all that has thus far been done to get them before a jury and have their cases retried from the beginning.”