[290]Scott had been elected President before the alleged bribery transactions, but had left soon after for the East. The Prosecution held that Scott did not assume his duties as president until after his return from the East, when the alleged briberies had been completed. Delmas concluded his argument on Scott’s possible responsibility as follows:“And then you are called again further on in this same process of elimination. ‘We expect to prove to you that Halsey had no power to expend moneys without a voucher, and that no person at that time in the Telephone Company had any power to expend money without the approval of the executive Board of Directors, except Glass, and Scott, who was away.’ Scott had gone, we were told, on the 18th or 19th. These transactions took place on the 22d, 23d and 24th. Scott could not have authorized them from the simple fact that Scott was then in the East, and he was not here in San Francisco to direct or authorize the management of the affairs of this corporation. A true elimination, gentlemen, if the facts were true, but the facts are not true. Mr. Scott did not leave for the East—bear this in mind—Mr. Scott did not leave for the East until all these transactions were closed; he did not leave until the 27th of February when the last of these checks had been paid. Who drew it? Scott himself. I challenge contradiction. The Assistant District Attorney told you on the first day that he addressed you that Scott left on the 18th or 19th. Did he know that Scott did not leave until the 27th? Did he? If he did, then there are no words that would apply to the deception that was sought to be practiced upon you, and I do not charge any such deception. Had Mr. Scott informed the District Attorney that he left on the 18th or 19th? I do not know. There is no evidence before you that he had. How, then, did he get the idea which he made to you under the oath of his office as District Attorney that Scott left on the 18th or 19th, when in point of fact Scott did not leave until the 27th? He came back from Portland on Monday or Tuesday of the preceding week. He was here during the whole of these transactions; he remained until the last check had been paid. He remained until the ordinance had been passed on the 26th of February, and left the defeated camp on the next day. How, then, upon that evidence, is Scott eliminated from this transaction? And I do not want you to understand that I am charging Mr. Scott with crime. That is no part of my business. It is no part of my office. I am assuming, upon the theory of this prosecution, that a crime was committed, and I say you, yourselves, Mr. District Attorney and your attendants, have undertaken by the process of elimination which you have selected, to show us that Mr. Scott could not have committed this crime. It is sufficient for us to show you that he could without charging that he did.”[291]The following are taken from interviews with the several jurors which appeared in the Examiner of July 29, 1907:Juror Jacob Wertheimer—“I voted as I did (for acquittal) because there was a reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether or not Glass had authorized the giving of the money. There were too many others that might have been the ones.”Juror Charles P. Fonda—“I voted not guilty. It was simply a question of whether Glass paid over this money as charged. Five of us did not believe that the Prosecution produced sufficiently convincing evidence to find the defendant guilty.”Juror Michael C. Samuels—“The evidence did not link Glass up. So far as the bribery went, it might have been done by another official of the company than Glass.”Juror Hugo Schnessel—“There was always something lacking in the evidence to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. It seemed to me that possibly some one else other than Glass might have paid over the money.”[292]Of the delaying tactics in the Glass case, The San Francisco Call in its issue of August 14, 1907, said:“Anything to delay trial and judgment is the policy of the accused bribe givers. Every day’s proceedings in the retrial of Glass provides ample proof to convince the most skeptical citizen that the last thing desired by the men charged with debauching the boodle Board of Supervisors is prompt determination of the issues on their merits, and every pettifogging move for delay, every cunning attempt to betray the court into technical error is confession of a case too weak to be given to a fair jury on a plain showing of the facts. The attitude of the lawyers for Glass is sufficient to indicate that he needs lawyers of their peculiar expertness—‘distinguished attorneys,’ Heney calls them—‘distinguished for their ability to defeat justice.’“Judge Lawlor’s unhesitating denial of a motion to permit the lawyers for Glass to shift their ground in the midst of the impaneling of the jury and hark back to an attack on the validity of the indictments, and his sharp reprimand to Attorney Coogan for his method of misleading talesmen by adroitly framed questions, ought to expedite this trial. Lawlor has a reputation for dealing sternly with legal tricksters and for compelling counsel in the cases that he hears to get down to business and keep at it. At the same time his record on the bench is that of a just judge and always impartial. It is because he is impartial and stern that crooked lawyers, with crooked clients, deem it ‘hard luck’ when their cases are assigned to Lawlor.“Now Judge Lawlor has a rare opportunity to prove anew his worth as a jurist. He will please a patient and long suffering public and will satisfy the ends of the justice which he administers when he makes the lawyers quit trifling and forces them to let the trial go on. We may expect to see the trial made as tedious and as costly in time and money as high priced counselors can arrange. It is all part of the game—tire out the public, the jury and the prosecution; delay is the safest course for the man accused against whom the people’s case is strong. But we may also expect to see Judge Lawlor trimming the matter of technicalities and pressing it to a conclusion. It was because the people had come to expect such things from Judge Lawlor that they re-elected him, when all the machines of municipal corruption were grinding against him.”[293]Eaton testified at the second Glass trial as follows: “Mr. Scott did not sign any checks between February 8, 1906, and the latter part of March, 1906, for the company; not to my knowledge. Notices were sent out by me to the different banks in regard to the signatures that could be accepted upon checks after Mr. Scott was elected president. They were sent on the 27th of February, 1906, to all the San Francisco banks that we had an account with.”Eaton testified further that the day the banks were notified, Mr. Scott went East. Mr. Scott could, Eaton said, previous to that date, have signed checks, but up to that time they would not have been honored at the banks. Halsey, in the Mills Building, gave the Supervisors, of whom Lonergan was one, their bribe money not later than February 26. Supervisor Lonergan testified that to the best of his recollection he had been paid by Halsey some time between February 14 and February 20.[294]John Helms, a detective, testified at the trial of Patrick Calhoun that he had been employed by the United Railroads as early as May 3, 1907; that his duties consisted of “mostly shadow work, watching out for things being done by the prosecution”; that Patrick Calhoun had himself authorized him (Helms) to employ men to follow Burns on motorcycles. Later on automobiles were substituted for the motorcycles.If Helms’s employment began on May 3, as he testified, the United Railroads was preparing for its defense at least three weeks before indictments were brought against its officials. The extent of that corporation’s defense, or the details of it, are not known to those outside the corporation. At the Calhoun trial the Prosecution accounted for every dollar spent in the operations against the Schmitz-Ruef regime. The attorneys representing the United Railroads were invited to make as frank statement of the expenditures made by the defense, but they declined.[295]Ashe participated in the first Ford trials. At the time of the later trials he was involved in the scandal of the alleged kidnaping of Fremont Older.[296]In referring to the men and women employed by the graft defense, The Call, in an editorial article, in its issue of September 26, said:“The retinue of the trolley magnates, as exhibited in the Ford case, makes a remarkable picture. Behind the expert lawyers of last resort troops a motley train of gun fighters, professional plug-uglies, decoys, disreputable ‘detectives,’ thugs, women of the half world and the wolfish pack of gutter journalism. It must be, indeed, a hard case that needs such bolstering.“How will Mr. Calhoun square with his protestations of high-mindedness the presence and the efforts in his behalf of such creatures of the slums and stews as ‘Bogie’ O’Donnell and ‘The Banjo Eyed Kid’? Are these and the others of their kidney laboring in the same behalf as friends and sympathizers of Mr. Calhoun or merely as his hired men?”[297]At the Ford trial, Supervisor Lonergan had testified that he had been followed during a recess of the court. The following testimony followed:“Q. Was that Mr. Melrose, a detective of the Southern Pacific, who is sitting there? A. I don’t know Mr. Melrose.“Q. Is he the gentleman sitting immediately back of Mr. Ford? A. That is the gentleman; that is him.“Q. He was following you around during the noon hour? A. Yes, sir.“Q. Don’t you know he is a detective of the Southern Pacific? A. I don’t know anything about the gentleman.”[298]The Call, in its issue of September 26, 1907, stated in explanation of how the graft defense had come by the statement Lonergan had made to Dorland that: “After court adjourned (September 25) Attorney Rogers offered an explanation for Walter Dorland, the man who was charged by the prosecution with having attempted to kidnap Lonergan. Rogers’s story differed from that told by Dorland. Rogers stated that Dorland was not a detective, but was in charge of a hospital in Chicago. He came to San Francisco, where he met Luther Brown, an associate of Rogers. Brown and Dorland were old friends and the former induced Dorland to get statements from the Supervisors for him. Dorland did this. Rogers says he has statements from all the Supervisors with the exception of Gallagher.”[299]Heney states in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., No. 823, that he had been informed that the reason given by Ruef for securing the signatures of the Supervisors to this affidavit was to find out which, if any of them, had confessed, upon the theory that any one of them who had confessed would refuse to sign an affidavit, and upon the further theory that if such a confessing member did sign the affidavit, he would thus be making a contradictory statement under oath, which could thus be further used against him by Ruef or Gallagher, upon the trial of either of them.But whatever Ruef’s far-seeing motive, this affidavit which he, through Keane, induced the Supervisors to sign, was used by the attorneys for the defense at the graft trials to show contradictory statements of the confessing Supervisors.[300]The San Francisco Call, in its issue of September 25, 1907, in commenting on Lonergan’s testimony, says: “While Lonergan’s narrative tells a portion of the story, it is not all. In another automobile were Detective Luther Brown and the ‘Banjo-Eyed Kid’ of the United Railroads. They followed close on the heels of the auto occupied by Detective Dorland. Both machines sped to a resort near the park, where a meeting place had been arranged and where Lonergan was to be turned over to the custody of the ‘Banjo-Eyed Kid.’ The rest was to be left to the Kid. If the plan had carried there would have been no Lonergan at the trial yesterday, the defense would have flashed the statement secured by Dorland and set up the cry that the entire prosecution of the United Railroads was a plot set on foot by Rudolph Spreckels.”[301]Several who participated in this affair were later indicted for kidnaping. There were no convictions.[302]Burns in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., 832, refers to a plot hatched about the time of the Ford trials to kidnap Ruef. Burns charges that Ruef was to have been taken into a mountain county and held there until the United Railroads cases had been disposed of. He states his belief that Ruef was party to the plot.[303]The disinclination of the United Railroads to produce its books continues to cause that corporation inconvenience and trouble. In 1913, for example, the corporation applied to the California State Board of Railroad Commissioners for permission to issue promissory notes to the amount of $2,350,000. That the Commission might determine the necessity of such an issue, request was made for the corporation’s books. This request was denied. The Commission withheld authorization of the note issue. In commenting upon its refusal, the Commission said:“It should be understood that the conclusions hereinbefore set out have been reached on the partial information which has been submitted to the Commission, and that if an examination of the original books which the company has refused to supply should reveal a different condition, the responsibility for these conclusions, which we contend inevitably must be drawn from what evidence is before us, lies with the applicant because of its failure to submit its books for examination by the Commission.“It is an axiom that evidence suppressed is deemed to be adverse, and having in mind this axiom certainly the Commission is justified in concluding that the books which the applicant refuses to produce at least would not better its showing.”Following the defeat of the graft prosecution in November, 1909, peculiar transactions are recorded against the United Railroads. For example, the Railroad Commission found, and has so reported, that “in the minutes (of the United Railroads) of May 25, 1910, it appears that four years’ ‘back salary’ was voted to Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads of San Francisco, in the sum of $75,000 a year, or a total of $300,000. No explanation is made of this item, but it at once suggests the necessity of a thorough investigation in order to determine the items claimed by applicant as operating expenses of the United Railroads over a series of years.” See Decision No. 439 Railroad Commission of California, in the matter of the application of the United Railroads, etc., February 4, 1913.[304]Both Wilson and Coffey were indicted for bribe-taking. Wilson later on found his memory. At other graft trials he explained that his testimony at the first Ford trial had been given after he had undergone an operation that had involved the use of large quantities of cocaine. He insisted that he did not know to what he was testifying. Coffey was tried for bribe-taking and convicted. The Supreme Court, however, set aside the verdict on technicalities.[305]It was shown at the Ford trial that about $175,000 in addition to the unaccounted-for $200,000 was received by the United Railroads through the United States mint. Every dollar of this $175,000 except $3,000 loaned to Ruef by Mullally, was taken out by the treasurer of the company, and carried to the United Railroads’ office and there put in its safe and used as needed, that it was taken in gold and was paid out to its employees in gold. It was further shown that not one dollar of currency was ever put in any of the safes at the United Railroads’ office by any person during that period of time covered by Ford’s withdrawal of money from the mint, and that no currency was deposited to the credit of the company in any of its bank accounts nor to the credit of Ford or Mullally or Abbott, and that no currency was turned over to the treasurer of the company during that time. Thus by a process of exclusion this $200,000 was left in the hands of Ford absolutely unaccounted for upon any theory consistent with an honest use of it. Add these facts to the further facts that Ruef was traced to Ford’s office on two of the days on which Ford got the money, and that Ruef on each occasion, within a day or two, paid the same kind of money to Gallagher, that currency was not generally in circulation at all in San Francisco.[306]The two men were at the time detailed to handle the money of the relief fund. The mint officials could not accommodate Ford with the currency he wanted. They gave him gold. The gold which Ford secured at the mint was trucked across the hall to relief headquarters, where it was exchanged for the currency. Selig and Hawkins counted out the bills.[307]See transcript of testimony, trial of The People vs. Tirey L. Ford, No. 817, taken September 25, 1907, page 270.[308]Mr. Mullally, assistant to Mr. Calhoun, and also Mr. Calhoun were known to have enjoyed friendly relations with Mr. Ruef during this period.[309]The facts brought out at General Ford’s trial are interesting in connection with General Ford’s interview in the San Francisco Examiner of October 28, 1906, soon after the Graft Prosecution opened. See Footnote92.Ruef, in “The Road I Traveled,” printed in the San Francisco Bulletin, states that he gave Schmitz $50,000 and kept $50,000 for himself out of the $200,000 which was given to him by Tirey L. Ford from Patrick Calhoun to pay for the granting of the trolley permit.[310]This affidavit deals with the Graft Prosecution from its beginning down to the spring of 1908. This document was filed in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., No. 823.[311]SeeChapter XVI, page211, and footnote119, page111.[312]This is the same Ach who dramatically left the Ruef defense at the time of Ruef’s plea of guilty to extortion. See Chapter XV, page 204.[313]For immunity contract see page xix of the Appendix. For the negotiations upon which Ach’s claim was based see Chapter XV.[314]Heney sets forth in his affidavit that Ach’s claim did not surprise him. He says of Ach’s statement: “I was not very much surprised by its substance as I had long before commenced to suspect that Ruef, Ach, Dr. Kaplan and Dr. Nieto would claim eventually that such agreement existed in regard to case number 305 (the extortion case) if it became necessary to do so in order to keep Ruef out of the penitentiary. In fact I would not have been greatly surprised by anything that Ach might have claimed, as I have learned to know him pretty well and am sometimes at a loss to decide whether he or Ruef is entitled to first place as an artistic and imaginative ‘equivocator,’ to use Ruef’s language.”[315]SeeChapter XV, pages190-7. Heney states in his affidavit that both Nieto and Kaplan agreed that Heney’s statement of the arrangement was correct. “Yes, you are right, Mr. Heney,” the affidavit sets forth Nieto said. “I understand it that way, and consequently I never told Ruef anything about that. He never got that from me.” The affidavit sets forth that Kaplan said in substance: “Yes, that is what you said, Mr. Heney, but I always understood that Mr. Ruef would be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty in the French Restaurant cases and would not receive any punishment.”Heney replied in substance: “You may have so understood, Doctor, but you had no right so to understand from anything which I said.”[316]Heney, in his closing argument, told the jury that Ruef had not been put on the stand because the prosecution did not trust him. Heney said: “Nobody except Mr. Ford and Mr. Ruef could tell about it (the passing of the $200,000). They did not complain about my asking why they did not put Mr. Ruef on the stand. They asked why we didn’t put him on the stand and vouch for his veracity and enable them to put words in his mouth, and I will answer now, because we DID NOT TRUST HIM.”[317]Heney, in his affidavit, describes the disappointment of Ruef, Ach and Nieto when the case was closed without Ruef being called. Heney says: “I rested the case on behalf of the prosecution in the first Ford trial in this department of this Court on the 2nd day of October, 1907, and the attorneys for the defendant asked for time to consider what they would do about putting in evidence, and Court adjourned for the purpose of giving them such time. I had noticed Henry Ach and Ruef sitting together next to the aisle, which was directly in front of where I sat, and could see that up to the time I closed the case they were anxiously waiting for me to call Ruef as a witness. When Court adjourned they remained sitting and as I passed them Ach stopped me and said in substance, ‘Why didn’t you put Ruef on the stand as a witness? Are you not going to dismiss these cases against him?’ I replied in substance, ‘There are a lot more cases to be tried. There will be plenty of opportunities to dismiss these cases if I want to do it.’ Ruef said, with one of his most winning smiles, in substance, ‘I guess he is going to put me on in rebuttal just as he did in the Schmitz case.’ I replied in substance, ‘Oh, I don’t know about that, Ruef. I don’t like to try all my cases the same way.’ I started to leave and Ach stopped me as I had taken only a couple of steps, and said in substance, ‘There isn’t any change in the situation, is there in regard to Ruef?’ I smilingly and meaningly replied, in substance, ‘Not a particle, Henry, since our last talk,’ meaning thereby the talk which Ach and myself had on or about the 19th or 20th day of September, 1907, at night in my office in the presence of Dr. Nieto, Dr. Kaplan, William J. Burns and Charles W. Cobb, as hereinbefore set forth. As I made this statement I walked on out of the courtroom and someone stopped me somewhere between there and the entrance door of the building and Dr. Nieto came up to me, all smiles, and said in substance, ‘You didn’t put Ruef on the stand, did you?’ I replied, ‘No, I did not, Doctor.’ Dr. Nieto then said in substance, ‘There isn’t any change in the situation, is there?’ And I replied with a smile in substance, ‘None whatever since our last talk, Doctor,’ meaning the talk at my office just hereinbefore referred to, at which Dr. Nieto, Dr. Kaplan and Ach were present. The manner of Ach and the manner of Dr. Nieto when I made this reply to each of them indicated plainly that each understood exactly what I meant.”[318]Calhoun protested vigorously against the raiding of his offices. Concerning the raid and Mr. Calhoun’s protests, the interior press expressed general approval of the first and condemnation of the latter.“It is not a question,” said the Oroville Register, “alone of graft in San Francisco now. It is rather a question as to whether in America, where ‘all men are free and equal,’ there is a law for the rich and another law for the poor, and whether a little money can put our whole penal system at naught and make monkeys of judicial officers. Unluckily in the Calhoun case we can not in America resort to the czar-like methods which should be resorted to, but must fight it out by the long and slow process of law. Luckily for the honor of America Mr. Heney and his associates are gifted with the courage, ability and tenacity to fight it out on this line even if it takes this summer and the whole of the next so to do.”“The ‘private sanctity’ of Calhoun’s offices,” said the Santa Barbara Independent, “was violated, his defenders say, when the police entered to search for stolen goods. The fact that the goods were concealed in the offices—that the police unearthed there a ‘fence’ for the reception of stolen goods—doesn’t seem to have destroyed the sanctity of the place.“Recently the police in Los Angeles raided a cigar store, where they found concealed some of the money that three months ago had been stolen from the Monrovia bank. The cigar dealer’s lawyers should go into court and protest against violation of the ‘private sanctity’ of the thief’s hiding place.“It is beyond understanding how men can view a similar circumstance in different lights. To an unprejudiced mind a thief is a thief, whether he has stolen an old pair of shoes or robbed the public through a municipal or other government. And the honest man rejoices in his capture, the recovery of the stolen goods and apprehension and punishment of persons who receive and conceal the fruits of theft.”[319]Calhoun and Ruef were placed on the stand April 29, 1908. Their refusal to answer will be found in the transcript of testimony taken that day. Complete records of all the graft cases were in 1912, when this review was written, in the possession of A. A. Moore, prominently connected with the graft defense.[320]The outcome of the Republican primaries was looked upon as a victory for good government. Said the Call, in discussing the returns: “Two things stand out prominently in the returns of the primary elections yesterday. One is that the Republicans of San Francisco have had enough of Herrin. The other is that they have not had enough of the graft prosecution. The victory for decency and for the independence of the party from the thralldom in which Herrin has so long held it for the use and benefit of the Southern Pacific was complete, with a vote large enough to make it plain to Herrin and to the interests exposed and to be exposed in the debauchery of public servants that they must look elsewhere than to the Republicans of San Francisco for the old corrupt conditions. The Call takes to itself credit for some share in the accomplishment of this good work. It was this paper that spoiled Herrin’s infamous apportionment scheme by which he planned to fill the burned district with his dummies and thus control the municipal convention. It was this paper that began and carried on to the last moment a vigorous campaign in behalf of the decent element of the Republican party, whose leadership was in the capable and clean hands of Daniel A. Ryan. The Call has no candidates. It wants only honest, capable independent men. It made this winning fight because it wanted a clean government for San Francisco and because it wanted the graft prosecution carried out to the end.”[321]The primary vote was the largest up to that time cast in San Francisco. It was as follows:Anti-Herrin (Ryan) Republican8,116Herrin Republicans3,207Irregular Republicans1,549Regular Democratic2,438Byington, Democratic1,081McCarthy, Union Labor3,655Macarthur, Union Labor2,197[322]On the eve of the primary election, P. H. McCarthy, leader of the anti-Prosecution faction of the Union Labor party, issued a warning to union men In which he said: “Too much caution cannot be exercised by you, nor too much diligence displayed in order to protect your rights at the polls today. One of the most cunning, deceptive and vicious attacks ever made on organized labor in this city is now being launched in order that your wages may be cut and your working hours increased to suit the millionaires in this city. To do so, those millionaires have drawn to their side by what force we are unable to say, certain labor men (Walter Macarthur and his associates) with a view to shuffling, confusing and thoroughly misleading the labor union voters and their sympathizers in this city.”[323]Many Ryan Republican district tickets contained the following printed statement:“The candidates on this ticket are pledged to use all their influence in the convention to secure the nomination of a ticket of capable men and hope that they will be indorsed by the conventions of all parties. They do not care who these men may be, but will vote for no man who can be suspected of peddling offices or jobs in return for support. They do not desire nor expect for themselves or for their friends any offices or jobs. No candidate on this ticket has ever sought or held a political office or job. The candidates on this ticket have all accepted the pledge of the Regular Republican League. Daniel A. Ryan, chairman; Perry H. Newberry, secretary.”[324]The Examiner, in its issue of September 19, 1907, in discussing Mr. Ryan’s proposed candidacy said: “It is generally understood that Mr. Dan Ryan proposes to nominate himself as the Republican candidate for Mayor of San Francisco. That he has the power to do this thing is one of the curiosities of our political system.“The theory is that the delegates to a convention represent that part of the public which marches under the political banner of a political party. But Mr. Ryan evidently considers that the delegates to the Republican convention were chosen to advance his personal political ambitions.“The people do not mean that the accidental leaders of a primary fight should put the offices in their own pockets.“They elect delegates as agents to select candidates from among the people. The delegates are the bearers of a trust and neither they nor the man who happens to captain them in the scramble between factions has a right to appropriate the nominations.“The trust is not fulfilled if the primary leader assumes that because the people elected his primary ticket they want him in office. They don’t want him, for they don’t want primary politicians in the Mayor’s chair.“The theory of any convention is that it is assembled to choose the best man in the party for its candidate. The spectacle of Mr. Dan Ryan holding a caucus with himself, and deciding that he is better qualified to be Mayor of San Francisco than any other man in the Republican party, is a grotesque piece of effrontery.“All sorts of men rise to the top in primary fights, but most of them have a sufficient sense of modesty, if not of the fitness of things, to abstain from making themselves the recipients of what the delegates have to give.“For the primary leader to appropriate the office to himself Is like the agent of a charity fund determining that he is the most worthy object of the charity and putting the money in his own pocket.”[325]It was anything to defeat Langdon, even though a pro-prosecution attorney be employed against him. Hiram W. Johnson, for example, was suggested as his opponent. But Johnson let it be understood, and with characteristic positiveness, that under no considerations would he be a candidate against Langdon.[326]The members of the Good Government League Executive Committee were: E. L. Baldwin, J. E. Cutten, George Renner, Gen. Samuel W. Backus, George R. Fletcher, Sigmund Bauer, B. H. Gurnette, Frank W. Marvin, Frank W. Gale, L. C. McAfee, George Uhl, Rev. Chas. N. Lathrop, Isidor Jacobs, Rudolph Spreckels, Edgar A. Mathews.[327]The minority which voted for Taylor, in a memorial to the convention, charged “that the majority of the delegates to this convention have betrayed the confidence reposed in them by their constituents” and gave notice that it would not be bound by the nomination of the convention for Mayor and would not support the nominee, but would do all in its power to further the election of Dr. Edward R. Taylor.[328]The Union Labor party convention also had its sensations. Thomas F. Eagan, for example, and his followers bolted the convention because of McCarthy’s nomination. The Carmen’s Union refused to accept the Union Labor party ticket because Langdon had not been nominated for District Attorney.[329]Heney, on the eve of election, in reply to McGowan’s argument that the bribe-takers should be prosecuted, effectively answered this contention. Heney’s communication read: “To Frank McGowan, Esq. Sir: You are reported by the newspapers as having stated that you will prosecute the boodling Supervisors and that you will also prosecute Patrick Calhoun and the other rich bribers, and that you will grant immunity to no one. I invite you to answer specifically the following questions either in the newspapers or the next time you make a public speech:“1. If you prosecute Supervisor Lonergan (or any other Supervisor) for accepting a bribe to influence his vote in the matter of the trolley franchise, what witness, or witnesses, will you call to prove that he accepted the bribe?“2. Every child in town now knows that if Lonergan received the money at all it was from Supervisor Gallagher. Will you prove the fact by Gallagher? If you call Gallagher as a witness, how do you expect to induce him to testify without granting him Immunity?“3. When you prosecute James L. Gallagher for giving a bribe to Tom Lonergan or to any other Supervisor to influence his vote on the trolley franchise matter, by what witness or witnesses, will you prove that Gallagher paid the money to Lonergan or to any other Supervisor? Will you call Lonergan or any other Supervisor as a witness, and when you call him, how will you induce him to testify without granting him immunity?“4. By what witness do you expect to convict Gallagher of giving a bribe, or Tom Lonergan, or any other Supervisor of accepting a bribe in the matter of fixing the gas rate, or in the Home Telephone Company franchise matter?“5. If you prosecute Ruef for giving money to Gallagher to distribute to the Supervisors to influence their vote on the trolley franchise, by what witness, or witnesses, will you prove that Ruef gave the money to Gallagher? Will you put Gallagher on the stand to prove it, and if so, how will you induce him to testify without granting him immunity? Will you put Ford on the stand to prove that he gave the money to Ruef, and if so, how will you get him to testify without giving him immunity? Will you put Fat Calhoun on the stand to prove that he gave the money to Ford to give Ruef to give to the Supervisors, and if so, how will you induce Pat to testify without giving him immunity?“6. You say that you will prosecute Patrick Calhoun for bribing the Supervisors to influence their votes in the matter of the trolley franchise. By what witnesses will you prove that the money was given to Gallagher or to any of the other Supervisors to influence their votes in this matter? Will you prove by Ford that he gave the money to Ruef, and if so, how will you induce Ford to testify without giving him immunity? Will you prove by Ruef that he gave the money to Gallagher to distribute to the other Supervisors, and if so, how will you prove it by Gallagher without giving him immunity? Will you prove by the other Supervisors that they received money from Gallagher, and if so, how will you induce each of them to testify without giving each of them immunity?“7. Will you prosecute Frank G. Drum and the other officials of the gas company for bribing the Supervisors for fixing the gas rates, and if so, how will you prove that the money was paid without granting immunity to Ruef and to some or all of the Supervisors?“8. Will you prosecute A. K. Detweiler for bribing the Supervisors in the Home Telephone franchise matter, and if so, how will you prove your case against him without granting immunity to Ruef and to some or all of the members of the Board of Supervisors?“9. Can jurisdiction be conferred on a court by consent, and if so, how could you proceed with the Ford trial on a legal holiday?“10. If you found it necessary to grant immunity to either the bribe-taker or the bribe-giver in the trolley franchise matter to prevent an utter failure of justice and the escape of both the bribe-takers and the bribe-givers, to which side will you recommend the granting of immunity by the court? Will you prosecute the friendless, insignificant Supervisors and grant immunity to ex-Attorney-General Tirey L. Ford and his employer, Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads of San Francisco, or will you recommend that the court shall grant immunity to the friendless and insignificant Supervisors in order to convict the rich, powerful and influential Patrick Calhoun and his general counsel, Tirey L. Ford?“Yours, etc.,FRANCIS J. HENEY.”[330]The Republican convention “pledged its party and its nominees to assist and continue the vigorous prosecution of all persons guilty of crime, in whatever walk of life, high or low, in San Francisco,” and “to incessant and energetic war on graft in every form, to the end that this plague may be exterminated from the body politic.”The Union Labor plank on the Graft Prosecution was as follows: “We demand the punishment of all offenders against the law, and we pledge our nominee for District Attorney to prosecute vigorously all bribers, boodlers and grafters without distinction, and particularly do we pledge him to prosecute those public officials, confessed criminals, who have been guilty of the greatest crime in the city’s history, but who have been permitted to go unwhipped of justice, and to remain outside the walls of the penitentiary behind which they should now be imprisoned. We further pledge our nominee for District Attorney to abolish private prisons, wholesale ‘immunity baths,’ and all other institutions created for the benefit and protection of criminals.”The Democratic Graft Prosecution plank read: “We commend the work of the prosecution, which has removed from public office criminals who have dishonored and debauched our city and has secured convictions that must be forever a warning to official wrongdoers and those who participate with them in crime; and we pledge our support to the prosecution in any effort it may make to convict any guilty person.”[331]“There never would have been doubt anywhere about Taylor’s successor,” said the Call In its issue of November 5, “if it had not been for the grossly selfish and unpatriotic course of Daniel A. Ryan. The one possibility of McCarthy’s election was opened to him by Ryan. Failing of other support, Ryan turned renegade to all his party professions and went into an infamous alliance with that arch enemy of Republicanism, Hearst. For four weeks he has been scrambling for votes.... Ryan has fully revealed himself as a cheap politician itching for office. He has boasted of his youth, and yet he was the first of the candidates to break down and go to bed. He has declaimed about his own honesty, until his voice is in tatters and has filled the air with promises of what he would do if elected. Never has he explained or attempted to explain the nature of those ‘certain concessions’ that led him to nominate himself, although he knew that in so doing he was Jeopardizing the future of his city.”[332]Said the Chronicle of Mr. Ryan’s candidacy in its issue of October 3, 1907: “The Chronicle has neither apologies nor regrets for urging its readers to support the Regular Republican League movement headed by Daniel A. Ryan. We believed at the time, as others believed, that Mr. Ryan’s sole desire was good government for San Francisco and that such desire was unsmirched by personal ambition. General confidence in the sincerity of Mr. Ryan and his associates led to the triumphant election of the delegates to the Republican convention named and approved by Mr. Ryan, which was accepted throughout the country as evidence that the people of San Francisco were sound at heart.“When we urged the public to support the Ryan primary tickets, we did so, not in the interest of Mr. Ryan, but in the interest of good government. We considered Mr. Ryan in the light of a useful and public-spirited citizen, upon whom, in due time, the people would delight to confer official honors should he be willing to accept them. Those who voted the Ryan ticket at the primaries did not vote for Mr. Ryan, but for the cause which he championed. As for considering him a candidate for Mayor, nobody thought of it. It is no disparagement to a young man like Mr. Ryan to say that as yet he has no such standing in the community as justifies him in aspiring to such an honor.”In its issue of October 5 the Chronicle said: “The moral collapse of Daniel A. Ryan is deeply regretted by every lover of San Francisco. It is not a matter of the rise or fall of one man. It is a question of whether the people will ever again trust any man who appears as a leader of reform. Few men ever get such an opportunity as Mr. Ryan has thrown away. Doubtless the lesson is for the people never again to trust an unknown man. It is not too much to ask of any aspirant to leadership on an important scale that he shall have some record of honorable achievement of some kind as an earnest of what to expect of him should the confidence reposed in him place him in a position of power.”
[290]Scott had been elected President before the alleged bribery transactions, but had left soon after for the East. The Prosecution held that Scott did not assume his duties as president until after his return from the East, when the alleged briberies had been completed. Delmas concluded his argument on Scott’s possible responsibility as follows:“And then you are called again further on in this same process of elimination. ‘We expect to prove to you that Halsey had no power to expend moneys without a voucher, and that no person at that time in the Telephone Company had any power to expend money without the approval of the executive Board of Directors, except Glass, and Scott, who was away.’ Scott had gone, we were told, on the 18th or 19th. These transactions took place on the 22d, 23d and 24th. Scott could not have authorized them from the simple fact that Scott was then in the East, and he was not here in San Francisco to direct or authorize the management of the affairs of this corporation. A true elimination, gentlemen, if the facts were true, but the facts are not true. Mr. Scott did not leave for the East—bear this in mind—Mr. Scott did not leave for the East until all these transactions were closed; he did not leave until the 27th of February when the last of these checks had been paid. Who drew it? Scott himself. I challenge contradiction. The Assistant District Attorney told you on the first day that he addressed you that Scott left on the 18th or 19th. Did he know that Scott did not leave until the 27th? Did he? If he did, then there are no words that would apply to the deception that was sought to be practiced upon you, and I do not charge any such deception. Had Mr. Scott informed the District Attorney that he left on the 18th or 19th? I do not know. There is no evidence before you that he had. How, then, did he get the idea which he made to you under the oath of his office as District Attorney that Scott left on the 18th or 19th, when in point of fact Scott did not leave until the 27th? He came back from Portland on Monday or Tuesday of the preceding week. He was here during the whole of these transactions; he remained until the last check had been paid. He remained until the ordinance had been passed on the 26th of February, and left the defeated camp on the next day. How, then, upon that evidence, is Scott eliminated from this transaction? And I do not want you to understand that I am charging Mr. Scott with crime. That is no part of my business. It is no part of my office. I am assuming, upon the theory of this prosecution, that a crime was committed, and I say you, yourselves, Mr. District Attorney and your attendants, have undertaken by the process of elimination which you have selected, to show us that Mr. Scott could not have committed this crime. It is sufficient for us to show you that he could without charging that he did.”
Scott had been elected President before the alleged bribery transactions, but had left soon after for the East. The Prosecution held that Scott did not assume his duties as president until after his return from the East, when the alleged briberies had been completed. Delmas concluded his argument on Scott’s possible responsibility as follows:
“And then you are called again further on in this same process of elimination. ‘We expect to prove to you that Halsey had no power to expend moneys without a voucher, and that no person at that time in the Telephone Company had any power to expend money without the approval of the executive Board of Directors, except Glass, and Scott, who was away.’ Scott had gone, we were told, on the 18th or 19th. These transactions took place on the 22d, 23d and 24th. Scott could not have authorized them from the simple fact that Scott was then in the East, and he was not here in San Francisco to direct or authorize the management of the affairs of this corporation. A true elimination, gentlemen, if the facts were true, but the facts are not true. Mr. Scott did not leave for the East—bear this in mind—Mr. Scott did not leave for the East until all these transactions were closed; he did not leave until the 27th of February when the last of these checks had been paid. Who drew it? Scott himself. I challenge contradiction. The Assistant District Attorney told you on the first day that he addressed you that Scott left on the 18th or 19th. Did he know that Scott did not leave until the 27th? Did he? If he did, then there are no words that would apply to the deception that was sought to be practiced upon you, and I do not charge any such deception. Had Mr. Scott informed the District Attorney that he left on the 18th or 19th? I do not know. There is no evidence before you that he had. How, then, did he get the idea which he made to you under the oath of his office as District Attorney that Scott left on the 18th or 19th, when in point of fact Scott did not leave until the 27th? He came back from Portland on Monday or Tuesday of the preceding week. He was here during the whole of these transactions; he remained until the last check had been paid. He remained until the ordinance had been passed on the 26th of February, and left the defeated camp on the next day. How, then, upon that evidence, is Scott eliminated from this transaction? And I do not want you to understand that I am charging Mr. Scott with crime. That is no part of my business. It is no part of my office. I am assuming, upon the theory of this prosecution, that a crime was committed, and I say you, yourselves, Mr. District Attorney and your attendants, have undertaken by the process of elimination which you have selected, to show us that Mr. Scott could not have committed this crime. It is sufficient for us to show you that he could without charging that he did.”
[291]The following are taken from interviews with the several jurors which appeared in the Examiner of July 29, 1907:Juror Jacob Wertheimer—“I voted as I did (for acquittal) because there was a reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether or not Glass had authorized the giving of the money. There were too many others that might have been the ones.”Juror Charles P. Fonda—“I voted not guilty. It was simply a question of whether Glass paid over this money as charged. Five of us did not believe that the Prosecution produced sufficiently convincing evidence to find the defendant guilty.”Juror Michael C. Samuels—“The evidence did not link Glass up. So far as the bribery went, it might have been done by another official of the company than Glass.”Juror Hugo Schnessel—“There was always something lacking in the evidence to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. It seemed to me that possibly some one else other than Glass might have paid over the money.”
The following are taken from interviews with the several jurors which appeared in the Examiner of July 29, 1907:
Juror Jacob Wertheimer—“I voted as I did (for acquittal) because there was a reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether or not Glass had authorized the giving of the money. There were too many others that might have been the ones.”
Juror Charles P. Fonda—“I voted not guilty. It was simply a question of whether Glass paid over this money as charged. Five of us did not believe that the Prosecution produced sufficiently convincing evidence to find the defendant guilty.”
Juror Michael C. Samuels—“The evidence did not link Glass up. So far as the bribery went, it might have been done by another official of the company than Glass.”
Juror Hugo Schnessel—“There was always something lacking in the evidence to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. It seemed to me that possibly some one else other than Glass might have paid over the money.”
[292]Of the delaying tactics in the Glass case, The San Francisco Call in its issue of August 14, 1907, said:“Anything to delay trial and judgment is the policy of the accused bribe givers. Every day’s proceedings in the retrial of Glass provides ample proof to convince the most skeptical citizen that the last thing desired by the men charged with debauching the boodle Board of Supervisors is prompt determination of the issues on their merits, and every pettifogging move for delay, every cunning attempt to betray the court into technical error is confession of a case too weak to be given to a fair jury on a plain showing of the facts. The attitude of the lawyers for Glass is sufficient to indicate that he needs lawyers of their peculiar expertness—‘distinguished attorneys,’ Heney calls them—‘distinguished for their ability to defeat justice.’“Judge Lawlor’s unhesitating denial of a motion to permit the lawyers for Glass to shift their ground in the midst of the impaneling of the jury and hark back to an attack on the validity of the indictments, and his sharp reprimand to Attorney Coogan for his method of misleading talesmen by adroitly framed questions, ought to expedite this trial. Lawlor has a reputation for dealing sternly with legal tricksters and for compelling counsel in the cases that he hears to get down to business and keep at it. At the same time his record on the bench is that of a just judge and always impartial. It is because he is impartial and stern that crooked lawyers, with crooked clients, deem it ‘hard luck’ when their cases are assigned to Lawlor.“Now Judge Lawlor has a rare opportunity to prove anew his worth as a jurist. He will please a patient and long suffering public and will satisfy the ends of the justice which he administers when he makes the lawyers quit trifling and forces them to let the trial go on. We may expect to see the trial made as tedious and as costly in time and money as high priced counselors can arrange. It is all part of the game—tire out the public, the jury and the prosecution; delay is the safest course for the man accused against whom the people’s case is strong. But we may also expect to see Judge Lawlor trimming the matter of technicalities and pressing it to a conclusion. It was because the people had come to expect such things from Judge Lawlor that they re-elected him, when all the machines of municipal corruption were grinding against him.”
Of the delaying tactics in the Glass case, The San Francisco Call in its issue of August 14, 1907, said:
“Anything to delay trial and judgment is the policy of the accused bribe givers. Every day’s proceedings in the retrial of Glass provides ample proof to convince the most skeptical citizen that the last thing desired by the men charged with debauching the boodle Board of Supervisors is prompt determination of the issues on their merits, and every pettifogging move for delay, every cunning attempt to betray the court into technical error is confession of a case too weak to be given to a fair jury on a plain showing of the facts. The attitude of the lawyers for Glass is sufficient to indicate that he needs lawyers of their peculiar expertness—‘distinguished attorneys,’ Heney calls them—‘distinguished for their ability to defeat justice.’
“Judge Lawlor’s unhesitating denial of a motion to permit the lawyers for Glass to shift their ground in the midst of the impaneling of the jury and hark back to an attack on the validity of the indictments, and his sharp reprimand to Attorney Coogan for his method of misleading talesmen by adroitly framed questions, ought to expedite this trial. Lawlor has a reputation for dealing sternly with legal tricksters and for compelling counsel in the cases that he hears to get down to business and keep at it. At the same time his record on the bench is that of a just judge and always impartial. It is because he is impartial and stern that crooked lawyers, with crooked clients, deem it ‘hard luck’ when their cases are assigned to Lawlor.
“Now Judge Lawlor has a rare opportunity to prove anew his worth as a jurist. He will please a patient and long suffering public and will satisfy the ends of the justice which he administers when he makes the lawyers quit trifling and forces them to let the trial go on. We may expect to see the trial made as tedious and as costly in time and money as high priced counselors can arrange. It is all part of the game—tire out the public, the jury and the prosecution; delay is the safest course for the man accused against whom the people’s case is strong. But we may also expect to see Judge Lawlor trimming the matter of technicalities and pressing it to a conclusion. It was because the people had come to expect such things from Judge Lawlor that they re-elected him, when all the machines of municipal corruption were grinding against him.”
[293]Eaton testified at the second Glass trial as follows: “Mr. Scott did not sign any checks between February 8, 1906, and the latter part of March, 1906, for the company; not to my knowledge. Notices were sent out by me to the different banks in regard to the signatures that could be accepted upon checks after Mr. Scott was elected president. They were sent on the 27th of February, 1906, to all the San Francisco banks that we had an account with.”Eaton testified further that the day the banks were notified, Mr. Scott went East. Mr. Scott could, Eaton said, previous to that date, have signed checks, but up to that time they would not have been honored at the banks. Halsey, in the Mills Building, gave the Supervisors, of whom Lonergan was one, their bribe money not later than February 26. Supervisor Lonergan testified that to the best of his recollection he had been paid by Halsey some time between February 14 and February 20.
Eaton testified at the second Glass trial as follows: “Mr. Scott did not sign any checks between February 8, 1906, and the latter part of March, 1906, for the company; not to my knowledge. Notices were sent out by me to the different banks in regard to the signatures that could be accepted upon checks after Mr. Scott was elected president. They were sent on the 27th of February, 1906, to all the San Francisco banks that we had an account with.”
Eaton testified further that the day the banks were notified, Mr. Scott went East. Mr. Scott could, Eaton said, previous to that date, have signed checks, but up to that time they would not have been honored at the banks. Halsey, in the Mills Building, gave the Supervisors, of whom Lonergan was one, their bribe money not later than February 26. Supervisor Lonergan testified that to the best of his recollection he had been paid by Halsey some time between February 14 and February 20.
[294]John Helms, a detective, testified at the trial of Patrick Calhoun that he had been employed by the United Railroads as early as May 3, 1907; that his duties consisted of “mostly shadow work, watching out for things being done by the prosecution”; that Patrick Calhoun had himself authorized him (Helms) to employ men to follow Burns on motorcycles. Later on automobiles were substituted for the motorcycles.If Helms’s employment began on May 3, as he testified, the United Railroads was preparing for its defense at least three weeks before indictments were brought against its officials. The extent of that corporation’s defense, or the details of it, are not known to those outside the corporation. At the Calhoun trial the Prosecution accounted for every dollar spent in the operations against the Schmitz-Ruef regime. The attorneys representing the United Railroads were invited to make as frank statement of the expenditures made by the defense, but they declined.
John Helms, a detective, testified at the trial of Patrick Calhoun that he had been employed by the United Railroads as early as May 3, 1907; that his duties consisted of “mostly shadow work, watching out for things being done by the prosecution”; that Patrick Calhoun had himself authorized him (Helms) to employ men to follow Burns on motorcycles. Later on automobiles were substituted for the motorcycles.
If Helms’s employment began on May 3, as he testified, the United Railroads was preparing for its defense at least three weeks before indictments were brought against its officials. The extent of that corporation’s defense, or the details of it, are not known to those outside the corporation. At the Calhoun trial the Prosecution accounted for every dollar spent in the operations against the Schmitz-Ruef regime. The attorneys representing the United Railroads were invited to make as frank statement of the expenditures made by the defense, but they declined.
[295]Ashe participated in the first Ford trials. At the time of the later trials he was involved in the scandal of the alleged kidnaping of Fremont Older.
Ashe participated in the first Ford trials. At the time of the later trials he was involved in the scandal of the alleged kidnaping of Fremont Older.
[296]In referring to the men and women employed by the graft defense, The Call, in an editorial article, in its issue of September 26, said:“The retinue of the trolley magnates, as exhibited in the Ford case, makes a remarkable picture. Behind the expert lawyers of last resort troops a motley train of gun fighters, professional plug-uglies, decoys, disreputable ‘detectives,’ thugs, women of the half world and the wolfish pack of gutter journalism. It must be, indeed, a hard case that needs such bolstering.“How will Mr. Calhoun square with his protestations of high-mindedness the presence and the efforts in his behalf of such creatures of the slums and stews as ‘Bogie’ O’Donnell and ‘The Banjo Eyed Kid’? Are these and the others of their kidney laboring in the same behalf as friends and sympathizers of Mr. Calhoun or merely as his hired men?”
In referring to the men and women employed by the graft defense, The Call, in an editorial article, in its issue of September 26, said:
“The retinue of the trolley magnates, as exhibited in the Ford case, makes a remarkable picture. Behind the expert lawyers of last resort troops a motley train of gun fighters, professional plug-uglies, decoys, disreputable ‘detectives,’ thugs, women of the half world and the wolfish pack of gutter journalism. It must be, indeed, a hard case that needs such bolstering.
“How will Mr. Calhoun square with his protestations of high-mindedness the presence and the efforts in his behalf of such creatures of the slums and stews as ‘Bogie’ O’Donnell and ‘The Banjo Eyed Kid’? Are these and the others of their kidney laboring in the same behalf as friends and sympathizers of Mr. Calhoun or merely as his hired men?”
[297]At the Ford trial, Supervisor Lonergan had testified that he had been followed during a recess of the court. The following testimony followed:“Q. Was that Mr. Melrose, a detective of the Southern Pacific, who is sitting there? A. I don’t know Mr. Melrose.“Q. Is he the gentleman sitting immediately back of Mr. Ford? A. That is the gentleman; that is him.“Q. He was following you around during the noon hour? A. Yes, sir.“Q. Don’t you know he is a detective of the Southern Pacific? A. I don’t know anything about the gentleman.”
At the Ford trial, Supervisor Lonergan had testified that he had been followed during a recess of the court. The following testimony followed:
“Q. Was that Mr. Melrose, a detective of the Southern Pacific, who is sitting there? A. I don’t know Mr. Melrose.
“Q. Is he the gentleman sitting immediately back of Mr. Ford? A. That is the gentleman; that is him.
“Q. He was following you around during the noon hour? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Don’t you know he is a detective of the Southern Pacific? A. I don’t know anything about the gentleman.”
[298]The Call, in its issue of September 26, 1907, stated in explanation of how the graft defense had come by the statement Lonergan had made to Dorland that: “After court adjourned (September 25) Attorney Rogers offered an explanation for Walter Dorland, the man who was charged by the prosecution with having attempted to kidnap Lonergan. Rogers’s story differed from that told by Dorland. Rogers stated that Dorland was not a detective, but was in charge of a hospital in Chicago. He came to San Francisco, where he met Luther Brown, an associate of Rogers. Brown and Dorland were old friends and the former induced Dorland to get statements from the Supervisors for him. Dorland did this. Rogers says he has statements from all the Supervisors with the exception of Gallagher.”
The Call, in its issue of September 26, 1907, stated in explanation of how the graft defense had come by the statement Lonergan had made to Dorland that: “After court adjourned (September 25) Attorney Rogers offered an explanation for Walter Dorland, the man who was charged by the prosecution with having attempted to kidnap Lonergan. Rogers’s story differed from that told by Dorland. Rogers stated that Dorland was not a detective, but was in charge of a hospital in Chicago. He came to San Francisco, where he met Luther Brown, an associate of Rogers. Brown and Dorland were old friends and the former induced Dorland to get statements from the Supervisors for him. Dorland did this. Rogers says he has statements from all the Supervisors with the exception of Gallagher.”
[299]Heney states in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., No. 823, that he had been informed that the reason given by Ruef for securing the signatures of the Supervisors to this affidavit was to find out which, if any of them, had confessed, upon the theory that any one of them who had confessed would refuse to sign an affidavit, and upon the further theory that if such a confessing member did sign the affidavit, he would thus be making a contradictory statement under oath, which could thus be further used against him by Ruef or Gallagher, upon the trial of either of them.But whatever Ruef’s far-seeing motive, this affidavit which he, through Keane, induced the Supervisors to sign, was used by the attorneys for the defense at the graft trials to show contradictory statements of the confessing Supervisors.
Heney states in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., No. 823, that he had been informed that the reason given by Ruef for securing the signatures of the Supervisors to this affidavit was to find out which, if any of them, had confessed, upon the theory that any one of them who had confessed would refuse to sign an affidavit, and upon the further theory that if such a confessing member did sign the affidavit, he would thus be making a contradictory statement under oath, which could thus be further used against him by Ruef or Gallagher, upon the trial of either of them.
But whatever Ruef’s far-seeing motive, this affidavit which he, through Keane, induced the Supervisors to sign, was used by the attorneys for the defense at the graft trials to show contradictory statements of the confessing Supervisors.
[300]The San Francisco Call, in its issue of September 25, 1907, in commenting on Lonergan’s testimony, says: “While Lonergan’s narrative tells a portion of the story, it is not all. In another automobile were Detective Luther Brown and the ‘Banjo-Eyed Kid’ of the United Railroads. They followed close on the heels of the auto occupied by Detective Dorland. Both machines sped to a resort near the park, where a meeting place had been arranged and where Lonergan was to be turned over to the custody of the ‘Banjo-Eyed Kid.’ The rest was to be left to the Kid. If the plan had carried there would have been no Lonergan at the trial yesterday, the defense would have flashed the statement secured by Dorland and set up the cry that the entire prosecution of the United Railroads was a plot set on foot by Rudolph Spreckels.”
The San Francisco Call, in its issue of September 25, 1907, in commenting on Lonergan’s testimony, says: “While Lonergan’s narrative tells a portion of the story, it is not all. In another automobile were Detective Luther Brown and the ‘Banjo-Eyed Kid’ of the United Railroads. They followed close on the heels of the auto occupied by Detective Dorland. Both machines sped to a resort near the park, where a meeting place had been arranged and where Lonergan was to be turned over to the custody of the ‘Banjo-Eyed Kid.’ The rest was to be left to the Kid. If the plan had carried there would have been no Lonergan at the trial yesterday, the defense would have flashed the statement secured by Dorland and set up the cry that the entire prosecution of the United Railroads was a plot set on foot by Rudolph Spreckels.”
[301]Several who participated in this affair were later indicted for kidnaping. There were no convictions.
Several who participated in this affair were later indicted for kidnaping. There were no convictions.
[302]Burns in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., 832, refers to a plot hatched about the time of the Ford trials to kidnap Ruef. Burns charges that Ruef was to have been taken into a mountain county and held there until the United Railroads cases had been disposed of. He states his belief that Ruef was party to the plot.
Burns in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., 832, refers to a plot hatched about the time of the Ford trials to kidnap Ruef. Burns charges that Ruef was to have been taken into a mountain county and held there until the United Railroads cases had been disposed of. He states his belief that Ruef was party to the plot.
[303]The disinclination of the United Railroads to produce its books continues to cause that corporation inconvenience and trouble. In 1913, for example, the corporation applied to the California State Board of Railroad Commissioners for permission to issue promissory notes to the amount of $2,350,000. That the Commission might determine the necessity of such an issue, request was made for the corporation’s books. This request was denied. The Commission withheld authorization of the note issue. In commenting upon its refusal, the Commission said:“It should be understood that the conclusions hereinbefore set out have been reached on the partial information which has been submitted to the Commission, and that if an examination of the original books which the company has refused to supply should reveal a different condition, the responsibility for these conclusions, which we contend inevitably must be drawn from what evidence is before us, lies with the applicant because of its failure to submit its books for examination by the Commission.“It is an axiom that evidence suppressed is deemed to be adverse, and having in mind this axiom certainly the Commission is justified in concluding that the books which the applicant refuses to produce at least would not better its showing.”Following the defeat of the graft prosecution in November, 1909, peculiar transactions are recorded against the United Railroads. For example, the Railroad Commission found, and has so reported, that “in the minutes (of the United Railroads) of May 25, 1910, it appears that four years’ ‘back salary’ was voted to Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads of San Francisco, in the sum of $75,000 a year, or a total of $300,000. No explanation is made of this item, but it at once suggests the necessity of a thorough investigation in order to determine the items claimed by applicant as operating expenses of the United Railroads over a series of years.” See Decision No. 439 Railroad Commission of California, in the matter of the application of the United Railroads, etc., February 4, 1913.
The disinclination of the United Railroads to produce its books continues to cause that corporation inconvenience and trouble. In 1913, for example, the corporation applied to the California State Board of Railroad Commissioners for permission to issue promissory notes to the amount of $2,350,000. That the Commission might determine the necessity of such an issue, request was made for the corporation’s books. This request was denied. The Commission withheld authorization of the note issue. In commenting upon its refusal, the Commission said:
“It should be understood that the conclusions hereinbefore set out have been reached on the partial information which has been submitted to the Commission, and that if an examination of the original books which the company has refused to supply should reveal a different condition, the responsibility for these conclusions, which we contend inevitably must be drawn from what evidence is before us, lies with the applicant because of its failure to submit its books for examination by the Commission.
“It is an axiom that evidence suppressed is deemed to be adverse, and having in mind this axiom certainly the Commission is justified in concluding that the books which the applicant refuses to produce at least would not better its showing.”
Following the defeat of the graft prosecution in November, 1909, peculiar transactions are recorded against the United Railroads. For example, the Railroad Commission found, and has so reported, that “in the minutes (of the United Railroads) of May 25, 1910, it appears that four years’ ‘back salary’ was voted to Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads of San Francisco, in the sum of $75,000 a year, or a total of $300,000. No explanation is made of this item, but it at once suggests the necessity of a thorough investigation in order to determine the items claimed by applicant as operating expenses of the United Railroads over a series of years.” See Decision No. 439 Railroad Commission of California, in the matter of the application of the United Railroads, etc., February 4, 1913.
[304]Both Wilson and Coffey were indicted for bribe-taking. Wilson later on found his memory. At other graft trials he explained that his testimony at the first Ford trial had been given after he had undergone an operation that had involved the use of large quantities of cocaine. He insisted that he did not know to what he was testifying. Coffey was tried for bribe-taking and convicted. The Supreme Court, however, set aside the verdict on technicalities.
Both Wilson and Coffey were indicted for bribe-taking. Wilson later on found his memory. At other graft trials he explained that his testimony at the first Ford trial had been given after he had undergone an operation that had involved the use of large quantities of cocaine. He insisted that he did not know to what he was testifying. Coffey was tried for bribe-taking and convicted. The Supreme Court, however, set aside the verdict on technicalities.
[305]It was shown at the Ford trial that about $175,000 in addition to the unaccounted-for $200,000 was received by the United Railroads through the United States mint. Every dollar of this $175,000 except $3,000 loaned to Ruef by Mullally, was taken out by the treasurer of the company, and carried to the United Railroads’ office and there put in its safe and used as needed, that it was taken in gold and was paid out to its employees in gold. It was further shown that not one dollar of currency was ever put in any of the safes at the United Railroads’ office by any person during that period of time covered by Ford’s withdrawal of money from the mint, and that no currency was deposited to the credit of the company in any of its bank accounts nor to the credit of Ford or Mullally or Abbott, and that no currency was turned over to the treasurer of the company during that time. Thus by a process of exclusion this $200,000 was left in the hands of Ford absolutely unaccounted for upon any theory consistent with an honest use of it. Add these facts to the further facts that Ruef was traced to Ford’s office on two of the days on which Ford got the money, and that Ruef on each occasion, within a day or two, paid the same kind of money to Gallagher, that currency was not generally in circulation at all in San Francisco.
It was shown at the Ford trial that about $175,000 in addition to the unaccounted-for $200,000 was received by the United Railroads through the United States mint. Every dollar of this $175,000 except $3,000 loaned to Ruef by Mullally, was taken out by the treasurer of the company, and carried to the United Railroads’ office and there put in its safe and used as needed, that it was taken in gold and was paid out to its employees in gold. It was further shown that not one dollar of currency was ever put in any of the safes at the United Railroads’ office by any person during that period of time covered by Ford’s withdrawal of money from the mint, and that no currency was deposited to the credit of the company in any of its bank accounts nor to the credit of Ford or Mullally or Abbott, and that no currency was turned over to the treasurer of the company during that time. Thus by a process of exclusion this $200,000 was left in the hands of Ford absolutely unaccounted for upon any theory consistent with an honest use of it. Add these facts to the further facts that Ruef was traced to Ford’s office on two of the days on which Ford got the money, and that Ruef on each occasion, within a day or two, paid the same kind of money to Gallagher, that currency was not generally in circulation at all in San Francisco.
[306]The two men were at the time detailed to handle the money of the relief fund. The mint officials could not accommodate Ford with the currency he wanted. They gave him gold. The gold which Ford secured at the mint was trucked across the hall to relief headquarters, where it was exchanged for the currency. Selig and Hawkins counted out the bills.
The two men were at the time detailed to handle the money of the relief fund. The mint officials could not accommodate Ford with the currency he wanted. They gave him gold. The gold which Ford secured at the mint was trucked across the hall to relief headquarters, where it was exchanged for the currency. Selig and Hawkins counted out the bills.
[307]See transcript of testimony, trial of The People vs. Tirey L. Ford, No. 817, taken September 25, 1907, page 270.
See transcript of testimony, trial of The People vs. Tirey L. Ford, No. 817, taken September 25, 1907, page 270.
[308]Mr. Mullally, assistant to Mr. Calhoun, and also Mr. Calhoun were known to have enjoyed friendly relations with Mr. Ruef during this period.
Mr. Mullally, assistant to Mr. Calhoun, and also Mr. Calhoun were known to have enjoyed friendly relations with Mr. Ruef during this period.
[309]The facts brought out at General Ford’s trial are interesting in connection with General Ford’s interview in the San Francisco Examiner of October 28, 1906, soon after the Graft Prosecution opened. See Footnote92.Ruef, in “The Road I Traveled,” printed in the San Francisco Bulletin, states that he gave Schmitz $50,000 and kept $50,000 for himself out of the $200,000 which was given to him by Tirey L. Ford from Patrick Calhoun to pay for the granting of the trolley permit.
The facts brought out at General Ford’s trial are interesting in connection with General Ford’s interview in the San Francisco Examiner of October 28, 1906, soon after the Graft Prosecution opened. See Footnote92.
Ruef, in “The Road I Traveled,” printed in the San Francisco Bulletin, states that he gave Schmitz $50,000 and kept $50,000 for himself out of the $200,000 which was given to him by Tirey L. Ford from Patrick Calhoun to pay for the granting of the trolley permit.
[310]This affidavit deals with the Graft Prosecution from its beginning down to the spring of 1908. This document was filed in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., No. 823.
This affidavit deals with the Graft Prosecution from its beginning down to the spring of 1908. This document was filed in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., No. 823.
[311]SeeChapter XVI, page211, and footnote119, page111.
SeeChapter XVI, page211, and footnote119, page111.
[312]This is the same Ach who dramatically left the Ruef defense at the time of Ruef’s plea of guilty to extortion. See Chapter XV, page 204.
This is the same Ach who dramatically left the Ruef defense at the time of Ruef’s plea of guilty to extortion. See Chapter XV, page 204.
[313]For immunity contract see page xix of the Appendix. For the negotiations upon which Ach’s claim was based see Chapter XV.
For immunity contract see page xix of the Appendix. For the negotiations upon which Ach’s claim was based see Chapter XV.
[314]Heney sets forth in his affidavit that Ach’s claim did not surprise him. He says of Ach’s statement: “I was not very much surprised by its substance as I had long before commenced to suspect that Ruef, Ach, Dr. Kaplan and Dr. Nieto would claim eventually that such agreement existed in regard to case number 305 (the extortion case) if it became necessary to do so in order to keep Ruef out of the penitentiary. In fact I would not have been greatly surprised by anything that Ach might have claimed, as I have learned to know him pretty well and am sometimes at a loss to decide whether he or Ruef is entitled to first place as an artistic and imaginative ‘equivocator,’ to use Ruef’s language.”
Heney sets forth in his affidavit that Ach’s claim did not surprise him. He says of Ach’s statement: “I was not very much surprised by its substance as I had long before commenced to suspect that Ruef, Ach, Dr. Kaplan and Dr. Nieto would claim eventually that such agreement existed in regard to case number 305 (the extortion case) if it became necessary to do so in order to keep Ruef out of the penitentiary. In fact I would not have been greatly surprised by anything that Ach might have claimed, as I have learned to know him pretty well and am sometimes at a loss to decide whether he or Ruef is entitled to first place as an artistic and imaginative ‘equivocator,’ to use Ruef’s language.”
[315]SeeChapter XV, pages190-7. Heney states in his affidavit that both Nieto and Kaplan agreed that Heney’s statement of the arrangement was correct. “Yes, you are right, Mr. Heney,” the affidavit sets forth Nieto said. “I understand it that way, and consequently I never told Ruef anything about that. He never got that from me.” The affidavit sets forth that Kaplan said in substance: “Yes, that is what you said, Mr. Heney, but I always understood that Mr. Ruef would be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty in the French Restaurant cases and would not receive any punishment.”Heney replied in substance: “You may have so understood, Doctor, but you had no right so to understand from anything which I said.”
SeeChapter XV, pages190-7. Heney states in his affidavit that both Nieto and Kaplan agreed that Heney’s statement of the arrangement was correct. “Yes, you are right, Mr. Heney,” the affidavit sets forth Nieto said. “I understand it that way, and consequently I never told Ruef anything about that. He never got that from me.” The affidavit sets forth that Kaplan said in substance: “Yes, that is what you said, Mr. Heney, but I always understood that Mr. Ruef would be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty in the French Restaurant cases and would not receive any punishment.”
Heney replied in substance: “You may have so understood, Doctor, but you had no right so to understand from anything which I said.”
[316]Heney, in his closing argument, told the jury that Ruef had not been put on the stand because the prosecution did not trust him. Heney said: “Nobody except Mr. Ford and Mr. Ruef could tell about it (the passing of the $200,000). They did not complain about my asking why they did not put Mr. Ruef on the stand. They asked why we didn’t put him on the stand and vouch for his veracity and enable them to put words in his mouth, and I will answer now, because we DID NOT TRUST HIM.”
Heney, in his closing argument, told the jury that Ruef had not been put on the stand because the prosecution did not trust him. Heney said: “Nobody except Mr. Ford and Mr. Ruef could tell about it (the passing of the $200,000). They did not complain about my asking why they did not put Mr. Ruef on the stand. They asked why we didn’t put him on the stand and vouch for his veracity and enable them to put words in his mouth, and I will answer now, because we DID NOT TRUST HIM.”
[317]Heney, in his affidavit, describes the disappointment of Ruef, Ach and Nieto when the case was closed without Ruef being called. Heney says: “I rested the case on behalf of the prosecution in the first Ford trial in this department of this Court on the 2nd day of October, 1907, and the attorneys for the defendant asked for time to consider what they would do about putting in evidence, and Court adjourned for the purpose of giving them such time. I had noticed Henry Ach and Ruef sitting together next to the aisle, which was directly in front of where I sat, and could see that up to the time I closed the case they were anxiously waiting for me to call Ruef as a witness. When Court adjourned they remained sitting and as I passed them Ach stopped me and said in substance, ‘Why didn’t you put Ruef on the stand as a witness? Are you not going to dismiss these cases against him?’ I replied in substance, ‘There are a lot more cases to be tried. There will be plenty of opportunities to dismiss these cases if I want to do it.’ Ruef said, with one of his most winning smiles, in substance, ‘I guess he is going to put me on in rebuttal just as he did in the Schmitz case.’ I replied in substance, ‘Oh, I don’t know about that, Ruef. I don’t like to try all my cases the same way.’ I started to leave and Ach stopped me as I had taken only a couple of steps, and said in substance, ‘There isn’t any change in the situation, is there in regard to Ruef?’ I smilingly and meaningly replied, in substance, ‘Not a particle, Henry, since our last talk,’ meaning thereby the talk which Ach and myself had on or about the 19th or 20th day of September, 1907, at night in my office in the presence of Dr. Nieto, Dr. Kaplan, William J. Burns and Charles W. Cobb, as hereinbefore set forth. As I made this statement I walked on out of the courtroom and someone stopped me somewhere between there and the entrance door of the building and Dr. Nieto came up to me, all smiles, and said in substance, ‘You didn’t put Ruef on the stand, did you?’ I replied, ‘No, I did not, Doctor.’ Dr. Nieto then said in substance, ‘There isn’t any change in the situation, is there?’ And I replied with a smile in substance, ‘None whatever since our last talk, Doctor,’ meaning the talk at my office just hereinbefore referred to, at which Dr. Nieto, Dr. Kaplan and Ach were present. The manner of Ach and the manner of Dr. Nieto when I made this reply to each of them indicated plainly that each understood exactly what I meant.”
Heney, in his affidavit, describes the disappointment of Ruef, Ach and Nieto when the case was closed without Ruef being called. Heney says: “I rested the case on behalf of the prosecution in the first Ford trial in this department of this Court on the 2nd day of October, 1907, and the attorneys for the defendant asked for time to consider what they would do about putting in evidence, and Court adjourned for the purpose of giving them such time. I had noticed Henry Ach and Ruef sitting together next to the aisle, which was directly in front of where I sat, and could see that up to the time I closed the case they were anxiously waiting for me to call Ruef as a witness. When Court adjourned they remained sitting and as I passed them Ach stopped me and said in substance, ‘Why didn’t you put Ruef on the stand as a witness? Are you not going to dismiss these cases against him?’ I replied in substance, ‘There are a lot more cases to be tried. There will be plenty of opportunities to dismiss these cases if I want to do it.’ Ruef said, with one of his most winning smiles, in substance, ‘I guess he is going to put me on in rebuttal just as he did in the Schmitz case.’ I replied in substance, ‘Oh, I don’t know about that, Ruef. I don’t like to try all my cases the same way.’ I started to leave and Ach stopped me as I had taken only a couple of steps, and said in substance, ‘There isn’t any change in the situation, is there in regard to Ruef?’ I smilingly and meaningly replied, in substance, ‘Not a particle, Henry, since our last talk,’ meaning thereby the talk which Ach and myself had on or about the 19th or 20th day of September, 1907, at night in my office in the presence of Dr. Nieto, Dr. Kaplan, William J. Burns and Charles W. Cobb, as hereinbefore set forth. As I made this statement I walked on out of the courtroom and someone stopped me somewhere between there and the entrance door of the building and Dr. Nieto came up to me, all smiles, and said in substance, ‘You didn’t put Ruef on the stand, did you?’ I replied, ‘No, I did not, Doctor.’ Dr. Nieto then said in substance, ‘There isn’t any change in the situation, is there?’ And I replied with a smile in substance, ‘None whatever since our last talk, Doctor,’ meaning the talk at my office just hereinbefore referred to, at which Dr. Nieto, Dr. Kaplan and Ach were present. The manner of Ach and the manner of Dr. Nieto when I made this reply to each of them indicated plainly that each understood exactly what I meant.”
[318]Calhoun protested vigorously against the raiding of his offices. Concerning the raid and Mr. Calhoun’s protests, the interior press expressed general approval of the first and condemnation of the latter.“It is not a question,” said the Oroville Register, “alone of graft in San Francisco now. It is rather a question as to whether in America, where ‘all men are free and equal,’ there is a law for the rich and another law for the poor, and whether a little money can put our whole penal system at naught and make monkeys of judicial officers. Unluckily in the Calhoun case we can not in America resort to the czar-like methods which should be resorted to, but must fight it out by the long and slow process of law. Luckily for the honor of America Mr. Heney and his associates are gifted with the courage, ability and tenacity to fight it out on this line even if it takes this summer and the whole of the next so to do.”“The ‘private sanctity’ of Calhoun’s offices,” said the Santa Barbara Independent, “was violated, his defenders say, when the police entered to search for stolen goods. The fact that the goods were concealed in the offices—that the police unearthed there a ‘fence’ for the reception of stolen goods—doesn’t seem to have destroyed the sanctity of the place.“Recently the police in Los Angeles raided a cigar store, where they found concealed some of the money that three months ago had been stolen from the Monrovia bank. The cigar dealer’s lawyers should go into court and protest against violation of the ‘private sanctity’ of the thief’s hiding place.“It is beyond understanding how men can view a similar circumstance in different lights. To an unprejudiced mind a thief is a thief, whether he has stolen an old pair of shoes or robbed the public through a municipal or other government. And the honest man rejoices in his capture, the recovery of the stolen goods and apprehension and punishment of persons who receive and conceal the fruits of theft.”
Calhoun protested vigorously against the raiding of his offices. Concerning the raid and Mr. Calhoun’s protests, the interior press expressed general approval of the first and condemnation of the latter.
“It is not a question,” said the Oroville Register, “alone of graft in San Francisco now. It is rather a question as to whether in America, where ‘all men are free and equal,’ there is a law for the rich and another law for the poor, and whether a little money can put our whole penal system at naught and make monkeys of judicial officers. Unluckily in the Calhoun case we can not in America resort to the czar-like methods which should be resorted to, but must fight it out by the long and slow process of law. Luckily for the honor of America Mr. Heney and his associates are gifted with the courage, ability and tenacity to fight it out on this line even if it takes this summer and the whole of the next so to do.”
“The ‘private sanctity’ of Calhoun’s offices,” said the Santa Barbara Independent, “was violated, his defenders say, when the police entered to search for stolen goods. The fact that the goods were concealed in the offices—that the police unearthed there a ‘fence’ for the reception of stolen goods—doesn’t seem to have destroyed the sanctity of the place.
“Recently the police in Los Angeles raided a cigar store, where they found concealed some of the money that three months ago had been stolen from the Monrovia bank. The cigar dealer’s lawyers should go into court and protest against violation of the ‘private sanctity’ of the thief’s hiding place.
“It is beyond understanding how men can view a similar circumstance in different lights. To an unprejudiced mind a thief is a thief, whether he has stolen an old pair of shoes or robbed the public through a municipal or other government. And the honest man rejoices in his capture, the recovery of the stolen goods and apprehension and punishment of persons who receive and conceal the fruits of theft.”
[319]Calhoun and Ruef were placed on the stand April 29, 1908. Their refusal to answer will be found in the transcript of testimony taken that day. Complete records of all the graft cases were in 1912, when this review was written, in the possession of A. A. Moore, prominently connected with the graft defense.
Calhoun and Ruef were placed on the stand April 29, 1908. Their refusal to answer will be found in the transcript of testimony taken that day. Complete records of all the graft cases were in 1912, when this review was written, in the possession of A. A. Moore, prominently connected with the graft defense.
[320]The outcome of the Republican primaries was looked upon as a victory for good government. Said the Call, in discussing the returns: “Two things stand out prominently in the returns of the primary elections yesterday. One is that the Republicans of San Francisco have had enough of Herrin. The other is that they have not had enough of the graft prosecution. The victory for decency and for the independence of the party from the thralldom in which Herrin has so long held it for the use and benefit of the Southern Pacific was complete, with a vote large enough to make it plain to Herrin and to the interests exposed and to be exposed in the debauchery of public servants that they must look elsewhere than to the Republicans of San Francisco for the old corrupt conditions. The Call takes to itself credit for some share in the accomplishment of this good work. It was this paper that spoiled Herrin’s infamous apportionment scheme by which he planned to fill the burned district with his dummies and thus control the municipal convention. It was this paper that began and carried on to the last moment a vigorous campaign in behalf of the decent element of the Republican party, whose leadership was in the capable and clean hands of Daniel A. Ryan. The Call has no candidates. It wants only honest, capable independent men. It made this winning fight because it wanted a clean government for San Francisco and because it wanted the graft prosecution carried out to the end.”
The outcome of the Republican primaries was looked upon as a victory for good government. Said the Call, in discussing the returns: “Two things stand out prominently in the returns of the primary elections yesterday. One is that the Republicans of San Francisco have had enough of Herrin. The other is that they have not had enough of the graft prosecution. The victory for decency and for the independence of the party from the thralldom in which Herrin has so long held it for the use and benefit of the Southern Pacific was complete, with a vote large enough to make it plain to Herrin and to the interests exposed and to be exposed in the debauchery of public servants that they must look elsewhere than to the Republicans of San Francisco for the old corrupt conditions. The Call takes to itself credit for some share in the accomplishment of this good work. It was this paper that spoiled Herrin’s infamous apportionment scheme by which he planned to fill the burned district with his dummies and thus control the municipal convention. It was this paper that began and carried on to the last moment a vigorous campaign in behalf of the decent element of the Republican party, whose leadership was in the capable and clean hands of Daniel A. Ryan. The Call has no candidates. It wants only honest, capable independent men. It made this winning fight because it wanted a clean government for San Francisco and because it wanted the graft prosecution carried out to the end.”
[321]The primary vote was the largest up to that time cast in San Francisco. It was as follows:Anti-Herrin (Ryan) Republican8,116Herrin Republicans3,207Irregular Republicans1,549Regular Democratic2,438Byington, Democratic1,081McCarthy, Union Labor3,655Macarthur, Union Labor2,197
The primary vote was the largest up to that time cast in San Francisco. It was as follows:
[322]On the eve of the primary election, P. H. McCarthy, leader of the anti-Prosecution faction of the Union Labor party, issued a warning to union men In which he said: “Too much caution cannot be exercised by you, nor too much diligence displayed in order to protect your rights at the polls today. One of the most cunning, deceptive and vicious attacks ever made on organized labor in this city is now being launched in order that your wages may be cut and your working hours increased to suit the millionaires in this city. To do so, those millionaires have drawn to their side by what force we are unable to say, certain labor men (Walter Macarthur and his associates) with a view to shuffling, confusing and thoroughly misleading the labor union voters and their sympathizers in this city.”
On the eve of the primary election, P. H. McCarthy, leader of the anti-Prosecution faction of the Union Labor party, issued a warning to union men In which he said: “Too much caution cannot be exercised by you, nor too much diligence displayed in order to protect your rights at the polls today. One of the most cunning, deceptive and vicious attacks ever made on organized labor in this city is now being launched in order that your wages may be cut and your working hours increased to suit the millionaires in this city. To do so, those millionaires have drawn to their side by what force we are unable to say, certain labor men (Walter Macarthur and his associates) with a view to shuffling, confusing and thoroughly misleading the labor union voters and their sympathizers in this city.”
[323]Many Ryan Republican district tickets contained the following printed statement:“The candidates on this ticket are pledged to use all their influence in the convention to secure the nomination of a ticket of capable men and hope that they will be indorsed by the conventions of all parties. They do not care who these men may be, but will vote for no man who can be suspected of peddling offices or jobs in return for support. They do not desire nor expect for themselves or for their friends any offices or jobs. No candidate on this ticket has ever sought or held a political office or job. The candidates on this ticket have all accepted the pledge of the Regular Republican League. Daniel A. Ryan, chairman; Perry H. Newberry, secretary.”
Many Ryan Republican district tickets contained the following printed statement:
“The candidates on this ticket are pledged to use all their influence in the convention to secure the nomination of a ticket of capable men and hope that they will be indorsed by the conventions of all parties. They do not care who these men may be, but will vote for no man who can be suspected of peddling offices or jobs in return for support. They do not desire nor expect for themselves or for their friends any offices or jobs. No candidate on this ticket has ever sought or held a political office or job. The candidates on this ticket have all accepted the pledge of the Regular Republican League. Daniel A. Ryan, chairman; Perry H. Newberry, secretary.”
[324]The Examiner, in its issue of September 19, 1907, in discussing Mr. Ryan’s proposed candidacy said: “It is generally understood that Mr. Dan Ryan proposes to nominate himself as the Republican candidate for Mayor of San Francisco. That he has the power to do this thing is one of the curiosities of our political system.“The theory is that the delegates to a convention represent that part of the public which marches under the political banner of a political party. But Mr. Ryan evidently considers that the delegates to the Republican convention were chosen to advance his personal political ambitions.“The people do not mean that the accidental leaders of a primary fight should put the offices in their own pockets.“They elect delegates as agents to select candidates from among the people. The delegates are the bearers of a trust and neither they nor the man who happens to captain them in the scramble between factions has a right to appropriate the nominations.“The trust is not fulfilled if the primary leader assumes that because the people elected his primary ticket they want him in office. They don’t want him, for they don’t want primary politicians in the Mayor’s chair.“The theory of any convention is that it is assembled to choose the best man in the party for its candidate. The spectacle of Mr. Dan Ryan holding a caucus with himself, and deciding that he is better qualified to be Mayor of San Francisco than any other man in the Republican party, is a grotesque piece of effrontery.“All sorts of men rise to the top in primary fights, but most of them have a sufficient sense of modesty, if not of the fitness of things, to abstain from making themselves the recipients of what the delegates have to give.“For the primary leader to appropriate the office to himself Is like the agent of a charity fund determining that he is the most worthy object of the charity and putting the money in his own pocket.”
The Examiner, in its issue of September 19, 1907, in discussing Mr. Ryan’s proposed candidacy said: “It is generally understood that Mr. Dan Ryan proposes to nominate himself as the Republican candidate for Mayor of San Francisco. That he has the power to do this thing is one of the curiosities of our political system.
“The theory is that the delegates to a convention represent that part of the public which marches under the political banner of a political party. But Mr. Ryan evidently considers that the delegates to the Republican convention were chosen to advance his personal political ambitions.
“The people do not mean that the accidental leaders of a primary fight should put the offices in their own pockets.
“They elect delegates as agents to select candidates from among the people. The delegates are the bearers of a trust and neither they nor the man who happens to captain them in the scramble between factions has a right to appropriate the nominations.
“The trust is not fulfilled if the primary leader assumes that because the people elected his primary ticket they want him in office. They don’t want him, for they don’t want primary politicians in the Mayor’s chair.
“The theory of any convention is that it is assembled to choose the best man in the party for its candidate. The spectacle of Mr. Dan Ryan holding a caucus with himself, and deciding that he is better qualified to be Mayor of San Francisco than any other man in the Republican party, is a grotesque piece of effrontery.
“All sorts of men rise to the top in primary fights, but most of them have a sufficient sense of modesty, if not of the fitness of things, to abstain from making themselves the recipients of what the delegates have to give.
“For the primary leader to appropriate the office to himself Is like the agent of a charity fund determining that he is the most worthy object of the charity and putting the money in his own pocket.”
[325]It was anything to defeat Langdon, even though a pro-prosecution attorney be employed against him. Hiram W. Johnson, for example, was suggested as his opponent. But Johnson let it be understood, and with characteristic positiveness, that under no considerations would he be a candidate against Langdon.
It was anything to defeat Langdon, even though a pro-prosecution attorney be employed against him. Hiram W. Johnson, for example, was suggested as his opponent. But Johnson let it be understood, and with characteristic positiveness, that under no considerations would he be a candidate against Langdon.
[326]The members of the Good Government League Executive Committee were: E. L. Baldwin, J. E. Cutten, George Renner, Gen. Samuel W. Backus, George R. Fletcher, Sigmund Bauer, B. H. Gurnette, Frank W. Marvin, Frank W. Gale, L. C. McAfee, George Uhl, Rev. Chas. N. Lathrop, Isidor Jacobs, Rudolph Spreckels, Edgar A. Mathews.
The members of the Good Government League Executive Committee were: E. L. Baldwin, J. E. Cutten, George Renner, Gen. Samuel W. Backus, George R. Fletcher, Sigmund Bauer, B. H. Gurnette, Frank W. Marvin, Frank W. Gale, L. C. McAfee, George Uhl, Rev. Chas. N. Lathrop, Isidor Jacobs, Rudolph Spreckels, Edgar A. Mathews.
[327]The minority which voted for Taylor, in a memorial to the convention, charged “that the majority of the delegates to this convention have betrayed the confidence reposed in them by their constituents” and gave notice that it would not be bound by the nomination of the convention for Mayor and would not support the nominee, but would do all in its power to further the election of Dr. Edward R. Taylor.
The minority which voted for Taylor, in a memorial to the convention, charged “that the majority of the delegates to this convention have betrayed the confidence reposed in them by their constituents” and gave notice that it would not be bound by the nomination of the convention for Mayor and would not support the nominee, but would do all in its power to further the election of Dr. Edward R. Taylor.
[328]The Union Labor party convention also had its sensations. Thomas F. Eagan, for example, and his followers bolted the convention because of McCarthy’s nomination. The Carmen’s Union refused to accept the Union Labor party ticket because Langdon had not been nominated for District Attorney.
The Union Labor party convention also had its sensations. Thomas F. Eagan, for example, and his followers bolted the convention because of McCarthy’s nomination. The Carmen’s Union refused to accept the Union Labor party ticket because Langdon had not been nominated for District Attorney.
[329]Heney, on the eve of election, in reply to McGowan’s argument that the bribe-takers should be prosecuted, effectively answered this contention. Heney’s communication read: “To Frank McGowan, Esq. Sir: You are reported by the newspapers as having stated that you will prosecute the boodling Supervisors and that you will also prosecute Patrick Calhoun and the other rich bribers, and that you will grant immunity to no one. I invite you to answer specifically the following questions either in the newspapers or the next time you make a public speech:“1. If you prosecute Supervisor Lonergan (or any other Supervisor) for accepting a bribe to influence his vote in the matter of the trolley franchise, what witness, or witnesses, will you call to prove that he accepted the bribe?“2. Every child in town now knows that if Lonergan received the money at all it was from Supervisor Gallagher. Will you prove the fact by Gallagher? If you call Gallagher as a witness, how do you expect to induce him to testify without granting him Immunity?“3. When you prosecute James L. Gallagher for giving a bribe to Tom Lonergan or to any other Supervisor to influence his vote on the trolley franchise matter, by what witness or witnesses, will you prove that Gallagher paid the money to Lonergan or to any other Supervisor? Will you call Lonergan or any other Supervisor as a witness, and when you call him, how will you induce him to testify without granting him immunity?“4. By what witness do you expect to convict Gallagher of giving a bribe, or Tom Lonergan, or any other Supervisor of accepting a bribe in the matter of fixing the gas rate, or in the Home Telephone Company franchise matter?“5. If you prosecute Ruef for giving money to Gallagher to distribute to the Supervisors to influence their vote on the trolley franchise, by what witness, or witnesses, will you prove that Ruef gave the money to Gallagher? Will you put Gallagher on the stand to prove it, and if so, how will you induce him to testify without granting him immunity? Will you put Ford on the stand to prove that he gave the money to Ruef, and if so, how will you get him to testify without giving him immunity? Will you put Fat Calhoun on the stand to prove that he gave the money to Ford to give Ruef to give to the Supervisors, and if so, how will you induce Pat to testify without giving him immunity?“6. You say that you will prosecute Patrick Calhoun for bribing the Supervisors to influence their votes in the matter of the trolley franchise. By what witnesses will you prove that the money was given to Gallagher or to any of the other Supervisors to influence their votes in this matter? Will you prove by Ford that he gave the money to Ruef, and if so, how will you induce Ford to testify without giving him immunity? Will you prove by Ruef that he gave the money to Gallagher to distribute to the other Supervisors, and if so, how will you prove it by Gallagher without giving him immunity? Will you prove by the other Supervisors that they received money from Gallagher, and if so, how will you induce each of them to testify without giving each of them immunity?“7. Will you prosecute Frank G. Drum and the other officials of the gas company for bribing the Supervisors for fixing the gas rates, and if so, how will you prove that the money was paid without granting immunity to Ruef and to some or all of the Supervisors?“8. Will you prosecute A. K. Detweiler for bribing the Supervisors in the Home Telephone franchise matter, and if so, how will you prove your case against him without granting immunity to Ruef and to some or all of the members of the Board of Supervisors?“9. Can jurisdiction be conferred on a court by consent, and if so, how could you proceed with the Ford trial on a legal holiday?“10. If you found it necessary to grant immunity to either the bribe-taker or the bribe-giver in the trolley franchise matter to prevent an utter failure of justice and the escape of both the bribe-takers and the bribe-givers, to which side will you recommend the granting of immunity by the court? Will you prosecute the friendless, insignificant Supervisors and grant immunity to ex-Attorney-General Tirey L. Ford and his employer, Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads of San Francisco, or will you recommend that the court shall grant immunity to the friendless and insignificant Supervisors in order to convict the rich, powerful and influential Patrick Calhoun and his general counsel, Tirey L. Ford?“Yours, etc.,FRANCIS J. HENEY.”
Heney, on the eve of election, in reply to McGowan’s argument that the bribe-takers should be prosecuted, effectively answered this contention. Heney’s communication read: “To Frank McGowan, Esq. Sir: You are reported by the newspapers as having stated that you will prosecute the boodling Supervisors and that you will also prosecute Patrick Calhoun and the other rich bribers, and that you will grant immunity to no one. I invite you to answer specifically the following questions either in the newspapers or the next time you make a public speech:
“1. If you prosecute Supervisor Lonergan (or any other Supervisor) for accepting a bribe to influence his vote in the matter of the trolley franchise, what witness, or witnesses, will you call to prove that he accepted the bribe?
“2. Every child in town now knows that if Lonergan received the money at all it was from Supervisor Gallagher. Will you prove the fact by Gallagher? If you call Gallagher as a witness, how do you expect to induce him to testify without granting him Immunity?
“3. When you prosecute James L. Gallagher for giving a bribe to Tom Lonergan or to any other Supervisor to influence his vote on the trolley franchise matter, by what witness or witnesses, will you prove that Gallagher paid the money to Lonergan or to any other Supervisor? Will you call Lonergan or any other Supervisor as a witness, and when you call him, how will you induce him to testify without granting him immunity?
“4. By what witness do you expect to convict Gallagher of giving a bribe, or Tom Lonergan, or any other Supervisor of accepting a bribe in the matter of fixing the gas rate, or in the Home Telephone Company franchise matter?
“5. If you prosecute Ruef for giving money to Gallagher to distribute to the Supervisors to influence their vote on the trolley franchise, by what witness, or witnesses, will you prove that Ruef gave the money to Gallagher? Will you put Gallagher on the stand to prove it, and if so, how will you induce him to testify without granting him immunity? Will you put Ford on the stand to prove that he gave the money to Ruef, and if so, how will you get him to testify without giving him immunity? Will you put Fat Calhoun on the stand to prove that he gave the money to Ford to give Ruef to give to the Supervisors, and if so, how will you induce Pat to testify without giving him immunity?
“6. You say that you will prosecute Patrick Calhoun for bribing the Supervisors to influence their votes in the matter of the trolley franchise. By what witnesses will you prove that the money was given to Gallagher or to any of the other Supervisors to influence their votes in this matter? Will you prove by Ford that he gave the money to Ruef, and if so, how will you induce Ford to testify without giving him immunity? Will you prove by Ruef that he gave the money to Gallagher to distribute to the other Supervisors, and if so, how will you prove it by Gallagher without giving him immunity? Will you prove by the other Supervisors that they received money from Gallagher, and if so, how will you induce each of them to testify without giving each of them immunity?
“7. Will you prosecute Frank G. Drum and the other officials of the gas company for bribing the Supervisors for fixing the gas rates, and if so, how will you prove that the money was paid without granting immunity to Ruef and to some or all of the Supervisors?
“8. Will you prosecute A. K. Detweiler for bribing the Supervisors in the Home Telephone franchise matter, and if so, how will you prove your case against him without granting immunity to Ruef and to some or all of the members of the Board of Supervisors?
“9. Can jurisdiction be conferred on a court by consent, and if so, how could you proceed with the Ford trial on a legal holiday?
“10. If you found it necessary to grant immunity to either the bribe-taker or the bribe-giver in the trolley franchise matter to prevent an utter failure of justice and the escape of both the bribe-takers and the bribe-givers, to which side will you recommend the granting of immunity by the court? Will you prosecute the friendless, insignificant Supervisors and grant immunity to ex-Attorney-General Tirey L. Ford and his employer, Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads of San Francisco, or will you recommend that the court shall grant immunity to the friendless and insignificant Supervisors in order to convict the rich, powerful and influential Patrick Calhoun and his general counsel, Tirey L. Ford?
“Yours, etc.,FRANCIS J. HENEY.”
[330]The Republican convention “pledged its party and its nominees to assist and continue the vigorous prosecution of all persons guilty of crime, in whatever walk of life, high or low, in San Francisco,” and “to incessant and energetic war on graft in every form, to the end that this plague may be exterminated from the body politic.”The Union Labor plank on the Graft Prosecution was as follows: “We demand the punishment of all offenders against the law, and we pledge our nominee for District Attorney to prosecute vigorously all bribers, boodlers and grafters without distinction, and particularly do we pledge him to prosecute those public officials, confessed criminals, who have been guilty of the greatest crime in the city’s history, but who have been permitted to go unwhipped of justice, and to remain outside the walls of the penitentiary behind which they should now be imprisoned. We further pledge our nominee for District Attorney to abolish private prisons, wholesale ‘immunity baths,’ and all other institutions created for the benefit and protection of criminals.”The Democratic Graft Prosecution plank read: “We commend the work of the prosecution, which has removed from public office criminals who have dishonored and debauched our city and has secured convictions that must be forever a warning to official wrongdoers and those who participate with them in crime; and we pledge our support to the prosecution in any effort it may make to convict any guilty person.”
The Republican convention “pledged its party and its nominees to assist and continue the vigorous prosecution of all persons guilty of crime, in whatever walk of life, high or low, in San Francisco,” and “to incessant and energetic war on graft in every form, to the end that this plague may be exterminated from the body politic.”
The Union Labor plank on the Graft Prosecution was as follows: “We demand the punishment of all offenders against the law, and we pledge our nominee for District Attorney to prosecute vigorously all bribers, boodlers and grafters without distinction, and particularly do we pledge him to prosecute those public officials, confessed criminals, who have been guilty of the greatest crime in the city’s history, but who have been permitted to go unwhipped of justice, and to remain outside the walls of the penitentiary behind which they should now be imprisoned. We further pledge our nominee for District Attorney to abolish private prisons, wholesale ‘immunity baths,’ and all other institutions created for the benefit and protection of criminals.”
The Democratic Graft Prosecution plank read: “We commend the work of the prosecution, which has removed from public office criminals who have dishonored and debauched our city and has secured convictions that must be forever a warning to official wrongdoers and those who participate with them in crime; and we pledge our support to the prosecution in any effort it may make to convict any guilty person.”
[331]“There never would have been doubt anywhere about Taylor’s successor,” said the Call In its issue of November 5, “if it had not been for the grossly selfish and unpatriotic course of Daniel A. Ryan. The one possibility of McCarthy’s election was opened to him by Ryan. Failing of other support, Ryan turned renegade to all his party professions and went into an infamous alliance with that arch enemy of Republicanism, Hearst. For four weeks he has been scrambling for votes.... Ryan has fully revealed himself as a cheap politician itching for office. He has boasted of his youth, and yet he was the first of the candidates to break down and go to bed. He has declaimed about his own honesty, until his voice is in tatters and has filled the air with promises of what he would do if elected. Never has he explained or attempted to explain the nature of those ‘certain concessions’ that led him to nominate himself, although he knew that in so doing he was Jeopardizing the future of his city.”
“There never would have been doubt anywhere about Taylor’s successor,” said the Call In its issue of November 5, “if it had not been for the grossly selfish and unpatriotic course of Daniel A. Ryan. The one possibility of McCarthy’s election was opened to him by Ryan. Failing of other support, Ryan turned renegade to all his party professions and went into an infamous alliance with that arch enemy of Republicanism, Hearst. For four weeks he has been scrambling for votes.... Ryan has fully revealed himself as a cheap politician itching for office. He has boasted of his youth, and yet he was the first of the candidates to break down and go to bed. He has declaimed about his own honesty, until his voice is in tatters and has filled the air with promises of what he would do if elected. Never has he explained or attempted to explain the nature of those ‘certain concessions’ that led him to nominate himself, although he knew that in so doing he was Jeopardizing the future of his city.”
[332]Said the Chronicle of Mr. Ryan’s candidacy in its issue of October 3, 1907: “The Chronicle has neither apologies nor regrets for urging its readers to support the Regular Republican League movement headed by Daniel A. Ryan. We believed at the time, as others believed, that Mr. Ryan’s sole desire was good government for San Francisco and that such desire was unsmirched by personal ambition. General confidence in the sincerity of Mr. Ryan and his associates led to the triumphant election of the delegates to the Republican convention named and approved by Mr. Ryan, which was accepted throughout the country as evidence that the people of San Francisco were sound at heart.“When we urged the public to support the Ryan primary tickets, we did so, not in the interest of Mr. Ryan, but in the interest of good government. We considered Mr. Ryan in the light of a useful and public-spirited citizen, upon whom, in due time, the people would delight to confer official honors should he be willing to accept them. Those who voted the Ryan ticket at the primaries did not vote for Mr. Ryan, but for the cause which he championed. As for considering him a candidate for Mayor, nobody thought of it. It is no disparagement to a young man like Mr. Ryan to say that as yet he has no such standing in the community as justifies him in aspiring to such an honor.”In its issue of October 5 the Chronicle said: “The moral collapse of Daniel A. Ryan is deeply regretted by every lover of San Francisco. It is not a matter of the rise or fall of one man. It is a question of whether the people will ever again trust any man who appears as a leader of reform. Few men ever get such an opportunity as Mr. Ryan has thrown away. Doubtless the lesson is for the people never again to trust an unknown man. It is not too much to ask of any aspirant to leadership on an important scale that he shall have some record of honorable achievement of some kind as an earnest of what to expect of him should the confidence reposed in him place him in a position of power.”
Said the Chronicle of Mr. Ryan’s candidacy in its issue of October 3, 1907: “The Chronicle has neither apologies nor regrets for urging its readers to support the Regular Republican League movement headed by Daniel A. Ryan. We believed at the time, as others believed, that Mr. Ryan’s sole desire was good government for San Francisco and that such desire was unsmirched by personal ambition. General confidence in the sincerity of Mr. Ryan and his associates led to the triumphant election of the delegates to the Republican convention named and approved by Mr. Ryan, which was accepted throughout the country as evidence that the people of San Francisco were sound at heart.
“When we urged the public to support the Ryan primary tickets, we did so, not in the interest of Mr. Ryan, but in the interest of good government. We considered Mr. Ryan in the light of a useful and public-spirited citizen, upon whom, in due time, the people would delight to confer official honors should he be willing to accept them. Those who voted the Ryan ticket at the primaries did not vote for Mr. Ryan, but for the cause which he championed. As for considering him a candidate for Mayor, nobody thought of it. It is no disparagement to a young man like Mr. Ryan to say that as yet he has no such standing in the community as justifies him in aspiring to such an honor.”
In its issue of October 5 the Chronicle said: “The moral collapse of Daniel A. Ryan is deeply regretted by every lover of San Francisco. It is not a matter of the rise or fall of one man. It is a question of whether the people will ever again trust any man who appears as a leader of reform. Few men ever get such an opportunity as Mr. Ryan has thrown away. Doubtless the lesson is for the people never again to trust an unknown man. It is not too much to ask of any aspirant to leadership on an important scale that he shall have some record of honorable achievement of some kind as an earnest of what to expect of him should the confidence reposed in him place him in a position of power.”