USA > California > San Francisco County > San Francisco > San Francisco, a history of the Pacific coast metropolis, Volume II > Part 60
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73
In view of the other exploits of Ruef and his crew this must be taken as a case of Satan rebuking sin. If the contribution of the United Railroads was voluntary then all the others who paid the large sums he and his rascally associates received must also be regarded as willing victims. The testimony of Ruef as recorded throws further light on the matter. "Who proposed the matter of the franchise?" asked Prosecutor Heney. "Patrick Calhoun and I talked it over several times," an- swered Ruef. "Where did these talks take place?" "At different places. I re- member we had several talks about it at the home of Thorndyke Mullally." "Did Calhoun discuss the franchise in detail?" "He did. He knew all about it." "Who did you refer to as we?" "I mean myself and Supervisor Galla-
How the Loot Was Shared
Racef'e Claim that the Railroad Made a Present
885
SAN FRANCISCO
gher. Gallagher got $15,000 as his share; Andy Wilson was given $10,000 and each of the sixteen supervisors got $4,000." "How about the rest of the money? That meant about $110,000 left. What did you do with it?" "I divided it equally with Mayor Schmitz." Apart from the fact that it is inconceivable that the United Railroads would have unnecessarily paid out $200,000 or any other sum of money which renders the statement of Ruef that the contribution was vol- untary unbelievable, there is a modicum of truth in the assertion that the United Railroads could have had the trolley franchise for the asking. Doubtless if the matter could have been passed up to the people for a decision there would have been an approach to unanimous consent, for the community was consumed with desire to have communication with all parts of the City reestablished, fully recog- nizing that convenience of transit would accomplish more toward the speedy re- habilitation of San Francisco than anything else possibly could. But while this was true Calhoun knew that Ruef and his conscienceless gang held the works, and that the requisite machinery for the submission of the question to the people could not be set in motion without their consent. Furthermore there is every reason to believe that while the community was perfectly acquiescent, antagonisms could easily be set in motion, and probably would be by the same interests which had placed obstacles in the way of constructing an overhead trolley on Market street before the disaster.
On the 2d of December, 1906, Patrick Calhoun made an explanation which was printed in all the papers. He said: "Before the fire the United Railroads offered to erect poles on Market street adapted both for lighting and overhead trolley, and to light a part of that street. It renewed the offer after the fire in- cluding a part of Sutter street therein, so that in spite of its own losses it gave the City for these permits all that it had offered to give before the fire. In a discussion with some of the citizens before the fire I stated that in lieu of light- ing Market street in order that the people might better understand the proposi- tion I was willing to submit to them whether Market street should be operated as an underground conduit, or whether it should be operated with the overhead trolley I would either light Market street or pay the City $200,000 in cash as it might determine. The proposition to light Market and Sutter street as ac- cepted by the City will cost the United Railroads during the life of the franchise more than $200,000 and the interest thereon, and I state now that the United Railroads would cheerfully pay the City $200,000 in cash to be relieved from its obligation to light the portion of Market and Sutter streets covered by the permit granted it." At the time this statement was made the public had no knowledge of the $200,000 paid to Ruef and his gang of thieves as a gift or a bribe, but there was a shrewd suspicion that the permit had not been granted without a considera- tion. This assumption was based wholly on the known characteristics of the ad- ministration, and while it existed generally there was no outburst of indignation for the people had become so accustomed to the idea that toll had to be paid to the "paint eaters" it would have been regarded as miraculous were it posi- tively known that any one had escaped the impost. But while the people did not know of the $200,000 paid to Ruef they were satisfied that the City had got a fairly good bargain with the railroad company in its lighting offer for Market and Sutter streets, for antagonism to the overhead trolley system, which was largely worked up in the beginning, had long since disappeared and it was gener-
Explanation Made by Calhoun
886
SAN FRANCISCO
ally conceded that San Francisco could very well afford to adopt a transportation method which had been accepted by most American cities, only two operating underground electric roads.
The Issues Greatly Confused
Not only had the original ground of controversy been shifted, it was entirely lost sight of in the political turmoil which followed the indictment of Ruef and Schmitz and the trapping of the supervisors. Even the advocates of municipal ownership of railways abandoned their contention that the wires should be put underground, and advertised their insincerity, and also their lack of knowledge of the subject, by openly confessing that their project of utilizing the conduit in which the cables of the Geary street road traveled was impracticable. During the controversy with the United Railroads in which that corporation took the ground that it was desirable to harmonize all the lines of the City, and bring them under one method of operation, it was urged that an underground trolley system could be provided for Geary street at a sum not exceeding $750,000. The City has since engaged in the construction of an overhead trolley for Geary street, which was not completed on the first of November, 1912, at a cost three times as great as the enthusiasts estimated would suffice for the building of the more expensive underground line on that thoroughfare. It is impossible to determine just how much the movement for municipal ownership had to do with the cleavage of the community over the question of the right or wrong method of dealing with the United Railroads, but that it was a powerful factor and influenced many to take an extreme stand against that corporation, and to condone the villainies of the supervisors and of Boss Ruef and the predatory mayor was apparent to everyone. As a matter of fact the issues were so thoroughly confused that the most of the community did not realize where they stood, an assertion borne out by the vacil- lating attitude of the electors who after electing a mayor and board of supervisors supposed to stand for reform methods in 1907 in 1909 permitted the election of a candidate for the mayoralty who had openly proclaimed his intention of making "a wide open town" of San Francisco.
These apparent fluctuations of opinion or desire are explained in part by the conduct of the prosecutors of the graft cases and the course of events. While Patrick Calhoun was the man the self constituted prosecutor sought to de- stroy there was a semblance of an effort at a general house cleaning. As long as the people believed that Ruef, Schmitz and their "paint eaters" stood a show of being properly dealt with for their rascalities the public stood behind the prosecution, but when the suspicion deepened that the prosecutors were not dis- interested, and when it began to be believed by many that ulterior motives were responsible for the reform movement confidence rapidly waned. There were two occurrences which contributed to this result. The first of these was the re- newal of the troubles of the carmen with the United Railroads, which culminated in a strike on May 5, 1907, which many supposed was instigated, and the second was the obvious purpose of Spreckels and Heney to absolutely control the affairs of the municipality by keeping the boodling supervisors and Mayor Schmitz in office, the reason assigned for this extraordinary action being that it was neces- sary for them to direct the city government in order to attain the object they sought to accomplish. This usurpation was effectually accomplished and the boodling supervisors who had brought so much shame on the City were retained in their position for several months, or, in the expressive language of the assistant
Fluctuation of Public Sen- timent and Opinion
Copyrighted, 1912, by R. J. Waters & Co.
SAN FRANCISCO SKY LINE IN 1912 FROM TELEGRAPH HILL
887
SAN FRANCISCO
district attorney "so long as they remained good dogs," canine obedience being secured by the knowledge of the dogs that there were indictments hanging over their heads which might be pushed at any moment and land them behind the bars.
It has been stated that there were in all nearly four hundred indictments framed by the grand jury dealing with the graft cases. In addition to those di- rected against Ruef and Schmitz, the supervisors and the United Railroads officials, Theodore Halsey and Louis Glass of the Pacific States Telephone Company were indicted, and O. K. Detwiler of the Home Telephone Company was charged with bribing supervisors. Frank G. Dunn, Eugene deSabla and John Martin were also accused of a like offense in connection with the affairs of the Gas Company. Fourteen indictments were returned against G. H. Umbsen, Joseph E. Green and Attorney W. I. Brobeck, charging them with bribing that number of supervisors to permit them to build what was known as the Parkside road, a line of street railway the construction of which would facilitate the placing upon the market of a large tract of land south of Golden Gate park. No attempt was made to press these cases. Before the grand jury which had framed most of the indictments was dismissed it recommended the quashing of those against the Parkside pro- motors, and subsequently as each of the three defendants was placed on the witness stand in the Ruef Parkside trial in May, 1908, Heney made motions that the in- dictments be dismissed, and the judge caused an order to that effect to be entered. In this case it appeared that all that had been asked by the Parkside directors was that the board of supervisors should act as the charter directed and adver- tise for sale a franchise at public auction. The venal crew of Ruef did not refuse to act, they simply failed to move in the premises and they were induced to do so just as the rascally chimney inspectors after the fire were persuaded for an ex- tra consideration to do their duty, or as a waiter in a restaurant is impelled to perform his by the expectation of a tip. There was no denial on the part of the indicted Parkside directors that they had paid Ruef a sum of money to act as their attorney. They knew his power over the board, and they also knew that if he was not employed there would be no advertisement of the proposal to grant a franchise. They did not ask what he did with the fee; all they required was that the franchise accompanied by their offer of a bonus of $100,000 should be adver- tised and put up at sale so that they could carry out an important undertaking which would benefit the proprietors of the enterprise and the entire City.
It is essential to a correct understanding of the varied causes which tended to excite antagonism to the prosecution to know that the latter was in a sense a private and not a public function. Francis J. Heney, whose name throughout ap- pears as the public prosecutor was a deputy of William Langdon and entered the latter's office in pursuance of an arrangement with Rudolph Spreckels. Heney had been employed as a federal attorney as early as 1904 and had obtained some notoriety or fame in the prosecution of timber grabbers. Langdon took him on as his assistant in January, 1907. The district attorney had large ambitions and was in the field as an aspirant for the governorship in the campaign of 1906, but his candidacy was a hopeless one although he did not regard it from that standpoint. He was at the head of the Independence League, a party backed by one of the morn- ing newspapers, which, however, had so little show of winning that those respon- sible for its formation were foremost in adopting the course which resulted in Langdon abandoning the effort to win. Langdon was strongly disinclined to ac-
Indictments That Were Not Pressed
The Makeup of the Prosecution
888
SAN FRANCISCO
cept the role imposed upon him, as it virtually amounted to a confession of inca- pacity, but Joseph J. Dwyer and the "Examiner" persuaded him to see the light and he accepted the position of "second fiddle" during the remainder of his term of office. No injustice was done him by the compulsory subordination, but it is an open question whether a prosecution conducted under his auspices would not have ac- complished better results than one secured by the vigorous, but often unscrupulous methods of Heney who from the beginning was not regarded in any other light by a large section of the community than as an attorney hired to carry out a private plan of regeneration in an official guise. Whether Heney was well paid for his services, or as has been claimed for him he acted solely under the influence of zeal for the public good does not much matter, but the question was frequently discussed and was answered in a measure by the statement made by Spreckels that Heney had received not as a fee, but as office expenses $23,828.22, and that his partner Cobb, who had entered into partnership with Heney at the beginning of the prose- cution to take care of the civic business of the firm had been paid $25,000. J. J. Dwyer, who was instrumental in bringing about the arrangement which resulted in the practical abdication of Langdon and had a connection of some sort with the firm received $13,400. Heney also received $69,000 for his services to the federal government, $33,000 of which was paid to him after his resignation, but it was explained that the latter was on account of deferred payments.
The major part of the indictments bore date of May 25, 1907, and it was during the period of their formulation that the events occurred which did so much to change the attitude of a large part of the community toward the prosecution. Theodore Bonnet in his monograph entitled "The Regenerators," which dealt ex- haustively with the subject of the graft prosecutions pointed out that all the news- papers of the City were in perfect accord with Spreckels at the inception of his crusade, and that they gave him their cordial support. Whatever weakening of the latter was noticeable after May 5, 1907, may be traced directly to the suspicion that the carmen were incited to recede from their arbitration agreement in order to embarrass the United Railroads defendants, and to bring about a state of mind which would assist in securing their condemnation. On the latter date, the carmen after a stormy meeting at the Central theater resolved to strike for $8 a day and eight hours' work. The strike thus inaugurated endured to September 15, 1907, a period of 131 days, and was accompanied by many acts of violence. For four months and a half the City was in incessant turmoil. If the police strove to do their duty the public had little evidence of the fact. It is true that they made arrests, and that the police judges promptly dismissed the cases brought before them on the ground of insufficient evidence; but on the other hand it was notorious that great promptitude was exercised in arresting the men brought to the City by the United Railroads when they defended themselves against violence. During the 131 days attempts were made to burn the car barns of the company, bombs were placed on the tracks with the design of blowing up cars, cars were assailed by men work- ing on buildings who hurled all sorts of missiles at passengers and the latter were grossly insulted and otherwise intimidated. Three were killed and twenty-nine wounded in riots, and over 210 of the United Railroads men were wounded. In addition there were many other assaults growing out of the disturbances, but the known casualties directly traceable to the strike numbered 223. Much property was destroyed and 3,529 car windows were shattered by missiles during the period
The Carmen's Strike of 1907
Copyrighted, 1912, by R. J. Waters & Co.
JUNCTION OF MARKET, POST, AND MONTGOMERY STREETS, 1912
889
SAN FRANCISCO
in which the strikers insisted on forcing their demands upon the company. The strike, it was estimated, cost the strikers in lost wages approximately $600,000. The union workingmen were taxed $12.50 a piece for their support, and the United Railroads suffered a loss in the shape declining revenues and unusual expenses amounting to at least $1,000,000. On the date when the strikers practically abandoned their efforts the company had 1,450 platform men at work, and in that number were included 245 who quit the union and were taken back by the company as independent workmen.
While the disturbances created by the street car men were at their worst the important civic bodies of the City conceiving that they were largely due to the dis- organized condition of the municipal government occasioned by the graft exposures proposed that Schmitz should resign. He professed willingness to do so, the under- standing being that the leading commercial organizations of the City would name his successor. This proposal was understood to have the support of men who later arrayed themselves on the side of Spreckels and Heney when they put forth their ultimatum that they must absolutely control municipal affairs. They were extremely intemperate in their denunciation of the movement and pronounced the committee of the combined organizations and the organizations themselves as corrupt hirelings of the Southern Pacific. Instead of permitting the suggested course to be pursued Schmitz was tried and convicted and the vacancy occasioned by his conviction was filled by placing Boxton, the confessed boodler in the mayor's chair, and the boodling supervisors were retained to assist in carrying out the plans projected by the re- formers. Boxton was kept in his position until the opening of the municipal cam- paign when Dr. Edward R. Taylor was chosen by the board as mayor. The action of Heney and Spreckels was the occasion of much scandal. The theory that San Francisco should be governed by the big stick method wielded by a back room cabal was denounced by the interior press, and the City was derided for tamely consent- ing to the plan, but citizens had learned the virtue of patience and were ready to consent to any thing or adopt any method which held out a promise of peace. It was this spirit which dictated the course of the community in electing Taylor to the mayoralty. That portion of the press which had resented his appointment by the cabal gave him its support in the clection although one paper of influence, the "Examiner," expressed the opinion that he would probably shine more as a poet than as an executive.
Whatever expectations of peace and quiet may have been based on the election of Taylor and a board of supervisors of unquestioned probity, they were not real- ized. During the several years in which the graft prosecutions occupied the courts there was a constant suspicion that movements which should have been in the inter- est of the public were promoted for ulterior purposes. There can be no doubt that there was a considerable body of opinion favorable to municipal ownership of public utilities and their operation by the City, and it was remembered and noted by those who were opposed to the policy that when the prosecution was conducting the city government it induced the boodling supervisors to engage in the scheme of building a municipal road on Geary street. The City on two previous occasions had refused by a vote of its electorate to give the project its sanction, but in June, 1907, the machinery was again set in motion. One of the local journals which was giving its support to the prosecution at the time in commenting upon the renewal of the attempts said: "The prosecution is entitled to and should receive the strongest
In Full Con- trol of City Government
Trials In- temperately Conducted
890
SAN FRANCISCO
moral support in the prosecution of the boodlers and its highest duty is not to weaken that support by acts outside its legitimate duties which are contrary to pub- lic interest and general desire." It was the performance of acts of this sort which rendered all the efforts of the prosecution abortive and converted San Francisco's name into a byword and reproach. Had the prosecution been conducted soberly many disgraceful occurrences would have been avoided and a few tragedies averted.
It would take a volume to narrate all the exciting events directly and indirectly linked up with the graft trials. The most of them may be traced to the effort to convict by means of public sentiment which was to be manufactured by the press. As early as April 26, 1907, a transcript of the testimony before the grand jury which began operations on March 18th, of that year, was printed in full in one of the morning papers. It was furnished exclusively to one journal as was charged by some because there was a desire to favor it; by others its publication was sup- posed to be in response to a desire to make its rivals accept orders from the prose- cution. Whatever the purpose the wide publicity given to the evidence raised almost insuperable obstacles to securing a jury, for it left few in the community who could conscientiously affirm that they had not made up their minds as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. The industry of the press in exploiting all phases of the criminal career of the city officials had made the matter of jury get- ting extremely difficult. This ill-considered publication which occupied forty-two columns of the "Call," and gave first hand information concerning every point, made it next to impossible to do so and imposed a great expense on the community by extending the examination of jurors to ascertain their qualifications or fitness over long periods. Not only was the selection of jurors rendered extremely difficult by the indiscreet publication; both prosecution and defense resorted to offensive in- quisitorial methods to ascertain the bias or absence of bias of citizens. Prospective jurors were entrapped into expressions of opinion with the view of disqualifying them if the inquiry turned out unfavorable. Never in the history of San Fran- cisco or of any other American city was the jury system subjected to so severe a strain as it was during these trials; nor is there any instance on record of it being brought into greater disrepute than it was by the Burns detectives and those of the Railroad Company.
The shooting of Heney and the subsequent suicide of Morris Haas who made the attempt on the life of the district attorney's deputy was directly due to the wretched methods resorted to in the effort to secure juries that would convict. Haas had served a term in the penitentiary for embezzlement twenty years earlier. It appears that he had made restitution, had been restored to citizenship and was generally supposed to be an honest man. He had married and raised a family to whom his early transgression was unknown. In 1908, in making up his lists one of the judges included Haas' name, and it subsequently developed that Haas went to him and begged to be excused, without, however, giving any reason which the judge was disposed to accept. Haas was a Jew and as it had been the policy of the prose- cution to refuse jurors of that faith he might have been excused without comment. Heney preferred to resort to a more dramatic method. When he was examining Haas, drawing a photograph from his pocket Heney advanced to the jury box and exhibited it to the man he was examining. It was a picture of Haas clothed in prison stripes. "Didn't you serve a term in the penitentiary?" asked Heney. "Oh! Mr. Heney!" exclaimed Haas, "if you only knew you wouldn't be so harsh. I
The Shooting of Francis J. Heney
Jury System Brought Into Disrepute
PIANOS KOHLER & C
O'FARRELL STREET, WEST FROM MARKET STREET, FIVE YEARS AFTER THE FIRE
891
SAN FRANCISCO
asked the court to excuse me and he wouldn't." The judge heard the statement and did not contradict it. Two months later, on November 13, 1908, Ruef still being on trial, a man suddenly rose in the court room and discharged a pistol at Heney who fell to the floor with a bullet in his neck. His assailant was seized and was at once recognized as Haas. An attempt was made to induce Haas to confess that he was hired to do the shooting, but in his hysterical statements about the only thing that could be gathered was that he had been crazed by the exposure of his early misdeed. It later developed that from the day that Heney made his dramatic exhibition of the picture of Haas the latter had abandoned his business, and spent most of his time visiting nickelodeons. On the 14th of November, Haas committed suicide in jail by shooting himself with a derringer, and it was sought to make it appear that he had taken his own life to oblige the so-called "higher ups," the as- sumption being that the pistol was furnished by them for that purpose. Much was made of the fact that although searched when confined in the jail Haas was able to retain a pistol. There were many conjectures concerning the suicide, but it is quite clear from statements made during the interval between the exposure and his death that Haas meditated self destruction, and had declared his intention of taking his whole family with him.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.