USA > California > San Francisco County > San Francisco > San Francisco, a history of the Pacific coast metropolis, Volume II > Part 61
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
As every occurrence which could in any manner be connected with the prose- cution was eagerly seized upon it would have been extraordinary if the Haas epi- sode had proved an exception to the rule. It did not. William J. Biggy, chief of police, was removed from office, and while the circumstances attending his removal were never fully cleared up it was supposed by many that his refusal to accept the theory that the "higher ups" were responsible for Haas' suicide had caused him to be discredited. On the night of November 30, 1908, Biggy, who had not accepted dismissal, crossed the bay in a launch and visited Hugo Keil, one of the police com- missioners, to whom he expressed the intention of resigning and ending the warfare made upon him. Keil counseled him against taking such a course and when the inter- view was over and Biggy was ready to return to the City he appeared to Keil to be in a more cheerful mood. When the police launch arrived in San Francisco Biggy had disappeared. According to the engineer he last saw the chief seated by the low free board of the launch. His body was not found until a week later. Whether he com- mitted suicide, or was accidentally drowned or what happened to him will probably never be known. The tragic story may be rounded out with the relation of the fact that in June, 1911, William Murphy, the engineer of the police patrol launch became a maniac, and in his ravings exclaimed: "I don't know who did it, but I swear to God I didn't."
The condition of the public mind created by these occurrences, and the utter- ances of officials inside and outside the court room can be imagined. Immediately after the shooting of Heney a body calling itself the Citizens' League of Justice met in the Pacific building and passed resolutions pledging themselves to aid the cause of justice. Among the conspicuous speakers was Richard Cornelius, the presi- dent of the Carmen's union, who was reported by the "Call' as saying: "I think the time has come when there should be a Vigilance Committee to deal with crim- inals in this City. I am ready to join such a committee." An evening paper, the "News," whose columns were devoted to advertising the demands of the trades unions said: "Not since the days of the Vigilance Committee who strangled the thugs who held the City by the throat in the gold mining days have the law abiding Vol. II-27
Tragic Death of Chief of Police Biggy
A Bomb Exploded in Supervisor Gallagher's House
892
SAN FRANCISCO
citizens of the City been so horrified." The district attorney, Langdon, who was sometimes permitted to be heard made the statement, which was printed in the newspapers, that "the prosecution has been in possession of evidence to show that for many months a wholesale system of jury bribing has been going on in these graft cases." This assertion was made on October 30, 1908, but its publication accom- plished nothing because of the failure to give it effect by an attempt to bring the bribers to justice. It did, however, serve to intensify the uneasiness created by such mysterious occurrences as that of the explosion of dynamite in the hall of the home of James Gallagher in Oakland. James Gallagher was the chief witness for the prosecution. He was one of the boodling supervisors, the principal go-be- tween of Boss Ruef who used him as his agent when dealing with the board. While the jury for the trial of Ruef in April, 1908, was being impanelled an ex- plosion took place in the vestibule of a house in which Gallagher was supposed to be at the time. Its force was exerted very destructively. The front of the building was torn away, the furniture in adjoining rooms was shattered, and the gas and elec- tric fixtures were twisted but no one was injured. Gallagher, who, according to his own statement, was in a room in which the furniture was wrecked, escaped entirely unharmed. The explosion created great excitement and the charge was made that the "higher ups" had attempted to blow up a whole family in order to rid them- selves of Gallagher. While the ferment was greatest the papers published circum- stantial stories of the arrest some months earlier of a man named Wilhelm on the suspicion that he was a dynamiter. Wilhelm told the police that Burns had "em- ployed him in his professional capacity as a bomb maker to make a bomb for a dem- onstration against Judge Lawler, and so turn public favor toward the prosecution." When the explosion occurred Wilhelm was again taken into custody and said that a detective employed by Burns, and a young man whom he believed to be Burns' son, visited him one day in Oakland and represented that they were in the employ of the United Railroads and would pay him $200 for some bombs. He pretended to accept their offer and actually made some fake bombs and was arrested with them in his possession. The city chemists found that the two small pieces of lead pipe mas- querading as bombs contained no explosives and he was released. Probably tempted by an offered reward a Greek named Claudianes confessed that he had been hired by one of his countrymen to explode the bomb in Gallagher's house, and that he understood that his employer was to be paid by Ruef who would get the money from Calhoun for doing the job. Later he recanted his confession, but his brother Peter was arrested in Chicago, and convicted chiefly on the testimony of Burns. No at- tempt was made to prosecute John who had confessed although persistent efforts were made by his attorney to bring about a court inquiry. The whole matter is still involved in mystery. Many believe that Peter Claudianes committed the crime and that he was hired by Paudevaris the Greek accused in the confession of John, but the latter was never tried and it is not likely that the world will ever learn who hired Paudevaris.
Fruitless Efforts of the Prosecution
In view of all this turmoil and the division of the community into opposing camps it would have been amazing if the outcome of the effort to punish grafters and put an end to grafting had been other than that which must be recorded. Ruef was convicted on one of the numerous charges brought against him, and sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment. Schmitz was also convicted, but the conviction was secured by such bungling methods that the higher court gave him a
71 71 -11 71 71 -7 11
MARKET STREET, EAST FROM THIRD STREET, FOUR YEARS AFTER THE FIRE
T
893
SAN FRANCISCO
new trial and when that took place the principal witness, Jim Gallagher, was not present to testify and there was an acquittal. It would be profitless to dis- cuss the legal questions revealed in the miscarriage of justice. It is charged that the indictments were defectively drawn, and that the cases against the railroad officials and other indicted corporation managers were bunglingly conducted, but it is doubtful whether a jury could have been impaneled which would have convicted Calhoun under any circumstances, for the reasons enlarged upon. Whether right or wrong there was a large number of persons who insisted that Calhoun was a victim of circumstances, and that while paying tribute to city officials is morally indefensible it is the duty of society to render such exactions impossible. Tirey L. Ford was tried three times; once the jury disagreed and twice they found him not guilty. The character of the witnesses, a band of confessed thieves militated against their statements being accepted even when they corroborated each other, but they did not succeed in doing so and their evidence abounded in contradictions. No one doubted that the supervisors had lived up to the reputation Ruef had fas- tened on them when they were first elected, but jurors could not be found who would convict on such testimony. The most serious obstacle to securing jus- tice was the wholesale resort to the granting of immunity for it fixed the belief that the sole purpose of the prosecution was not the purification of municipal affairs, but the gratification of a desire for revenge and the destruction of a rival. The formal drawing up of contracts promising immunity were denounced as at- tempts to secure evidence which would suit, and the extraordinary efforts made by Burns, who employed the third degree to extort admissions from Ruef, and the intemperate conduct of the prosecution, not to speak of the unmistakable bias of the judges all contributed to a result which was made manifest when the commu- nity, owing to its divisions again permitted the restoration to office of the same kind of men who had brought such discredit on the City during the administration of Schmitz.
The graft prosecutions had their inception practically with the finding of the indictments in May, 1907. Only four of the eighteen supervisors, F. P. Nichols, George F. Duffey, Andrew M. Wilson and Nicholas W. Coffey, were indicted. Coffey was convicted on March 2, 1909, and sentenced to seven years' imprison- ment, but took an appeal. Duffey was indicted three times but was never tried. Wilson and Nichols appeared to have only been under the ban of the grand jury for disciplinary purposes. They escaped punishment of any kind and scarcely forfeited the esteem of their acquaintances. The other alleged grafters were haled into court at various times, but Calhoun whose attorneys were insistent that he should have a speedy hearing was never afforded an opportunity to tell his side of the story in court. The reasons assigned for the delay were of a nature difficult to comprehend, but it was generally believed that the postponements of the case were due to the inability of the prosecution to secure from Ruef testimony of a char- acter which might have some effect on a jury. On Thanksgiving Day, 1909, Jim Gallagher the most important of the prosecution's witnesses was permitted to leave the state. He seized the opportunity afforded him and started on a long va- cation trip from which he failed to return until June 11, 1912, when his testimony ceased to be of any importance. Long before his reappearance in his old haunts the indictments against Calhoun, Ford, Mullally and Abbott had been dismissed, the district court of appeals having granted their petitions for a writ of mandate di-
Dismissal of the Graft Cases
894
SAN FRANCISCO
rected against the superior court and Judge Wm. P. Lawler, requiring him to dis- miss all the felony indictments against them in connection with the unheard trolley cases. They based their demand for the mandate on the constitutional right of speedy trial as provided by the codes which give a defendant the right to be brought to trial within 60 days; they had been denied this right 558 days when the district court ordered the dismissal of the indictments. On March 5, 1912, Eugene Schmitz was acquitted by a jury of the charge of having bribed Supervisor Wilson. The jury only required six minutes to arrive at a decision. The community had reached a conclusion exactly the opposite of that arrived at by the "twelve men tried and true." On the 18th of May, 1912, in the superior court, Judge Frank H. Dunne, on the bench, all of the so-called graft cases were dismissed. These included the Ruef indictments still untried, those against former Mayor Schmitz, Halsey and all the others.
Ruef in the end proved to be the only sufferer, and perhaps this was in accord- ance with the generally maintained view that bossism is at the bottom of all the troubles of American municipalities. Of all the bosses produced by the American system of electing men to municipal offices Ruef stands out as the boldest. Boss Tweed exceeded him in the magnitude of his peculations, but that was merely be- cause he had a broader field in which to work. No one can tell just how much Ruef amassed by his corrupt practices. At the time the first indictments were brought against him he was popularly supposed to be a millionaire. He was the possessor of several pieces of valuable real estate, and probably like his associate Schmitz, who had an ingeniously constructed safe hidden under the floor of the house in which he lived, he had valuable securities and ready money. But what- ever the amount of his accumulations, great inroads were made on them by the law- yers he summoned to his aid. They served him well, but they were handsomely paid for their services. With the incarceration of Ruef in San Quentin it might have been supposed that his career had come to an end, but he was still valuable for exploitation purposes which were made the most of by the "Evening Bulletin." That journal opened its columns to the publication of a story of Ruef's experi- ence as a boss written while he was in prison. It was an interesting document and contained much truth, but the desire to explain his own connection with the corrupt men with whom he was associated gave it an air of insincerity, and it made little or no impression on the community. No person reading it would be able to form an accurate judgment of the writer who had many of the virile qualities that lend themselves to leadership, whereas he conveys the idea that he was more sinned against than sinning. In June, 1912, Ruef, who had made an application for parole, was denied that privilege by the prison board, which decided that he must serve half of his term of fourteen years before it could be accorded. Ruef had served a little more than a year in San Quentin when the application was made. He en- tered the prison gates on March 7, 1911. At the time of the request for parole Ruef was supposed to be working at a loom in the jute mill, but his literary labors and other activities, reports of which were regularly sent out, indicate that his time was not wholly devoted to weaving.
Attempt to Secure Par- don of Ruef
While in prison Ruef busied himself with the formulation of a plan to help con- victed men after their restoration to liberty. He proposed to establish a voluntary association among the prisoners to be affiliated with the Prison Commission, or some organization on the outside whose business it would be to help the dis-
Ruef in San Quentin Writes His Memoirs
EASY DENTAL PARL RS
SUYUN
LOOKING UP GEARY STREET FROM MARKET STREET THREE YEARS AFTER THE FIRE
895
SAN FRANCISCO
charged prisoner to maintain himself until he could secure employment, and to as- sist him to that end, this outside work was to be preceded by a special effort by the prison authorities on the inside to prepare the restored member of society to properly resume his relations with his fellowmen. Concurrently with Ruef's efforts to secure parole, Fremont Older, editor of the "Evening Bulletin," was endeavor- ing to create a sentiment which would warrant the governor exercising the pardon- ing power in favor of the Boss. Older's explanation of his motives attracted a great deal of attention as he virtually declared that he had hounded Ruef into prison. He said: "I went to Washington and enlisted Heney in the fight. William J. Burns came and I persuaded Spreckels to help us. At last after years of a man hunting and a man hating debauch, Ruef became what I had longed and dreamed that he might become-a convict. Then I said to myself 'yon have got him. He's in stripes. He is helpless, beaten, chained. You've won. How do you like your victory?'" This revelation was a surprise to many for it had been popularly sup- posed that Ruef was not the object of the protracted attentions of the prosecution which had promised him absolute immunity if he would testify so as to incriminate Calhoun and the other officials of the United Railroad. On the 3d of June, 1912, the state supreme court on the motion of the San Francisco Bar Association dis- barred Ruef. The ground on which this action was taken was his conviction in the supreme court of a "felony involving moral turpitude, to wit-offering a bribe."
In view of the capricions conduct of electors at the polls it would be unwise to attempt to deduce from the result of elections the state of popular opinion on any subject. Personal and other considerations complicate the issues and make it impossible to determine the motives of the majority. In 1909 the workingmen's party put forward as its candidate P. H. McCarthy. There could have been no doubt in the minds of intelligent observers concerning the attitude of McCarthy on the subject of the graft prosecutions. He was president of the Building Trades Council in 1906 and after. On several occasions he made bitter speeches denun- ciatory of Heney and the judges who were trying the graft cases, and his sym- pathy with the grafters was notorious, but in the election of 1909 he was chosen by the people as their mayor, and with his accession to office the old practices were renewed on a modest scale. He had plainly arrayed himself on the side of the ele- ment in favor of "an open town," and had its support. The failure to unite upon can- didates who were pledged to adopt a course in municipal affairs which would com- mand the support of the outside world presented the opportunity which procured for him success, but it is doubtful whether his beaten opponents commanded the complete confidence of the community. Regarding their integrity there was no question, but there was a wide gulf of opinion respecting public policies which militated against securing solidarity of the sort which distinguished the actions of the workingmen's party.
Two years of McCarthy's methods and occurrences not strictly political caused the pendulum to swing to the other side. The first vote under a new primary sys- tem resulted in the choice by the people of James Rolph, Jr. The election was held on September 26, 1911, and proved decisive, Rolph receiving a majority of all the votes cast. The candidates for supervisorship and a few administrative officials not receiving a majority had to be voted for at a municipal election held in the en- suing November 7th. At this election a board of supervisors was chosen com- mitted to the support of Rolph. The workingmen succeeded in returning only one
Working- men's Candi- date Elected Mayor in 1909
Election of Reform May- or and Board of Supervisors
896
SAN FRANCISCO
member. The primary election of September 26th resulted in Charles M. Fickert and Ralph L. Hathorne receiving the highest vote and the contest between them for the office of district attorney had to be fought out at the polls in November. In the course of the campaign a rumor was circulated to the effect that Hathorne if elected would name Francis J. Heney as an assistant. This rumor had so serious an effect on the canvass of Hathorne that at a meeting held at Dreamland rink on the night of October 30th he denied that he had any such intention. The morning paper supporting Hathorne reported the meeting under a four column heading reading: "Hathorne Gives Lie to Rumor. Report that Heney Would be Given Office is Refuted." The assurance, however, had little weight, for Fickert was elected by a decisive majority. On December 3, 1909, William H. Crocker, while in New York, made a statement in a paper published in that city virtually charging that Heney's motives in prosecuting the graft cases were not wholly disinterested and that he had been well paid for his services. Heney brought suit for damages to the amount of $250,000. On April 7, 1912, an order to take testimony in San Francisco was made. It was thought at the time Heney brought his suit that the old stories would be threshed over again as he had been accused of corrupting witnesses and fixing juries and that his conduct was "marked by a general policy of falsehood and chicane." The expectation was not realized. Testimony has been taken, but the press has scarcely troubled itself to note the fact. Editors felt the popular pulse and knew that the people wished to forget the unsavory episode in the history of this City.
CHAPTER LXVI
THE SUMMING UP OF THE ACHIEVEMENTS AFTER THE FIRE
NO INTERRUPTIONS OF THE PROGRESS OF THE CITY-THE PEOPLE MAKE HISTORY- GREATER SAN FRANCISCO MOVEMENT-A FREE MARKET EXPERIMENT FAILS-SAN FRANCISCO'S ORIENTAL POPULATION- REDISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION-TITLES NOT DISTURBED-APARTMENT HOUSES MULTIPLY-CHANGES ON NOB HILL-SOCIAL CLUBS REHOUSED-HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS IN INCREASED NUMBERS-CHANGES IN CAFE LIFE-THE SAN FRANCISCO ATMOSPHERE-THE OLD AND THE NEW VAN NESS AVENUE-THE NEW SHOPPING DISTRICTS-RETURN TO THE OLD AMUSEMENT CEN- TER-AMUSEMENTS AFTER THE FIRE-TETRAZZINI'S OPEN AIR CONCERT-VISIT OF BATTLESHIP FLEET-THE PORTOLA FESTIVAL-NEW YEAR'S EVE IN SAN FRANCISCO -CONDITION OF STREETS-A NEW CITY HALL AND A CIVIC CENTER-ABOLITION OF CEMETERIES-THE STREET RAILWAY SITUATION-WATER SUPPLY-BONDED IN- DEBTEDNESS-THE CITY'S GROWING BUDGET-IMPROVED STEAM RAILWAY FACILI- TIES-THE PANAMA PACIFIC EXPOSITION-HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS-GROWTH OF COMMERCE-MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES-MONEY EXPENDED FOR FIRE PRECAU- TION AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS-POPULATION GREATER THAN BEFORE THE FIRE-BRILLIANT FUTURE PREDICTED FOR PACIFIC COAST METROPOLIS.
CIT
T IS related in the pages of Livy that the Romans when TH shut up within their city walls by the besieging army of Hannibal went about their ordinary avocations undis- turbed, and that while the besiegers were thundering at the gates there were transfers of real estate. The story of SEAL OF OF SAN FRAN the struggle of the Dutch to secure liberation from Span- ish rule is filled with instances of beleagured cities carrying on trade with the outside world, not merely in the necessaries of life but in its luxu- ries. The more or less veracious Homer in singing of the exploits of "the long haired Greeks" tells us that they set themselves down before the City of Troy for ten years, but the Trojans somehow or other managed to survive during that long period and put up a good fight to the last. With these and other historical reminders of the tenacity with which the urban dweller clings to his home, and our accumulated knowledge of his fertility in expedients, we need not be surprised that San Franciscans surmounted all their troubles after 1906 and that they actu- ally succeeded in plucking the fig of prosperity from the nettle of adversity.
When we read the chronicles of the ancients we are too apt to concentrate our attention npon their quarrels and their wars with the result that our mental pic- ture of the times in which they lived is one of incessant bickering and war, but be- tween the lines of those authors whose books are filled with accounts of battles
The Force of Habit
No Interrup- tion of the March of Energy
897
898
SAN FRANCISCO
we discover fugitive allusions which show that the affairs of mankind proceeded pretty much as usual during the most troublous periods in those countries in which the commercial spirit dominated. While the Civil war in the United States was raging and hundreds of thousands were dying on the field of battle and in the hospitals the people of the North were making great material progress, not at the expense of the vanquished South, but by developing the resources of their section of the Union. The story of the eradication of the institution of slavery in the United States if confined to the relation of the exploits of the great armies put in the field on both sides, and the political and other acrimonious debates to which the conflict gave rise might easily, some hundreds of years hence, suggest a period of arrest- ment, but the prolific statistician has made such a misconception impossible. He has presented so much testimony of material advancement that psuedo economists, mis- led by the data, actually argue from it that destructiveness promoted prosperity.
In dwelling on the performances of San Francisco after the great disaster of 1906, and in pointing out that material advancement is not dependent on the moral status of a community there is no desire to convey the impression that profit is de- rived from the pursuit of vicious courses. The parasite never contributes to the growth of the thing on which it fastens, but on the other hand the purest of mo- tives, the best of intentions and the most perfect of laws unaided cannot promote the growth of a city. That depends entirely on the sagacity and energy of its people. Urban expansion is a purely material phenomenon, and whether we like to recognize the fact or not the flower of spirituality seems to grow most luxuri- antly in the muck heap of wealth produced in the commercial struggle. Virtue is the antithesis of vice, and the worst forms of the latter are those which human greed calls into existence. But exaggerated human desire seems as necessary for the pres- ervation of the race as the fertilizing element is to soil productivity. And like the agriculturist who is called upon to deal with the problem of providing for the sub- sistence of his kind, society must make up its mind that its struggle with parasitic enemies will be incessant. There are times when the horticulturist is compelled to cut down and destroy trees to prevent the spread of some infectious disease, but he rarely extends his precautions to the extirpation of all trees, as he would have to do if he wished to completely eradicate the evil he attacks, an end which could only be accomplished by the destruction of the fertilizers which promote productivity.
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.