- /C^^i^ ^'^'^'--^ a.-^^^&^ 7^^^ 
 
 S' ^•. f^'y^ .e^y^^ 
 
 / 
 
 /f^P'-^^ 
 
 '^ ■^,^^^^:^2^^^^^?'-^*---
 
 THE REGENERATORS
 
 RUDOLPH SPRECKELS 
 
 The chief of the regenerators and financial backer of the 
 Graft Prosecution.
 
 THE 
 REGENERATORS 
 
 A Study of the Graft Prosecution 
 of San Francisco 
 
 BY 
 
 THEODORE BONNET 
 
 ILLUSTRATED 
 
 San Francisco 
 
 PACIFIC PRINTING COMPANY 
 
 1911
 
 Copyriglit, 1911, by 
 TIIEOIX^KF. BONNET.
 
 T5 
 PREFACE ' / / / 
 
 
 I'o the Average Citizen: 
 
 Dear Sir: Peniiit me to offer yon this little 
 book if for no other pnrpose than to employ 
 yon as a pretext for the zvriting of a forezvord. 
 Thongh I do not agree zvith the zvriters of the 
 long ago that a book rightly comprehended is 
 bnt a peg on ivhich to hang a preface redolent 
 of the author's charming personality and pal- 
 pitant Zi'ith his life-blood, I feel that not akvays 
 should a man hazard himself between book 
 covers zcithout an explanation. 
 
 The events ivhich most deeply occupy the 
 minds of one generation are often those of ivhich 
 the next knows least. This thought occurred to 
 me some years ago. ivlieii as a result of laborious 
 research I made )nyself more or less familiar 
 with the career of the Jlgilance Committee of 
 i8§6. For many years it was supposed that the 
 Vigilantes of San Francisco were public benefac- 
 tors, whose motives were untainted, whose per- 
 formances entitled them to the veneration of 
 posterity. Latterly it has been found that this 
 judgment might be somewhat modified without 
 incurring the suspicion of injustice. Mindful of 
 the. tendency of events to become so clouded as 
 to make it difficult to trace the connection be- 
 tween causes and effects, I resolved to make this 
 book that I might preserve from immediate de-
 
 iv THE REGENERATORS 
 
 cav some curious material, tchich, though it may 
 suggest uo patterns to imitate, at all events is not 
 ivithout examples to deter. The book is a study 
 of the Graft Prosecution of San Francisco, a sort 
 of moral autopsy on a corpse that has just given 
 its last kick. 
 
 I know that usually, dear average citisen, you 
 buy a book to be amused. I know that to you 
 a book means something to while away a tedious 
 hour, and so I have tried to adapt the book to 
 your taste and temperament ; that is, I have 
 moralised as little as possible, and I have strung 
 my essays together on a thread of general in- 
 terest, arranging the most vivid facts and divert- 
 ing incidents in zvhat I conceive to be a coherent 
 picture. But I have tried also not to lose sight 
 of my purpose, ivhich is to induce you to think. 
 You flatter yourself that your mind is keen, 
 practical, versatile, in full possession of life, 
 always steeped in affairs, always cognisant of 
 zvhat is going on in tlic world: but as a matter 
 of fact you are under a spell. Your thoughts 
 are formed for you zvithout your knozvledge ; 
 you meditate along lines laid down for you; even 
 your ozvn judgment is a matter of intellectual 
 process foreign to yourself. In short you are 
 the pliant tool of the press. It is your boast that 
 you don't believe zvhat you read in the nezvs- 
 papcrs. The truth is you don't believe anything 
 else. The tyrant nezvspaper has you in thrall. 
 Pretending to reflect your opinion in its editorial
 
 PREFACE V 
 
 coliiiiuis, the of^iiiioii it reflects in titosc coluiiiiis 
 is the opinion which xou formed fro)n reading 
 disguised editorial matter fashioned for your 
 deception and injected into you through the 
 medium of the neivs columns. As a result of the 
 imposture practiced on you from day to day yon 
 liaz'e become incredulous of nothing but the 
 truth. You are like the toper who has so keen 
 a taste for raw spirits that good whisky nauseates 
 him._ Xow herein a thesis is employed as a 
 X'.'hetting-block to sharpen up your zvits, and yon 
 are expected to yield them to one who zconld 
 make you sceptical of your smug infallibility. I 
 hope to have your mind share the processes on 
 which I have been engaged, and if possible I 
 would have you accept my point of vieiv, that you 
 may see things as I have seen them, on a some- 
 what broader base of knowledge than you have 
 had hitherto. I would persuade you of the pos- 
 sibility of there being two sides to a story. This 
 peculiarity of stories is proverbial, but that any- 
 thing you have read in the newspapers and 
 accepted as though it were clothed with the 
 sanctity of holy writ, could be presented from 
 any viewpoint other than the one from ivhich 
 you observed it, is an idea that doubtless will 
 strike you as preposterous. It is of the ration- 
 ality of this idea that I would convince you; and 
 hence this series of essays, through which runs 
 a thread of narrative of an historical nature, 
 dealing with events i^^'hich are n.attcrs of per-
 
 vi THE REGENERATORS 
 
 soiial recollection, and ivith facts that have been 
 authenticated. Presumably you have read of the 
 prosecution of grafters in San Francisco. Pre- 
 sumably you know of the crimes that zvere im- 
 puted to the higher-ups in the course of the 
 prosecution. It is my purpose to tell the other 
 side of tlie story, to conduct you through an 
 inquiry respecting the conduct of the men icho 
 consecrated their talents to the task of regenerat- 
 ing a city. Frankly I seek to direct your judg- 
 ment of men and events. So not betzvecn these 
 covers is to be found the pose of the disinter- 
 ested historian. "To be entirely just in our 
 estimate of other ages," says Froudc, "is not only 
 difficult — it is impossible." It is impossible be- 
 cause one's sympathies are swayed by one's tem- 
 perament, directed by one's instinctive prepos- 
 sessions. If, then, one cannot zvrite impartially 
 of other ages, how absurd to affect impartiality 
 in zvriting of one's ozvn age; especially in zi'rit- 
 ing of events that tried one's soul, of men that 
 provoked one's anger and resentment. Of such 
 events, of such men, have I zvritten in these 
 imperfect essays. And though time has assuaged 
 my feelings, it has not affected my beliefs, nor 
 has it zveakened my convictions. 
 
 As I look back on the turbulent days that are 
 gone I haz'c nothing but repentance for the per- 
 sonal bias, that most irrational of all human 
 conceits, to zvhich I yielded on seeing zvhat I re- 
 garded as private animosity masquerading as
 
 PREFACE vii 
 
 p blic duty. Hoi^' greatly docs pariisaiishif^ con- 
 duce to self-deception! The partisan flatters 
 himself that he hates a man on principle when 
 if is only because the man is on the other side. 
 By the experience of the past J Jiave been chas- 
 tened and disciplined, and zvhile I icill not pre- 
 tend that I breathe the serene air of the temple 
 of zcisdoin far abo-c'c the rage of the zcarring 
 elements of human nafure^ I trust that I have pur- 
 sued my study i^'ith feelings free from resentment, 
 though alzvays eoiscious of the rights zvhich 
 criticism reserz'es to itself. I haz'c z^'ritten, I 
 trust, zvith no lack of reverence for the truth. 
 But so strange is truth that much of this book 
 Zk'HI read to you almost as an c.vperiment upon 
 your credulity. Knoz^'ing this I hasten to assure 
 you that zvhat is incredible may be not the less 
 true; that, indeed, zchat is most incredible is most 
 true. 
 
 Theodore Boxxi:r. 
 September it, igu.
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 I'age 
 Prologue 1 
 
 Chapter I. Birth of the Regenerators 14 
 
 How the Prosecution was Organized, and the 
 Gradual Unfolding of Its Plans. 
 
 Chapter II. Men and Motives 32 
 
 A Study of the Leading Regenerators and of Their 
 Attitude Toward the Chief Grafter and Some of 
 the Higher-ups. 
 
 Chapter III. The Car Strikes 44 
 
 Because Union Men Demand and Are Denied Lower 
 Wages a City is Made to SufTer from Lawlessness 
 and Business Paralysis. 
 
 Chapter IV. Bizarre Justice 65 
 
 The Manipulation of Juries, Grand and Petty, a 
 Plague of Spies and the Employment of General 
 Warrants. 
 
 Chapter V. Grafters and Prosecutors 78 
 
 When Facts Don't Square with Theory Then Comes 
 Progressive Testimony Lender the Immunity Lash. 
 
 Chapter VI. Ruef Pleads Guilty and Why 101 
 
 Experience of the Former Boss in the Hands of the 
 Regenerators : He Bargains for Immunity, but Re- 
 fuses to Give the Right Kind of Testimony and is 
 Forsworn. 
 
 Chapter VII. The Schmitz Case 136 
 
 A Trial in Which the Law was Adapted to the Pur- 
 poses of the Regenerators Without Regard to' Ele- 
 mental Principles or the Constitutional Rights of the 
 Defendant. 
 
 Chapter VIII. The Dynamite Explosion 163 
 
 A Miracle by Which the Precious Life of a Great 
 Grafter was Spared, and Which Enabled the Re- 
 generators to Inflame Public Opinion.
 
 X THE REGENERATORS 
 
 Page 
 
 Cliapter IX. The Shooting of Heney 184 
 
 An Infuriated Ex-Convict Revenges Himself on the 
 Virulent Prosecutor and Commits Suicide Just as 
 Detective Burns is About to Pursue a Clue. 
 
 Chapter X. The Biggy Mystery 208 
 
 Hounded by the Regenerators the Chief of Police 
 Comes to a Tragic End. 
 
 Chapter XI. The Conviction of Ruef 219 
 
 A Jury After Listening to Vague Threats from the 
 Prosecuting Attorney Renders a Verdict of Guilty. 
 
 Chapter XII. The Calhoun Trial 229 
 
 Followed by the Crushing Defeat of Heney at the 
 Polls and a Scattering of the Forces of Righteousness.
 
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 Page 
 Fragments of the Cornelius Letters 57 
 
 The Car Strike 65 
 
 Judge Franl< H. Dunne 147 
 
 After the Miracle 169 
 
 Ruef Going To and From Court 225 
 
 Judge William P. Lawlor 235
 
 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 PROLOGUE 
 
 Convulsed by earthquake, devastated by fire, 
 San Francisco next experienced what some per- 
 sons have pronounced a greater affliction — the 
 (iraft Prosecution. The scars of earthquake 
 and fire are no longer visible, the wounds in- 
 flicted by the passions of man are still raw. 
 San Francisco, nay, all California, is today ex- 
 |)iating a protracted moral debauch. Strange 
 history is in the making- in California. 
 
 All history we have been told is philosophy 
 teaching by example. This is true of current, 
 as well as of ancient, history ; of what is 
 happening in California today as well as of 
 what hapi^ened in England in the time of 
 Cromwell. The size of the stage upon which the 
 great dramas of history were enacted is a cir- 
 cumstance having not the slightest effect on the 
 value of the material supplied for philosophic 
 deduction. As much is to be learned from the 
 history of Florence or of the Dutch Republic as 
 from that of the great Roman Empire, for, after 
 all, the study of mankind ma}- be ])rofitaIi]\- ]n\v-
 
 2 T[1K RI-:GRNERA'r()RS 
 
 ^ued wherever "the feeble worm of the earth" 
 is to be found indulging" in his foUies. 
 
 Now on the whole there is much varied and 
 valuable food for reflection in the story of the 
 Graft Prosecution from the standpoint at which 
 it is here to be presented. And the study of it 
 may be pursued with advantage at this particular 
 time, since we are now entering tipon a new era 
 of political development : since we are being ad- 
 vised and persuaded that the people are so en- 
 lightened and so just that they are no longer in 
 need of the institutional checks and safeguards 
 designed and contrived by the Founders. It 
 will be seen that notwithstanding the spread of 
 "sweetness and light," the susceptibilities of 
 human nature are the same today as in the Stuart 
 period of English government, which is at once 
 that of the greatest glory and greatest shame 
 in liritish annals: a period in wdiich judicial 
 records were stained by the foulest crimes in 
 modern history. There are no pages in history 
 that fill us with so much disgust, so much horror, 
 as those that present the narratives of crimes 
 committed in the name of justice in times of 
 popular panic : as, for example, the crimes by 
 which Titus Oates achieved immortal infamy, 
 and the crimes that made the Galas tragedy 
 memorable in the annals of France. Gharacter- 
 ized by the same spirit of inhumanity, conclusive 
 of the same indifference to the principles of 
 justice, were the strange enormities that marked
 
 PROLOGUE 3 
 
 the progress of pseudo-reg-eneration in San Fran- 
 cisco. It will be found, perhaps, that the lesson 
 which the Graft Prosecution affords is one of 
 personal interest to every individual in the United 
 States. For the political institutions of Cali- 
 fornia are much the same as the political in- 
 stitutions of every other State in the Union ; nor 
 are the people of California vastly dift'erent in 
 temperament from the people of other States. 
 If the people of the metropolis of California by 
 reason of all that has been written of them of late 
 have come to be regarded as peculiarly incor- 
 rigible, singularly insensible to their own interests, 
 this conception on examination may be found to 
 be somewhat inaccurate. While there was much 
 to reprehend in the conduct of the people of San 
 Francisco during the turbulent period following 
 the earthquake and fire, it was at all events char- 
 acteristic of human nature. An excited populace, 
 as we have seen, in all ages and countries, displays 
 the same aptitude for harsh and hazardous ex- 
 pedients, the same blindness to its own real 
 interests, the same liability to be duped by 
 Pharisaism masquerading as civic righteousness. 
 If the people of San Francisco are desei-ving of 
 censure it is not for the coldness which they 
 developed toward their regenerators but rather 
 for the duration of their enthusiasm. And con- 
 sidering all the circumstances it would be a very 
 harsh judge who would hold them blameworthy. 
 All that the people of San Francisco were able
 
 4 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 to perceive was the obvious, and by that their 
 enthusiasm was justified. The obvious is all that 
 any populace was ever able to perceive. The 
 obvious in San Francisco was the wrongdoing 
 of certain officials and the rightdoing of the men 
 who volunteered to punish them. As is in- 
 variably the case the multitude were absorbed 
 in the project in hand and insensible of the 
 possibility of evil consequences. They could see 
 the proximate, but what lay dimly in the distance 
 was beyond their range of vision. It would 
 have been remarkable had it been otherwise. 
 Many men above the average in intelligence were 
 no better ofif than the multitude. Some very 
 bright magazine writers visited San Francisco 
 during the Graft Prosecution, journalists en- 
 gaged in supplying people with emotions, eager 
 for the right kind of material ; but they were 
 unable to stick their claws into reality. Callous 
 to the sublime interest of the story that lay ready 
 to hand, its perplexities they never sifted, but 
 accepted the reformers at the reformers' own 
 appraisement, and wrote about them from but 
 one standpoint. None of them ever thought 
 of viewing the struggle from the other angle ; 
 yet from that angle could have been seen what 
 was really interesting ; nay, what was really ro- 
 mantic. For in truth what is instructive is not 
 all that may be found in this story of medieval 
 passion, possessing as it does all the interest of 
 a fictitious narrative, and exhibiting so many
 
 PROLOGUE 5 
 
 strange vicissitudes that it may indeed pass as a 
 romance. The crimes of the grafters and what is 
 obvious with reference to the prosecution of the 
 grafters afford nothing but material for the most 
 commonplace melodrama. The ineptitudes and 
 futile machinations of the men who prosecuted 
 the grafters, and their doings generally, are such 
 as to seem wholly divorced from reality and 
 therefore the story of them, the portraiture of the 
 strange, the odd, the incredible has something of 
 the flavor of romance. 
 
 Much like the experience of France after the 
 first revolution is that which California is now 
 having. For many years after her rivers of 
 blood had ceased to flow nothing happened in 
 France that was not directly a consequence of 
 her extraordinary political upheaval. Friend- 
 ships, hatreds, industrial combinations, the shifts 
 and expedients of politicians, experiments and 
 innovations — all derived their inspiration from 
 one capital fact which had completely changed 
 the condition of life and given new impulses to 
 every class of society. So it is today in Cali- 
 fornia, where the people of the metropolis in 
 a moment of frantic zeal for reform wandered 
 from the middle course of feasibility and com- 
 mon sense and assisted in the perversion of the 
 institutions of government. The whirligig of 
 time is bringing in its revenges in California.
 
 6 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 Lasting- hatreds have survived the abortive work 
 of pseudo-regeneration, giving color and tone to 
 social affairs, industrial transactions and political 
 bargainings. Feeling on both sides is as embit- 
 tered as were the feelings of the people of Flor- 
 ence in the days of the Guelphs and the Ghib- 
 belines. This feud had its origin in the early 
 days of the reform crusade when the reformers, 
 headstrong and haughty, assumed that every- 
 body who disliked their methods was in sympathy 
 with dishonesty. They were intolerant of all 
 criticism. To dissent from their views was to 
 merit the blackest opprobrium. They swag- 
 gered and fumed, and called names, and behaved 
 very much as though they were sighing for 
 the days of the Inquisition. This bully ism was 
 a matter of policy. For notwithstanding their 
 extraordinary political power, spite of their 
 consciousness of the justness of their cause, 
 they seemed to feel the need of the un- 
 wavering approval of public sentiment. With all 
 the machinery of government in their hands they 
 were not satisfied. The weapon of public opinion 
 they wished to wield also. So the slightest adverse 
 criticism of their methods they bitterly resented. 
 They insisted that everybody who favored the 
 regular mode of procedure in criminal cases must 
 be regarded as an enemy of civic virtue. They 
 had branding irons for every critic who had the 
 audacity to assert the right of free speech, which, 
 to say the least, ought to have been considered
 
 PROLOGUE 7 
 
 odd, as the man who heheves his conduct is right 
 is not intolerant of discussion ; he is confident that 
 the more it is discussed the more true it will be 
 found to be. But this was not the philosophy of 
 the regenerators. To silence criticism they or- 
 ganized a body which they called the League of 
 Justice, and intimated that summary punishment 
 might be inflicted on every unfriendly critic. 
 Meetings were held by this league at which hired 
 lawyers and clergymen of the type that cultivates 
 publicity uttered ominous warnings which served 
 to imply that lynch law might be deemed essential 
 to the welfare of the city. Also there was or- 
 ganized the Heney Woman's League composed 
 of venerable dames whose daily appearance in 
 court was intended to impress and awe the 
 juries, and whose manner reminded observers of 
 the knitters of the French Revolution. 
 
 In spite of these agencies to stifle criticism, in 
 time it became apparent that the community was 
 losing confidence in its patriots, who at length hit 
 upon a masterpiece of ingenuity for the stemming 
 of the tide : they decided to have themselves in- 
 vestigated and vindicated. This was like intro- 
 ducing a bit of comic relief to leaven the sober- 
 ness of the tragic drama, but nobody laughed. 
 For there was a reign of terror in San Francisco, 
 and in those parlous times a joke was a serious 
 matter. The opponents of the Graft Prosecution 
 perceiving that the regenerators were skilled in the 
 art of inventing jokes that were loaded, deemed it
 
 8 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 advisable to resist appeals to their risibles. If 
 the patriots themselves laughed it was only in 
 their own exclusive society after the cautious 
 manner of the ancient augurs. So when Mayor 
 Taylor, one of the political products of the 
 prosecution, announced one day that he had ap- 
 pointed a committee of seven to investigate his 
 discoverers there was no perceptible increase in 
 the gaiety of the community. Not a murmur of 
 derision greeted the members of his whitewash 
 committee, though all but two were known to 
 be warm adherents of the Graft Prosecution. 
 The chairman was William Denman, a young 
 lawyer, whose father had been a political protege 
 of one of the millionaires behind the prosecu- 
 tion. Of the six men associated with him on 
 the committee, four were ardent partisans of 
 the ])rosecution. Not the least disinterested of 
 them was William Kent, a millionaire who had 
 contributed generously to the large fund formed 
 to defray the expense of civic redemption, and 
 who has since been elected to Congress, not by 
 virtue of the record he made as a regenerator but 
 rather by the potency of the bank account that 
 was in evidence during his campaign. Air. Kent 
 was a member of the League of Justice at the 
 time of his appointment to the whitewash com- 
 mittee. Also of this league was Father D. O. 
 Crowley, a Catholic priest, appointed to the com- 
 mittee, presumably to impart a tone of impartial- 
 ity. ■ Father Crowley was on terms of social
 
 PROLOGUE 9 
 
 intimacy with members of the reform cabal. 
 He was not less desirous of the vindication of 
 the regenerators than was his associate Mr. W. 
 J. French, editor of an ofificial organ of 
 organized labor. In time these men produced 
 a coat of whitewash, and nobody asked why it 
 was that the regenerators, if they were conscious 
 of their purity and eager for investigation, had 
 not invited examination at the hands of disin- 
 terested citizens. 
 
 Meanwhile factional strife raged with great 
 fury. The issue between the regenerators and 
 their critics vibrated in every heart and burned 
 on every tongue. Partisanship was iniiversal. 
 As time ran on and more apparent it became 
 that the means employed were considerably less 
 unimpeachable than the end professed, the town 
 came to be divided by a great gulf of passion 
 and ])rejudice. And still the slightest criticism 
 brought out flaming denunciation. The leading 
 and most virulent of the pro-prosecution organs 
 argued that the weekly papers should be suj)- 
 pressed. Members of the League of Justice 
 visited the editors of these ]Dapers to warn and 
 terrorize them in the hope of putting an end to 
 the freedom of discussion. By the pro-prose- 
 cution organs gall and spleen were poured on the 
 heads even of private citizens, whose only offense 
 was that of dissenting from views which the 
 cabal had pronounced orthodox. Spleen was 
 everywhere in evidence. Not since the days of
 
 10 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 the fires of Smithfield did bigotry throw human 
 nature into stronger Hght and shade. The 
 feud spread over the whole State, and even now 
 it requires but a zephyr of opinion to fan the 
 smoldering fires into livid flame. In the metrop- 
 olis, the temperament of which is like the climate, 
 cloudless and serene, the masses have put the 
 past where it belongs. They are preoccupied 
 with preparations for the great fair in 1915 at 
 w^hich the opening of the Panama Canal is to 
 be celebrated, but in certain quarters at brief in- 
 tervals there is a recrudescence, and the old sore 
 runs again much to the annoyance of amiable 
 citizens whose expostulations are in vahi. 
 
 If nothing but this feud survived the Graft 
 Prosecution there would be much to deplore, 
 but there is something worse. As a con- 
 sequence of the extraordinary drama that was 
 played in the metropolis, demoralization per- 
 vades the politics of the whole State, and what 
 was once a sane, sober and conservative common- 
 wealth is now conspicuous for its hysteria, its 
 new fangled ideals, its populistic tendencies, and 
 its passion for all the catholicons prescribed by 
 the Cleons of the hour. California is reputed to 
 be suiTering from an acute attack of what has 
 come to be known as Progressiveness. The 
 truth is, the aftermath of the Graft Prosecution 
 is what the State is experiencing. What a dis- 
 tinguished Progressive Senator of the United 
 States aptly described as "reform run mad" in
 
 PROLOGUE 11 
 
 California, is the result of the furious vindictive- 
 ness of the men who were thwarted in their 
 efforts to reform San Francisco by convulsion. 
 These men have most successfully played upon 
 the emotions and credulity of the people of the 
 whole State. And to this day the regenerators 
 have many defenders in California, it being against 
 human nature for men to surrender their impas- 
 sioned convictions, to admit that what they once 
 approved with fury in the midst of superheated 
 disputation was inconsistent with principles of 
 decency and honesty. Men who will admit there 
 was much they did not approve will be careful 
 to add that as the Graft Prosecution was con- 
 ducted for a righteous purpose it should have 
 had the sympathy of all good men and that good 
 men should palliate what evil was done. These 
 men, persuaded that the failure of the Graft 
 Prosecution was due to widespread corruption 
 in politics, supported the political machine of the 
 San Francisco regenerators in the last State cam- 
 paign, and enabled them to drive the veteran 
 practical politicians out of office. What improve- 
 ment the new machine is likely to make is a 
 question not to be discussed in these essays. All 
 that is here intended to be shown is that the 
 Graft Prosecution was a failure because it de- 
 served to be, and that we may justly attribute 
 to its leading spirits all the current vagaries of 
 California politics. 
 
 California is todav ruled bv the cabal that con-
 
 12 THR REGENERATORS 
 
 ducted the Graft FVosecution. The man who is 
 now Governor of the State, Hiram Johnson, was 
 one of the hired attorneys of the cabal. One of 
 the measures which he put through a servile 
 legislature embodies an amendment to the Con- 
 stitution providing for the application of the 
 recall to the judiciary, the purpose of which is to 
 punish all judges who were not susceptible of 
 intimidation at the hands of the prosecution cabal. 
 To understand how this man, who, but a year 
 ago was a criminal lawyer of that familiar type 
 that haunts the criminal courts of all large cities, 
 won the confidence of the people of California 
 and came to exercise over them with their glad 
 acquiescence a more despotic power than even 
 President Roosevelt asserted in Washington, one 
 nuist know something of the history of the Graft 
 Prosecution. To appreciate the policy of his 
 Administration, which savors of nothing so much 
 as a consuming passion for revenge, one must 
 know something of the performances and in- 
 stincts of the men who spent three years trying 
 to regenerate San Francisco. 
 
 But let it not be supposed that the history 
 of the Graft Prosecution is exclusively of 
 political interest. It will be found interesting 
 and instructive under a three-fold aspect. It 
 has a scientific interest, a moral or psychological . 
 interest, and a biographical or dramatic in- 
 terest. It has a scientific interest inasmuch 
 as it reveals the perversions to which the
 
 PROLOGUE 13 
 
 machinery of our republican government is 
 liable ; a moral or psychological interest, inas- 
 much as it affords glimpses of the characters 
 and curious tendencies of men when imbued with 
 great zeal and convinced that their conception of 
 the greater good is not to be challenged, their 
 method of advancing it not to be disputed ; a 
 dramatic interest, inasmuch as it reveals human 
 character and abounds in incidents and situations 
 that have a poignant effect on the emotions.
 
 I 
 
 BIRTH OF THE REGENERATORS 
 
 Hoiv the Prosecution Was Organised and the 
 Gradual Unfolding of Its Plans 
 
 At the time of the San Francisco catastrophe 
 the municipal government was in the hands of 
 a notoriously corrupt set of officials. The mayor 
 was Eugene Schmitz, president of the musicians' 
 union, beloved of organized labor, which was then, 
 as it is now, strongly intrenched in San Fran- 
 cisco. All the subordinate public officials were 
 his puppets, and he in all his official acts was 
 subject to the guidance and dictation of Abraham 
 Ruef, a lawyer who began his political career 
 as an anti-machine reformer, and whose in- 
 fluence as a boss was the source of his pecuniary 
 success in his profession. Long before the fire 
 it was a matter of common knowledge in San 
 Francisco that the public service was corrupt. 
 Mayor Schmitz had been long under suspicion. 
 He was known to be obedient to Abraham Ruef. 
 Yet he was elected mayor three times in suc- 
 cession. It is remarkable how much a com- 
 munity will bear in patience even when its vital 
 interests are involved. The people of San Fran- 
 cisco knew they were governed by corrupt men.
 
 BIRTH OF THE REGENERATORS IS 
 
 and they were complaisant. The feeling- was 
 widespread that the condition of affairs was in- 
 tolerable. Pint it was tolerated. Everybody felt 
 that something- ought to be done, and as usual 
 what was everybody's business was nobody's 
 business. After the fire public indignation which 
 had been simmering for months suddenly boiled 
 over at the discovery that apparently with the 
 connivance of the police thieves were looting the 
 ruins of the stricken city. At this propitious 
 moment was published the news that several 
 prominent citizens had banded themselves to- 
 gether to undertake the work of civic regenera- 
 tion. They were hailed as redeemers. Thus the 
 Graft Prosecution at its inception was a most 
 popular enterprise. 
 
 Months passed by, and nothing was accom- 
 plished. The people were becoming apathetic 
 and hopeless. At length a -man who had been 
 on intimate terms with the Administration, and 
 who had suffered rebuke and rebuff at Ruef's 
 hands, secretly volunteered assistance and fur- 
 nished information which enal)led Fremont Older, 
 editor of the Bulletin, to compel the co-operation 
 of a confidential agent of the grafters. This 
 man was a fugitive from justice from one of 
 the middle western States. He was living in 
 San Francisco under an assumed name. Threat- 
 ened with exposure, he agreed to assist William J. 
 Burns, chief detective of the prosecution bureau, 
 and as a result a trap was baited with a bribe.
 
 16 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 and a corrupt supervisor was caught. Prom- 
 ised immunity, he made confession of all his 
 crimes and implicated his accomplices. Then 
 the people, inflamed with rage, were clamorous 
 for speedy justice. Great was their enthusiasm for 
 their public spirited citizens. Rudolph Spreckels, 
 William J. Burns and Francis J. Heney, con- 
 stituting the head and front of the reform move- 
 ment, were the heroes of the hour. The whole 
 city was at their feet. Whatever it might have 
 pleased them to propose at that time, howsoever 
 extravagant, the whole community would have 
 approved and no questions would have been 
 asked. 
 
 The Graft Prosecution was unique in this, — 
 as a private cabal it exercised the sovereign power 
 of a municipality. The prerogative of this 
 cabal was like unto that of the \''enetian Council 
 of Ten, and as in Venice in the days of the in- 
 famous council, the history of San I'Vancisco in 
 the days of the Graft Prosecution was marked 
 by many dramatic and some tragic episodes. 
 The atmosphere was somewhat medieval. For 
 anybody possessed of imagination there was 
 romance in abundance in the sensational develop- 
 ments that followed in quick succession. And 
 now in reviewing the strange vicissitudes of that 
 tempestuous period one may well ask whether it 
 might not have been far better for the people, 
 not only of San Francisco but of all California, 
 if their regenerators had followed the example
 
 BIRTH OF THE REGENERATORS 17 
 
 of the Vigilantes of '56. For the Vigilantes in- 
 flicted no injury on the government; they made 
 no changes in its machinery, they established no 
 vicious precedents, they sinned not against the 
 administration of justice. The \'igilantes were 
 frankly lawless. They ignored the law, but they 
 did not debauch it. They merely defied the con- 
 stituted authorities. It was unnecessary for the 
 regenerators to follow their example. The regen- 
 erators controlled the constituted authorities. It 
 was their misfortune to be too powerful. Power, 
 as some one has said, is like wine — it intoxicates, 
 and it discovers true character. It either ex- 
 aggerates dignity or magnifies meanness. None 
 but a saint can take it and preserve the purity 
 of his soul. This attribute of the gods vouch- 
 safed the regenerators, played havoc with their 
 scruples. And how, it may be asked, did such 
 things happen in an American city that boasts 
 a free, independent and vigilant ])ress? The an- 
 swer is that the press made possible all that hap- 
 ])ened. De Tocqueville erred when lie conceived 
 that a free press in America could never do any 
 harm, since there would always be so many news- 
 papers that all sides of every question would 
 receive free discussion. In San Francisco the 
 newspapers, how remarkable ! agreed to agree. 
 And what is stranger still, for a time they actually 
 did agree. The men who organized to prosecute 
 grafters, before planting their batteries, held 
 a council at which they took the editors of San
 
 18 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 Francisco into their confidence. Mr. Rudolph 
 Spreckels, chief financial backer of the enterprise, 
 informed the representatives of the Fourth 
 Estate that as a public spirited citizen he was 
 prepared to spend a large sum of money to 
 purge the city of its corruption, but realized that 
 the consummation devoutly wished by all good 
 citizens was impossible without the assistance 
 of the press. He pointed out the necessity of 
 getting control of the district attorney's office, 
 the district attorney, William Langdon, being a 
 novice at the law and hardly competent to handle 
 so big a project. Besides he was a representa- 
 tive of the party in power. Mr. Spreckels deemed 
 it necessary to have Francis J. Heney appointed 
 a deputy of the district attorney with full power 
 to act. He also deemed it necessary to get the 
 right kind of grand jury, one that would be very 
 eager to put the rascals into jail. 
 
 The editors applauded the Spreckels' spirit, 
 approved the Spreckels' plans and gave earnest 
 assurance of their support. Then was opened 
 the campaign for civic decency. District At- 
 torney Langdon was at this moment a candidate 
 for governor on William R. Hearst's Independ- 
 ence League ticket. Corruption in municipal 
 office was not receiving any attention from him. 
 He was preoccupied with a somewhat preposter- 
 ous ambition. Summoned from the interior of 
 the State by the editor of the Examiner, he was 
 told what was wanted. He was not at all in-
 
 BIRTH OF THE REGENERATORS 19 
 
 clined to obey. It was necessary to hold two or 
 three sessions with him to convince him of the 
 advisabihty of making' Heney his deputy. His 
 campaign manag'er, Joseph J. Dwyer, who shortly 
 afterward loomed up as one of the string' of 
 counsel employed by the Spreckels sanhedrim, 
 threatened to quit his job if the appointment of 
 Heney were not made. The editor of the Ex- 
 aminer also made a threat or two, and Langdon 
 finally saw the light, and thereafter in all the 
 State there was not a more vociferous patriot. 
 
 Francis J. Heney was no ordinary assistant to 
 the district attorney. Ostensibly a public official, 
 in reality he was the ag;ent of a little coterie of. 
 private citizens. Before the public he posed as 
 a volunteer actuated by zeal for the public good. 
 He so proclaimed himself in the press and on 
 the bema ; for be it understood during the early 
 stages of the Graft Prosecution there was a 
 steady copious flow of oratory. At brief in- 
 tervals appeals were addressed to the passions 
 and prejudices of the multitude, and Mr. Heney 
 was very active exhorting the public to give him 
 their sympathy and support, and promising to 
 send to jail certain men, unindicted and un- 
 charged, whom he vituperated and vilified. To 
 the great body of citizens from which 
 jurors were to be drawn this representative 
 of the department of justice addressed his 
 burning philippics, exhausting the vocabulary of 
 personal abuse and indulging in coarse and
 
 20 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 brutal tirades. The supposition being that his 
 services to the civic cause were given gratu- 
 itously, naturally his perfervid oratory was im- 
 pressive. It was regarded as the ebullition of 
 righteous indignation, and it was not until the 
 prosecution had dragged along for nearly three 
 vears that Heney's emotions were accounted for by 
 anybody on any hypothesis different from the one 
 that he was pleased to have the people accept. 
 Rudolph Spreckels having been required to pro- 
 duce a statement of the moneys he had expended 
 in financing the prosecution some interesting 
 facts were brought to light. The statement 
 showed that Heney had received $23,828.22, 
 not as a fee, however, but for "office expenses." 
 It also showed that his partner, Cobb, who 
 had played a very inconspicuous part, and 
 who formed the partnership with Heney at 
 the inception of the prosecution for the purpose, 
 so it was said, of attending to civil business, had 
 received $25,000. Next on the list was J. J. 
 Dwyer, the attorney who managed District At- 
 torney Langdon's campaign for governor. It 
 developed that he had become a "silent" partner 
 of the firm of Heney & Cobb. Dwyer was paid 
 $13,400. There was also an item of $11,000 
 paid to Hiram Johnson, for legal services, 
 the same Hiram Johnson who was elected 
 governor on his record as a civic patriot. 
 All these men were passionate prosecutors. 
 They were passionate in court, and they were
 
 P.IRTF] Ol- Till'. l^tl'.Cl'.Nl'.RATORS 21 
 
 passionate on the ])latf()nn when pleading 
 either the cause of the Graft Prosecution or 
 its pohtical candidates. And their oratory was 
 effective because nobody suspected that they were 
 being paid. Indeed they didn't appear to sus- 
 pect it themselves, for their uniform retort to 
 every criticism against the Graft -Prosecution was 
 that it had been purchased by the interests. 
 
 So Mr. Heney, as we have seen, was quite 
 different from an ordinary assistant to a district 
 attorney. He occupied a curiously anomalous 
 position, all the facets of which were not visible 
 at first glance ; not, indeed, till after he had been 
 pounding away at the so-called higher-ups for 
 about three years. For instance his official con- 
 nection with the federal government was a most 
 belated discovery. It was known, to be sure, 
 that President Roosevelt was in sympathy with 
 the Graft Prosecution. His sympathy he vin- 
 dicated from time to time with letters and tele- 
 grams to Rudolph Spreckels. solicited, presum- 
 ably for public consumption in pursuance of the 
 policy to keep public sentiment at white heat. It 
 was reported that he had been promised the 
 head of Mr. E. H. Harriman on a charger, 
 and the Bulletin announced that Harriman 
 would be indicted. Detective William J. Burns 
 of the secret service, it was known, was Presi- 
 dent Roosevelt's contribution to the cause of 
 virtue, but that Heney was on the pay-roll of 
 the federal Department of Justice most of the
 
 22 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 time that he was procuring indictments from 
 the grand jury of a State, was one of the precious 
 esoteric secrets that constituted the soul of cer- 
 tain great designs as "mysterious as the coy 
 fountains of the Nile." 
 
 When Heney attached himself to private in- 
 terests in San Francisco it was supposed that 
 his connection with the federal government had 
 ended. It was supposed also that his income 
 from all sources had ceased, and that conse- 
 quently he was a genuine self-sacrificing patriot, 
 which supposition naturally went a long way 
 toward inspiring public confidence and the senti- 
 ments of gratitude and esteem. His self-sac- 
 rifice was well advertised by the pro-prosecution 
 press. It was frequently alluded to as proof of 
 his disinterested devotion to the public weal. 
 The Bulletin went so far as to compassionate 
 him on the rapid decline of a bank account for 
 which there was no recruiting, and finally that 
 sympathetic journal called for subscriptions to 
 a Heney fund, hoping thus to keep the wolf 
 away from the Heney door. It was a little 
 astonishing, therefore, and also gratifying, to 
 learn, after nearly three years had gone by, that 
 at least Mr. Heney had no ofiice expenses to 
 defray, Mr. Spreckels having shouldered that 
 burden, which amounted to $500 a month. It 
 was still more astonishing when in the archives 
 at Washington was found a bundle of vouchers 
 and other readable matter conclusive of pro-
 
 BIRTH OF THE REGENERATORS 23 
 
 tracted and profitable relations between the De- 
 partment of Justice and the San Francisco 
 prosecutor. From the Washington records it 
 appears that Heney's arrangements with At- 
 torney-General Bonaparte as to compensation for 
 services were singularly indefinite. Heney was 
 first employed as a federal attorney in 1904, and 
 his employment ended in January, 1907, when he 
 became an assistant to the district attorney of 
 San Francisco. For his services as a federal 
 attorney he received $69,000. Of this amount 
 $33,000 was paid after his resignation. It has 
 been explained that several amounts which were 
 paid him during the years 1907, 1908 and 1909 on 
 the authorization of President Roosevelt's at- 
 torney-general were "deferred payments." Why 
 these payments should have been deferred has 
 never been explained. Admitting that they were 
 for services rendered in the years 1904, 1905 and 
 1906, as asserted, then Heney was paid more 
 than $20,000 a year, though during a great part 
 of the period of his employment he was attend- 
 ing to private practice in San Francisco. The 
 facts may be as Heney's defenders would have 
 us believe, but there is certainly ground for the 
 suspicion that was voiced in San Francisco, the 
 suspicion that the "deferred payments" were for 
 services rendered to the people of the State ot 
 California as well as for services rendered to 
 the peoplf' of the United States. At any rate it 
 is evident that such might have been the case.
 
 24 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 and that there was estabHshed in this instance 
 a precedent pregnant with infinite possibiHties, 
 especially for a chief magistrate of the Roosevelt 
 temperament, who might be inclined to employ 
 for his private ends the grand juries of the 
 several States. 
 
 At once a federal and a State prosecutor 
 and the representative of the men composing the 
 reform cabal, Mr. Heney assumed absolute con- 
 trol of an important branch of the juridical 
 department of the State government. He was 
 given full power to act; to exercise his judgment 
 and his discretion in all matters however remotely 
 or intimately connected with the main business 
 in hand. But of course he always acted with due 
 deference to the wishes of the men by whom he 
 was employed, especially with due deference to 
 the wishes of Mr. Spreckels, or "Citizen" Spreck- 
 els, as he was hailed by the courtiers nearest the 
 throne. 
 
 Through the juridical department the prose- 
 cutors were soon able to seize all other depart- 
 ments of government. For a short time Schmitz 
 held onto the office of mayor. He might have 
 been removed by civil process ; otherwise he could 
 hold his office until convicted of a crime. At 
 the request of a committee of the civic bodies he 
 agreed one day to resign with the understanding 
 that this committee should appoint his successor. 
 When the committee submitted the proposal to 
 "Citizen" Spreckels that gentleman flared up like
 
 BIRTH OF THE REGENERATORS 25 
 
 a turkey-cock. The sug'g'estion was in the nature 
 of lese majesty. Mr. Spreckels wished it to be 
 distinctly understood that he was the head and 
 front of the work of civic redemption. What 
 right had anybody else to form plans not in har- 
 mony with his ? Such ])resumption was intoler- 
 able. It was a sign of some kind of infernality. 
 ''Citizen" Spreckels pronounced the committee 
 corrupt hirelings of the Southern Pacific Com- 
 pany, and it was immediately dissolved by the 
 chairman, Charles Slack, a lawyer, an ex-judge, 
 a member of the board of regents of the State 
 university, a gentleman whose reputation in all 
 the length and breadth of California is without 
 stain, whose motives have in no other instance 
 been impugned. But in those days to have one's 
 motives impugned by "Citizen" Spreckels was al- 
 most tantaiuount to being hurled from on high — 
 
 Tf) grinning- scorn ;i sacril'ice, 
 And endless infamy! 
 
 "Citizen" Spreckels went about the regeneration 
 of San Francisco in his own way. He had 
 Mayor Schmitz convicted of a crime that has 
 since turned out to be no crime at all, and then 
 he filled the vacancy. With whom do you sup- 
 I'jose? Presumably with some worthy citizen. 
 Quite to the contrary ; with one of the mem- 
 bers of the corrupt board of supervisors. These 
 self-confessed grafters were still in office. The}- 
 were doing business at ihe old stand; and
 
 26 THE REGEXERATORS 
 
 from test'mory since given in court it was 
 learned that they were still grafting in the 
 old way, not with the mediation of Ruef, but in- 
 directly under the auspices of the Graft Prosecu- 
 tion. It was also learned that their retention of 
 offce was in accordance with their agreement 
 w ith Spreckels, who. it was testified by one of his 
 own witnesses, was so generous as to give them 
 the assurance that they might even banish the 
 fears inspired by rumor that an attempt would 
 be made to compel them to disgorge their booty. 
 And it was by these grafters in office that a 
 mavor was appointed at the instigation of 
 "Citizen" Spreckels, the individual being one of 
 their own number — Supervisor Boxton, a self- 
 confessed criminal like the rest. 
 
 Here indeed apparently was a curious state of 
 affairs ; nay, in the opinion of the superficial ob- 
 server, a shocking state of afifairs. And superfi- 
 cial observers were not wanting at the time to 
 censure the Graft Prosecution for complicity in 
 this species of government. But critics were 
 promptly overwhelmed with abuse. And the 
 regenerators had a plausible excuse for their con- 
 duct ready to hand. They explained that the 
 grafters were mere nominal functionaries — "good 
 dogs" as they described them — "who did as they 
 were told." . And this was doubtless the truth. 
 But this truth in the course of time like other 
 truths carried with it something of opprobrium ; 
 so much so that the prosecutors desired it to be
 
 BIRTH OF THE REGENERATORS 27 
 
 forgotten. The truths of the Graft Prosecution 
 accumulated by slow degrees. The light in which 
 these truths appeared separately was quite differ- 
 ent from the light in which they were grouped 
 as the plot of the drama approached the catas- 
 trophe. And so it was that the graft prosecutors 
 became rather fearful of recapitulation. On the 
 trial of Patrick Calhoun, president of the United 
 Railroads, when Supervisor Nicholas, speak- 
 ing of his "good dog" days, said that he 
 voted as he was told, the special prosecutor 
 objected to the testimony saying, "According to 
 this class of testimony the prosecution might be 
 made out greater criminals than these people." 
 The frankness of Mr. Heney on this occasion 
 was unprecedented. Considering the testimony 
 that followed, it was inept. This testimony was 
 that Supervisor Gallagher in the "good dog" days 
 acted as a messenger, carrying instructions from 
 the district attorney's office to the supervisors. 
 And Nicholas was asked : "Was it not said to you 
 by Mr. Gallagher that you were to remain in 
 office and vote as you were told?" The witness 
 answered, "Yes, sir." 
 
 "And you voted as you were told?" was the 
 next question. 
 
 The answer: "Whatever Gallagher told us to 
 do after that we pretty near done it." 
 
 So we see that this private cabal exercised the 
 sovereign power of the numicipality. First they 
 took charge of the district attorney's office, and
 
 28 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 behind them was the power of the united daily 
 press. Then they took charge of the mayor's 
 office and of the whole leg-islative body of the 
 city. In time this state of affairs became ob- 
 noxious. The Examiner (W. R. Hearst's paper) 
 and the Chronicle began mildly to complain. 
 They perceived that the reformers were "doing 
 politics." But the Bulletin remained faithful and 
 steadfast, echoing every day the sentiments 
 of the prosecutors, and drooling venom on 
 everybody that dared dissent. The Call also was 
 faithful, which was to be expected, the proprietor 
 being John D. Spreckels, who was always the 
 obedient son of his father Claus Spreckels. 
 
 After several months of "good dog" rule, and 
 just at the opening of the municipal campaign, 
 the grafting board of supervisors still in office, at 
 the behest of the prosecution cabal, elected to 
 the office of mayor Dr. Edward R. Taylor, a 
 political associate of James D. Phelan. Taylor 
 increased the power of his sponsors by appoint- 
 ing William Biggy chief of police. Biggy was 
 the elisor who had charge of Abe Ruef in a 
 private prison while the boss was undergoing the 
 "third degree" night and day. Biggy was also the 
 elisor who had charge of the Schmitz jury. It 
 was expected that through him Detective Burns 
 would direct the affairs of the ])olice department. 
 And l)urns was permitted to direct tlie depart- 
 ment for the purposes of the Graft Prosecution 
 up to a certain point, and then Biggy for proving
 
 BIRTH OF THE REGENERATORS 29 
 
 recalcitrant was hounded by the pro-prosecution 
 press to the end of his days. His death was one 
 of the tragedies of the Graft Prosecution, and 
 will be dealt with in another chapter. 
 
 Now with all this pow'er in the hands of a 
 private cabal, and with two complaisant judges on 
 the bench by whom all the indicted men were 
 to be tried, it would seem that the cards were 
 stacked for almost any kind of achievement. And 
 yet the Graft Prosecution was a failure ! At 
 the end of four years the regenerators are able 
 to point to but two achievements — the routing 
 of the grafters ( for which they are really deserv- 
 ing of great credit) and the imprisonment of Abe 
 Ruef. But neither of these achievements from 
 their standpoint is a triumph, since their darling 
 aim was the punishment of the higher-ups, the 
 putative source of all corruption.
 
 II 
 
 MEN AND MOTIVES 
 
 A Study of the Leading Regenerators and of Their 
 
 Attitude Toward the Chief Grafter and 
 
 Some of the Higher-ups 
 
 A familiar maxim tells us that to accomplish 
 a great good men may be justified in doing a lit- 
 tle wrong. On this principle the apologists of 
 the Graft Prosecution have palliated what they 
 could not applaud. They palliated by wholesale 
 and blindly. The criticism to be made of the 
 Graft Prosecution is that it did neither great good 
 nor little wrong. And if anything is to be said 
 in extenuation of its excesses it must be on the 
 theory that the regenerators were carried away 
 by misguided zeal. Most of the abuse of power 
 in this world can be traced to persons who be- 
 lieved themselves right. But whatever "Citizen" 
 Spreckels and his associates thought of them- 
 selves, it must be confessed that they inspired 
 strong faith in their rectitude of purpose, for 
 the people of San Francisco were quiescent to- 
 ward them even after ceasing to approve their 
 methods. At the same time it should be ex- 
 plained that only in small quantities did the truth 
 percolate through the screen of secrecy erected 
 by the regenerators. There was much that was
 
 MEN AND MOTIVES 31 
 
 esoteric in their doin^^s. I, ike tlie priests of 
 ancient religious cults the\ felt that the strouu: 
 lueat of orthodoxy was not for the common 
 herd. When the scheme of re<lem])tion was 
 vouns^ noh()d\' outside the magic circle was 
 vouchsafed an inkling" as to wholesale immunity 
 for grafters, if like a l^olt from the blue the 
 new s had come dial all the corrupt ofificials were 
 to be set free and that punishment was to be 
 reserved only for the men who had contributed 
 the spoils, it would have shocked and perhaps 
 caused a revulsion of public sentiment. At first 
 the public was told that none btit the supervisors 
 were to be granted immunity, which was con- 
 sidered bad enough, liut the fact flTatthe regen- 
 erators were disposed to grant Ruef and Schmitz 
 immunity was not divulged. Well was it under- 
 stood that such an act of generosity would pro- 
 voke great indignation. Not till the graft cases 
 were brought to trial was it learned that Ruef 
 and Schmitz were privileged to accept immunity. 
 This information was obtained from James Gal- 
 lagher, the chief witness for the prosecution, 
 whom Rudolph Spreckels, the dispenser of im- 
 munity, informed that the sentiment of the 
 jirosecution was that the only real criminals were 
 the officers of the public service corporations who 
 had tempted and corrupted the servants of the 
 people. 
 
 Not the district attorney but Rudolph 
 Spreckels, a private citizen, was the per-
 
 32 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 son who conducted negotiations and pledged 
 the faith of the constituted authorities. And 
 Rudolph Spreckels, according to Gallagher's 
 testimony, purposed making use of Ruef 
 and Schmitz as well as of the supervisors, 
 and letting them go. "He told me," Gallagher 
 added, "that the public service corporations were 
 his objective point." In what degree, in Air. 
 Spreckels' opinion. Abraham Ruef was a victim 
 of temptation may be learned from the transcript 
 of testimony in the case of Patrick Calhoun. 
 The testimony bearing on this point was given by 
 Mr. Spreckels himself. He admitted that he 
 formed Ruef's acquaintance years before the 
 opening of the prosecution. He said : 
 
 "Ruef called at my office when the city was 
 about to issue bonds and asked me if I would get 
 together a syndicate of capitalists for the pur- 
 pose of bidding on those bonds. I think that was 
 around 1901 or '02. Ruef said that he would 
 guarantee that if I did get such a syndicate "up 
 our bid would be a successful bid, and that we 
 would not be obliged to bid above par. I asked 
 him how he purposed to carry that out, and he 
 said, 'Why, that is a simple matter. You know 
 my connection with the labor unions and the 
 Labor Union party, and just about the time 
 that the bids are to come in I will arrange to tie 
 up this town, and we will have the biggest strike 
 that the community has ever known, and I would 
 like to see any of your capitali.stic friends bid on
 
 MEN AND MOTIVES 53 
 
 the bonds under those circumstances, excepting 
 yourself and those that are in the know.' " 
 
 Asjced if Ruef referred specifically to the street 
 railroad system, Mr. Spreckels made reply that 
 he did. 
 
 "You believed," said the attorney for the de- 
 fendant, "did you not, that ]\Ir. Ruef who offered 
 to call a strike with the accompanying bloodshed 
 and to tie up the town from one end of it to 
 the other, that you would give him immunity in 
 order to get his testimony against Mr. Calhoun 
 if it could be done, did you not?" 
 
 And Mr. Spreckels gave this answer: "Mr. 
 Ruef did not commit the crime of calling the 
 strike." 
 
 Ruef did not commit the crime because the 
 virtuous Mr. Spreckels, whom he had foolishly 
 considered so avaricious as to be disposed to 
 enter into so vicious a conspiracy rejected the 
 proposal. 
 
 In justice to Mr. Spreckels it must be ad- 
 mitted that whatever might have been his con- 
 ception of the relations existing between Abe 
 Ruef and the public service corporations, it is 
 not improbable that he regarded the supervisors 
 as victims of temptation. Furthermore it is not 
 to be denied that much is to be said in favor of 
 his theory of the desirability of punishing the 
 so-called higher-ups. At any rate it was vigor- 
 ously supported by the philosophy of his as- 
 sociates, the new philosophy preached in San
 
 34 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 Francisco for the first time in the world's history, 
 the philosophy that teaches how venial is the 
 transgression of the public servant who taJ<es a 
 bribe compared with that of the man who bribes 
 him. Strong- in their faith in this philosophy, 
 pro-prosecution editors moralized on the sad 
 predicament of the poor men who had been 
 seduced by the predatory rich. They felt very 
 sorry for the grafters, miserable wretches that 
 they were, victims of an irresistible appeal to a 
 primal passion. To this curious doctrine many 
 converts were made, for the reason, perhaps, that 
 the newspapers recommended it as though they 
 had received it from Heaven. The average 
 citizen, who had twice elected Eugene Schmitz to 
 office, knowing him to be the puppet of a man 
 who was acting as attorney not only for public 
 service corporations but for saloon-keepers, con- 
 tractors and' every individual who had any busi- 
 ness relations with the municipal government — 
 this average citizen, artfully suggestionized, 
 was in sympathy with the grafters and greatly 
 incensed against the bad rich men who had 
 seduced them. 
 
 Doubtless the public service corporations were 
 Mr. Spreckels's "objective point" at the inception 
 of the enterprise, but the history of that enter- 
 prise shows that its founders devoted nearly all 
 their energies to the prosecution of the officers 
 of one particular public service corporation — the 
 I'nited Railroads. And the records show that
 
 MEN AND MOTIVES 35 
 
 toward the officers of at least one corporation 
 the prosecution was exceedingly placable. That 
 one was the Home Telephone Company, the of- 
 ficers of which appeared to be in an extremely 
 bad box. They had not had Ruef on their pay- 
 roll. But they wanted a franchise and bought 
 it outright. The supervisors had previously re- 
 ceived money from an agent of the Pacific States 
 Telephone and Telegraph Company, which had 
 been paid to them to induce them to prevent 
 competition by denying the petition of the 
 Home Telephone Company. But the supervisors, 
 poor, miserable victims of plutocrat temptation, 
 wouldn't "stay bought." A representative of the 
 Home Telephone Company was indicted, but 
 was never arrested. No attempt was made to 
 find him. There is but one explanation of this 
 negligence, and this explanation is only a matter 
 of conjecture. One of the officers of the com- 
 pany was a relative by marriage of a justice of 
 the Supreme Court of the State, and the prosecu- 
 tion, it has been conjectured, realized the import- 
 ance of having that court acquiesce in the strange 
 kind of justice that was being administered by 
 its puppets in the trial courts. This explanation 
 may not be correct, but it is the one that was 
 generally accepted by hostile critics of the meth- 
 ods and interpreters of the motives of the 
 prosecution.
 
 36 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 As it is from the motives of men tliat actions 
 receive their color and character, perhaps if all 
 the mainsprings of the prosecutors' conduct were 
 visible we might be less inclined to censure. It 
 may be well therefore before resuming the thread 
 of this narrative to inquire whether there is any 
 reason for suspecting that Mr. Spreckels and his 
 associates, while especially desirous of convict- 
 ing the officials of the United Railroads, were 
 indifferent to the fate of others. Now it may be 
 easier to estimate their motives if we know some- 
 thing of their antecedents. When a good man 
 falls into evil it is deemed proper to allow him 
 the benefit of his past record and to be careful 
 to remember it when interpreting his later actions. 
 The same principle may be applied to the man 
 who asserts a claim to our confidence and our 
 admiration. It is not to be argued that the mo- 
 tives of all the men behind the Graft Prosecution 
 were wholly bad. The paramount motive may 
 have been the purging of a city steeped in cor- 
 ruption. But as in the case of the conspirators 
 who murdered Caesar it maybedoubted whether 
 all were actuated by zeal for the public good. 
 When the motives of the men behind the Graft 
 Prosecution were first challenged those men took 
 the position that motives were of no consequence. 
 Of course they affirmed the purity of their mo- 
 tives, but at the same time they pointed out that 
 as it was merely their purpose to give men ac- 
 cused of crime the benefit of trial by jury it did
 
 MEN AND MOTIVES 37 
 
 not matter whether their civic patriotism was 
 entirely free from alloy. If, said they, the accused 
 are not guilty they will have abundant opportunity 
 to prove their innocence, the court will safeguard 
 their rights. At first blush this reasoning seems 
 plausible. Not so when one stops to consider 
 certain matters of some importance : that these 
 zealous men had the support of the united daily 
 press ; that they were permitted to impanel a 
 grand jury and direct it as they saw fit, and that 
 besides having absolute control of the district 
 attorney's office and the police department they 
 enjoyed such confidential relations with the two 
 judges to whom all the so-called graft cases were 
 assigned for trial, that in the course of time the 
 judges became frank partisans of the Graft 
 Prosecution in all political manoeuvres for the 
 retention of power. Now if these men were 
 animated by sinister motives, even an innocent 
 man might have reason to dread a trial at their 
 hands. 
 
 So whilst their motives may be estimated 
 with some degree of accuracy from their acts, 
 meantime let us scrutinize the men themselves 
 that we may be better able to judge whether they 
 would be likely to abuse the great power which 
 they possessed. Foremost among these men is 
 Mr. Rudolph Spreckels, a young millionaire, who, 
 previous to his appearance in the role of civic 
 regenerator, had never taken the trouble to cast 
 his vote at an election. Civic patriotism was in 
 
 /:j
 
 38 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 him a belated passion. Into public life he had 
 never ventured till shortly before the earthquake, 
 when, with his father Claus Spreckels he entered 
 into a dispute with the United Railroads and 
 threatened to build a rival street railroad system. 
 Rudolph Spreckels is a man of a haughty, 
 domineering spirit, very much of the same tem- 
 perament as his father who went through life 
 breeding animosities and hostilities. For nearly 
 fifteen years that father was at war with three 
 of his children — an only daughter and two sons, 
 Rudolph and Augustus Spreckels. To each of 
 these sons he gave a fortune, yet the two joinecf 
 in a most bitter contest in the courts against 
 their aged parent. Him they pursued with 
 preternatural vindictiveness. No father ever 
 experienced greater pain than did Claus Spreck- 
 els from the bite that is even sharper than a 
 serpent's tooth. Painful as it is to dwell on this 
 phase of the career of Rudolph Spreckels, it 
 must be glanced at that we may understand the 
 force and nature of the character that dominated 
 afi^airs in San Francisco for nearly three years. 
 To what extremes a man of the temperament of 
 Rudolph Spreckels might go as the ruling spirit 
 of an oligarchy, can be judged from his ruthless 
 and relentless pursuit of his own father, but it 
 would be as unpleasant as it is unnecessary to 
 go minutely into the shocking details of that 
 contest. 
 
 Associated with Mr. Spreckels in the railroad
 
 MEN AND MOTIVES 39 
 
 enterprise was Mr. James^JD^'Jielan, and this 
 gentleman was associated with him also in the 
 Graft Prosecution. Indeed it is believed that 
 Mr. Phelan prompted the whole scheme of re- 
 form. Mr. Phelan like Mr. Spreckels is also a 
 millionaire by inheritance, but unlike Mr. Spreck- 
 els he has been active in politics since the days of 
 his youth. The goal of his ambition is the 
 United States Senate, but as he is a Democrat, 
 and as Republicans usually predominate in the 
 California legislature, his constituents have never 
 been able to do more than reward his devotion 
 to party principles with a complimentary vote. 
 As mayor of San Francisco he made an ejjcellent 
 record, and grew strong in public favor till am- 
 bition o'erleaped itself. By revolutionizing the 
 government with a new charter he was able to 
 centralize power in himself and create a political 
 machine for the furtherance of his ambition. 
 Then followed a revulsion of public sentiment 
 caused by the suspicion that the artful mayor 
 was applying his power to his own ends. The 
 result was the swinging back of the pendulum 
 and the election of the fiddler sponsored by 
 Abraham Ruef. That was nearly ten years ago. 
 And Mr. Phelan has been vainly endeavoring to 
 rehabilitate himself ever since. His most recent 
 effort was in the guise of an anti-Japanese 
 agitator and bosom friend of the downtrodden 
 wage earner. Though known in San Francisco 
 as the enemy of every dollar that isn't his own,
 
 40 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 Mr. Phelan has some agreeable qvialities, such as 
 a flippant wit, a command of the tricks of lan- 
 guage for oratorical purposes, and a taste in art — 
 not much, but just enough to play the dilettante. 
 A pleasant acquaintance to meet between the acts 
 of a comedy is Mr. Phelan, though as unemo- 
 tional as a fish. 
 
 To these men, whose portraits have been faintly 
 outlined, was given control of the machinery of 
 justice that they might purify a corrupt municipal 
 government and punish the criminals by whom it 
 had been debauched. And as we shall see it was 
 not long before they were concentrating all their 
 energies, all their resources, on one paramount 
 achievement — the conviction of Patrick Calhoun, 
 President of the United Railroads. Was it be- 
 cause they regarded him as the worst of all the 
 higher-ups? This is a question about which we 
 shall he able to speculate on a pretty broad base 
 of knowledge before the end of our story. The 
 critics of the Graft Prosecution often intimated 
 that nothing short of unadulterated vindictiveness 
 could inspire such brutual treatment as Patrick 
 Calhoun received at the hands of the regenerators. 
 On an average of five days in every week, 
 for more than four years, he was held up to 
 execration in the columns of the Bulletin and 
 the Call. Events in his private life from day 
 to day were made the theme of lampoons and 
 tirades calculated to incite against him the most 
 bitter hatred of the labor unions as well as the 
 furious indignation of civic reformers.
 
 MEN AND -MOTIVES 41 
 
 Now, as it has been charg-ed that the prosecution 
 of Calhoun was inspired with vindictiveness rather 
 that virtuous resentment, it may be well to glance 
 at certain records and consider certain matters 
 which critics hostile to the regenerators have re- 
 lied upon as the basis of their theory. From the 
 records of the court it appears that in the year 
 1905, the year preceding- that of the earthquake 
 and fire, when the main lines of the L^nited Rail- 
 roads were operated by cable, it was ])roposed to 
 convert the one in Sutter street into an overhead 
 trolley road. Many of the property owners on 
 that street, instigated by Rudolph Spreckels and 
 his father, Claus Spreckels, protested. They de- 
 manded that the conduit system be adopted. A 
 long controversy followed between the property 
 owners and the officials of the corporation, and at 
 its close Rudolph Spreckels announced that there 
 could be no settlement and that "it would be war 
 to the knife." Meanwhile, however, it became 
 known that he and his father and James D. 
 Phelan had determined upon building an opposi- 
 tion street railroad system covering the whole 
 ■ city. Rudolph Spreckels was quoted in one 
 newspaper in these words : "It will be built re- 
 gardless of any action that can be taken by the 
 United Railroads." His company was incorpo- 
 rated the day preceding that of the earthquake 
 and fire. It has never been heard of since. But 
 it might have been heard of after the fire had 
 not the United Railroads obtained permission to
 
 42 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 substitute the trolley for the cable system. As 
 Spreckels intended to introduce the conduit sys- 
 tem and use the rails of the United Railroads 
 over a certain number of blocks in each street, 
 as provided for by law, this project would hardly 
 have been feasible with the trolley system in 
 operation. 
 
 Of course the circumstance that Rudolph 
 Spreckels and his father were out-manoeuvred 
 by Patrick Callioun in a business matter is not to 
 be taken as conclusive that vindictiveness was 
 the only motive with which the prosecution of 
 the railroad president was inspired. At the 
 same time it is not to be gainsaid that vindictive- 
 ness is the most distinctive trait of the Spreckels' 
 character. Spreckels pere, who loomed a swart 
 figure behind his son in the original controversy 
 with Calhoun, and, until his death, behind the 
 Graft Prosecution, was one of the most vindictive 
 of men. His reputation for vindictiveness was 
 widespread. A man of prodigious arrogance, he 
 was intolerant of the slightest opposition. No- 
 body ever incurred his disfavor without suffer- 
 ing some kind of punishment. Once upon a time 
 he built a competing gaslight system in San 
 Francisco to revenge himself on the president of 
 the gas company who had failed to act on his 
 demand that a nuisance be abated. The com- 
 peting system, which was to give the people 
 cheaper gas, he sold out to the old company 
 at a good profit, just as he sold out to the sugar
 
 MEN AND MOTIVES 43 
 
 trust after promising to oppose it forever in the 
 interest of the dear people. 
 
 Still keeping in mind the point under discus- 
 sion — the question of motive — we come to the 
 two memorable street car strikes that brought 
 distress and suffering to San Francisco. Those 
 strikes occurred when San Francisco was going 
 through the early stages of the process of rehabil- 
 itation. So widespread were the effects that this 
 industrial strife was hardly less than a supple- 
 mentary catastrophe. And those strikes were an 
 incident of the Graft Prosecution ; so important 
 an incident as to deserve treatment in a separate 
 chapter.
 
 Ill 
 
 THE CAR STRIKES 
 
 Because Union Men Demand and Are Denied Lower 
 Wages a City is Made to Suffer from Lawless- 
 ness and Business Paralysis 
 
 Nothing- so raised the hopes and encouraged 
 the people of San Francisco after the earthquake 
 and fire as the reconstruction of the street car 
 system. The United Railroads Company, which 
 owns nearly the whole traction system of the 
 city, started its cars while the ruins were still 
 smoking. An electric car was the symbol of 
 hope and confidence. It signified the faith of a 
 great corporation in the future of a city housed 
 in shacks which had hardly begun to think of 
 righting itself. A few months later, in violation 
 of an agreement with the railroad company, 
 conductors and gripmen quit work and all San 
 Francisco walked. There was a temporary ad- 
 justment of differences, there was arbitration, 
 but what followed in the course of time ap- 
 proximated civil war. The spirit of the shat- 
 tered community was almost broken. 
 
 A unique industrial conflict was this which 
 the stricken city experienced. It was unique be- 
 cause it was not the result of friction between 
 an employer and his employees. As we shall
 
 'I'lll': CAR STRIKES 45 
 
 see, there had hecn no clamor on the part of 
 the employees of the I'nited Railroads for a 
 better apportioning of wages to work. What, 
 then, was the cause of the strikes? This is a 
 question the reader must solve after acquainting 
 himself with the facts. 
 
 Long after the strikes had passed into his- 
 tory they became an issue in the graft cases, 
 the regenerators having made the accusation 
 against Patrick Calhoun that he precipitated the 
 strikes to win public sympathy. This they did 
 when they learned that Calhoun had procured a 
 mass of affidavits for the purpose of showing that 
 the strikes were instigated by his enemies to em- 
 bitter public sentiment and to serve their political 
 ends. There was no question at all as to the 
 fact that the strikers were the instruments of 
 some person or persons moved by sinister 
 motives. 
 
 Now to facilitate study of the motives and the 
 political purposes that were uppermost in the 
 minds of some men in those days we must go 
 back to the morning of the great catastrophe 
 when all San Francisco was in panic. On that 
 dark morning Mayor Schmitz, the man who is 
 today an outcast, was an inspiring and inspirit- 
 ing figure. A great crisis called forth his in- 
 nate qualities, and they were those which com- 
 manded the admiration of everybody. Accept 
 all the evil told of him and reject the good, and 
 Eugene Schmitz will appear a repulsive char-
 
 46 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 acter, but not so if we consider only the man 
 and his work during the terrible crisis of 1906. 
 How great the contrast between the gov- 
 ernor of the State, George Pardee, pious re- 
 former, and the mayor of the city, Eugene 
 Schmitz, practical unholy politician, the one so 
 timid and vacillating as to be appropriately nick- 
 named "Weak Brother" ; the other exhibiting a 
 gift for organization and command that heart- 
 ened a people appalled by disaster and bowed 
 beneath a great weight of woe. The times were 
 exceptional, pregnant with momentous events, 
 and the man was on a par with the times. The 
 midst of a disjointed world seemed his appro- 
 priate field of action. 
 
 On Schmitz devolved the task of bringing or- 
 der out of chaos. And he was preoccupied with 
 it before the conflagration had swept beyond the 
 block where it started. This labor union mayor 
 called round him before noon of the day of the 
 catastrophe fifty of the most prominent men in 
 the city. No longer did he depend for guidance 
 on Abraham Ruef. The man of genius knows 
 instinctively where to look for suitable talent. 
 In this emergency Eugene Schmitz took counsel 
 of Mr. Garret McEnerney, the leader of the 
 California bar, a man of exceptional attainments, 
 of brilliant intellect, a commanding character, 
 the kind of man in whom, whatever he under- 
 takes, one may place unlimited trust. Un- 
 der McEnerney's mentorship Mayor Schmitz
 
 THE CAR STRIKES 47 
 
 organized a committee wliich absorbed all the 
 powers of government. It became a committee 
 of public safety. Mayor Schmitz was chairman. 
 As such he ceased to be the rei^resentative of 
 a class. Indeed, in forming" his committee he 
 gave but scant recognition to the unions, select- 
 ing his men, as was right, with a view to sur- 
 rounding himself with expert ability. But in 
 the dawn of rehabilitation there was no jealousy 
 or distrust or envy. There is nothing like a 
 great sorrow to unite men in loving brotherhood. 
 Calamity was the furnace that melted many evil > 
 passions and fused hearts long estranged. It 
 was in the spirit of the times that Mayor Schmitz 
 acted. He gave but one harsh order — that all 
 looters should be instantly shot. It was a 
 necessary order. For the chairman of the relief 
 fund committee he selected James D. Phelan, his 
 most vindictive political enemy, the man whom 
 he succeeded in public office and whom he knew 
 to be always on the alert for opportunities of 
 improving his prestige and manipulating the 
 political machinery of the city and State. This 
 position brought Phelan in close touch with the 
 great horde of refugees, and enabled him to pur- 
 sue his favorite pastime of improving his prestige 
 as a public spirited citizen. Rudolph Spreckels 
 was made a member of the committee, and the 
 two millionaires had no difficulty in dominating 
 it. Together they managed the business of dis- 
 tributing the hundreds of thousands of dollars
 
 48 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 that flowed into the city in the form of reHef 
 donations. 
 
 It was not then known that these men had 
 planned the prosecution that was started some 
 months later, but, as was afterward learned, that 
 enterprise had been under discussion, and while 
 the Committee of Fifty was still working in har- 
 mony Phelan and Spreckels had their spies em- 
 ployed in stalking Schmitz and Ruef through the 
 city's debris. But of course they are not to be 
 criticised for that. As a matter of fact the 
 Graft Prosecution was anything but premature. 
 In justice to Schmitz, however, it must be said 
 that so far as the records go there is nothing to 
 show that he was guilty of any misconduct after 
 the earthquake. And so that the political bear- 
 ing of the situation may be understood it must 
 be explained that a temporary rehabilitation of 
 Schmitz occurred in this very period. Aware 
 of the fact, he remarked one day, "My public 
 career will date from the earthquake." and the 
 newspapers quoted and approved. Schmitz was 
 spoken of as a likely candidate for governor at 
 the fall elections. Some men might have been 
 eager to pull him down at this time. Soon 
 it began to appear that he had lost friends. 
 .As he had kept all the saloons closed for more 
 than two months, and as he had maintained 
 law and order with military and puritanical 
 exactness, murmurs of dissatisfaction presently 
 emanated from his former stronghold, the
 
 THE CAR STRIKES 49 
 
 tenderloin. Moreover, labor leaders were heard 
 to complain about the personnel of the Com- 
 mittee of Fifty. They remarked that Schmitz 
 had allied himself with the business interests. 
 Presently the IktUetin began suggestionizing the 
 employees of the United Railroads. 
 
 In the Bulletin of the 10th of August, 1906, is 
 to be found the first suggestion to the carmen. 
 It is in the form of an editorial entitled : "Why 
 the workingman wins with the odds against him." 
 
 Strikes are what is won by the workingman, ac- 
 cording to the Bulletin. They win because "cap- 
 ital makes cowards of us all," because "the rich 
 man has much to lose." Then follows a list of the 
 rich man's luxuries. In conclusion this naively 
 incendiary writer tells us that the workingman 
 is sentimental rather than mercenary in his devo- 
 tion to his union and "will not quit wdien his 
 employer offers him wages above the union scale." 
 Nothing about a street car .strike in this editorial. 
 But five days later, on August 15, appeared an 
 editorial headed, "Demands of the carmen for 
 a three dollar wage." From the first paragraph 
 it appeared that no demands had been Jnade. It 
 had been merely reported that the carmen in- 
 tended making demands. The Bulletin hoped that 
 if they did so. "Patrick Calboun would see his way 
 clear to granting their petition." Then followed 
 a long argument in favor of the breaking of the 
 agreement between the company and its em- 
 ployees. The argument was based on the prop-
 
 so THE REGENERATORS 
 
 osition that the cost of Hving had increased since 
 the earthquake. Nothing was said of the in- 
 creased expenses of the company or of the great 
 cost of reconstruction. The following day the 
 Bulletin published a news item headed, "Car- 
 men will ask for an advance." Thk is the open- 
 ing sentence : "The United Railroads' employees 
 enthusiastically received the suggestion of the 
 Bulletin that they should be paid a higher rate 
 of wages." So here we have a frank confes- 
 sion that it was on the Bulletin's suggestion 
 that the demands were made. On August 17 
 appeared an editorial expounding the "Wages 
 of street carmen in the light of high rents." On 
 August 19 the Bulletin announced that the 
 carmen would that day demand $3 a day and 
 eight hours. On the twenty-first the Bulletin 
 editorially approved the demand. At this time 
 Patrick Calhoun was not in the State. The 
 union officials were told that he would arrive 
 August 26. The strike movement was hurried 
 forward, and though the demand for more wages 
 and shorter hours was not made till August 20 
 the men quit work on the night of the twenty- 
 fifth. Why was there this great haste? An ex- 
 planation comes from J. H. Bowling, secretary 
 and treasurer of the carmen's union, whose verac- 
 ity is not here vouched for. In a sworn state- 
 ment made for Patrick Calhoun he said that 
 P^remont Older, editor of the Bulletin, had urged 
 the members of the executive committee to strike
 
 THE CAR STRIKES 51 
 
 before Calhoun's arrival, saying that if Calhoun 
 arrived they might not be able to strike. From 
 Bowling it was also learned that when the Bul- 
 letin was fomenting discontent large bundles of 
 that journal were sent to the car barns each day 
 and distributed free. 
 
 From Bowling we learn of another incident 
 of some significance with reference to the state 
 of afifairs immediately preceding the strike. From 
 this incident it appears that the leaders of the 
 strike movement were well aware that the car- 
 men were not eager for the conflict ; also that 
 they were fearful that Mayor Schmitz might 
 avert a conflict and thus increase his popularity. 
 They remembered that about a year before this 
 time, when a strike was threatened, Mayor 
 Schmitz appeared at a meeting of the union just 
 before a decisive vote was taken and by an im- 
 passioned speech to the men prevailed on them 
 in the interest of the city to remain at work. 
 According to Bowling it was feared the mayor 
 would repeat this performance at the meeting 
 held in August, 1906, to decide whether a strike 
 should be called. Bowling swears that Edward 
 Livernash was in a cab outside the hall ready 
 to answer Schmitz in the event of his counseling 
 peace. Livernash is an eloquent labor agitator, 
 a lawyer and journalist, a man of the type of 
 the "Friend of the People" of the French Revo- 
 lution. He was for a long time connected with 
 the Bulletin in the capacity of editorial writer.
 
 52 TIIK RFXiRNERATORS 
 
 and he wrote many editorials fomenting in- 
 dustrial strife. He was attorney for the car- 
 men's union and the intimate associate of Rich- 
 ard Cornelius, president of the union. This 
 Cornelius was an agitator, a shrewd politician 
 and a member of the civil service commission. 
 Appointed to that commission by Mayor Schmitz, 
 he was retained by Mayor Taylor when the Graft 
 Prosecution was in control of the municipal gov- 
 ernment, and of the Graft Prosecution he was a 
 vociferous partisan. 
 
 As we have seen, all the employees of the 
 United Railroads quit work on the night of the 
 25th of August. On August 27 the Bulletin 
 printed an editorial beneath this headline 
 in large type: "Patrick Calhoun, Start Your 
 Cars at Once !" In this editorial the question 
 was asked : "What right has an Eastern capital- 
 ist to come to this city, where he does business 
 and where he does not live and where he receives 
 three-and-a-half times the interest he is entitled 
 to. which he carries off to the Atlantic seaboard 
 for investment, and add to the fiery trials which 
 have came upon it with such fury in the recent 
 past?" 
 
 This Eastern capitalist suffered a greater loss 
 from the fire than any Californian capitalist, a 
 circumstance which, considered in connection 
 with the part that he played in the work of 
 rehabilitation, might reasonably be urged in ex- 
 tenuation of his offense of carting dividends 
 away from San Francisco.
 
 TIIR CAR STRIKES S3 
 
 The strike called, Calhoun refused to rec- 
 ognize or deal with men no longer employed by 
 him, men who had violated not only their contract 
 but the by-laws and constitution of the union un- 
 der which they were organized. In eight days he 
 had employed twelve hundred men in the East 
 and transported them by special trains to San 
 Francisco. These men arrived at night, and in 
 spite of the vigilance of thousands of pickets, 
 were housed in the fortified and provisioned 
 car-barns of the railroad company before the 
 news of their arrival reached the public. This 
 quick action of Calhoun's had not been calculated 
 upon by his enemies. The governor of the 
 State, who was afterwards an active partisan of 
 the Graft Prosecution, espoused the cause of the 
 strikers. In a telegram to Calhoun he protested 
 against the importation of labor from other 
 States. Calhoun was not awed by this mes- 
 sage. He reminded the governor that it was 
 I'ls duty to enforce the law and give protection 
 to men who wanted to work. 
 
 The United Railroads was ready early in 
 September to resume business with a new force 
 of men. But the plans of the men who in- 
 stigated the strike having been disarranged they 
 were for calling a halt. Public sympathy was 
 with the railroad company, and the probability 
 was ihat the strikers would suffer defeat. Liver- 
 nash, acting as attorney for the union, proposed 
 and was refu'-ed a compromise talk with Cal-
 
 54 THE TiEGENERATORS 
 
 houn. Then the men were advised to accept 
 Calhoun's terms — return to work and arbitrate 
 their grievances. 
 
 Thst tlie United Railroads agreed to arbitra- 
 tion in good faith, and that the men who were 
 counseling the union agreed only for a mean 
 strategic purpose, is clearly shown by subsequent 
 events. 
 
 By the terms of the arbitration agreement it 
 was limited to the unexpired period of the con- 
 tract between the carmen and the corporation. 
 The arbitration committee presided over by Chief 
 Justice Beatty of the Supreme Court of the 
 State rendered its decision March 1, 1907. By 
 this award the wages of motormen and con- 
 ductors were advanced about twenty-five per 
 cent; that is, they were awarded $3.10, $3.20 and 
 $3.30 for ten hours, the scale being according 
 to the length of time each man had been in the 
 service of the company. That this was a satis- 
 factory wage is evidenced by the fact that when 
 a new proposal was made by the carmen, just be- 
 fore the expiration of the time covered by the 
 arbitration agreement, it was for an eight-hour 
 day and a three dollar wage. But while the 
 union was willing to accept lower wages, by the 
 reduction of time which they demanded the ex- 
 penses of the company would be greatly in- 
 creased. That the rank-and-file of the union 
 really wanted lower wages may well be doubted. 
 Indeed it is more reasonable to presume that the 
 proposal was designed only to cause trouble.
 
 THE CAR STRIKES 55 
 
 Meanwhile Patrick Calhoun, the man whom 
 the regenerators accused of having provoked the 
 second strike, which occurred on May 1, had 
 gone to Europe. During his absence Richard 
 Cornelius, the president of the union, was pav- 
 ing the way for new differences. Whether or 
 not Cornelius was merely the tool of men who 
 wished to harass the railroad officials, the fact 
 is he preferred strife to peace. Also it is a 
 fact that almost as soon as the arbitration com- 
 mittee rendered its decision Cornelius, or the 
 men by whom he was inspired, planned a strike 
 for the month of May. Of course this fact they 
 did not make public. It leaked out much to 
 their astonishment, and they quickly denied that 
 a strike was contemplated. It was Cornelius 
 himself who divulged the information, but this 
 his associates never knew. The history of the 
 whole intrigue is told here for the first time. 
 The man who caused the truth to be made public 
 was Edward F. Moran, president of the civil 
 service commission. Cornelius told him there 
 would be a strike in May. "The boys will be 
 out on May 1," he said; "I'm going to Detroit 
 to fix the matter up with the executive board 
 so that nothing will interfere with our plan." 
 Moran advised Cornelius to inform Mayor 
 Schmitz, and he arranged a meeting between 
 Schmitz and Cornelius at which the mayor was 
 told what soon would happen. Then Cornelius 
 left for Detroit, ostensibly to attend a meeting
 
 56 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 of the Amalgamated Association of Street Rail- 
 way Employees. 
 
 At this time Mr. Harry Creswell, one of the 
 attorneys of the United Railroads, was a mem- 
 ber of the police commission. When the strike 
 of August, 1906. occurred Creswell sent his 
 resignation to the mayor, but as the strike was 
 soon over the resignation was not accepted. 
 Early in March, 1907, Mayor Schmitz wrote to 
 Cresw^ell, saying he would accept his resignation 
 because a strike was to be called in May. The 
 following is an excerpt from the letter which 
 was published in the Call of March 15, 1907: "T 
 received information a few days ago that on 
 May 1 another strike would take place. Of 
 course I intend to try to avert it if possible. If 
 a strike does take place — and from all accounts 
 it seems almost unavoidable — your position 
 naturally would be inconsistent as a member of 
 the police commission." The Call accused 
 Schmitz of "betraying the secret plans of the 
 carmen." In other papers officers of the car- 
 men's union denied that there was to be a strike. 
 Cornelius heard of Schmitz's letter while in the 
 city of Spokane en route to the East, and from 
 Spokane he wrote a letter to W. C. Leffingwell, 
 vice-president of the union. The letter, bearing 
 date of ^Nlarch 17, 1907, contains the following- 
 paragraph : 
 
 "I see by the papers that Mayor Schmitz says 
 there will be a strike unless he prevents it.
 
 ^ /£e.^ 
 
 4yfi^ O-^u^ AAJ^X^ -^ ^^«>*- /^."' 
 ^ fU-^^^^ I.^r--t/^ //^"^ ^ 
 
 ••^3* 
 
 / 
 
 .^illi rtm I ,y 
 
 
 fr.\(;mi-:xts oi- nil-: cokxki.u-s lettkks 
 
 /^
 
 THK CAR STRIKES 57 
 
 Well the only way he can prevent it will be for 
 him or somebody else to get Patrick Calhoun 
 to come through with the goods. It looks like 
 politics to be talking like that at this time. What 
 do you think?" 
 
 From another paragraph in this letter it ap- 
 pears that at the time it was written Cornelius 
 had not as yet read the decision of the arbitra- 
 tion committee. 
 
 On April 1 Cornelius wrote another letter to 
 Leffingwell. This time from Detroit. It con- 
 tained this paragraph : 
 
 "That statement of yours in the paper was all 
 right. I don't see what made Mayor Schmitz 
 make such a crack as he did in the papers. But 
 it's all right anyhow, for the people might just 
 as well know what is coming, for come it will. 
 And I have great faith that we shall have the 
 executive board with us this time, for T shall 
 use every effort to make them understand the 
 situation in San Francisco." 
 
 From all that Cornelius wrote to Lefifingwell 
 it is clear that when he left San Francisco, about 
 March 6, 1907, it was with the intention of ob- 
 taining the assent of the national body, which 
 his union represented, to call a strike on the 1st 
 of May. Calhoun, who had not been in San 
 Francisco since October, 1906, arrived in New 
 York from Europe on the 17th of March, 1907. 
 It was reported in the press that as soon as he 
 learned that his company was threatened with
 
 58 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 another strike he sought an interview with W. 
 D. ^Nlahon, president of the national association. 
 Calhoun went to Detroit to see Mahon, but the 
 latter was then sick in bed, and advised Calhoun 
 t'3 go before the executive committee, which he 
 did. there confronting" Richard Cornelius. Cal- 
 houn begged the committee to prevent a strike. 
 He said that his reputation and his property were 
 both at stake as a result of a political plot in- 
 spired by his enemies. He told of the strike in 
 the summer of the previous year, which, he said, 
 had been unjustly called to harass him, and de- 
 clared that a new plot had been hatched. He 
 pointed out that always he had been on friendly 
 terms with union labor and had procured recogni- 
 tion for the unions in other cities. He professed 
 a Willingness to continue the arbitration wage 
 for another year, and offered to enter into an- 
 other contract on the spot. He concluded his 
 talk with the statement that if a strike were 
 called he would never again recognize the unions. 
 > At this time the Graft Prosecution was plung- 
 ing ahead under full steam, and the San Fran- 
 cisco papers were full of rumors of the probable 
 indictment of the traction president. 
 
 Having explained matters to the executive 
 committee Calhoun left Detroit for San Fran- 
 cisco, soon to be followed by Cornelius. And 
 then came the demand of the union for an eight- 
 hour day and a three-dollar wage, which would 
 mean a! twenty-five per cent increase in the cost
 
 THE CAR STRIKES 59 
 
 of labor to a corporation which was then facing 
 bankruptcy. 
 
 The day before the strike was called Calhoun 
 and all his subordinate officials were sumnioncil 
 before the grand jury, and for days thereafter 
 they were kept dancing attendance on that body. 
 Thus the strike and the prosecution began to 
 move side by side. 
 
 The strike was the bloodiest and costliest in 
 the whole history of industrial strife in this 
 country. More than one thousand men were 
 thrown out of employment, and for seven months 
 San Francisco was in a state bordering on civil 
 war. The whole city felt the shock of contest, 
 for the fortunes and happiness of the whole com- 
 munity were involved. Business was paralyzed, 
 many small firms were forced into bankruptcy. 
 As all wage-earners belonging to unions were 
 obliged to contribute to the support of the strik- 
 ers, every unit of organized labor had a deep 
 personal interest in the quarrel. Sympathy with 
 the strikers consequently was widespread. The 
 disorder that marked the progress of the strike 
 made of San Francisco one vast Golgotha. In 
 all its hideousness, its bloody and cruel details 
 this strike was the essence of inhumanity. For 
 a time few people had the courage to ride on the 
 cars. In almost every block, wherever buildings 
 were rising from the ruins, from ambuscades be- 
 ing continually improvised, cars were bombarded 
 with bricks, steel rivets or whatever was deadly
 
 60 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 and ready to hand. Acts of violence were for 
 a time of daily occurrence, men were maimed 
 and lives were lost. The press, which is nowhere 
 as in San Francisco the palladium of the prin- 
 ciples of oro-anized labor, was more industrious 
 in suppressing than in disseminating the news. 
 Never did the newspapers impute lawlessness to 
 the strikers, but without cessation the pro-graft 
 organs assailed the indicted railroad officials with 
 epithet and invective. 
 
 Rioting and bloodshed occurred the very first 
 day that the United Railroads resumed business. 
 Two policemen in plain clothes who attempted 
 to board a beleaguered car in the midst of the 
 riot were shot down by the non-union carmen, 
 who supposed them to be strikers leading the as- 
 sault. This of course was a most unfortunate 
 occurrence, and bitterly were the carmen de- 
 nounced for their fatal error. In the press of the 
 next day the chief of police declared his intention 
 to arm a police squad of one hundred with rifles 
 and instruct them to shoot down strike-breakers. 
 That day he met Patrick Calhoun in the mayor's 
 office, and when questioned by the railroad presi- 
 dent, affirmed emphatically that he meant what 
 he had said. "Then," said Calhoun, "I'll arm 
 all my men with Winchesters." The chief 
 speedily changed his mind. Thereupon Calhoun 
 said that he would send his men out unarmed, 
 and see whether he could inspire respect by an 
 exhibition of courage. What he promised was a
 
 THE CAR STRIKES 61 
 
 hazardous thing- to do, but tlic dcsi)ised strike- 
 breakers did it. And the performance was in 
 vain. A brave lot of men were those non- 
 unionists. Several hundred of them were ad- 
 venturous mountaineers from Kentucky, Ten- 
 nessee and Texas, rough and ready soldiers of 
 fortune who seemed to be wholly devoid of 
 fear. Valiant, hardy, and so well endowed 
 with the qualities which compel respect as 
 to make one reg^ret that they should be 
 subjected to the indignities that were heaped 
 upon them during- that protracted and ugly 
 struggle. A cruel and cowardly war was waged 
 against them. While from ambuscades they were 
 attacked by day, at night as they stood in the 
 full glare of electric lights assaults were made 
 on them under cover and in the security of 
 darkness. 
 
 How sanguinary the strike was may be judged 
 from the fact that seven hundred and one men 
 working on the cars were so seriously injured 
 as to require hospital treatment. Besides these 
 there were scores treated for flesh wounds at the 
 several barns. How many union men were in- 
 jured we shall never know, but from the court 
 records it appears that thirty-nine were killed. 
 
 One incident of the strike tells the story of 
 the attitude of the municipal authorities. I'^ive 
 of Calhoun's employees, who were trying to 
 escape from a mob one day, while flying to a 
 barn for refuge were shot down by three
 
 62 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 policemen. Two of these policemen had been 
 members of the teamsters' union and one 
 had been a member of the carmen's union. All 
 were made policemen during the strike. An- 
 other circumstance of some significance was the 
 appointment by Mayor Taylor of ^lichael Casey 
 to the chairmanship of the board of public works, 
 which had supervision of the streets over which 
 the cars were operated. Casey was president 
 of the teamsters' union, and he was also a mem- 
 ber of the strike committee appointed by the 
 labor council. Cornelius was also a member of 
 that committee, and he remained on the civil 
 service commission all the time that the Graft 
 Prosecution ruled the city. 
 
 It was largely due to this great strike and the 
 passions which it roused that the Graft Prosecu- 
 tion was enabled to carry the municipal election 
 in the fall of 1907. Throughout the strike the 
 pro-prosecution organs were censuring Calhoun 
 for not granting the union's demand, and Ru- 
 dolph Spreckels in an interview in one of the 
 daily papers accused Calhoun of inciting the 
 strikers to violence by his observations from time 
 to time, which observations were almost in- 
 variably" evoked by the addresses to the public 
 made by the officers of the carmen's union. — ' 
 
 Be what it might the cause or inspiration of 
 this bloody strike, which ended in the utter de- 
 struction of the carmen's union, there can be 
 no question as to the attitude of the regenerators
 
 THE CAR STRIKES 63 
 
 from beginning to end. And certain it is that if 
 none of them was instrumental in precipitating 
 that strike, at least their relations and connec- 
 tions were such that they might have averted it. 
 Deliberately to instigate whatsoever is bound to 
 destroy life and property is a most heinous crime, 
 and of that crime perpetrated in San Francisco 
 in the year 1907 somebody is guilty. Must we 
 regard the regenerators on account of their high 
 character as free from suspicion. Some very 
 strange, some very cruel, some very fiendish 
 things, have been done by men who persuaded 
 themselves that they had the welfare of their 
 country at heart, and who made that the scale 
 for the weighing of their motives. 
 
 Long after the strikers abandoned their cause, 
 when the question as to who instigated the strike 
 provoked crimination and recrimination, affidavits 
 and depositions of some of the former union 
 officials were procured. That was when Bowling 
 made his affidavit. W. C. Leffingwell volun- 
 teered to have his deposition taken. He related 
 that at a meeting of the union, during the strike, 
 Cornelius reported that he had been down to 
 see "the big fellows," and that there was no 
 doubt but that Calhoun would be placed where he 
 belonged. "Cornelius stated on many occasions," 
 said Leffingwell, "that the thing to do was to 
 keep the strike going on until Calhoun's trial and 
 then he, Calhoun, would be on the bum." The 
 witness related also that one day during the
 
 64 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 strike the men were paid off with money brought 
 to the meeting in a sack by Michael Casey, who 
 said that it had been borrowed from Livernash. 
 Burns's detectives learned of the making of 
 these depositions, and Bowling was induced to 
 meet Fremont Older and give him a copy of 
 the statement that he had made. The statement 
 was published in the Bulletin before Calhoun 
 had an opportunity to make it public. Thus did 
 Older by anticipation render innocuous the stories 
 told by the union officials. Older accused Bow- 
 ling of conspiring with Calhoun to besmirch the 
 character of the graft prosecutors, and had him 
 arrested for libel. If Older had prosecuted Bow- 
 ling, the whole truth would have come out. This 
 he did not do. Bowling demanded a hearing. He 
 caused Detective Burns to be summoned as a 
 witness. Burns failed to respond, but was ex- 
 cused by Police Judge Deasy, a protege of the 
 (iraft Prosecution, who dismissed the case on 
 motion of the complainant. The explanation of 
 the motion was that the regenerators were too 
 busy with other matters to find time for the 
 prosecution of Bowling.
 
 
 111-. (AU STRIKE 
 
 Scenes on two occasions when sympathetic teamsters blocked 
 traffic on the public streets.
 
 IV 
 
 BIZARRE JUSTICE 
 
 The Manipulation of Juries, Grand and Petty, a 
 
 Plague of Spies and the Employment 
 
 of General Warrants 
 
 Of the many evils resulting' from the Graft 
 Prosecution the worst was the utter demoraliza- 
 tion of the established processes of law and the 
 impairment of pvtblic confidence in the adminis- 
 tration of justice. Pjecause of this California is 
 today threatened with a constitutional amend- 
 ment designed to render the courts sensitive to 
 popular whim and subservient to the dictates of 
 the mob. The San Francisco regenerators with 
 the assistance of the newspapers and the co- 
 operation of college professors and such distin- 
 guished university presidents as Benjamin Ide 
 Wheeler and David Starr Jordan, inculcated in 
 the public mind a curious notion regarding 
 the duty of the ministers of justice. The Graft 
 Prosecution acted on the theory that the courts 
 ought to administer whatever they might con- 
 ceive to be moral justice. This theory the news- 
 papers approved and Dr. Wheeler actually voiced. 
 The doctrine of the presumption of innocence 
 was pronounced heterodox ; and Francis J. 
 Heney, in open court, denied that there was any
 
 66 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 authority for the principle, gravely arguing that 
 when a man was indicted he was presumed to be 
 guilty. The prevailing sentiment was that the 
 supervisors having confessed they were bribed, 
 nothing could be clearer than that the men who 
 bribed them should be sent to the penitentiary. 
 The fact is, as we shall see, that what the 
 supervisors confessed was quite different from 
 what they were said to have confessed. Also, the 
 fact is, as we shall see, that while there is no 
 doubt of the guilt of the supervisors, there may be 
 much doubt of the guilt of many of the higher- 
 ups. But for the present let us confine ourselves 
 to consideration of the irregularities of the prose- 
 cution. 
 
 The regenerators stoutly affirmed the absurd- 
 ity of presuming anybody to be innocent. Though 
 they (lid not express the sentiment they implied 
 by their actions and loose talk that the higher-ups 
 should be got to jail by hook or by crook. In- 
 deed there were men in San Francisco who 
 realy considered it but a matter of form, the 
 invoking of the function of the courts. As every- 
 body knew the higher-ups were guilty, it was 
 suggested, why not take a plebiscite on the ques- 
 tion of punishment? This sentiment holds the 
 germ of the principle on which it is proposed to 
 apply the recall to the judiciary, an expedient 
 objectionable on the ground, if on none other, of 
 its cumbersomeness, since the referendum might 
 be more rationally employed to the same purpose
 
 BIZARRE JUSTICE 67 
 
 in all kinds of litigation, thus obviating the neces- 
 sity of a judiciary. 
 
 And so as it was determined to have chiefly 
 moral justice administered for the benign pur- 
 poses of the regenerators, Francis J. Heney gave 
 his personal attention to the work of impaneling 
 a grand jury. In deference to popular sentiment 
 he was permitted to catechise each citizen on the 
 jury panel and exclude every one that did not 
 favorably impress him. Thus he managed to or- 
 ganize a very docile jury, one that produced in- 
 dictments for him with something of the auto- 
 matic readiness of a nickel-in-the-slot machine. 
 His influence over the jury had all the potency 
 of irresistible hypnotism. But, to be sure, the 
 grand jury was in a most receptive and suscepti- 
 ble mood. How could it be otherwise, with pro- 
 pitious public sentiment clamorous for indict- 
 ments, and the newspapers shrieking for indict- 
 ments and assuring the people that as the jurors 
 had the public interest at heart they could be de- 
 pended upon to perform their duties in accordance 
 with Mr. Heney's wishes? Such subtle flattery 
 might reasonably have been expected to have the 
 desired effect. The grand jurors, most of whom 
 were stolid business men, unaccustomed to the 
 limelight, having no previous experience of the 
 joys of celebrity, awoke to the blare of fame, and 
 realized that they were entitled to rank as civic 
 patriots. With great enthusiasm some of these 
 susceptible citizens became part of the civic re-
 
 68 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 vleir.ption machine. A few of them were re- 
 warded with pubHc office, not by the people but 
 by the gentlemen most capable of appreciating" 
 their disinterested service — the regenerators. One 
 was rewarded even unto the second generation, 
 his son being appointed police magistrate, thus 
 becoming available for service to the cause. 
 
 It was thus the good work went on, and it 
 was in circumstances such as these that days of 
 terror dawned for men marked for slaughter ; 
 that prominent citizens, seized with panic fright, 
 went scurrying about town invoking the influence 
 of their friends to save them from indictment 
 for they knew not what. Nothing more some 
 of them knew than that detectives were at their 
 heels, and that at some time in their lives they had 
 incurred the emnity of some one of the prose- 
 cutors. William J. Burns, the Sejanus of the 
 Graft Prosecution, had an army of spies at his 
 beck and call. And all the while Francis J. 
 Heney was issuing through the columns of an 
 exultant press vague but portentous manifestoes 
 susceptible of as varied interpretation as the 
 dictum of a Greek oracle. By day he worked at 
 the grand jury mill, grinding out indictments. 
 By night he addressed public meetings, vituperat- 
 ing the men whom he was engaged in prosecut- 
 ing. Always he went about with the forbidding 
 aspect of a Foucjuier-Tinville, starting gooseflesh 
 with his frown. Parlous were the times while 
 Heney 's magnetic power over the grand jury
 
 BIZARRE JUSTICE 69 
 
 was at its height. In time that power diminished, v^ 
 the consequence being- that all of the prosecutor's 
 early promises were not realized ; that is he did 
 not indict all the men to whom he had opened 
 up the melancholy prospect of a long sojourn in 
 the penitentiary. Not that he relented, or that 
 time assuaged his passion, but that some^f the 
 grand jurors revolted against the practice of in- 
 dicting men without evidence. Thus, Mr. Heney 
 failed to procure the indictment of William H. 
 Crocker. He urged the indictment of that gen- 
 tleman, but got only one vote, a circumstance 
 which seems to argue that Mr. Crocker was 
 not only guiltless of crime but almost an im- 
 peccable citizen, for at no other time were so 
 many of the pliant jurors unresponsive to the 
 wishes of the prosecutor. The failure to indict 
 Crocker must have occasioned profound lamenta- 
 tions, for he was a marked man from the be- 
 ginning. Besides he was one of the pet aver- 
 sions of James D. Phelan. 
 
 Further disappointment of a grievous nature 
 was caused by Mr. Heney 's inability to procure 
 the indictment of William F. Herrin, chief of the 
 law department of the Southern Pacific Company. 
 It was supposed that the indictment of Herrin 
 would lead to the indictment of Harriman, but 
 no evidence was available ; not a scintilla of evi- 
 dence against the officers of the great corpora- 
 tion which is reputed to have been in the busi- 
 ness of corrupting the government of California
 
 70 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 for almost half a century. This lack of evidence, 
 however, was not necessarily a bar to prosecution, 
 or at least to indictment, as is evident from the 
 experience of more than one man. The case of 
 W. I. Brobeck, reported in volume 152, page 289 
 of the California Reports, will suffice for illustra- 
 tion. "The indictment referred to in this opin- 
 ion," says the court, "was subsequently dismissed 
 by the Superior Court of the City and County of 
 San Francisco upon motion of the district at- 
 torney on the ground that there is no evidence 
 sufficient to put said W. I. Brobeck on his defense 
 to said charge and that in the interest and fur- 
 therance of justice the said indictment as to said 
 \V. I. Brobeck should be dismissed and dis- 
 charged." The district attorney who moved the 
 dismissal on these grounds was the district at- 
 torney of the Graft Prosecution. 
 
 With reference to Herrin, Harriman and 
 Crocker it may be truly said that the cunning 
 spider had too long delayed the weaving of 
 his web for the biggest flies of his seeking. 
 However, Mr. Heney did very well in the 
 days before the grand jurors became intract- 
 able. Men were indicted at his behest who have 
 never been -brought to trial, the reason being 
 that they were beyond even the suspicion of 
 guilt. Two notable cases are those of Thorn- 
 well Mullally. vice-president of the United Rail- 
 roads and William Abbott of that corporation's 
 law department. About two years after the date
 
 BIZARRE JUSTICE 71 
 
 of their indictment it was admitted in open court, 
 by one of Mr. Heney's assistants, during the 
 course of the argument in one of the graft cases, 
 that there was no evidence against Mullally or 
 Abbott, and that they never would be tried. Yet 
 for five years these men were kept under bonds. 
 Naturally the question will be asked, Why were 
 they indicted? The answer is. In the hope of 
 extorting testimony from them. It was thus 
 the principle that the end justifies the means was 
 applied in San Francisco. 
 
 Prosecutor Heney's manipulation of the grand y 
 jury was a masterly achievement. But quite 
 comparable with it as a triumph of ingenuity was 
 his manipulation of trial juries. Here again the 
 prosecutor introduced some new and subtle 
 stratagems ; new to San Francisco, but not new 
 to Mr. Heney, for he had tested them in Oregon 
 in the land fraud cases, where President Roose- 
 velt supplied him with resources almost equal to 
 those which he enjoyed in California. With the 
 aid of his large corps of detectives Mr. Heney 
 familiarized himself beforehand with the char- 
 acter, the disposition and the sentiments of every 
 man who entered the jury-box to be examined 
 as to his qualifications to serve as a juror. Pros- 
 pective jurors were interviewed for the enlighten- 
 ment of the prosecution without being conscious 
 of the fact. And thus it became an easy matter 
 for the prosecution to determine when to accept, 
 when to exclude and when to challensre. Mat-
 
 72 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 ters were greatly facilitated by this method, 
 about which, by the way, there is nothing 
 inherently wrong. A fair and disinterested 
 prosecutor, concerned about nothing but the ad- 
 ministration of justice, conscious at all times of 
 his obligations as a juridical officer, (his obliga- 
 tions to a defendant as well as to the State) 
 might properly be indulged in the practice of 
 this method. But consider Heney ! Consider 
 that this most zealous of prosecutors, represent- 
 ing a private cabal, went about boasting that he 
 would send to the penitentiary every person in- 
 dicted by his docile grand jury. Not privately, 
 but in public, on the bema, he pledged himself 
 to convict men, who, under the law are presumed 
 to be innocent, who are entitled to the presump- 
 tion of innocence even as late as when the jury 
 retires to deliberate on the verdict. Consider 
 that while this prosecution was in progress it was 
 marked by an ebullition of all the meaner pas- 
 sions of human nature, and that in the heat and 
 dust of conflict the opposing factions fought 
 tooth and nail, might and main, wfth intense 
 fury and brutal obstinacy. The spirit of that 
 contest was manifestly not akin to the spirit of 
 the square deal. Imbued with the prevailing 
 spirit Prosecutor Heney availed himself of 
 many advantages which the most generous 
 ethics can hardly sanction. The fact is that he 
 did not decline the service of jurors whom 
 he knew to be so prejudiced as to be be-
 
 BIZARRE JU-STICE 73 
 
 yonci the influence of evidence or the per- 
 suasion of a defendant's counsel. Proof of 
 this is accessihle. The proof came to hght in 
 tlie midst of a very exciting" and dramatic situa- 
 tion tliat arose out of the rivalry engendered be- 
 tween opposing forces of private detectives. 
 For be it known the defendants did not allow the 
 detectives for the prosecution the exclusive priv- 
 ilege of interviewing jurors. Following the ex- 
 ample of their pursuers they employed a large 
 corps of detectives. And then was developed a 
 plague of detectives, much to the distress of 
 citizens who had the misfortune to be eligible 
 for jury duty. More than fifty per cent of the 
 citizens of San Francisco had their private lives 
 scrutinized by spies during the progress of the 
 Graft Prosecution. Hardly to be compensated 
 were some of them, even though the good Mr. 
 Phelan and the good Mr. Spreckels had really 
 accomplished the regeneration and purification of 
 the community. These spies that infested San 
 Francisco were typical of their class. Partisans 
 for hire, they were to be alienated for hire. On 
 each side were unfaithful spies, and thus the 
 secrets of both sides became more or less common 
 property. Detective Burns, who had been doing 
 a good deal of boasting about his success in 
 acquainting himself with the private afl:'airs of the 
 enemy, learned one day to his consternation of 
 treachery in his own camp. Quickly a confer- 
 ence of the prosecution forces was held, and a
 
 74 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 grand coup was resolved upon, the boldest, per- 
 haps, of all the high-handed ventures of the 
 regenerators. They resolved to get access under 
 color of juridical authority to all the private 
 papers of the United Railroad officials. By way 
 of pretext Detective Burns swore to complaints 
 charging the elusive "John Doe" with grand 
 larceny, and on these complaints he asked for 
 general warrants by virtue of which search might 
 be made anywhere and everywhere. Presum- 
 ably, of course, he believed that some of his 
 papers had been stolen. Detective Burns has a 
 fine facility for expedient belief. What the 
 enemy had, of course, were copies of some of 
 the reports of Burns's detectives, just as Burns 
 had copies of reports made by the opposition 
 hawkshaws. 
 
 General warrants, such as Detective Burns 
 asked for, are believed to have been tabu 
 on American soil ever since that memorable, 
 eventful period, immediately preceding the revolt 
 against the rule of George III. They are not 
 easily obtainable in an American city. But San 
 Francisco, it must be kept in mind, was ex- 
 periencing a curious, mixed character of govern- 
 ment in the days of Rudolph Spreckels's ascend- 
 ancy. Almost anything Spreckels wanted he 
 could have for the asking. What power his 
 agents were vested with may be judged from 
 the circumstance that Judge Lawlor issued a 
 large number of blank warrants, signed and
 
 BIZARRE JUSTICE 75 
 
 sealed, lettrcs de cachet, for the arrest of any 
 private citizen. These were given to Detective 
 Burns. Why then should Burns have had 
 any difficulty in obtaining mere search war- 
 rants? Wanting them, he went to Magistrate 
 Deasy, son of one of Heney's obedient grand 
 jurors, formerly a deputy in District At- 
 torney's Langdon's office, and the warrants were 
 immediately forthcoming. Then followed a raid 
 on the offices of the United Railroads Company. 
 This stratagem was planned for a late hour in 
 the afternoon, when the courts were adjourned, 
 that no writ of injunction might be obtained. 
 But the officers of the company got wind, of the 
 project, went in quest of a judge, found one 
 and obtained a writ. But, of little use in those 
 days were the processes of the court, save when 
 they were invoked for the purposes of the re- 
 generators. 
 
 When the police and flock of private detec- 
 tives arrived with the warrants they were served 
 with the writ of injunction, and they ignored it. 
 Finding the vaults of the company locked, they 
 demanded that they be opened, and threatened 
 that otherwise the vaults would be blown open. 
 So the vaults were opened, and all the books and 
 private papers found there were examined by 
 the detectives. In the midst of the search a 
 paper was found the sight of which impelled one 
 of Burns's detectives to utter an exclamation of 
 astonishment. It also induced him to blurt out
 
 1(i THE REGENERATORS 
 
 a bit of information most disqnieting" to his em- 
 ployers. In the presence of several newspaper 
 reporters and lawyers this detective, Ray C. 
 Schindler, exclaimed : "Why that's a copy of 
 my own report on Arthur. No wonder you chal- 
 lenged him! He's the most prejudiced man 
 against Calhoun I ever saw." Now the man to 
 whom this detective alluded was James L. Ar- 
 thur, a building- contractor, who had been twice 
 in the jury box — once in the Ruef case and once 
 in the Calhoun case. In both instances, while he 
 was under examination as to his qualifications to 
 serve as a juror, the prosecution had in its pos- 
 session the report of Detective Schindler contain- 
 ing these words: "Arthur is the most prejudiced 
 man I have interviewed as yet, and if he were 
 chosen as a juror would hang out for conviction 
 till doomsday." Yet Francis J. Heney was will- 
 ing, nay eager, to have this man sworn as a 
 juror. Francis J. Heney, as the record shows, 
 heard him asked this question: "Have you any 
 prejudice against the defendant of any kind." 
 And Francis J. Heney heard him reply, "None 
 whatever." And Francis J. Heney sat silent. He 
 heard Arthur challenged for cause, and resisted 
 the challenge. In the Ruef case when the challenge 
 was resisted the attorney for the defendant called 
 Heney to the witness stand, and asked him if he 
 did not have a report regarding Arthur's state 
 of mind. He declined to answer. Fvery ques- 
 tion that was asked him he declined to answer.
 
 BTZARR1-: JUSTICE 17 
 
 and the judge on the bench, WilHam P. Lawlor, 
 upheld him and forced the defendant to exercise 
 one of his peremptory challenges. In the Cal- 
 houn case it was again necessary for the defense 
 to exercise a peremptory challenge in order to get 
 rid of Arthur. 
 
 This specimen of unfairness on the part of the 
 graft prosecution in the impanelment of juries 
 is but one of many. But all the others are 
 not susceptible of such clear presentation. Of 
 this Arthur infamy, the record, with brevity and 
 compactness, speaks for itself. There are some 
 things that the record discloses only vaguely ; 
 others, not at all. For example it does not ap- 
 pear from the record that special venires were 
 summoned by a deputy sheriff of the court's own 
 choosing, or that the judge on the bench was him- 
 self a partisan of the (iraft Prosecution. The 
 fact is that all the graft cases were assigned to 
 two judges — William P. Lawlor and Frank H. 
 Dunne — who were the club cronies of the regen- 
 erators ; who espoused their cause off the bench ; 
 who were involved in their intrigues, sharing in 
 their glory when their star was in the ascendant, 
 and complaining of public ingratitude in the hour 
 of their downfall. It is not exaggeration to say 
 that by reason of the attitude of these judges it 
 was a very difficult matter to prevent the juries 
 being packed against the defendants.
 
 V 
 
 GRAFTERS AND PROSECUTORS 
 
 When Facts Don't Square with Theory then Comes 
 
 Progressive Testimony under the 
 
 Immunity Lash 
 
 Most of the irregularities of the Graft 
 Prosecution' are rightly to be ascribed to 
 the circumstance that facts did not square 
 with presumptions. Abraham Ruef did not 
 handle his business as the regenerators sup- 
 posed. Nor were the supervisors precisely 
 the kind of grafters they were believed to be. 
 But the eagerness of the regenerators to reach 
 their end being in proportion to their impatience 
 of every stubborn fact that belied what they be- 
 lieved and what they wished everybody else to 
 believe, they stuck to the course which they had 
 charted, through all the channels of sophistry, 
 striving to command success after they had 
 ceased to deserve it. It was thus they came to 
 flounder in a sea of difficulties, thus they made 
 history which to this hour is much misunder- 
 stood, its whole import, meaning and value per- 
 versely deciphered. 
 
 First we find the regenerators striving to vin- 
 dicate the immunity bath by picturing the super- 
 visors as tragic victims of temptation. Now the
 
 GRAFTERS AND PROSECUTORS 79 
 
 supervisors were nothing of the kind. Their 
 meanest graft they practiced without even the 
 knowledge of Ruef, who, discussing them after 
 his arrest, described them as so greedy that "they 
 would eat the paint off a house." According to 
 the pro-prosecution press they were poor ignorant 
 men whose virtue was intact till it was assailed 
 by the plutocrats of the public service corpora- 
 tions. The other side of the ])icture was un- 
 veiled as soon as the graft cases came to trial. 
 Then it was learned that the supervisors, before 
 their official seats were warm, were grafting with 
 tradesmen from whom they purchased supplies 
 for the city. 
 
 On Ruef's preliminary examination Supervisor 
 James Gallagher, chief witness for the prosecu- 
 tion, "go-between" for Ruef, gave testimony with 
 reference to a speech made by Supervisor Box- 
 ton as spokesman for his confreres at a luncheon 
 given by some prominent business men who 
 wanted what is known as the Parkside franchise. 
 He quoted Boxton thus : "Well you people are not 
 in this business for your health, and we are not in 
 business for our health." Gallagher swore also 
 that up to that time no illegitimate proposal had 
 ever been made by a corporation. 
 
 From what one may learn from the voluminous 
 transcripts of the testimony given at the several 
 trials, it may be seriously questioned whether 
 Ruef was guilty of statutory crimes because of 
 his dealings with corporation officials and public
 
 80 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 servants. The men who hired Ruef as an at- 
 torney with the expectation of obtaining his 
 poHtical influence may not be regarded as civic 
 ideaHsts, but it was possible for them to take 
 advantage of Ruef's influence without committing 
 any infraction of the penal code. And it is but 
 just to say that in some instances Ruef's in- 
 fluence was unsoHcited ; furthermore, as there is 
 testimony to show, the ignoring of Ruef might 
 have been productive of very serious conse- 
 (|uences to persons having business relations with 
 the city. As to some of the defendants the worst 
 to be said against them is that they obeyed the 
 command of the buccaneers — they walked the 
 plank. 
 
 The civic condition of San Francisco at this 
 time, familiar as it was to the citizens, requires 
 a brief exposition for the understanding of the 
 general reader. Every department of the munic- 
 ipal government was under the absolute domina- 
 tion of Abraham Ruef. Mayor Schmitz, a man 
 of courteous manner and pleasing personality, 
 had publicly announced his undying debt of 
 gratitude to Ruef, and had freely intimated that 
 any one who sought recognition or favor from 
 his administration must do so through Ruef. 
 Tlie board of public works, the police commis- 
 sion, the fire department, and every other board 
 and commission, were filled with men owning and 
 professing no allegiance to anything or anybody 
 but Ruef. The members of the board of super-
 
 GRAFTERS AND PROSECUTORS 81 
 
 visors were but a brigand band, organized for 
 plunder under the sub-leadership of Gallagher, 
 himself a member of the board and an attorney 
 at law, but taking orders absolute from Ruef. 
 Thus, while the board of supervisors, through 
 their various committees, might do a little loot- 
 ing and plundering upon their own account, in 
 a petty larcenist sort of way, in their regular 
 campaigns of brigandage they took orders from 
 Ruef, and never dreamed of violating them. 
 The civic condition of San Francisco, then, un- 
 der the Ruef-Schmitz regime, was this : no 
 citizen could look for justice, much less for 
 privilege or favor, except through Ruef. Ruef 
 did not pretend to limit his activities to pub- 
 lic or quasi-public corporations. No "fee" was 
 too small to be fish for his net. If a prop- 
 erty owner desired to build, with his plans 
 and specifications carefully prepared in con- 
 formity to all the existing ordinances, it was 
 necessary for him to obtain a permit so to build 
 from the board of public works. His plans and 
 specifications being absolutely regular, the grant- 
 ing of the permit, it would be thought, would 
 follow as a matter of course. But in practice it 
 never followed. The property owner danced at- 
 tendance upon one session after another of the 
 I)oard of public works, only to find that what- 
 ever other business was reached and transacted 
 by the board, his matter never came up. If 
 after long delay the light did not break in upon
 
 82 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 his mind it would be illuminated for him. Some 
 one would say to him : "Why don't you employ 
 Ruef?" Acting- upon the suggestion he would 
 go to Ruef, formally engage him as his "attor- 
 ney" to present his application to the board of 
 public works, pay him the fee demanded, and at 
 the next meeting of the board the building per- 
 mit would be granted. This condition of affairs 
 existed — not in exceptional cases — but in all cases. 
 The ramifications of this system extended through 
 all the body politic. Men who yielded to this subtle 
 form of extortion did not know, did not care, 
 whether Ruef shared his "fees" with his munic- 
 ipal boards and commissions or not. They 
 only knew that if they did not employ Ruef they 
 could not secure their simple rights, while if they 
 did employ him those rights were promptly ac- 
 corded them. It may be that they should have 
 stood firm. It may be that they should stead- 
 fastly have refused to yield to this form of ex- 
 tortion. So, too, it may be that the innocent 
 traveler should refuse to yield his pocketbook to 
 the highwayman with a pistol at his head. But 
 we are here carried to the border of an ethical 
 domain which it is not my present purpose to 
 enter. The fact is, that if the citizens who so 
 yielded and paid "fees" to Ruef under these cir- 
 cumstances were guilty of any li\o;al ofifense. 
 then it is within the bounds of truth to say that 
 five thousand worthy citizens of San Francisco, 
 men and women, could and should have been 
 indicted.
 
 GRAFTERS AND PROS ICC U'lOKS S3 
 
 The Parkside franchise case is both typical and; 
 notorious. A number of business men of San 
 Francisco had purchased a tract of land within 
 the corporate limits of the city, but outlying, 
 suburban, and unimproved. It was a part of the 
 sand-dunes of the city. They planned to grade, 
 level, and generally improve it, when, with street 
 car communication, which did not then exist, it 
 was thought that the land would become readily 
 salable, to the pecuniary advantage of the owners 
 and to the great benefit of the municipality. As 
 a part of this plan of development street car 
 service to the property was essential, and the 
 owners of this property sought a franchise for 
 the construction of such a street car line. Bear 
 in mind, they were not in the street railway busi- 
 ness, and did not desire or purpose to engage in 
 that business. All that they wished was that the 
 board of supervisors should, as the charter re- 
 quired, advertise the sale of such a franchise at 
 public auction. So far from desiring to own and 
 operate the franchise themselves, they made pub- 
 lic announcement that upon the sale of the 
 franchise to any person or corporation, they 
 would pay the sum of one hundred thousand 
 dollars as a bonus to aid in the construction of 
 the road. Mayor Schmitz had announced him- 
 self as favoring the franchise. Everybody fav- 
 ored the granting of the franchise. But it was 
 the old story. The supervisors would not refuse 
 to advertise such a franchise for sale. They
 
 84 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 simply failed to act. Finally, notice was brought 
 home to Mr. G. H. Umbsen, who was in man- 
 agerial control of the Parkside lands, that if it 
 was desired that this franchise should be ad- 
 vertised for sale, he would better employ Ruef. 
 Acting upon this suggestion he saw Ruef for the 
 purpose, and employed him as attorney to pre- 
 sent the matter to the board of supervisors. 
 Ruef declared that the Parkside people would 
 make a million dollars from the sale of the lands, 
 and demanded an exorbitant fee for taking this 
 "legal" employment. He was finally paid the 
 sum of thirty thousand dollars in cash. By no 
 word of testimony, either of the Parkside peo- 
 ple, who told their story freely before the grand 
 jury, or of Ruef himself, is there the slightest 
 understanding, or intimation of an understand- 
 ing, that any of this money was to be used for 
 the purpose of bribing supervisors. It was a 
 part of the condition which universally existed, 
 that the supervisors and other boards would act 
 at Ruef's suggestion, and only at his suggestion. 
 What he did with the money — whether he was to 
 use it to "feed his dogs," or to satiate his "paint 
 eaters" — no citizen knew or cared. But upon 
 this showing, and upon this evidence, Umbsen 
 and others of his associates were indicted, and an 
 effort was made by Mr. Heney to indict William 
 H. Crocker, touching whose connection with the 
 affair there existed not one word of evidence, 
 and who, in fact, had no knowledge whatsoever
 
 GRAFTERS AND PROSECUTORS 85 
 
 of Ruef s employment or the payment of money 
 to him. These indictments against Umbsen 
 and his associates were in due time, after they 
 had served their purpose of besmirching the in- 
 dicted business men, dismissed on motion of the 
 prosecution itself, for "lack of evidence." 
 
 So we see that if Ruef had accepted money for 
 the express purpose of bribery, and committed 
 bribery in the usual way, smooth would have 
 been the path of the patriots to their darling con- 
 summation. But Ruef was circumspect in his 
 roguery. A shrewd lawyer, he was sensible of 
 the hazards of his business. His relations with 
 the higher-ups were ostensibly those of attorney 
 and client. It was important to him that he 
 should put himself in the power neither of the 
 men from whom he was receiving money, nor 
 of the men to whom he was giving it. Out of 
 his sense of caution he dealt only with one super- 
 visor — James Gallagher. Always he acted the 
 part of a lawyer, receiving money as a fee and 
 giving some of it away not as a bribe but out of 
 his generosity inspired by a sense of gratitude. 
 
 Now it may be said that it is idle to consider 
 a rogue's metaphysical distinctions contrived for 
 self-exculpation. But I am not at all concerned 
 about the exculpation of Ruef or any of the 
 other defendants in the graft cases. I am trying 
 to do nothing but illumine the conduct of their 
 prosecutors, the men who abhorred the sins of 
 the grafters, and this cannot be done unless the
 
 86 TTIE REGENERATORS 
 
 shifts and stratagems to which they were put by 
 the exigencies that arose be made clear. If we 
 are prepared to admit that in all the circumstances 
 of the matter the prosecutors were justified in 
 dealing with the defendants as though they were 
 vermin, law or no law, and that a beneficent 
 purpose precluded the possibility of wrongdoing, 
 then these essays must be accepted as nothing 
 more than academic exercises. But whatever the 
 viewpoint the fact is that it was not all plain 
 sailing for the regenerators. The first thing 
 that gave them pause was a remark made 
 by Ruef before the grand jury when he was vol- 
 untarily reciting the sordid story of his political 
 career. Questioned about his relations with the 
 gas company, he said : "I received a fee for at- 
 torney's services of $1,000 a month for two or 
 three months prior to that, and then finding it, as 
 I explained, necessary to request or suggest an 
 additional fee which I thought would be covered 
 by the payment of twenty thousand dollars, I 
 suggested that to Mr. Drum. I wish to say also 
 in justice to him that I never told him it was 
 to be paid to these men." This testimony was not 
 satisfactory to the special prosecutor, who there- 
 upon asked another question, eliciting more than 
 he bargained for. Thus : "That isn't the way of 
 doing that kind of business, is it?" Ruef made 
 reply : "I don't know what the way of doing that 
 kind of business is except so far as it has con- 
 cerned myself. I never told any living being
 
 GRAFTERS AND PROSECUTORS 87 
 
 that I was receiving- or accepting money on any 
 proposition to be given supervisors, except Mr. 
 Gallagher." 
 
 Here was testimony that tended to exculpate 
 the higher-ups in a lump. It came from the 
 lips of the chief witness for the prosecution. 
 His sincerity at this time was unquestioned. He 
 was interested in nobody's welfare but his own. 
 The testimony was not volunteered. It was 
 elicited by the special prosecutor, who was quick 
 to appreciate the importance of it to the defense. 
 Taken down by an official stenographer, it be- 
 came a public record. The law provides that 
 testimony taken before the grand jury might, at 
 the option of the district attorney, be taken down 
 by a stenographer and if so taken down a tran- 
 script must be given on demand to every per- 
 son indicted as a result of such testimony. The 
 very just purpose of the law is to apprise a 
 defendant of the nature of the evidence he will 
 be called upon to combat. Now, it is a matter 
 of some significance that after Ruef had given 
 his testimony with reference to his customary 
 way of doing business the services of the stenog- 
 rapher were dispensed with. No record was 
 made of Ruef's testimony in the trolley cases. 
 This is well to bear in mind for the light it may 
 throw on a question to be discussed in a chapter 
 to follow, the question being whether Ruef was 
 expected to adapt his testimony to the exigencies 
 of a case.
 
 88 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 In addition to Rnef's attitude of aloofness to- 
 ward the supervisors there is another circum- 
 stance that increased the difficulties of the prose- 
 cution. It is this, — the supervisors were Ruef's 
 servile creatures, indebted to him for their elec- 
 tion, possessed of a lively sense of political favors 
 to come, and the}' would have done almost any- 
 thing at his bidding- without pay and without 
 promise. The truth appears to be that at odd 
 intervals he gave them money much in the same 
 spirit as a man would throw a bone to a dog. 
 This is not a matter of conjecture. It is borne 
 out by the testimony given by the supervisors at 
 a time when they were earning their immunity, 
 not for the purpose of assisting the defense or 
 injuring the prosecution. Take for example the 
 testimony of Supervisor Wilson. At the trial 
 of Tirey L. Ford, one of the officials of the United 
 Railroads, Wilson said, 'T voted on everything 
 because Ruef asked me, and I would have voted 
 for anything and everything irrespective of 
 money simply because Ruef asked me to." 
 
 This same witness at the trial of Louis Glass 
 of the Pacific States Telegraph and Telephone 
 Company was asked, "When did you first ac- 
 cept money for your vote?" He replied : 'T never 
 sold my vote. I accepted money but I would 
 have voted for these matters anyway." On this 
 occasion as on all others the witness was testify- 
 ing for the prosecution. His testimony is not 
 singular. It is corroborated even by Gallagher
 
 GRAFTERS AND PROSECUTORS 89 
 
 who worked harder than any of his confreres to 
 earn immunity. On Ruef's second trial Gal- 
 lagher gave this testimony : "There would be 
 very few matters that I would not have voted for 
 upon the mere request of Ruef." 
 
 The first serious mistake of the Graft Prosecu- 
 tion was in granting immunity in the manner in 
 which it was granted. The consideration which 
 moved the grafters to confess was that they 
 should not l)e prosecuted. But the prosecutors 
 reserved the right to determine what sort of con- 
 fession the grafters should make. In other 
 words to earn their liberty the grafters had to 
 give the right kind of testimony. This of course 
 is not exactly in accordance with the principle 
 of leniency universally recognized by courts of 
 justice. As a matter of fact it is legally within 
 the discretion of nobody but the judge on ihe 
 bench to determine whether an accomplice is 
 deserving of mercy by reason of service rendered 
 to the State. But the graft prosecutors admin- 
 istered justice in their own way. They kept 
 the corrupt supervisors out of the jurisdiction of 
 the court by withholding indictments. But the 
 threat of indictment hovered continually over 
 the heads of the supervisors, and the effect was 
 most salutary from the standpoint of the men 
 before whose power they cringed. The so-called 
 contract of immunity, then, was merely a promise 
 of immunity ; a bribe it was called by the un- 
 regenerate. Not a generous view to take of it,
 
 90 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 but one that seems to be justified by the records. 
 For the truth is that to earn their immunity the 
 supervisors had to do some tall swearing ; and 
 to adapt their testimony to a radical change in 
 the theory of the prosecution in the trolley cases, 
 they were obliged to improve their memory, with 
 the flight of time : no trivial achievement in it- 
 self. So if we analyze the testimony of the 
 supervisors we shall find that they appear to 
 have added perjury to their other crimes. That 
 they testified in fear and apprehension is evident 
 enough from the records. Supervisor Wilson 
 failed to give the right kind of testimony at the 
 first Ford trial, and he was indicted, not for 
 perjury but for the bribery that had been con- 
 doned. Later at the Calhoun trial, when he 
 amended his testimony satisfactorily, he admitted 
 under cross-examination that he entertained the 
 hope that the indictments would be dismissed. 
 And they were dismissed. Supervisor Cofifey, 
 whose testimony fell short of the necessities of 
 the prosecution, had the same experience as Wil- 
 son. Supervisor Nicholas said at the Calhoun 
 trial in response to a question by defendant's 
 counsel, "It is my understanding that if the 
 prosecution thinks I am not telling the truth my 
 immunity will be withdrawn and I will be prose- 
 cuted." Other supervisors testified in the same 
 vein. 
 
 Now for several reasons it was no easy matter 
 for the supervisors to testify according to con-
 
 GRAFTERS AND PROSECUTORS 91 
 
 tract, one of the reasons being- as we have seen 
 that the presumptions didn't square with the 
 facts ; another being that the prosecution changed 
 its theory of the trolley cases. Originally the 
 railroad officials were indicted for having bribed 
 the supervisors. The indictments charged the 
 payment of a bribe on May 14, 1906, at which 
 time the ordinance granting the trolley franchise 
 was pending. Tirey L. Ford was tried three 
 times under these indictments. On the first 
 trial the testimony showed that no money was 
 received by the supervisors until two months 
 after the final passage of the ordinance. So the 
 prosecution was obliged to make a change of 
 front. As the mere payment of money subse- 
 quent to the pendency of a measure does not 
 constitute any crime, it became necessary for the 
 prosecution to prove the ofifer of a bribe before 
 the final passage of the ordinance. But Tirey 
 Ford was tried three times under the defective 
 indictments. Once the jury disagreed and twice 
 the defendant was found not guilty. Then came 
 new indictments as substitutes for the original, 
 charging the oifer of a bribe on May 14. Mean- 
 while a great volume of testimony had been 
 given, and it abounded in contradictions and 
 conflicting statements. And all the while Judge 
 Lawlor was kept busy squaring the law with 
 the facts. We find him changing his instruc- 
 tions three times with respect to the time in 
 which the jury must find the ofifer to have
 
 92 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 been made. In overruling demurrers to the 
 original indictments he said it was plain to 
 be seen "that the pleader had intended to 
 charge an offer with respect to a matter then 
 pending." On the first Ford trial he in- 
 structed the jury that before they could find 
 the defendant guilty they must find that the 
 offer was made to the particular supervisor in 
 question "on the matter of the bill then pending." 
 On the second Ford trial the supervisor in ques- 
 tion, Supervisor Wilson, couldn't remember just 
 when Ruef's agent, Gallagher, had first spoken 
 to him. So Judge Lawlor instructed the jury 
 that it wasn't necessary to show that the matter 
 was actually pending at the time the oft'er was 
 made. Then came Patrick Calhoun's trial under 
 one of the amended indictments, and Judge Law- 
 lor instructed the jury that it was immaterial 
 whether they believed that an offer had been 
 made prior to the introduction of the ordinance 
 or during its pendency. 
 
 Now let us examine the ])rogressive testimony 
 of the supervisors so far as it relates to the 
 question of the "advance offers" of a bribe. First 
 comes James Gallagher, the "go-between" and 
 principal witness for the prosecution. His first 
 story was told on March 16, 1907. at the Glad- 
 stone apartments and reduced to writing. It is 
 known as the Gladstone statement. Describing 
 the method of doing business he said, "The plan 
 simply was to speak to some menihcr of the board
 
 GRAFTERS AND PROSECUTORS 93 
 
 and tell him to send the rumor among the boys 
 that there was likely to be a certain amount in 
 this thing", and then when the matter would come 
 up it would be passed." Questioned about the 
 trolley matter he said he told Supervisor Wilson 
 about it, Wilson being- second in command, and 
 he added, "I think it was Wilson who talked 
 with some of the boys about it and told me he 
 thought they would be satisfied with $4,000." 
 Two days later before the grand jury Gallagher 
 made his official confession, and on that occasion 
 he said : "It was not customary for me to go 
 
 around to each member Generally I 
 
 spoke to Wilson about it, and it would then be- 
 come known to the other members." Questioned 
 about the trolley permit he said he spoke to one 
 or two members about it. "I think," he said, 
 "Mr. Wilson was one of them." At the first 
 Ford trial he said, "I think I spoke to several 
 of the members about it." At the second Ford 
 trial he remembered si)eaking to Sanderson, 
 Phillips, Coleman and Davis. At the third Ford 
 trial he added IJoxton and L\irey. Four months 
 later, at Ruef's second trial, he made this admis- 
 sion : "I did not say to them that there was any 
 amount in it, or anything of that sort. I just 
 asked them as to the proposition as to whether 
 they would be favorable. My recollection is that 
 they all said "yes." 
 
 Up to this time the "offers" which became the 
 sole basis of the case for the prosecution were
 
 94 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 presented as subjects of loose, casual and informal 
 talks. But when Calhoun was prosecuted under 
 the new indictments the conversations became 
 more specific. In addition to the supervisors 
 thus far mentioned, Gallagher remembered 
 conversations with Nicholas, Coffey, Harrigan 
 and Lonergan. He remembered that he told 
 them, about a week before the ordinance was 
 passed to print, that there was $4,000 in it for 
 each of them. He even recollected where each 
 separate conversation had taken place. 
 
 Similarly progressive was the testimony of 
 Supervisor Nicholas. Called as a witness in the 
 Glass trial July 23, 1907, he was questioned 
 about the trolley franchise, and said he was quite 
 sure that Gallagher never told him there was to 
 be any money in it. His best recollection was 
 that "it was a kind of impression noised around 
 in the board" that money would be paid. At the 
 Calhoun trial two years later he remembered that 
 Gallagher told him "there would be $4,000 in the 
 matter." 
 
 Supervisor Wilson, the second in command, 
 the man who obtained the sentiment of the 
 supervisors for Gallagher, testified on several oc- 
 casions that all his confreres were in favor of 
 the trolley permit and that he spoke to none of 
 them of money. "I saw quite a number of them," 
 he said at the first Ford trial, "enough to know 
 that it would go through, but / did not speak 
 about money to them; and I found that the senti-
 
 GRAFTERS AND PROSECUTORS 95 
 
 ment was the same as to the trolley matter as 
 it was to almost everything-, that is, to let the 
 
 people get in and get at business 
 
 Hundreds of carmen told me that they wanted to 
 get the cars going to get to work, that they 
 were tired of loafing, and the merchants all 
 wanted it and the people wanted it." 
 
 At the second Ruef trial Gallagher testified, 
 "I am satisfied that Ruef could have got a ma- 
 jority to vote for the trolley ordinance without 
 any money." This sentiment he repeated at the 
 first Ford trial in these words : "I think the 
 trolley franchise would have been passed with- 
 out a dollar from anybody." On several occa- 
 sions this same witness swore that liis confreres 
 at first wanted more money than Ruef was will- 
 ing to allow. At the second Ruef trial he said, 
 "When Ruef first spoke to me about the trolley 
 matter I said, 'Well I don't know whether the 
 boys would want to do that or not.' " He added : 
 "I took steps to round them up, and reported 
 back to Ruef, and I remembered that there were 
 some members who thought they should receive 
 a large sum, that they thought it would be a 
 pretty difficult thing to put through." 
 
 Now from the testimony of Gallagher's con- 
 freres, who were as eager as Gallagher himself 
 to earn immunity, it would seem that he was 
 nearer the truth when he said that a majority 
 would have voted for it without any money. 
 Let us consult the record. Supervisor Mc-
 
 96 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 Giishin testified at the Calhoun trial thus : "I 
 was not bribed in the trolley matter because I 
 had no previous understanding on any matter 
 and never voted with a mercenary motive." 
 Supervisor Phillips gave this testimony: "I don't 
 think that I heard there was $4,000 in it before 
 the vote, and I don't think I heard any rumor. 
 I told Gallagher I would vote with the Admin- 
 istration, and I always did vote with Gallagher." 
 Next came Supervisor Mamlock : "I regarded 
 Gallagher as the leader and followed him. If he 
 said 'No franchise' I would have voted against 
 it, and if he said 'Franchise' I would have voted 
 for it. I favored the trolley and would have 
 voted for it without money." Supervisors Cole- 
 man and Davis swore they would have voted for 
 it without money. Supervisors Furey, Sander- 
 son, Coffey and Walsh swore that nobody ever 
 told them money was to be paid for the franchise. 
 Here we have a preponderance of testimony, sup- 
 plied by the prosecution itself, in flat contradic- 
 tion of the amended testimony of Supervisor Gal- 
 lagher and in corroboration of the testimony 
 given by Gallagher when it was not deemed 
 necessary to establish proof of the "advance 
 offers." Furthermore this is testimony that 
 tends to prove that Ruef rewarded the super- 
 visors as he saw fit and not because he had to. 
 In morals the distinction is without difference, 
 but in law the diiference is immeasurable. 
 
 Is there any reason for supposing that the
 
 GRAFTERS AND PROSECUTORS 97 
 
 supervisors who contradicted Gallagher were 
 actuated by the desire to assist the defendant? 
 We shall see that what they were able to ap- 
 preciate as the exigencies of the case they strove 
 to conserve. 
 
 Francis J. Heney in his opening- statement to 
 the jury in the first Ford trial said he would prove 
 that the supervisors were paid in two install- 
 ments ; that he would trace the money from the 
 U. S. Mint to which it had been wired from the 
 East to Calhoun's order, to Ruef,- and thence to 
 the supervisors. He would prove that the first 
 payment made to Ford "was composed largely 
 of one and two dollar bills, together with five and 
 ten and twenty dollar bills, twenty dollars being 
 about the largest bill there was in the package ; 
 these bills being bills that had been sent into the 
 Relief Corporation largely by mail in small 
 amounts — many of them being one and two dol- 
 lar bills." He also purposed proving that the 
 second payment was "in large size bills of not 
 less than fifty and probably not less than one hun- 
 dred dollars apiece." He had no difficulty in 
 proving that the railroad officials received the 
 money from the mint in installments such as he 
 described. Of that there was no denial. All 
 the banks having been destroyed by fire, in the 
 emergency all banking business was handled at 
 the mint. There was no secrecy about this busi- 
 ness. It was easy to establish the facts, but to 
 prove that the money paid on a certain occasion
 
 98 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 passed into the hands of the supervisors was an- 
 other matter. In truth the prosecution had 
 picked up the wrong trail, and precisely for 
 that reason there was much contradictory testi- 
 mony. 
 
 Supervisor Boxton testified at the first 
 trial that the payments were made just as 
 Heney said they were made. But before the 
 grand jury he had testified that there were no 
 bills "as small as a dollar or two dollars." Super- 
 visor Davis, before the grand jury, was asked if 
 one of the payments was in small bills, prin- 
 cipally one and two dollar bills. He made this 
 answer, "I don't think any of mine were that 
 way, no." At the first Ford trial he said of the 
 first payment, "If I recollect rightly the size of 
 the bills were small denominations, ones, twos, 
 fives, twenties." At subsequent trials he in- 
 troduced the "tens" thus bearing out Mr. Heney 
 to the letter. Supervisor Harrigan testified be- 
 fore the grand jury thus: "The size of the bills 
 in the first payment were mostly five, fifty, twenty, 
 and ten, fifty and one hundred. They ran that 
 way in all those payments." Alark the change 
 at the first Ford trial when speaking of the first 
 payment : "I think they v/ere from one to twenty 
 dollars ; think there were two, and fives and tens 
 in first payments." Supervisor Kelly on the wit- 
 ness stand in the first Ford trial testified that 
 the bills in the first payment ranged from $10 
 to $100 and added, "There were no ones and
 
 GRAFTERS AND PROSECUTORS 99 
 
 twos." He more nearly approximated the Hcney 
 version at subsequent trials, introducing fives and 
 keeping the maximum at twenty. Supervisor 
 Lonergan had the most difficult task of all the 
 supervisors in trying to approximate the Heney 
 version. Before the grand jury when he didn't 
 know what Heney wanted to prove he swore that 
 both payments were in bills of denominations 
 ranging from $20 to $500. At the first Ford 
 trial he said the first payment was in bills of 
 small denominations, chiefly twenties, tens and 
 fives, and that there were some one dollar bills. 
 Supervisor Mamlock testified at the first Ford 
 trial that the first payment was in five, twenty and 
 one hundred dollar bills. He repeated this testi- 
 mony at the second Ford trial, but at the third he 
 professed not to remember the denominations in 
 either payment. According to Supervisor Nich- 
 olas at the first Ford trial, the first payment was 
 in five and ten dollar bills. He was positive there 
 were no twos. At the third Ford trial he re- 
 called that there were some two dollar bills and 
 also that there was exactly one one dollar bill. 
 At the Calhoun trial he remembered that (just as 
 Heney said) there were also some twenty dol- 
 lar bills in the first payment. Supervisor Walsh 
 remembered at the first Ford trial that the bills 
 in the first payment were "mostly large." But 
 at the second trial he remembered they were 
 small. Unfortunately he remembered at this 
 trial that the bills of the second payment were
 
 100 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 also of small denominations. At the next trial 
 he made no effort to improve his testimony, but 
 of the second payment he said, "It was in an 
 envelope and I could not say what denominations 
 as I didn't count them." Supervisor Wilson's 
 testimony at the Gladstone apartments was that 
 both payments were in small bills, but in court 
 he made his testimony accord exactly with what 
 Mr. Heney declared that he would prove. 
 
 From the foregoing" excerpts it certainly ap- 
 pears that some pretty tall swearing was done 
 in the interest of civic purity under the auspices 
 of men possessed of a superfetation of civic virtue
 
 VI 
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 
 
 Experience of the Former Boss in the Hands of the 
 
 Regenerators ; He Bargains for Immunity, 
 
 hut Refuses to Give the Right Kind of 
 
 Testimony and Is Forsworn 
 
 If we except the ridding of public ofifice tem- 
 porarily of grafters, the one triumph of the 
 Graft Prosecution was the putting of Abraham 
 Ruef behind the bars of a penitentiary. But 
 as grafters have come and gone from all time, 
 and will continue to come and go while we 
 wait the halcyon Millennium, and as the main 
 object of the regenerators was to teach bribe- 
 givers the salutary lesson that it is more hazard- 
 ous to set the snare than to take the bait, the 
 conviction of Ruef was an achievement that 
 afforded his prosecutors much less glory than 
 might ordinarily have been expected. As a mat- 
 ter of fact the conviction of Ruef afforded the 
 regenerators nothing but humiliation. There 
 are triumphs that mortify the victor, and this 
 was one of them. A time there was when all 
 California cherished the hope that San Quentin 
 was Ruef's destination ; but by the time he 
 reached the penitentiary there had been wrought 
 a great change in public sentiment. For the
 
 102 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 kind of justice administered to Abraham Ruef 
 was a sorry simulacrum of the Anglo-Saxon 
 justice guaranteed to every American citizen. 
 If beyond the borders of Russia, in the history 
 of modern times subsequent to the days of re- 
 ligious persecution, there is to be found an in- 
 stance of the perversion of civic authority ap- 
 proximating that which Abraham Ruef ex- 
 perienced in San Francisco, it is recorded in 
 annals that have escaped my attention. 
 
 Ruef's experience in the hands of the regen- 
 erators was marked by a series of ugly scandals 
 for which the most ingenious would find it diffi- 
 cult to devise palliation. His treatment from 
 the beginning was unusual. When arrested in 
 the Spring of 1907 he was not ordered into the 
 custody of the sheriff or the chief of police, but 
 into the custody of Elisor W. J. Biggy, who 
 converted a private residence into a jail for the 
 accommodation of his prisoner. Here Ruef was 
 guarded by men who never permitted him the 
 enjoyment of solitude for a moment ; nor, for 
 a time, did they permit him to have any visitors. 
 Day and night, for many weeks, his guards sub- 
 jected him to the torture of the "third degree." 
 At brief intervals they roused him out of his 
 sleep, and told him of things which they pre- 
 tended to have heard him say while dreaming. 
 Nearly every day he was visited by Detective 
 Burns, who, to obtain a confession, cajoled and 
 threatened, but in vain. In the course of time
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 103 
 
 Ruef's health was undermined, and then he was 
 put on trial before Judge F. H. Dunne under 
 an indictment charging him with the extortion 
 of money from the proprietors of what are 
 known as the French restaurants. 
 
 These restaurants, it should be explained, are 
 peculiar to San Francisco. They are spoken of 
 as restaurants euphemistically. They cater chiefly 
 to persons who chafe at the conventional re- 
 straints of polite society, for whom are provided 
 special accommodations and facilities. Puritan- 
 ical persons regarded these restaurants as evi- 
 dence of the looseness of the city's morals. One 
 day the police commissioners threatened to 
 cancel the license by virtue of which the 
 restaurants were conducted. The proprietors 
 employed Ruef as their attorney. And Ruef 
 dissuaded the commissioners from their avowed 
 purpose. Now it was believed that Ruef in- 
 spired the threat which induced his employment; 
 in other words that he had blackmailed the res- 
 taurant keepers. This was the belief of the re- 
 generators even at the time that Rudolph Spreck- 
 els told James Gallagher that the public service 
 corporations were his objective point and that 
 he was willing to give Ruef immunity. The 
 public were told that the evidence of Ruef's 
 guilt was as plain as a pikestafif. There was no 
 escape for him, according to the regenerators, 
 and this opinion they promulgated for public con- 
 sumption. Still, as w?? learned in the course
 
 104 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 of events, they would be delighted to have him 
 plead guilty. 
 
 While the jury was being impaneled for Ruef's 
 trial the defendant was prevailed upon to co- 
 operate with the prosecution. And one day, 
 much to the astonishment of everybody, appar- 
 ently even to the astonishment of the prosecu- 
 tion, he rose in court and pleaded guilty to the 
 charge. The prisoner made a pathetic speech, 
 saying among other things, which was the most 
 curious of all of them, that whilst he pleaded 
 guilty he w^as innocent of the crime charged. 
 Strong men shed tears, special counsel for the 
 Graft Prosecution shook the prisoner's hand with 
 impressive earnestness and warmth, sympathiz- 
 ing with him in what they professed to regard 
 as his repentant mood. The Bulletin, voicing 
 the sentiments of the regenerators and sugges- 
 tionizing the public as usual, felicitated Ruef on 
 his fine exhibition of Christian manliness. At 
 the same time the people were reminded of the 
 purifying power of repentance, and were told 
 that the prisoner had been persuaded by his con- 
 science to make reparation for his misdeeds by 
 assisting the prosecution in their glorious work 
 of civic reform. What all the while was going 
 on behind the scenes a few were able to con- 
 jecture, but the public were kept in ignorance 
 for many months. That they had accepted as 
 an emotional drama what was in reality a well- 
 rehearsed farce the general had not the slightest
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 105 
 
 suspicion. Ruef's performance on that occasion 
 had been prearranged by the regenerators for 
 theatric effect. For that occasion the temple of 
 justice was converted into a playhouse. Even 
 the solemn judge on the bench was not uncon- 
 scious of the precise nature of the part he was 
 playing. Incredible to be sure, but none the less 
 true. The regenerators were really proud of that 
 coup. Read the American Magazine for April, 
 1908, and you will find Detective Burns boasting 
 of the consummate artistry of it all, and his Bos- 
 well, (the panegyrist of all the regenerators) Mr. 
 Lincoln Steffens, paying him the tribute of his 
 admiration. You will not learn from Mr. Stef- 
 fens, however, the why and wherefore of the 
 humbuggery. He does not expound the pur- 
 poses of the regenerators, though he does go so 
 far as to divulge the fact that Ruef had a con- 
 tract for immunity and was to be given im- 
 munity "if he would tell the truth." All of 
 which should be borne in mind, for Steffens was 
 the official mouthpiece of the prosecution. 
 
 When Ruef pleaded guilty there was no rea- 
 son, so far as anybody could see, why he should 
 not be sentenced on the spot. Ordinarily the man 
 that pleads guilty is in a hurry to be sentenced. 
 The sooner he is sentenced, the sooner he serves 
 his term and gains his liberty. But Ruef, it is 
 important we should note, was not sentenced. 
 The plea of guilty was entered in May,- 1907. 
 The summer waxed and waned, and Ruef's fate
 
 106 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 was still a matter of conjecture. At brief in- 
 tervals he appeared in court for no other pur- 
 pose than to hear Judge Dunne postpone his 
 sentence, and for a long time he acquiesced in 
 these postponements as though he quite under- 
 stood the situation and was satisfied. Mean- 
 time he appeared before the grand jury, and 
 gave much testimony with which the regenerators 
 seemed to be much pleased. He and the regen- 
 erators were now on the most amicable terms. 
 Presently he appeared as a witness for the prose- 
 cution on the trial of his old friend Eugene 
 Schmitz. And of course the man who had 
 shortly before made the whole town weep was 
 an impressive witness ; especially so as the im- 
 munity contract was under lock and key. On 
 Ruef's testimony Schmitz was convicted. He 
 was sentenced, too, but he took an appeal. 
 
 And still the suspending of Ruef's sentence 
 went on from week to week. And people won- 
 dered why. It was surmised of course that Ruef 
 had exacted some measure of leniency from the 
 prosecution, but not for a moment did that un- 
 sophisticated and credulous person, the average 
 citizen, entertain the notion that Ruef was not 
 to be punished at all. Yet what more natural 
 than the question, H he is to be punished why 
 not punish him? Certainly if he was to be 
 punished it would be advantageous to the prose- 
 cution to inflict the punishment, since, then, his 
 testimony would not be weakened by the sus- 
 picion that it had been purchased with immunity.
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 107 
 
 Presently the truth was unlocked and per- 
 mitted to flutter into the light of day. The key 
 was supplied by the appellate court, which ren- 
 dered a decision in the Schmitz case to the effect 
 that the indictment was fatally defective. This 
 decision, which will be discussed in another 
 chapter, had the effect of lightning. It clarified 
 the atmosphere. The Schmitz indictment was 
 the same as the Ruef indictment, the one to 
 which Ruef had pleaded guilty. His plea of 
 guilty was therefore of no avail to the prosecu- 
 tion, since the indictment was fatally defective. 
 The sentence that had been postpone^, for seven 
 months need be postponed no longer. Presently 
 out came the story of all that occurred before 
 the plea of guilty. It came out in a series of 
 aflidavits bristling with ugly accusations against 
 the regenerators. The principal affidavit was 
 Ruef's. It was corroborated by the affidavits of 
 two clergymen, rabbis of the synagogue, the 
 Rev. J. Nieto and the Rev. B. M. Kaplan. And 
 what these gentlemen were unable to corroborate 
 there was much circumstantial evidence to sup- 
 port. 
 
 From these affidavits it appears that after sub- 
 jecting Ruef to the "third degree" for a period 
 of six or seven weeks, the regenerators solicited 
 the aid of the two clergymen. Failing to break 
 the prisoner down by any of the expedients com- 
 monly practiced by the police, they appealed to 
 the rabbis to urgfe him in behalf of his mother
 
 108 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 and sisters, who, Ruef well knew, were suffer- 
 ing great mental anguish. According to these 
 clergymen it was represented to them that Ruef 
 could render a great public service by, making 
 certain disclosures ; that if he would do so he 
 would be set free, whereas if he refused he would 
 be sent to the penitentiary for life. The clergy- 
 men knowing the great distress of Ruef's aged 
 parents, for their sake agreed to urge Ruef to 
 confess. "It was evident to me," says Dr. Kap- 
 lan in his affidavit, "that every member of his 
 family was deeply attached to the defendant, 
 and that they were all on the verge of collapse. 
 I considered that it would be an act of divine 
 mercy to them if the defendant even at a sac- 
 rifice to himself brought them some peace of 
 mind and comfort. I told this to the defendant, 
 and I also assured him that we would all assist 
 in re-establishing him in public estimation should 
 he assist in the moral regeneration of the city 
 by making the disclosures as requested." 
 
 In the first interview with Ruef the clergymen 
 failed to move him. Ruef was adamant. They 
 reported that it was useless to urge him fur- 
 ther. Then, Dr. Kaplan tells us, he was asked 
 to try again. Rudolph Spreckels and Francis J. 
 Heney begged him in the interest of the com- 
 munity to plead for a confession. "We were 
 authorized," says Rabbi Kaplan, "to say to Mr. 
 Ruef that Mr. Schmitz, the mayor of San Fran- 
 cisco, had offered to tell all he knew of these
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 109 
 
 matters and to 'throw down' Mr. Ruef, but the 
 offer had been rejected, and that all the public 
 service corporations were also ready to make a 
 scape-goat of him.* but that they preferred to 
 prosecute the men connected with the public 
 service corporations, as they considered them the 
 fountain heads of municipal corruption, rather 
 than Mr. Ruef to whom they were willing- to 
 grant complete immunity ; that Ruef was a man 
 of great ability, had many friends and would 
 soon and easily restore himself to public con- 
 fidence, and they said that neither they nor any 
 one connected with the prosecution had any 
 animosity or hard feeling against Mr. Ruef, and 
 at that time as well as on many other occasions 
 Mr. Heney stated in my presence that he per- 
 sonally liked and admired Mr. Ruef." 
 
 Finally, when told that his mother was sick 
 unto death, Ruef agreed to accept immunity. 
 The first demand made upon him was that he 
 should plead guilty in the French restaurant case 
 which was then on trial. It was explained that 
 he would be permitted at some future time to 
 withdraw the plea, and that the case would then 
 be dismissed. The plan as outlined was to give 
 him a written contract of immunity on all 
 charges save the one upon which he was being 
 tried, and as to that charge to give him a verbal 
 guarantee that it would be dismissed. This is 
 what is sworn to by Ruef and the two clergy- 
 
 * Neither Schmitz nor the officials of the public service 
 corporations ever asked for immunity.
 
 no THE REGENERATORS 
 
 men, and to their testimony there are circum- 
 stances that give verisimiHtucle. 
 
 This was a curious plan, by no means intel- 
 ligible at first blush. What reason was there 
 for two separate agreements ? From the lucid ex- 
 planation given by Ruef and his friends it ap- 
 pears there was a cogent reason. And the ex- 
 planation considered in connection with facts, 
 about which there is no dispute, is not at all im- 
 plausible. The explanation is that it was for- 
 seen that as a witness Ruef would be asked if he 
 was not testifying because he had been promised 
 immunity. Then would the immunity contract 
 be the best evidence, and the inference from it 
 would be that there was punishment in store for 
 Ruef. Besides Schmitz was to be tried for ex- 
 tortion, and if Ruef pleaded guilty the presump- 
 tion naturally would be that Schmitz was guilty 
 too ; for in the French restaurant cases they 
 were said to be co-conspirators. 
 
 But Ruef stoutly objected to pleading guilty. 
 He insisted that he was innocent of the charge ; 
 that the restaurant keepers had not been black- 
 mailed, and that he could prove his innocence. 
 He was told he must plead guilty and on no 
 other condition would he be granted immunity. 
 At length he wavered, expressing doubt, how- 
 ever, as to whether the district attorney would 
 be able to carry out the proposed agreement. 
 It was sought to dissipate his scepticism with as- 
 surances the soundness of which subsequent
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 111 
 
 events vindicated. Ruef tells us of these as- 
 surances : "It was stated to me by said Burns, 
 by said Heney, and by said Langdon in tiie 
 presence of said Dr. Kaplan, and by said lUirns 
 to me in' the presence of Dr. Nieto that Jud^s^e 
 Dunne and Judge Lawlor were in sympathy and 
 agreement with .the prosecution and that they 
 would co-operate with the prosecution, and also 
 that the presiding' judge of the Superior Court 
 had agreed to assign all indictments in these 
 'graft cases,' including all indictments returned 
 or to be returned against myself, only to the two 
 departments of the Superior Court presided over 
 by said Judges Dunne and Lawlor." 
 
 Despite these assurances Ruef was sceptical. 
 He desired assurances from the judges them- 
 selves that the compact would be kept. Then 
 were arrangements made for what has since 
 been known as "the midnight meeting." The 
 story of this memorable meeting is told by the 
 clergymen. On the night of April 27 , 1907, they 
 accompanied Heney and Burns to the Temple 
 Israel where court was held temporarily after 
 the fire of 1906. First they entered Judge Law- 
 lor's chambers. The judge was on hand. What 
 occurred Dr. Kaplan relates : — 
 
 "Mr. Heney said to the judge in effect, 'We 
 may have to ask you in regard to certain cases 
 which will come up in your court to — ' And 
 about that time Judge Lawlor interrupted Mr. 
 Heney and said in effect, T do not wish to go
 
 112 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 into particulars. I have confidence in tiie dis- 
 trict attorney's office, and so long as I have con- 
 fidence in the district attorney's office it has been 
 the practice of this court to act favorably on any 
 recommendations or requests made by the dis- 
 trict attorney's office in open court.' " 
 
 This was as far as Judge Lawlor would go. 
 His language as quoted is somewhat equivocal, 
 but Judge Lawlor is instinctively cautious on 
 all occasions. He spoke, and then he left the 
 room. The affiant goes on : "Thereupon Dr. 
 Nieto and myself, not being familiar with the 
 practice of courts and not being attorneys, asked 
 Mr. Heney whether we were to understand from 
 the statement of the judge just made that he 
 had given the assurances desired, namely, that 
 any case against Mr. Ruef which might be as- 
 signed to his department should upon motion of 
 the district attorney be dismissed. To which 
 Mr. Heney replied, 'Certainly.' " 
 
 Judge Dunne received the detective the rep- 
 resentative of the district attorney and the two 
 clergymen in his chambers between the midnight 
 hour and one o'clock in the morning. Judge 
 Dunne is not so discreet nor so prudent a man as 
 Judge Lawlor. He was not averse to commit- 
 ting himself outright in the presence of the 
 clergymen. He did not perceive the advisability 
 of interrupting Mr. Heney or leaving the door 
 open for equivocation. Says Dr. Kaplan : 
 
 "Mr. Heney said in effect to Judge Dunne, 'We
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 113 
 
 are negotiating with Mr. Riief to 'come through' 
 and we want him to plead guihy to the charge 
 now on trial before you. We may ask you to 
 allow him to withdraw that plea and to substitute 
 the plea of 'Not Guilty' and dismiss the indict- 
 ment against him.' To which Judge Dunne sub- 
 stantially replied as follows : 'I have every con- 
 fidence in the district attorney's office and will 
 do what you ask.' Thereupon I asked Judge 
 Dunne whether I was to understand that if Mr. 
 Ruef pleaded 'Guilty' that he would permit and 
 consent to the plea being withdrawn and the 
 plea of 'Not Guilty' substituted and the indict- 
 ment dismissed, to which he answered, 'Yes, sir; 
 yes, sir; certainly.' After that, as the judge was 
 about to leave the room, I again asked him, in 
 effect : 'Your honor, do you mean to say you 
 would allow the plea to be withdrawm and dis- 
 miss the case?' To which the judge responded, 
 'Yes, yes ; certainly,' and took his departure." 
 
 The clergymen reported to Ruef all that had 
 occurred at the midnight meeting. The terms 
 of the prosecution were then accepted. On this 
 occasion District Attorney Langdon was present, 
 and this gentleman, we learn from Dr. Kaplan's 
 affidavit, said to Ruef: "It is understood that we 
 did not discuss with you the matter of the with- 
 drawal of the plea of guilty ; you can rely on 
 the reverend gentlemen." On the same occasion, 
 Dr. Kaplan tells us, Mr. Heney explained that 
 as a matter of policy Ruef would be expected "to
 
 114 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 keep secret all arrangements," which he did, and 
 pleaded guilty after rehearsal. 
 
 On May 20, 1907, Ruef was summoned before 
 the grand jury, and he told the whole sordid 
 story of his relations with the supervisors and 
 with the public service corporations. At the 
 close of the session he was thanked by Heney 
 who appeared to be well satisfied with his testi- 
 mony. Months passed without anything occur- 
 ring to give indication of a breach between the 
 prosecution and the star witness. Yet perfect 
 harmony had not been maintained. When 
 Schmitz was on trial. Ruef, as he tells us in 
 his affidavit, informed the district attorney that 
 he would not make a good witness against the 
 defendant. "I told them," he says, "that as no 
 extortion had been committed I should be obliged 
 so to testify, and that if I made a truthful state- 
 ment of all the facts cross-examination would 
 demonstrate that no extortion whatever had been 
 committed by either Schmitz or myself." 
 
 He adds that the prosecution tried to persuade 
 him to change his testimony. Detective Burns 
 told him he was not keeping his contract, and 
 threatened him with prosecution. But the next 
 day Burns submitted to him a typewritten set of 
 questions which had been prepared by Heney, 
 and demanded that he should write his answers 
 thereto. Ruef did so. Subsequently he was 
 told by Burns in the presence of Dr. Kaplan that 
 his answers were satisfactory, and that he would
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 115 
 
 be called to the witness stand. "I told Burns," 
 says Ruef, that I did not believe my answers and 
 proposed testimony, even as so written, would 
 do the prosecution any good, because while true, 
 it would open the doors for a full cross-examina- 
 tion by defendant's counsel, when all the facts 
 would come out, and that the larger part of the 
 same would be extremely favorable to Schmitz. 
 Burns said to me in the presence of Dr. Kaplan 
 that the prosecution would take its chances on 
 that and would take care of the cross-examina- 
 tion, and that Mr. Heney did guarantee that 
 nothing would be allowed to be brought out on 
 cross-examination unfavorable to the prosecu- 
 tion." 
 
 At this same interview Burns warned Ruef 
 against giving any testimony about the im- 
 munity contract. "I told Mr. Burns in the 
 presence of Dr. Kaplan," says Ruef, "that I 
 could not deny that agreement if properly ques- 
 tioned, but that the best thing to do in the mat- 
 ter would be to allow me to withdraw my plea 
 and have the case dismissed before I went upon 
 the stand as a witness in the case. This, Mr. 
 Burns said, the prosecution could not do as it 
 would affect the result in the Schmitz case. I 
 then asked Mr. Burns how, upon a proper cross- 
 examination, he or the prosecution could expect 
 to keep from the jury the facts relative to said 
 agreement to withdraw my plea ; he stated to 
 me that the prosecution would attend to that
 
 116 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 and I need give myself no concern about it. 
 I said to Mr. Burns in effect as follows : 'Judge 
 Dunne knows all about this agreement and about 
 the withdrawal of my plea. How could I re- 
 frain from disclosing it?' He said that Mr. 
 Heney would take care of that, and that I need 
 not worry about it ; he and Heney would guar- 
 antee that it would not be brought out." 
 
 Just before going on the witness stand Ruef 
 was again admonished by Burns in the presence 
 of Dr. Kaplan to say nothing about the immunity 
 contract, and if necessary to deny that any 
 agreement existed with reference to the plea in 
 the extortion case. "I told him," said Ruef, 
 "that even if I were willing to do as requested, 
 which I was not, that I would be a fool to do 
 so from the standpoint of my own interests, as 
 T would thereby be effectually debarred there- 
 after from ever insisting that such an agreement 
 had been made." 
 
 Fortunately there was no necessity for per- 
 jury. Heney had made no idle boast to Burns. 
 The cross-examination was most discreetly re- 
 stricted. Ruef tells about it thus : "When direct 
 questions were asked by the attorneys for the de- 
 fendant to which a categorical answer could not 
 be avoided, which categorical answer would have 
 disclosed material truths regarding the facts of 
 the case and also would have disclosed said 
 agreements of immunity and the said agreement 
 to withdraw the plea, the said Heney objected
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 117 
 
 to said questions, and his ol)jections were by said 
 court, Judge Dunne presiding", sustained." 
 
 All of which may seem improbable. Here 
 we have a very grave accusation against a min- 
 ister of justice, one whom the public of San 
 Francisco greatly admired for the inflexible integ- 
 rity he was believed to have exhibited through- 
 out the Graft Prosecution. Implicated with him 
 in this ugly accusation are the civic patriots whci 
 were given carte-blanche to regenerate and re-i 
 deem a city. But is it true that they stifled in- 
 quiry? For answer let us consult the transcript 
 on appeal in the case of the People vs. Eugene 
 Schmitz. Let us look to the record and see 
 whether the judge on the bench, who had been 
 made a party to the secret immunity contract, 
 suppressed the truth and vindicated the guar- 
 antee given to Ruef "that Mr. Heney would take 
 care of that." From the transcript ft appears 
 that on direct examination Ruef was asked 
 whether he had paid Schmitz any of the money 
 received from the French restaurant keepers. 
 He said that he had. Asked whether he told 
 Schmitz that the money was his share, he an- 
 swered : "I didn't say to him it was his share. 
 I did say to him that I had received from the 
 French restaurants $5,000, and that if he would 
 accept half of it I should be glad to give it to 
 him. Thereupon I gave it to him." On cross- 
 examination he admitted that the prosecutors 
 had promised to "secure leniency" for him ; also
 
 118 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 that he had told them that "some particulars" 
 of his testimony would be favorable to the de- 
 fendant. 
 
 "Well, what particulars of your testimony did 
 you refer to then?" was the question put by 
 counsel for the defendant, one of the firm of 
 Metson, Campbell & Drew. Heney objected, 
 and the objection was sustained. 
 
 The next question : "Did you at any conver- 
 sation with these gentlemen tell them that you 
 would not stand for anything save and except 
 complete immunity?" 
 
 Again came an objection from Heney, and 
 Judge Dunne sustained the objection, saying: 
 "You keep asking him the same question. You 
 are using equivalent (?) language. It is the 
 same tone, the same purpose. I have no objec- 
 tion to your asking him if he is going to receive 
 immunity, and let it go at that, but you are ask- 
 ing him the same thing in different forms, every 
 question." 
 
 After some questioning about other matters 
 the important query was put in this form : "Now 
 I will ask you, Mr. Ruef, if you are not now giv- 
 ing your testimony under the expectation and 
 hope of immunity, complete immunity?" 
 
 Heney objected, and Judge Dunne sustained 
 the objection. 
 
 It also appears from the transcript that Ruef 
 admitted on cross-examination that when he 
 pleaded guilty to the charge of extortion, he said :
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 119 
 
 "I am not guilty of the offense charged in this 
 indictment." But when he was asked if that 
 statement was true, Heney objected and the ob- 
 jection was sustained. 
 
 So we see it was indeed a most restricted 
 cross-examination that was permitted when 
 Ruef was on the witness stand. Yet Ruef 
 had been called to rebut testimony given by 
 Schmitz under cross-examination. And in 
 that cross-examination Heney was allowed ex- 
 ceptional latitude. Schmitz, called in his 
 own behalf, was questioned on only two 
 points ; about a conversation with a French res- 
 taurant keeper, and about a conversation with a 
 police commissioner. Then Heney was allowed 
 to take him in hand, and conduct a thorough in- 
 quiry into all his relations with Ruef. This I 
 advert to merely to indicate the attitude of the 
 court, not to throw any light on the question of 
 guilt or innocence, though, in passing, it is per- 
 tinent to remark that Ruef's relations with 
 Schmitz were in a measure akin to those of Ruef 
 and the supervisors. There is no evidence any- 
 where tending to show that Schmitz was ever a 
 party to any bargain made by Ruef with any 
 person who had business dealings with the 
 municipal government. 
 
 Perhaps it is also pertinent to add that not a 
 scintilla of testimony is to be found implicating 
 Schmitz in the trolley franchise deal, while on 
 the other hand it is admitted that one of the
 
 120 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 most valuable things obtained from the munic- 
 ipality under the Schmitz regime was a railroad 
 franchise, which was granted in consideration of 
 nothing but Schmitz's friendship for J. Downey 
 Harvey, an intimate friend of both Rudolph 
 Spreckels and James D. Phelan. This franchise 
 which cost Harvey and his associates nothing, 
 Harvey publicly declared to be worth five mil- 
 lion dollars. So Schmitz was not so sordid as he 
 might have been. On the contrary he was a 
 grafter of generous impulses. It is known that 
 he was on the point of putting through the 
 Parkside franchise without cost to anybody when 
 the supervisors balked and necessitated the em- 
 ployment of Ruef. 
 
 Let us revert again to the Ruef affidavit. We 
 learn from it that after giving his testimony in 
 the Schmitz case Ruef was complimented by 
 Heney, Burns and Langdon. They were pleased 
 with his testimony and assured him they would 
 carry out their agreement. Three months — 
 July, Augtist and September — passed by, and 
 Ruef was growing impatient. Detention was 
 irksome. He longed to be free as air and in- 
 dependent as the wind. In his sequestered cor- 
 ner there was too much madding uncertainty. 
 He urged his keepers to allow him to withdraw 
 his plea and have done with it. "They told me," 
 says Ruef, "that they feared it would hurt their 
 -case if it should become known by the with- 
 drawal of said plea that I was to go unpunished.
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 121 
 
 until they had secured the conviction of some 
 of the other persons against whom indictments 
 had been returned." 
 
 Dr. Kaplan reminded the regenerators that 
 it had been agreed to permit Ruef to withdraw 
 the plea immediately after the close of the 
 Schmitz case. But Langdon could not remember 
 that any definite time had been agreed upon. 
 And all the while Judge Dunne was vindicating 
 the good faith of the prosecutors by postponing 
 sentence from week to week. Surely Ruef ought 
 to be satisfied that immunity eventually would 
 come to him, since it was clear that if Judge 
 Dunne did not intend to keep his promise he 
 would pass sentence and thus silence the vagrant 
 rumors in circulation that the fallen boss had 
 made certain of his own freedom before con- 
 fessing. 
 
 Meanwhile the newspaper critics of the Graft 
 Prosecution were making the situation uncom- 
 fortable for the regenerators by complaining 
 that Ruef was being vmduly pampered at public 
 expense. Why should he be kept in a luxurious 
 residence? they asked. They complained that 
 the manner of his detention was costly, and 
 argued that he ought to be sent cither to the 
 penitentiary or to the county jail. All the while 
 the expenses of his imprisonment were being 
 paid under court orders issued by Judge Dunne. 
 
 The prosecutors, squirming under the lash of 
 criticism, told Ruef in September, 1907, that
 
 122 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 he would have to go to jail unless he agreed 
 to pay his own expenses. Assured that the 
 period of his detention would not exceed six 
 weeks, he decided to let the burden shift from 
 the taxpayers to himself. The first trial of Tirey 
 L. Ford was then in progress. Ruef expected 
 to be called as a witness. One day he was visited 
 by Dr. Kaplan who told him that the prosecu- 
 tion wished him to strengthen the testimony 
 which he had given before the grand jury. He 
 told Dr. Kaplan that he had been spoken to on 
 the subject by Burns, who, he said, evidently 
 wished him to commit perjury. While they 
 were talking Burns made his appearance. Ad- 
 dressing Ruef the detective said : "I am getting 
 hell. We are not satisfied with your testimony 
 in this matter. You've got to make it stronger 
 against Ford and Calhoun. You are holding 
 back. If you don't testify to convict Ford and 
 help us to convict him and Calhoun you can't 
 expect favors from us. I wash my hands of 
 the immunity contract. I won't be intermediary 
 any longer." 
 
 Ruef's reply, according to his affidavit, was in 
 these words : "I could not and would not live 
 with a consciousness and knowledge that a false 
 oath and perjured testimony from me had con- 
 victed any man. I would not give such testi- 
 mony if ten thousand years of imprisonment 
 stared me in the face." Knowing Ruef as a man 
 of faint scruple this utterance comes to us with
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 123 
 
 a theatric ring-. It is like the self-approbation of 
 a man who has made a fine figure of himself in 
 his own imagination. Yet there may be some- 
 thing of sincerity in this self-conscious verdict. 
 In this connection it may be worth while to in- 
 dulge in speculative reflection touching the 
 character of the leading villain of the graft 
 drama. Ruef abounds in obliquities of character. 
 Educated, vain, capable of the most generous 
 acts, yet meanness seems to cling to his every 
 motion. Far from harmonious is his moral and 
 intellectual nature. The lust of avarice seized 
 on him early in his career, begetting more vices 
 than Priam did children. In his quest of fees 
 he became a pettifogger at the bar, developing a 
 skill in sharp practice ; yet he gained a reputa- 
 tion for benevolence, and in politics he plumed 
 himself on his reputation for square dealing with 
 men. What man has not some redeeming qual- 
 ity? No man is spotted all over with iniquity. 
 The brutalest barbarian has something spiritual 
 in his nature. Now is it incredible that there 
 was a limit to Ruef's capacity for evil? Are we 
 to doubt there was a single crime at which his 
 calloused sensibilities revolted? He tells us that 
 he refused to adapt his testimony to the ex- 
 igencies of the case against the higher-ups ; and 
 if you examine all the circumstances, even apart 
 from the testimony that Rudolph Spreckels's "ob- 
 jective point was the public service corporations," 
 you will find it hard to avoid the conclusion that
 
 124 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 Abraham Ruef is today a convict not because he 
 sinned against the law but because he would not 
 perjure himself that others might be sent to the 
 penitentiary. Assuredly it is not to be gainsaid 
 that it was in his power to make impossible the 
 acquittal of several men under indictment. He 
 need only have sworn that the money he received 
 was given to him to be given to public officials 
 as a bribe. There was but a slight difference be- 
 tween the language of the testimony he gave 
 and the language of the testimony demanded, 
 but that difference he would not efface. Whether 
 he might have obtained his liberty by giving the 
 testimony demanded is another question. Prom- 
 ises are like pie crust. Even written contracts 
 may be broken as we learn from Ruef's ex- 
 perience, for he was prosecuted on one of the 
 charges covered by the black and white instru- 
 ment of immunity. 
 
 If to believe all that Ruef has said about his 
 bargain were tantamount to resolving a question 
 of veracity in his favor and against the regen- 
 erators, his affidavit would hardly be entitled to 
 serious consideration. But this affidavit has re- 
 f ceived corroboration from many sources. One 
 of them is the American Magazine of April, 
 1908, wherein Lincoln Steffens quotes Burns on 
 the occasion of Ruef's arrest : "You can see that 
 we have got you and got you right. And you 
 can see also that you aren't the man we're after. 
 The fellow we're after is your good friend,
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 125 
 
 the man higher up." In addition to Ruef's 
 affidavit we have the undisputed fact that 
 Rudolph Spreckels told Gallagher that Ruef was 
 privileged to exchange his testimony for com- 
 plete immunity ; also the undisputed fact that 
 several supervisors conveyed to him the assur- 
 ance of complete immunity on the same basis on 
 which they had obtained it ; also the testimony 
 of tv/o rabbis, the strange and significant conduct 
 of Judge Dunne in the Schmitz case, the repeated 
 postponement of Ruef's sentence, and finally the 
 written contract of immunity which is a matter 
 of public record. This contract itself seems to 
 argue the truth of what Ruef says in his affidavit. 
 It sets forth that its terms should be applicable 
 to all indictments save No. 305, the one to which 
 Ruef agreed to plead guilty, the one which, ac- 
 cording to his affidavit, was the subject of the 
 verbal agreement ratified at the midnight meet- 
 ing. So it appears that if in deference to the 
 wishes of the regenerators we accept the written 
 immunity contract as the only evidence of a bar- 
 gain, we must believe that Ruef agreed to do 
 what the regenerators wanted him to do in con- 
 sideration of their promise to punish him for only 
 one felony. Is it reasonable to believe that Ruef 
 would agree to such terms? It would be if it 
 were the practice in such cases to prosecute a man 
 for more than one crime. Such is not the prac- 
 tice. Justice is not vindictive. Justice is usually 
 satisfied with one verdict. Even in the case of
 
 126 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 Abraham Ruef justice, as we now know, would 
 have been satisfied, for Ruef having been con- 
 victed of one crime the prosecution of him is 
 at an end. Is it not, then, putting a tax on 
 creduHty to ask us to beheve that Ruef accepted 
 immunity on all but one charge when there was 
 not the slightest likelihood of his being prosecuted 
 on more than one charge? 
 
 Whatever else may be said of Abraham Ruef 
 it will never be asserted that he was not inclined 
 to drive a hard-and-fast bargain. Nor will it 
 be said that the regenerators regarded him as of 
 so little importance as a witness that they would 
 not be likely to let him dictate terms. What they 
 thought of him is set forth on pages 28 and 29 of 
 the printed report of Mayor Taylor's whitewash 
 committee. "It became apparent," says that com- 
 mittee with reference to Ruef, "that without this 
 one man's testimony the many bribe-givers whose 
 enrichment by the large profits of such under- 
 takings made them equally, if not more, danger- 
 ous to society, would not only escape the pen- 
 alty which was their due, but that even their 
 names would not be discovered and written in 
 the 'detinue book' of the city's suspicious char- 
 acters. Besides, without Ruef's assistance, the 
 conviction of Schmitz, with the resultant change 
 in the mayoralty, the police and other municipal 
 boards, seemed impossible." So Ruef was 
 deemed a very important personage when the 
 immunity contract was made, so important, ac-
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 127 
 
 cording to the apologists of the whitewash com- 
 mittee, that they would not, as they tell us, "have 
 regarded it as an error to grant Ruef complete 
 immunity." But they do not believe he was 
 promised complete immunity. They do not be- 
 lieve that it had been privately agreed to let Ruef 
 withdraw his plea of "guilty" and plead "not 
 guilty." They do not believe it because "neither 
 rabbi protested when Ruef led the jury to believe 
 that the agreement was not for complete im- 
 munity." As we have seen, Judge Dunne would 
 not permit Ruef to answer the question as to 
 whether he had been promised complete im- 
 munity, a circumstance in itself of some signif- 
 icance. If Ruef had not been granted complete 
 immunity what was the objection to his say- 
 ing so? And even though the court had shown 
 a disposition to have the whole truth discovered 
 is it likely that a rabbi or any other person 
 would have had the courage to stand up in 
 court and interrupt the trial? In the circum- 
 stances the silence of the rabbis is hardly to be 
 taken as conclusive of the falsity of the Ruef 
 affidavit. And therefore the argument of the 
 whitewash committee cannot be accepted as a 
 refutation of Ruef's statement. 
 
 Circumstantial evidence is very much in Ruef's 
 favor. And this evidence is strengthened by 
 Dr. Kaplan who corroborates Ruef on many im- 
 portant points. For example we learn from Dr. 
 Kaplan that Heney, Langdon and Burns before
 
 128 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 discovering the weakness of their case told him 
 they were satisfied with the testimony given by 
 Ruef before the grand jury and that not till after 
 the first Ford trial did they express a different 
 view of the matter. In the midst of the Ford 
 trial the prosecution decided not to call Ruef as 
 a witness, though they had summoned him to 
 court. Heney's failure to call Ruef is explained 
 by Dr. Kaplan : "Mr. Heney told me he had his 
 reasons for not calling Mr. Ruef, and that he 
 would put him on in the Calhoun case which was 
 shortly to be tried. He said, in substance, Mr. 
 Ruef is no fool, and that he would say all that 
 was expected of him in the Calhoun case. At 
 that time Mr. Heney said that Ruef was with- 
 holding some testimony, and asked me to get 
 Mr. Ruef to furnish the testimony referred to." 
 
 This is corroborative of Ruef who says that 
 Dr. Kaplan told him what the prosecution 
 wanted. "I stated to Dr. Kaplan repeatedly," 
 says Ruef, "that to do what was requested meant 
 perjury on my part." 
 
 Dr. Nieto, according to Ruef, also had inter- 
 views with the prosecutors, and reported to the 
 prisoner that they had said to him he must give 
 the testimony wanted or take the consequences." 
 But the clergymen were always assured that as 
 the testimony wanted was the truth, they should 
 have no hesitancy in advising Ruef to "come 
 through." 
 
 There were other matters besides the trolley
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 129 
 
 franchise about wliicii tlie prosecutors desired 
 satisfactory testimony. In the most important 
 of these matters Mr. Theodore Roosevelt was 
 personally interested. Says Ruef : "Among the 
 matters so requested to be testified to and urged 
 upon me by said Burns for and on behalf of said 
 prosecution were matters which related to Will- 
 iam F. Herrin and E. H. Harriman of the 
 Southern Pacific Company, and especially was it 
 desired and requested that I should testify con- 
 cerning these last named persons that they had 
 entered into a corrupt bargain and agreement 
 with me relative to, and had paid money to me 
 for and concerning, the nomination of James N. 
 Gillett as candidate for Governor of the State 
 of California by the Republican State Conven- 
 tion which was held in Santa Cruz in the year 
 1906. And they claimed that said Herrin, Har- 
 riman and said governor had committed crimes 
 against the laws of the State thereby, for which 
 they could be indicted, and it was stated to me 
 by said Burns that the said prosecution had posi- 
 tive information and knowledge that said William 
 F. Herrin had paid me a large sum of money 
 to purchase the votes of delegates representing 
 San Francisco in said Republican State Conven- 
 tion, and wanted me so to testify, and stated that 
 the prosecution wanted to 'get' the governor and 
 Herrin and Harriman." 
 
 Ruef says he denied ever having been paid 
 money for any such purpose, and that Burns
 
 130 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 then told him that Heney and Spreckels were 
 anxious to incriminate Herrin and Harriman and 
 "that Heney had the support of President 
 Theodore Rooseveh in that connection." 
 
 Notwithstanding" his denial Ruef was sum- 
 moned before the grand jury and questioned 
 about the nomination of Governor Gillett, and 
 he swore that not a dollar had been promised 
 or paid to him by Harriman or anyone else for 
 the purpose of influencing the vote of any 
 delegate. The only testimony ever adduced any- 
 where on the subject of this alleged bribery of del- 
 egates to the convention was that given by Ruef 
 before the grand jury, and though he disclaimed 
 knowledge of the use of money by anybody in 
 that connection, it was stated in the final report 
 of the grand jury that evidence had been ob- 
 tained of the bribery of the convention in the 
 interest of the man who was nominated for 
 governor. Yet no indictments were filed, and 
 nobody ever heard anything more of the mat- 
 ter. The supposition is that the report was pre- 
 pared under the direction of Langdon and 
 Heney. 
 
 In the month of January, 1908, Ruef learned 
 that his immunity contract was not worth the 
 paper it was written on. It was canceled, the 
 verbal agreements were repudiated. On no 
 single hypothesis are we to account for the be-
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 131 
 
 haviour of the prosecutors in this matter. They 
 were not all of one mind. As late as January 
 13 District Attorney Langdon stood ready to 
 carry out his agreement. He told Ruef that 
 while he was not satisfied with his testimony 
 on the subject of the trolley franchise neverthe- 
 less he had decided to accept what had been 
 given. Dr. Kaplan tells us that as late as the 
 eighteenth of January he had a number of inter- 
 views with Langdon and Burns, during all of 
 which they assured him the contract would be 
 kept. Furthermore they told him they were 
 "working with Judge Dunne and Judge Lawlor 
 to induce them to comply with the terms of the 
 agreement." Also they told him that "Rudolph 
 Spreckels would see Judge Dunne in order to 
 induce him to live up to the terms of the agree- 
 ment, and that Mr. Fremont Older, editor of 
 the Bulletin, was in consultation with Judge 
 Dunne with the view of inducing him to carry 
 out his agreement." Apparently Judge Dunne 
 and Judge Lawlor were the recalcitrants. As it 
 was still possible to shock public opinion by set- 
 ting Ruef free, the judges were timid. ' Besides 
 the silent changes of time had operated on the 
 relations between the regenerators and the peo- 
 ple. For more than a year the Graft Prosecu- 
 tion had been dragging its slow length along, 
 and nothing had been accomplished. What was 
 worse, the regenerators were no longer regarded 
 as too seraphic for human criticism. The sus-
 
 132 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 picion that they were not as scrupulous as they 
 ought to be was striking deep into the public 
 conscience. So much was known of what had 
 been done in secret ; so many glimpses had been 
 had of dissimulation and chicane, that the situa- 
 tion was far from propitious for the consum- 
 mation most passionately hoped for by Abraham 
 Ruef. No wonder that the judges who had 
 sanctified the "midnight deal" were obdurate. 
 
 For nearly a week Ruef was on tenter-hooks. 
 Twice he was brought to court with the under- 
 standing that the motion to dismiss would be 
 made. Each time he suffered bitter disappoint- 
 ment. The judges, he was told, had not been 
 persuaded. Meanwhile, as Ruef says. Detective 
 Burns was trying to induce him to commit per- 
 jury in an affidavit for the benefit of Editor 
 Older who was being prosecuted for libel by 
 William Tevis. One day Burns said to Dr. 
 Kaplan. "We expect Ruef to do something for 
 ()lder in consideration of what Older is doing 
 for him." The affidavit which they wished him 
 to sign reflected discredit on Tevis. They ex- 
 pected Ruef to swear that Tevis had hired him 
 to sell a water plant to the city. Ruef refused 
 to sign, and Burns vituperated him for his in- 
 gratitude to Older. 
 
 On the evening of January 18 District Attor- 
 ney Langdon called on Ruef and told him the 
 judges refused to stand by the agreement. In 
 that interview Langdon said: "I would regret
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 133 
 
 this more if we were all satisfied that you have 
 not been withholding- some of the truth. We 
 have come to the conclusion that you must be 
 flirting with the other side." 
 
 When the immunity contract and the repudia- 
 tion of it became the subject of public discussion 
 the regenerators denied that they had ever prom- 
 ised Ruef complete immunity. Affidavits of 
 great bulk were made by Heney and Burns in 
 which they gave their version of the immunity 
 bargain. To believe them is to believe that the 
 clergymen wandered far froni the truth, but only 
 in matters of collateral interest. The attorney 
 and detective enveloped the issue in a cloud of 
 words. They dwelt chiefly on Ruef's trickery 
 and their own shrewdness. Clearly their main 
 purpose was to convince the public that negotia- 
 tions were opened by Ruef and that they never 
 had any confidence in him. They always feared 
 that he intended to trick them, and they asserted 
 that he had not been honest in his dealings with 
 them. Nevertheless the "midnight meeting" was 
 held. Heney said it was held merely to have the 
 judges explain their usual policy in regard to 
 dismissing cases against defendants who had 
 "turned State's evidence" and as to their con- 
 fidence in the affiant and Langdon. But why 
 Ruef should want the judges to explain some- 
 thing with which he was as familiar as they 
 were themselves does not appear. Burns ad- 
 mitted in his affidavit that he authorized Wilson
 
 134 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 and Gallagher to call on Ruef and tell him that 
 "he could have the same opportunity of coming 
 through which had been given them." But, ac- 
 cording to Burns, he acted without Heney's au- 
 thority. Heney would never agree to anything 
 but that Ruef should be promised leniency in 
 the French restaurant case. So after all there 
 is but a slight difference between Ruef's version 
 and the version of the prosecution. For the 
 prosecutors admit that all cases save the French 
 restaurant cases were to be dismissed and that 
 even as to that case Ruef was to be vouchsafed 
 "leniency." 
 
 When it was pointed out that Ruef was mor- 
 ally entitled to immunity under the written con- 
 tract, the Supreme Court having decided that 
 the indictment in the French restaurant case. to 
 which he pleaded guilty and with reference 
 to which the verbal agreement had been made, 
 was invalid, they said that it was the under- 
 standing that he would sufifer imprisonment on 
 one charge. Of course the regenerators tried 
 to exculpate the judges, but circumstances seem 
 to justify the conclusion that the judges were 
 alone responsible for the cancellation of the con- 
 tract. District Attorney Langdon gave color to 
 this theory when he issued a statement for pub- 
 lication to the effect that he had kept all the 
 terms of the contract. He did not say that Ruef 
 had violated the contract. So the inference was 
 that the third party to the contract — the court —
 
 RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 135 
 
 had made it impossible to carry out its provisions. 
 Let the truth be what it may there was no more 
 talk of immunity for Ruef. He had to go to 
 trial.
 
 VII 
 
 THE SCHMITZ CASE 
 
 A Trial in Which the Law Was Adapted to the 
 Purposes of the Regenerators Without Regard 
 to Elemental Principles or the Constitu- 
 tional Rights of the Defendant 
 
 A study of the Graft Prosecution would be in- 
 complete without a review of the Schmitz case ; 
 nay, no history of American jurisprudence will 
 ever be complete which does not contain the 
 story of this case — the story of the trial with its 
 exhibition of the complete and abject surrender 
 of a criminal court by its judge into the hands 
 of "special prosecutors" ; the story of the appeal 
 where every weapon of vilification, defamation, 
 and incitement to lynch law, was brought to 
 bear upon the appellate courts in the effort to 
 break them down and make them as pliant and 
 subservient to the will of the Graft Prosecution 
 as the trial court had proved itself to be. 
 
 The story then has two chapters. That to 
 which we first come presents a humiliating, un- 
 relieved picture of the swift and utter degrada- 
 tion to which a court of record can reduce it- 
 self by willing subservience to any man or set 
 of men. 
 
 Schmitz and Ruef, as we have seen, had been
 
 THE SCHMITZ CASH 137 
 
 indicted jointly for extorting money from the 
 French restaurateurs of San Francisco. The in- 
 dictments were the first ones found. They were 
 handed out as a pabulum to a hungry public 
 which was growing tired waiting for something 
 to happen. Ruef had never denied, indeed he 
 had for years openly admitted, that he had 
 been employed to represent certain restaurateurs 
 as attorney at law in securing their retail liquor 
 licenses. The flimsiness of the evidence upon 
 which these indictments were brought is amaz- 
 ing in the light of after events. It was charged 
 that the two men conspired to extort money. 
 Ruef's evidence at the time the indictments were 
 brought was not open or known to the prose- 
 cution. Without that evidence there is not the 
 shadow of testimony showing Schmitz guilty of 
 any offense, and even with Ruef's evidence the 
 proof, as will appear, must be regarded as 
 wholly unsatisfactory. 
 
 Ruef, it will be remembered, was put upon 
 trial under this joint indictment, and having 
 secretly arranged with the prosecution for im- 
 munity, pleaded guilty, coupling his plea with 
 the astounding statement that he pleaded guilty 
 though innocent. 
 
 The indictments against Schmitz were allowed 
 to slumber until the exigencies of Graft Prose- 
 cution politics demanded Schmitz's elimination 
 from the mayoralty. As mayor he still con- 
 trolled a most important municipal office and its
 
 138 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 patronage. He had agreed to resign, leaving 
 the nomination of his successor to a committee of 
 the recognized civic bodies of San Francisco, 
 but when that committee, headed by Judge 
 Charles Slack, submitted this proposition to 
 Rudolph Spreckels, the members were driven 
 from his sanctuary with scorn and contumely, 
 denounced as emissaries of the infamous South- 
 ern Pacific, and informed that Mr. Spreckels 
 would name his own mayor. Mayor Schmitz 
 must, therefore, be excised. Under the law of 
 California the mere conviction of a criminal of- 
 fense — regardless of the fact whether or not the 
 conviction be upheld on appeal — works a for- 
 feiture of office. Aware of this the way of the 
 prosecution was plain, and by a considerate 
 judge could be made easy. All that was neces- 
 sary was to convict Schmitz, and to this end, 
 and not to determine his guilt or innocence, the 
 trial was begun. The conclusion was foregone 
 before a word of evidence was taken ; indeed, 
 before the jury was impaneled. During the 
 slow process of jury getting an astute member 
 of the pugilistic fraternity leaned over and 
 whispered to a companion — "Let's get out of 
 here. Dis aint on the level. Dey aint going to 
 give Schmitz a dead man's chance." Nor did 
 they. Incredible as it may read, the matter and 
 the fact are simply these : whatever the prose- 
 cution desired it obtained, regardless of the pro- 
 tests and objections of the defense; of what the
 
 THE SCHMITZ CASE 139 
 
 defense desired, it obtained nothing if there was 
 the sHghtest objection by the prosecution. It 
 is nevertheless conceivable, you may say, that 
 the prosecution was always right and the defense 
 always wrong. The answer to this may well 
 be left to the Court of Appeals which was later 
 called upon to review these performances, (for 
 they can scarcely be called rulings) which will be 
 dwelt upon presently. For the present it is 
 enough to say that the judicial ermine was as 
 spotless after that trial as before. It was all 
 black. When the foreordained verdict was an- 
 nounced nobody was surprised, and but a few 
 were shocked. Not that every lawyer and most 
 laymen did not know that the trial had been 
 either a judicial farce or a judicial tragedy, 
 depending on one's point of view. But at that 
 time everything was given for nothing and 
 taken for granted so far as the prosecution was 
 concerned. It was recognized that the elimina- 
 tion of Schmitz was a matter of expediency. 
 The manner of his elimination was of no con- 
 sequence, since the end must justify the means. 
 As to what might occur on appeal, nobody 
 cared. The conviction was the thing and it had 
 done its work. Schmitz by force of it went out 
 of office. That this is an unvarnished recital of 
 the facts the records will show. Let us glance 
 at them. The charge was that defendants 
 Schmitz and Ruef feloniously "threatened the 
 said Joseph Malfanti, Charles Kelb, and William
 
 140 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 Lafrenz, that unless they should then and there 
 pay to them the said sum of money hereinbe- 
 fore referred to, and promise and agree to pay 
 one year thereafter a further sum of one thou- 
 sand dollars the said Malfanti, Kelb and Lafrenz 
 could not and would not obtain said license for 
 the sale of said liquors and wines from the said 
 City and County of San Francisco, and the said 
 Schmitz and Ruef would prevent the said Mal- 
 fanti, Kelb and Lafrenz from carrying on or 
 conducting the said business of selling said wines 
 and liquors." Here there is a charge of extor- 
 tion by threat, the particular threat being ex- 
 plicitly set forth. 
 
 Early in the trial and previous to the taking 
 of evidence the judge had removed any possi- 
 ble doubt as to his attitude. A juror by the 
 name of Harris after having been accepted by 
 prosecution and defense and sworn to try the 
 case, was afterwards successfully challenged with- 
 out cause by the district attorney. The code of 
 California, like the law of New York from which 
 it is drawn, permits a challenge to a sworn 
 juror to be made only when good cause to ex- 
 cuse the delay is shown. Says the Court of Ap- 
 peal of New York (People v. Hughes, 137 
 N. Y. 29) : "The obvious meaning of the sec- 
 tion is that a challenge for good cause, which 
 is required to be taken before the juror is sworn, 
 may nevertheless be taken thereafter and before 
 evidence is given, in the discretion of the court.
 
 THE SCHMITZ CASE 141 
 
 If it does not mean that it must necessarily 
 mean that the court may for any good reason, 
 even though undisclosed, set aside a sworn 
 juror in its discretion. I do not think that is its 
 meaning or its purpose." The California deci- 
 sions are to the same purport. Yet the judge 
 witJiout oiiy cause shozvn or reason assigned, 
 permitted the prosecution to interpose a chal- 
 lenge and excuse Harris. 
 
 Another juror, Bray, had likewise been sworn. 
 His examination was reopened. A newspaper 
 had asserted that his wife was a fourth or fifth 
 cousin of Schmitz's wife. Interrogated, the 
 juror replied that he knew nothing of it and had 
 heard nothing of it. Nobody else knew any- 
 thing or proved anything. A challenge by the 
 prosecution to the juror on the ground that he 
 was related to the defendant by consanguinity 
 or affinity within the prohibited fourth degree, 
 was allowed by the judge with the solemn state- 
 ment, 'T think any relationship, no matter how 
 remote, ought to keep a person off the jury." 
 Says the Court of Appeals : "The evidence did not 
 show any relationship of the juror to the de- 
 fendant to any degree or in any way." 
 
 Upon ex parte affidavits from the prosecuting 
 attorneys the court found the sheriff and coroner 
 disqualified, and appointed Biggy an elisor to 
 take charge of the jury. It refused permission 
 to the defense to read and rebut the affidavits ; 
 refused permission to file affidavits showing the
 
 142 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 disqualification of Biggy and his bias and hos- 
 tility to defendant. It found the sheriff and 
 coroner disqualified on the ex parte statements 
 of the prosecution, but refused a man whose 
 liberty was at stake the right to show that his 
 jury was to be put in the hands of his personal 
 enemy. How exact an echo of the prosecution 
 the judge made himself may be shown by two 
 excerpts from the record: "The prosecuting at- 
 torney (speaking of the appointment of an elisor 
 to counsel for defendant) : That is a matter over 
 which neither of us have any control. It is 
 nothing with which we are concerned. 
 
 "The court (to defendant's counsel, Mr. 
 John J. Barrett) : It is no concern of yours, 
 Mr. Barrett; you have nothing to do with it." 
 
 Says the Court of Appeals, after showing what 
 is all-apparent, that this was a most unwar- 
 ranted deprivation of a defendant's right to be 
 heard in the matter: "Fair dealing and the 
 rights of the defendant required that he should 
 be heard on both propositions." The remark of 
 my pugilistic neighbor thus seems fully jus- 
 tified. 
 
 But coming to the evidence and taking it in 
 the light most unfavorable to Schmitz, it showed 
 that the approval of the police commissioners 
 was necessary before the restaurateurs could 
 secure their liquor licenses ; that their licenses 
 were refused to the impairment of their busi- 
 ness of conducting assignation houses : that they
 
 THE SCHiMITZ CASE 143 
 
 were advised by their attorney that they could 
 secure their Hcenses only by employing Ruef to 
 represent them ; that Ruef agreed to represent 
 them as their attorney in the matter of the 
 licenses and also in any matter of litigation that 
 might arise in connection with their l)usiness, for 
 two years at an annual salary or retainer of 
 $5000; that they agreed to this and paid the 
 money ; that neither Schmitz nor Ruef threat- 
 ened them in any way ; that Ruef promised 
 merely to do what he could for them, and that 
 to one of them Schmitz had said that he favored 
 the issuance of their licenses, and would look 
 into the matter of the delay and see what could 
 be done to remedy it. 
 
 Reagan, an ex-police commissioner, appointed 
 and dismissed by Schmitz, testified that the 
 mayor had told him that the French restaurants 
 were evil places and licenses should be denied 
 them. He had never visited, had never heard 
 of the restaurants. He visited and inspected one 
 and found nothing objectionable and voted for 
 its license. Subsequently complaint was made of 
 another (the complaint growing out of the refusal 
 of the proprietor to unionize his waiters) and evi- 
 dence was brought before the commissioners that 
 lewd women frequented the place. Reagan then 
 voted to refuse it a license. The mayor told him 
 they were all alike and that none should be granted 
 licenses. Thereafter, Reagan admitted, he was 
 resolved to favor the licensing of only such res-
 
 144 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 taurants as would comply with the regulations of 
 the board and do away with bedrooms, and he 
 would at any time have voted licenses for any 
 that would comply with these regulations. After- 
 ward, while he was voting against the licenses 
 and they were being withheld, the mayor told 
 him that great pressure was being brought to 
 bear on him by business men and politicians 
 to grant the licenses ; that the pressure was so 
 great that he feared it would injure him politic- 
 ally if the refusal were continued, and asked 
 Reagan if he could not change his vote. Reagan 
 said he could not, and the mayor said he could 
 not ask him to stultify himself but would remove 
 Hutton who was with Reagan in opposition. 
 Hutton was removed. Ruef appeared before 
 the board, and suggested new regulations under 
 which licenses could properly be issued. These 
 regulations were adopted, and licenses were 
 issued, but Reagan still voted against them. 
 There was here no evidence that Schmitz or 
 Ruef or Reagan threatened any of the restau- 
 rateurs. But it was argued by the prosecu- 
 tion that the threat charged to have been ut- 
 tered was embraced in and conveyed by the act 
 of Reagan in voting against the licenses. Yet 
 the truth is that Reagan voted against the licenses 
 to the end and that he testified he would have 
 voted for them if the proprietors had been will- 
 ing to give up their assignation-house business. 
 With this testimony the prosecution rested its
 
 THE SCHMITZ CASE 145 
 
 case. There was no word of evidence pointing 
 to a threat, to a conspiracy or to a sharing by 
 Schmitz of the fee Riief received. Whatever 
 Ruef's testimony would be the prosecution knew, 
 yet he was not called to the witness stand. 
 
 When the prosecution rested Schmitz was 
 sworn. His testimony was confined absolutely 
 to denials of certain statements attributed to him 
 by Reagan. In effect he said he had not changed 
 front on the license question ; that he had alvvays 
 advocated with Reagan the issuance of licenses 
 except to proved immoral places. This was all 
 his testimony. 
 
 By the Constitution and laws of the State of 
 California, as of every State, I believe, no de- 
 fendant can be compelled to furnish evidence 
 against himself; and if he ofifers himself as a 
 witness he may be cross-examined only as to 
 those matters about which he was examined in 
 chief. Yet when Schmitz was turned over to the 
 prosecution for cross-examination the question he 
 was made to answer, over the objection of his 
 counsel, was : "Did Ruef pay you any part of the 
 $5000 that has been testified he received from 
 the French restaurants ?" Schmitz's whole cross- 
 examination was made up of like interrogatories. 
 It needs no lawyer to perceive that this cross- 
 examination was not upon the matters about 
 which Schmitz was examined in chief. It needs 
 no lawyer to perceive that it was an examina- 
 tion upon outside matters designed to force evi-
 
 146 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 dence or denials from a defendant in open and 
 obvious violation of his constitutional rights, an 
 examination countenanced and upheld by the 
 judge in brazen defiance of the Supreme Court 
 which long before had declared : "A defendant ac- 
 cused of crime in this State has a constitutional 
 right to be protected from forced examination. 
 As to any matters concerning which he has not 
 voluntarily testified in his own behalf, )io evi- 
 dence can be zvrung from him." (People v. Ar- 
 righini, 122 Cal. 126.) 
 
 Yet is this tale of the prostitution of justice 
 but half told? Schmitz denied the receipt of 
 any money from Ruef, and under the pretense of 
 rebutting this evidence so wrung from Schmitz 
 by illegal cross-examination, Ruef was called 
 and was permitted to testify that after receiv- 
 ing his fee he offered half to Schmitz, who ac- 
 cepted it. And then Ruef was turned over to 
 the defense for cross-examination. Bear in 
 mind that it was suspected then, though pub- 
 licly denied by the prosecution, and not known 
 till months after, that Ruef had been promised 
 complete immunity by the prosecution and was 
 testifying under that promise ; bear in mind that 
 evidence of the existence of such a promise of 
 complete or partial immunity is always permis- 
 sible to show the strong motives that may actu- 
 ate a witness to color his testimony ; bear in 
 mind that Ruef was a co-defendant with Schmitz 
 and had dramatically pleaded "guilty though in-
 
 FRANK H. DUNNE 
 
 The "midnight meeting" judge who presided at the 
 Schmitz trial.
 
 THE SCHMITZ CASE 147 
 
 nocent," to the same charge ; bear in mind also 
 that judge, as well as prosecutors, knew all these 
 things, and that the judge was a party to the 
 secret "midnight conclave," at which the word of 
 all, judges and prosecutors, was given to the 
 rabbis that Ruef should receive absolute im- 
 munity ; bear in mind, moreover, that the rules 
 of evidence have always sanctioned the utmost 
 liberality in the cross-examination of a co-con- 
 spirator, and that in this connection the Supreme 
 Court had said : "The utmost latitude of cross- 
 examination justified by the law in any case 
 should be extended to the testimony of such a 
 witness," (People v. Williams, 18 Cal. 191) ; and 
 finally bear in mind the illegal latitude allowed 
 in the cross-examination of Schmitz, and then 
 follow the record of Ruef's cross-examination. 
 Ruef stated that he had told the prosecution all 
 the facts and that the larger part of them were 
 favorable to Schmitz. This is the record of in- 
 terrogations : 
 
 "Q. State those facts now in detail." 
 
 "Q. Did you in your conversations with 
 these gentlemen (of the prosecution) tell them 
 that you would not stand for anything except 
 complete immunity ?" 
 
 "Q. In pleading guilty to this charge, you 
 stated at the same time that you were not guilty. 
 Was that true?" 
 
 "O. What do you mean, Mr. Ruef, by that 
 statement that you were not guilty of this 
 charare ?"
 
 148 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 "Q. Did you change your plea to guilty after 
 you had your conversation with Mr. Burns in 
 which he told you he would do all he could to 
 secure leniency for you?" 
 
 "Q. Did you prior to the time you say you 
 gave defendant one-half your fee, have any con- 
 versation with him in relation to any division, or 
 giving him any part of any fee which you re- 
 ceived from the French restaurant keepers?" 
 
 "Q. Did you go to the French restaurant 
 keepers, or did they come to you?" 
 
 "Q. Did you tell defendant in any conversa- 
 tion that you had ever threatened any restaurant 
 keeper that if they did not pay you money their 
 licenses would be held up?" 
 
 "Q. Now I will ask you this, Mr. Ruef, if 
 you are not now giving your testimony under 
 the expectation of immunity — complete im- 
 munity ?" 
 
 The answers to these and dozens more of 
 equally pertinent inquiries were one and all shut 
 out by the court (and mark the ruling) as "not 
 being proper cross-examination." And to what 
 end? Plainly the purpose was twofold: first, to 
 prevent disclosures of the bargain which had 
 been entered into between Ruef, the prosecutors 
 and the judge, which bargain would injure them 
 and reduce the weight of Ruef's evidence ; and, 
 second, to exclude from the case any word of 
 evidence which might help the defendant. Jef- 
 fries was doubtless an abler judge, but his meth- 
 ods were not superior in blunt directness.
 
 THE SCHMITZ CASE 149 
 
 Such then was the trial. Its naked shameless- 
 ness is here but half revealed. The case will be 
 found reported in 7 Cal. App. R., page 330, 
 where the court comments on the matters here 
 set forth. Expressed though these comments are 
 in language characteristic of the philosophic calm 
 peculiar to the Bench, the arraignment of the trial 
 judge has a sting that the average indignant lay- 
 man might strive in vain to inflict. It is well to 
 emphasize this citation and again to direct the 
 reader to People v. Schmitz, 7 Cal. App. R. 330, 
 for none of the comments will be found in 
 the decision of the Supreme Court. In the 
 petition for hearing before that court, the prose- 
 cution dropped even the pretense of defending 
 its own conduct or that of its judge; it voiced no 
 protest against the rulings and denunciation of 
 the Court of Appeal upon any of these matters ; 
 by its silent acquiescence it admitted the truth of 
 the charge almost openly made by the Court 
 of Appeal, that with the aid of a subservient 
 judge the prosecutors had at every point want- 
 only denied a defendant at the bar of a criminal 
 court in the State of California every right to a 
 fair and impartial trial guaranteed him by the 
 Constitution and statutes of the commonwealth. 
 
 Again it is important that these matters should 
 be understood, for they go far to explain why 
 in the campaign of abuse soon to follow both 
 higher courts were deluged with vituperation by 
 the Graft Prosecution press, while the trial
 
 X 
 
 150 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 judge was posed, limned and painted as an up- 
 right and able jurist, struggling heroically within 
 the law to uphold the people's rights. 
 
 Thus was Schmitz convicted and put out of 
 office. He took his appeal. While it was pend- 
 ing Ruef continued to live in charge of the 
 prosecution's elisor and eight guards at the 
 city's expense. Week by week, month by month, 
 as has already appeared, he was brought to the 
 court before whose bar he had pleaded guilty, and 
 on each occasion, without reason shown or sug- 
 gested, his sentence was postponed. Daily, with 
 ever increasing vociferation, the graft prosecutors 
 declared that they had not promised Ruef im- 
 munity, but they vouchsafed no other informa- 
 tion to the restive public, and as yet nothing was 
 known of the immunity bargain. 
 
 Such was the situation when in January, 1908, 
 the District Court of Appeal rendered its decision 
 reversing the judgment in the Schmitz case. It 
 was received with perfect equanimity by the 
 public because the public knew that a reversal 
 was inevitable. Much more singular is the 
 fact that it was received with equal complaisance 
 by the graft prosecutors and their press, the dis- 
 trict attorney expressing doubt as to whether an 
 application would ever be made to the Supreme 
 Court for a reconsideration. Then shortly after 
 the storm broke. The Bulletin invited the mob
 
 THE SCHMITZ CASE 151 
 
 to lynch the three judges of the Court of Ap- 
 peal, and daily published their pictures and 
 residence addresses, as an aid to the incitement ; 
 and the Supreme Court was threatened with like 
 appalling calamities if it did not yield to the 
 demand of the ])rosecution and reverse the Court 
 of Appeal. All this was puzzling and myste- 
 rious at the time. Not the abuse of the higher 
 courts ; it was well understood that this abuse 
 was designed to bend them by terror and coercion 
 to the prosecutors' will. But why the sud- 
 den change of front? Why first acquiescence 
 and then denunciation? If the prosecution were 
 "stung," why so long before the yelp of pain? 
 An explanation is necessary, and the explana- 
 tion necessitates reversion to the situation that 
 preceded the breaking of the immunity contract. 
 That situation was one of extreme embarrassment 
 to the regenerators. They did not dare carry out 
 their contract with Ruef. Public sentiment, con- 
 trary to their expectations, had not softened to- 
 ward their impatient penitent. Thumbs were 
 down, mercy was not in the public eye. So Judge 
 Dunne went on postponing Ruef's sentence. He 
 postponed it so often that the Legislature has 
 since deemed it advisable to prevent a recur- 
 rence of this particular kind of procrastination. 
 The delaying of the sentence only postponed the 
 evil day. Some time something would have to be 
 done, and already the papers were demanding 
 the reason for the contin'iances. Ruef, more-
 
 152 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 over, was growing importunate and was insist- 
 ing that all indictments against him should be 
 dismissed and that he should be discharged with- 
 out sentence from his plea of guilty. 
 
 To the troubled prosecutors the decision of 
 the Court of Appeal afforded a happy escape. 
 That decision declared that the Schmitz indict- 
 ment was radically defective and charged no 
 crime. It being the identical indictment to 
 which Ruef had pleaded guilty, it necessarily 
 followed that it charged no crime against him. 
 All then that the regenerators had to do to rid 
 themselves of their difficulties was to bow to the 
 decision of the Court of Appeal, which meant 
 that they would be freed from the embarrass- 
 ment of the Ruef plea of guilty. There could be 
 no judgment pronounced in that case. This 
 most perplexing trouble being thus eliminated, it 
 remained only to have the trial judges dismiss 
 the other indictments. 
 
 With the arrangement of these matters Dis- 
 trict Attorney Langdon immediately busied him- 
 self, and thus it was that during the first few 
 days he did not believe an application would be 
 made to the Supreme Court, but thought the 
 decision of the Court of Appeal would be ac- 
 cepted as final. 
 
 But here an insurmountable difficulty arose 
 from an entirely unexpected quarter. Never as 
 thoroughly broken as his team-mate Judge Law- 
 lor, Judge Dunne suddenly refused to pull at
 
 THE SCHMITZ CASE 153 
 
 the crack of the prosecution's whip, or in the 
 lanofuasfe of Mr. Henev, he refused "to come 
 through." With most stubborn recalcitrance he 
 decHned to dismiss the indictments against Ruef 
 pending in his court, and thus, again in the 
 language of Mr. Heney, the prosecutors "were 
 in a hole." 
 
 Exposure of their secret dealings with Ruef 
 was imminent. The public mind must not be 
 allowed to ponder the pertinent queries of hostile 
 critics calculated to compel disclosure of the real 
 state of affairs. There must be a diversion ; pub- 
 lic attention must be directed elsewhere. The 
 decisioti of the Court of Appeal was no longer 
 necessary or needed. What better than to assail 
 the higher courts? The more venomous the ac- 
 cusations the more certain would the regenerators 
 be to direct attention from their embarrassment. 
 And so to the accompaniment of a rain of stink- 
 pots from their press, the prosecutors' petition 
 for rehearing of the Schmitz case was handed to 
 the Supreme Court. 
 
 In the petition for rehearing, as has been said, 
 none of the iniquities of the trial was defended, 
 nor was a review asked of any of the Court of 
 Appeal's animadversions upon them. The Su- 
 preme Court was asked to consider but two prop- 
 ositions : 1, a motion to dismiss the appeal; 2, the 
 sufficiency of the indictment. As illustrating 
 the willingness of the prosecution to resort to 
 the "detested technicalities of the law" to serve
 
 154 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 their own ends, it may be noted that both the 
 Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court decided 
 that the prosecution's objections to giving Schmitz 
 a hearing- upon the merits of his appeal were 
 utterly frivolous and untenable. 
 
 The Court of Appeal had declared that the in- 
 dictment was radically defective, and this deter- 
 mination the Supreme Court was asked to re- 
 view. The- determination itself was not, as the 
 prosecution sought to have believed, a shattering 
 bolt from the untroubled blue. All the objec- 
 tions to their indictment had long ago been 
 presented to their consideration, first, by de- 
 murrer in the trial court, when it would have 
 been the easiest possible matter to save all ques- 
 tion by presenting new indictments by their 
 grand jury which still remained in session, and, 
 second, under writs of habeas corpus sued out 
 by Schmitz and Ruef in the Supreme Court, 
 where every objection to the indictments was 
 fully argued. The Supreme Court did not hold 
 the indictments good, but refused to pass upon 
 the objections to them, saying they were not re- 
 viewable under habeas corpus, and could only 
 come before the court on appeal in case of con- 
 viction. So the prosecutors were fully advised, 
 and the remedy was ready to their hand ; but 
 they preferred to limp along with these defective 
 indictments, doubtless for the reason already 
 given, that originally they cared nothing for 
 them and never expected anything to grow out 
 of them.
 
 THE SCHMITZ CASE 155 
 
 The Supreme Court afifirmed the decision of 
 the Court of Appeal, extending the citations and 
 elaborating and reasoning of the latter court. 
 Here were two courts comprising ten judges un- 
 animously of one opinion. In any other com- 
 munity than California, and in California at any 
 other time than this, when the Graft Prosecution 
 had it by the throat, the standing, learning and 
 dignity of those ten men would have rendered 
 utterly impossible the recognition of the clangor 
 of a Heney, the threat of a Bulletin, or the scur- 
 rility of a Johnson. Nor as it was would their 
 uproar have amounted to anything had they not 
 cunningly appealed to the ignorance and credulity 
 of the multitude, employing for public deception 
 a specious bit of misrepresentation. 
 
 If proof was necessary of the danger of the 
 recall, of the importance of safeguarding the 
 people against their susceptibility to the persua- 
 sions of the unscrupulous, what occurred in Cali- 
 fornia after the Schmitz decisions would certainly 
 be admissible. Every pro-prosecution organ as- 
 serted that the upper courts pronounced the 
 Schmitz indictment defective because it failed to 
 charge something which was a matter of com- 
 mon knowledge — that Schmitz was mayor. How 
 utterly false the statement was will be disclosed 
 to anyone taking the trouble to read the two 
 decisions. 
 
 Once before in California a learned and upright 
 justice of the Supreme bench (now an honored
 
 156 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 member of the Federal judiciary) in discussing 
 the measure of damages to parents for the death 
 of an infant child, and expounding that these 
 damages were founded on the estimated pecun- 
 iary loss to the parents of the services of the 
 minor, declared that in the case of a poor 
 family, the minor children frequently contributed 
 to the family support, while in the case of a 
 wealthy family, the children were frequently a 
 bill of expense. Mere platitudes, I grant you, 
 yet in the heat of an election which soon fol- 
 lowed, a hostile newspaper catchily declared that 
 this justice had decided "that the life of a poor 
 man's son was not worth as much as the life of 
 a rich man's son." The story swept the State 
 like wild fire. No denial or explanation by the 
 bar of the State, no proof that the statement 
 charged was the exact opposite of the statement 
 made, had any effect ; the lying catch phrase was 
 too happy, and it wrought the justice's defeat. 
 
 As absolutely false and nearly as effective was 
 the catch phrase launched against the higher 
 courts after the Schmitz decision. As I have 
 said, a reading of the two opinions will disclose 
 the truth — that neither decision is based upon the 
 absence of any allegation, and that the absence 
 alleged is not even considered. The courts were 
 not discussing what the indictment did not con- 
 tain, but what it did contain. 
 
 Just what did the courts decide? There is 
 nothing metaphysical or obscure in the decisions
 
 THE SCHMITZ CASE 157 
 
 — a running layman can understand them if only 
 he will read them ; but not one man in ten thou- 
 sand who dogmatically discusses and criticises a 
 judicial opinion, ever thinks it worth his while 
 to read it that he may inform himself of what 
 he is talking- about. We don't pretend to be 
 great doctors, or engineers, or architects, or gen- 
 erals. But one and all we are great jurists, not 
 in the making, but in perfection. I, at least, 
 have read the decisions. This is what they 
 declare. There is no crime in this State except 
 it be an act denounced by the penal laws. Ex- 
 tortion under force of fear or threat is defined 
 as follows : "Fear such as will constitute extor- 
 tion may be induced by a threat to do an nnlazv- 
 ful injury to the property of another." The ex- 
 tortion charged was by threat ; but the threat was 
 not to do an unlawful injury to property, since, 
 conceding that a prospective license to sell liquor 
 may be regarded as property, the threat was not 
 to do an unlaivful injury to that or any other 
 property of the restaurateurs. For anyone may 
 freely go before the commissioners and use 
 his influence to prevent the issuance of a 
 license, and this is done every day. Nor can the 
 evil motive afifect the act so as to make it a crime. 
 This has long since been decided in California, 
 where it was said in consonance with a great 
 weight of authority that "the malicious use of 
 lawful means to induce a lawful act does not 
 make the resulting injury unlawful." (Boyson v.
 
 158 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 Thorne, 98 Cal. 578). Now it was not charged 
 that unlawful means were used. If it were meant 
 to charge the use of unlawful means they should 
 have been specifically set out ; for in the ab- 
 sence of averment the unlawful means could not 
 be assumed. The Court of Appeal uses a simple 
 and illuminating illustration : a man threatens 
 his neighbors that he is going to build a pviblic 
 stable upon his land. The effect will be to in- 
 jure their property. His motive is evil and 
 malicious. His threat is designed to extort 
 money from them, and they, buy the security of 
 their property by paying him. the amount he de- 
 mands to forego his plan. Morally he is an ex- 
 tortionist, legally he has committed no crime. 
 Even the layman may see that if the motive of 
 an act is to determine its criminality the law 
 must first so declare, but it has not yet done so. 
 
 This is the substance of the harmonious deci- 
 sions of the two courts upon the indictment. 
 They contain no strictures upon the failure of 
 the prosecution to charge the official capacity of 
 Schmitz — though w^hy in heaven's name the 
 learned pleaders of the Graft Prosecution should 
 so carefully have refrained from mentioning the 
 fact that he was mayor — must forever remain 
 an unsolved mystery. The court's statement 
 merely is that the indictment fails to charge a 
 threat to do an unlawful injury to property, 
 which threat of unlawful injury or injury by un- 
 lawful means is necessary to the indictment.
 
 THE SCHxMITZ CASE 159 
 
 And now we come to the last episode. In the 
 midst of the roar of machine-made abuse which 
 the prosecution's press continued to utter follow- 
 ing the Supreme Court decision, the Sacramento 
 Bee tendered a Grecian invitation to the Chief 
 Justice to write an "explanation" of the decision 
 so that "the man in the street might understand 
 it." Single minded and sincere, not appreciat- 
 ing that the denunciation of his court was fab- 
 ricated and the misunderstanding designed, the 
 Chief Justice wrote to the Bee a public letter 
 expressing his individual views. It fell, as it was 
 probably meant to fall, upon deaf ears and un- 
 heeding minds. But in that letter, for the first 
 time, the Chief Justice pointing out the defects 
 of the indictment and how they could be rem- 
 edied, said that if it had been charged that 
 Schmitz \va.s mayor, and Ruef a political boss of 
 great influence, and that they threatened to use 
 unlawfully their position and power, the defect 
 would have been cured, but in the absence of 
 such averment judicial notice could not be taken 
 of these matters. 
 
 Here for the first time was any color given to 
 the lying statements of the press ; not by the 
 court, for its decision had been rendered and 
 had become final: but by a single justice ex- 
 pressing his own views. Of course if the indict- 
 ment charged unlawful means, it would cure the 
 defect whether the unlawful means were charged 
 against Schmitz as a citizen or as an official.
 
 160 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 This, however, was promptly put in the bact- 
 ground, and again the cry was raised that the 
 Supreme Court had declared the indictment bad 
 because it did not allege that Schmitz was mayor. 
 
 Into this melee, at the behest of Heney, rushes 
 the intrepid Professor Wigmore, and with up- 
 raised sword assaults the astonished Chief Jus- 
 tice. This is his slashing stroke : "Courts should 
 take notice of anything that is notorious ; if then 
 a man named Schmitz was notoriously mayor 
 of San Francisco and a man named Ruef was 
 notoriously its political boss at the time in ques- 
 tion, that is all that any court needs." There- 
 fore, all the courts should have taken judicial 
 notice of these facts and thus have cured the 
 defective indictment. Mr. Wigmore is con- 
 strained to admit that "there are dozens of other 
 supreme justices who would decide and are de- 
 ciding just such points in just the same way as 
 the California case," but they are disposed of 
 with a wave of the pen as non-progressive. 
 
 I write as a historian and not as a partisan of 
 either side in this memorable strife. But it must 
 occur even to the unthinking that Professor 
 Wigmore's letter is not all-satisfying. While it is 
 easy for a private lawyer to invent desirable 
 changes in the rules of law or evidence, a 
 judge on the bench, under his oath of office, is 
 denied that pleasure and may only construe the 
 rules of evidence laid down for his guidance by 
 the legislature. Although it may be an admirable
 
 THE SCHMITZ CASE 161 
 
 innovation in the law of evidence for the courts 
 to take judicial notice of anything notorious, 
 the courts of CaHfornia can do so only under 
 legislative mandate and not under Professor 
 Wigmore's. The legislature has explicitly de- 
 scribed the things and all the things of which the 
 courts of this State may take judicial notice, 
 and "things notorious" are not among them. 
 And perhaps this obedience to the Constitution 
 and their oaths, rather than their dull inertia 
 against the uplift of progressive law not found in 
 the statutes, explains the attitude of the dozens 
 of supreme justices in other States — justices 
 who, while willing to see in Professor Wigmore's 
 closet-made laws the lamp of divine guidance, 
 still feel bound to steer by the rush-light of their 
 constitutional obligations. 
 
 Professor Wigmore was not left to battle 
 alone with his windmills. To his aid came 
 James M. Kerr, formerly of an Ohio institution 
 not less important for educational purposes 
 than the one in which Professor Wigmore 
 labors as an instructor. Kerr is now engaged 
 in annotating the codes of California, and by rea- 
 son of his past experience his knowledge of crim- 
 inal law is not to be despised. Mr. Kerr, with 
 a delicacy to be expected, put his criticism of 
 the decision in the Penal Code he was annotat- 
 ing. "It is thought," he says, "that the decision 
 viola.es well recognized rules of statutory con- 
 struction, and well settled rules of criminal
 
 162 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 pleading-, and that the case cannot be safely re- 
 lied on as an authority outside of California." 
 Mr. Heney, also, came to the front with a letter; 
 but Mr. Heney's contributions to the literature 
 of the law are universally recognized as having 
 a claim to consideration only for their vitupera- 
 tive charm, being in all other respects negligible. 
 Against all this may be placed the note of the 
 editors of the Law Reports Annotated (15 L. R. 
 A. New Series, 717). Writing from a distance, 
 uninterested and presumably unbiased, they say 
 of the decision : "The case is in harmony with 
 such other cases as have had occasion to pass on 
 the question." This they proceed to show by 
 many pages of citation and quotation.
 
 VIII 
 
 THE DYNAMITE EXPLOSION 
 
 A Miracle by Which the Precious Life of a Great 
 
 Grafter Was Spared, and Which Enabled 
 
 the Regenerators to Inflame Public 
 
 Sentiment 
 
 At no time during- the Graft Prosecution was 
 the performance allowed to flag. Whenever 
 public interest seemed on the point of drooping 
 something occurred to whip it up. And in- 
 variably the something served the purposes of 
 the pro-prosecution press. It was as though 
 some power had contrived a preternaturally in- 
 genious species of drama, — a piece historique, 
 as it were, abounding in desperately conflicting 
 events, sensational efifects. picturesque situations, 
 unlooked for rencontres, calculated to ravish the 
 senses, fillip the imagination and keep every- 
 body on the qui vivc. The times were incessantly 
 feverish. It was melodrama from beginning to 
 end. Murder was always in the air. Con- 
 spiracies to kidnap or kill were of monthly oc- 
 currence — in the press, nowhere else. To the 
 defendants were continuously imputed the most 
 fiendish designs, thus justifying repeated ad- 
 monitions to the public to be ever on the alert 
 lest the complete subversion of government be
 
 164 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 effected with the suddenness of a bolt from the 
 blue. All of which served to harrow up the 
 souls of the susceptible and inspire them with 
 hatred of the abandoned wretches who had the 
 audacity to persist in fighting for their liberty. 
 
 Never was this machinery for the firing of 
 public sentiment so active as during the trials of 
 Abraham Ruef. His first trial, after the repudia- 
 tion of his immunity contract, was begun in 
 April, 1908. The trial of Tirey L. Ford was 
 then in progress before Judge Lawlor. This 
 was the first time that two graft trials ran con- 
 temporaneously. Hitherto it was the policy of 
 the prosecution to keep their forces united. But 
 at this period there was need of renewed and 
 extraordinary activity. More than two years 
 had elapsed since the grand effusion of indict- 
 ments, and nothing had been accomplished. 
 The Graft Prosecution was becoming an old 
 story. Also, as a consequence of criminations 
 and recriminations incident to the scandal which 
 Ruef had broached, it was too severely taxing 
 the credulity of even the average citizen. In- 
 deed the sacred cause of the regenerators was 
 becoming an object of ridicule. And what 
 worse fate could befall them than to have atten- 
 tion diverted from their virtues and concentrated 
 on their preposterous affectations ; to be laughed 
 at for their follies rather than acclaimed for their 
 patriotic endeavors ! This was precisely the sad 
 experience they endured for a time. Mr. Will-
 
 THE DYNAMITE EXPLOSION 165 
 
 iam R. Hearst's Examiner, quick to apprehend 
 the temper of the times, shifted the civic heroes 
 from the domain of the tragic to the atmosphere 
 of the comic and held them up to the vulgar 
 derision of the groundlings. "Bud" Fisher, 
 cartoonist, introduced all the heroes to the read- 
 ers of the Examiner in his Mutt sketches, and 
 put the whole town on a broad grin. This was 
 the posture of afifairs when Ruef was forced to 
 trial on an indictment charging him with having 
 bribed a supervisor to pass the Parkside fran- 
 chise. Every civic patriot was down in the 
 mouth. The tide was running strong against 
 the battered hulk of righteousness. But as 
 events proved, while Mr. Spreckels and his as- 
 sociates were in the slough of despond, believ- 
 ing that they were being overwhelmed by mis- 
 chievous accidents in the lottery of life, they were 
 really groping in the darkest hour before dawn. 
 
 Midway in the process of impaneling the jury 
 a violent wrench was given to the situation of 
 affairs, heartening the prosecutors and filling the 
 objects of their hatred with dismay. This over- 
 due occurrence, by which a remarkable trans- 
 formation was effected, was a dynamite explosion 
 in Oakland, across the bay, which wrecked the 
 home of James Gallagher, star witness and con- 
 necting link between Ruef and the supervisors. 
 
 For the men on trial what a strange fatality 
 was this ! How readily and reasonably might 
 one conclude that the higher-ups had attempted
 
 166 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 to assassinate the one man without whose testi- 
 mony conviction was impossible ! Nay, there 
 was hardly any escape from the conclusion for 
 anybody whose prepossessions were of a certain 
 color. There was room for scepticism only for 
 those hardened, unregenerate ones, who were 
 capable of conceiving the possibility of what is 
 technically known as a "frame-up," which 
 species of theatrical expedient was rendered 
 tolerably familiar to the people of San Francisco 
 after they made the acquaintance of Detective 
 William J. Burns. 
 
 The pro-graft press made good use of that 
 dynamite explosion. With their speculations 
 concerning it they set in motion all the com- 
 bustible part of men's passions. Everything was 
 taken for granted that served as nourishment 
 for the spleen. The higher-ups were damned 
 by wholesale. At first it was argued that the 
 dynamiter was the hireling of the United Rail- 
 roads, but in time it was assumed that Ruef had 
 inspired the atrocious deed. No pro-prosecution 
 editor permitted his "frail thoughts to dally with 
 faint surmise." Yet that dynamite explosion had 
 certain curious features that might perplex an 
 unprejudiced mind. It was a terrific explosion. 
 It tore away the front of the house, and wrecked 
 every room, smashing furniture and twisting 
 chandeliers. Evidently the explosive had de- 
 rived force from reaction against the walls of 
 the vestibule in which it had been placed. Perhaps
 
 THE DYNAMITE EXPLOSION 167 
 
 it did more damage than was calculated. But 
 notwithstanding all the damage that was done 
 no person was injured. The room that Gal- 
 lagher said he was in when the explosion oc- 
 curred was badly wrecked. Even the furniture 
 was wrecked. Yet Gallagher did not receive a 
 scratch. "By a strange freak," said the San 
 Francisco Call, "not a person in the house was 
 injured." It was indeed "a strange freak"! 
 And the Bulletin commenting on the explosion 
 exclaimed : "A miracle spared the lives of eight 
 people." Yes, it was necessary to believe in 
 miracles for the purposes of the regenerators. 
 What appeared to be "a. miracle" and also "a 
 freak" might have been explained on the hypoth- 
 esis that Gallagher and his family, having re- 
 ceived a timely and impressive premonition, with- 
 drew into the backyard just before the explosion 
 occurred. Some persons who didn't believe in 
 miracles visited the house — and they didn't be- 
 lieve Gallagher either. They said he was mis- 
 taken. To them his statement that he was in 
 the house at the time of the explosion was in- 
 credible, nay, preposterous. 
 
 Several days after the explosion it was learned 
 that some months prior to the occurrence the 
 police had arrested a man by the name of Wil- 
 helm on the suspicion that he was a dynamiter. 
 He was in custody four days, and was then re- 
 leased. The news of his arrest was not given 
 to the press. There may be more or less sig-
 
 168 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 nificance in the circumstance that at that time 
 former EHsor Bigg"y was chief of poHce, working 
 in harmony with Detective Burns, at whose in- 
 stigation the arrest was made. The Examiner, 
 teUing of this arrest after the explosion, said 
 that Wilhehn told the police that Burns "em- 
 ployed him in his professional capacity as a 
 bombmaker to make a bomb for a demonstra- 
 tion against Judge Lawlor and so turn public 
 favor toward the prosecution." The police got 
 on the trail of Wilhelm again after the explosion 
 and arrested him, and he told his story. He said 
 that J. M. Macey, a detective employed by 
 Burns, and a young man whom he believed to be 
 Burns's son, visited him one day in Oakland, 
 and representing that they were employed by 
 the United Railroads, told him that they would 
 pay him $200 for some bombs. Suspicious of 
 them, he pretended to accept the proposition. 
 They made an engagement to meet him a few 
 days later, when, he said, he would have the 
 bombs ready. Then out of two small pieces 
 of pipe he made what looked like bombs, and 
 according to agreement he met Macey and his 
 companion and crossed the bay with them. Al- 
 most as soon as he got off the boat he was ar- 
 rested by two policemen who locked him up. He 
 was kept in custody until the city chemist found 
 that the pipes did not contain explosives. This 
 was a case of the professional bomb-maker foil- 
 iner and hoaxinsf the ins^enious detective. When
 
 THE DYNAMITE EXPLOSION 169 
 
 Burns was interviewed about this episode he ex- 
 plained that W'ilhehn had been doing a great deal 
 of talking about having had his professional 
 services solicited by the United Railroads, and 
 that he had hoped to trap him. This explana- 
 tion was satisfactory to the pro-prosecution 
 press. 
 
 The Ford and Ruef trials being in progress, 
 every day the pro-prosecution press had some- 
 thing to say about the dynamite explosion. 
 This is a specimen from the Call : "While not the 
 slightest clue has been gained as to the identity 
 of the perpetrators of the dastardly attempt on 
 Gallagher's life, every circumstance connected 
 with the affair points straight to one conclusion 
 — that it was the work of men hired by men in 
 desperate dread of Gallagher's testimony." 
 Again in the same journal was printed the fol- 
 lowing: "That the dynamiting of former Super- 
 visor Gallagher's house, by which he and seven 
 other persons came near to death, was done for 
 the purpose of keeping Gallagher off the wit- 
 ness stand in the graft cases seems to be the 
 practically unanimous judgment. No other 
 theory seems to hold water." What a wonder- 
 ful instrument is that which registers the un- 
 animous judgments of the people! 
 
 Every day the Bulletin was uniting its vocif- 
 erations with those of the Call. And Francis J. 
 Heney, though engaged in the prosecution of 
 Ruef, found time to hurl reproaches at the
 
 170 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 higher-ups. He is to be found quoted in the 
 Call of April 24 as follows: "It was obvious that 
 it was instigated by persons who can be injured 
 by his testimony in the graft cases. I have 
 long been expecting this to happen." Heney 
 was a prophet, and not always for his own 
 amusement. What he expected he did not al- 
 ways keep to himself. His powers of vaticina- 
 tion were employed not so much to predict 
 catastrophe as to enlighten the people as to how 
 many and what men he would land in jail. His 
 favorite pastime was painting his prospective 
 triumphs "on the cloud-curtains of the future." 
 "I'll get him !" was his favorite phrase when re- 
 ferring to any man under indictment. Nor did 
 he confine his predictions to indicted ones. All 
 the anti-prosecution editors were to be put into 
 stripes. For example, here's Heney at the First 
 Congregational Church in Oakland, as disclosed 
 by the Bulletin of March 27, 1908: "We will 
 win despite Dargie and the Oakland Tribune, 
 and we will persevere until we land Dargie 
 where he belongs. And that you may not mis- 
 take my meaning in saying that, I mean that we 
 will land him behind the bars." Poor Dargie ! 
 God intervened, taking him away from Heney. 
 Dargie went to his grave in January, 1910, in 
 a suit of unstriped broadcloth. 
 
 Enough of digression. No light was thrown 
 on the dynamite outrage before the close of 
 either the Ford or the Ruef trial. Nothing was
 
 THE DYNAMITE EXPLOSION 171 
 
 discovered beyond what has been stated : that 
 Gallagher escaped by a miracle and that Burns 
 had been dealing with a professional dynamiter. 
 Yet the pro-prosecution press almost daily ac- 
 cused the defendants of having had a hand in 
 the crime. The Bulletin charged that "for 
 months Gallagher had been selected as a sacrifice 
 to the terror of those whom his confession could 
 harm. Within a week after the crime the Bul- 
 letin appeared with this scare-head : "plot to 
 
 MURDER PLANNED BY HIGHER-UPS A MONTH AGO.'^ 
 
 This was the story of a plot to murder the Bul- 
 letin's editor, Fremont Older, who, we were told, 
 "was being shadowed by a thug in the employ of 
 the United Railroads." For awhile Mr. Older 
 was in constant dread of assassination, and he 
 told the readers of the Bulletin almost every day 
 about plots for his undoing. He printed a whole 
 series of fac simile anonymous letters threaten- 
 ing him with instant destruction. On June 2 
 he published a letter under this headline: mur- 
 derous HIGHER-UPS AFFIX BLOODSTAINS TO LAT- 
 EST WARNING LETTER." From Older's stand- 
 point these were indeed horrific times. But 
 there were mean cynics who voiced the suspicion 
 that Burns was Older's correspondent. There 
 were thousands of people, however, who be- 
 lieved in Older and sympathized with him. Well 
 did they remember that he had been kidnaped 
 by an attorney connected with the defense. 
 Older often reminded them of that harrowing
 
 172 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 experience. True the Bulletin had libeled the at- 
 torney ; but that was another story, and it was 
 of no consequence from the editor's standpoint. 
 True, also, the attorney, who lived in Los An- 
 geles, kidnaped Older with the assistance of a 
 sheriff's deputy who had a warrant. True, also, 
 the complainant knew that as the regenerators 
 were personally conducting- the whole criminal 
 department of justice in San Francisco it would 
 have been useless to swear out a warrant in that 
 city ; but the fact is that Older was kidnaped in 
 the sense that he wasn't vouchsafed the privilege 
 of appearing before the nearest magistrate. The 
 episode served as the pretext for a great hul- 
 labaloo promoted chiefly by Detective W. J. 
 Burns, who himself has since practiced the gentle 
 art of kidnaping on a large scale. The kidnap- 
 ing of Older enabled him to pose as a martyr 
 to the cause of freedom with fine verisimilitude. 
 And so when he represented himself to be in 
 danger of assassination there were many people 
 ■^ to take him seriously and to shudder at the in- 
 fernality of the higher-ups. 
 
 Notwithstanding the incessant rage and hyste- 
 ria of the editors after the outrage and miracle 
 in Oakland ; spite of the agitation which they 
 personally conducted and all the noise with which 
 they assailed the ears of men in the jury-box, 
 Tirey L. Ford was acquitted and the Ruef jury 
 failed to agree. 
 
 Ruef's trial ended May 21, 1908. The jury
 
 THE DYNAiMlTl': EXPLOSION 173 
 
 was out forty-three hours, and from the first to 
 the last ballot they stood six to six. 
 
 Between Ruef's first and second trials there 
 was a long intermission. Gallagher was given 
 a vacation, and permitted to take a pleasure trip 
 to New York. Patrick Calhoun had been 
 clamoring for a trial for two years, and was 
 still clamoring, but the prosecution felt in need 
 of a rest ; that is, the attorneys and judges wished 
 to recuperate from their arduous labors in court. 
 Besides it was desirable to hammer away at 
 public sentiment, to generate once more the 
 mood vindictive. The machinery of justice 
 might be brought to a standstill, but never for 
 a moment was a truce declared. Skirmishing- 
 was continuous, the smoke of battle never lifted, 
 the nerves of the dear general were always on 
 edge. 
 
 As soon as the Ruef jury was dismissed the 
 pro-prosecution press worked itself into a fright- 
 ful fury, communicating its stormy emotions to 
 all the gallant reformers who had been faith- 
 fully following the fortunes of the regenerators. 
 The Bulletin, as always, out-vociferated its con- 
 temporaries, and hinting at the desirability of a 
 \'igilance Committee, printed in large type the 
 names of the six jurors who had voted for ac- 
 quittal. This was the Bulletin's idea of exact- 
 ing justice. One day it brought an incendiary 
 editorial to a close with these words : "Citizens 
 what are you going to do about it?" The ques-
 
 174 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 tion seemed a most pertinent one to the editor 
 of the Bulletin. It was certainly pregnant with 
 inspiration ; for the next day the Bulletin con- 
 spicuously "boxed" the following- paragraphs on 
 its editorial page — 
 
 Citizens: 
 
 What ore yon going to do about it? 
 Dynamiting assassins are pursuing the peo- 
 ple's principal witnesses against millionaires 
 who debauched your city. 
 Honest and fearless judges — Lazvlor and 
 Dunne — are ridiculed and lampooned for 
 striding to enforce the /</7C' agai)ist rich 
 felons. 
 
 Prosecutors of bribe gii'crs are denounced 
 and ■I'ilified for fighting for decency and 
 justice. 
 
 Jur\-fi.ving is systematically in vogue. 
 Your upper courts find technicalities ivith 
 zuhich to free criminals, and never discover 
 laws that protect society and the State from 
 the rapacity of boodlers. All your legal 
 machinery for the punishment of crimes is 
 seemingly manipulated to frustrate justice. 
 What are you going to do about it? 
 
 What the editor of the Bulletm hoped would 
 be done about it everybody understood. He was 
 always passionately hankering for a lynching bee, 
 at which, of course, it was to be hoped he would 
 not be on the wrong end of the rope. When the
 
 THE DYNAMITE EXPLOSION 175 
 
 Schniitz case was decided by the Court of Appeal 
 the Bulletin printed the names of the judges and 
 their home addresses, thus to intimate that they 
 mig-ht easily be found by a bloodthirsty mob. 
 Whenever things were not going to suit the Bul- 
 letin's editor he darkly intimated that the time 
 was ripe for summary justice. 
 
 The Call, though never quite as rampageous 
 as the Bulletin, was not averse to rousing "the 
 spirit of the pioneers." On June 2. 1908, the 
 Call printed a cartoon, the salient feature of 
 which was a hand holding a noose. It was 
 entitled "The Law." And this same paper, as 
 though fearful that the organization of a Vigil- 
 ance Committee was seriously contemplated, pro- 
 tested pharisaically, saying: "The Call's faith 
 is firm in the ultimate triumph of justice. 
 Dynamite or no dynamite, murder or no murder, 
 witnesses will testify." In this same editorial, 
 affirming its faith in the ultimate triumph of 
 justice, the Call was constrained to confess that 
 the current reign of terror was "a terrible 
 thing." To this sentiment color was quickly 
 given by all the preachers and politicians on 
 whom the cabal relied whenever a demonstra- 
 tion or upheaval of any sort was required. The 
 Rev. William Rader, sometime editorial writer 
 of the Bulletin, took to the pulpit, and what he 
 said was thus summarized in Bulletin headlines 
 of June 8: "Flays People Who Defend Wealthy 
 Rogues : Rev. William Rader Calls on Good
 
 176 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 Citizens to Uphold Law ; Enemies of Decency 
 Sow the Seeds of Revokttion and Death." 
 
 Great is the uproar of the interhide between 
 trials ! What energy and cunning — yes, what 
 deviltry — must be involved in this loud raucous 
 appeal to the unreason of the mob ! One can 
 almost admire the marvelous exercise of wit in 
 the evil work. 
 
 Think you, good reader, that there was noth- 
 ing of malign, malevolent genius in all this? 
 that behind it all was the consuming passion of 
 patriotism and disinterested love of justice? 
 Here we see a coterie of reformers industriously 
 setting a community by the ears, inciting men 
 to deeds of cruelty and violence, and to what 
 end? Ostensibly to vindicate justice. Presum- 
 ably they were striving to strengthen the arm 
 of government, to prop with moral instruments 
 the tottering pillar inscribed to human liberty. 
 But what was the occasion of all this heat and 
 passion ? Was the situation in San Francisco in 
 1908 similar to that of 1856 when Cora and 
 Casey were hanged by the Vigilantes? No, the 
 two situations were as different as night and day. 
 In the turbulent days of '56 the Vigilantes were 
 organized because of the corruption and im- 
 potency of the municipal government. In 1908 
 the men who were appealing to passion and 
 prejudice were the Government. The mayor 
 and all the supervisors were the puppets of the 
 regenerators. The district attorney and his
 
 THE DYNAMITE EXPLOSION 177 
 
 deputies were representatives of the reform cabal. 
 The chief of poHce was a man who had been 
 employed by them, who was appointed to his 
 office at their instigation, and who at this time 
 was co-operating" with them. All the cases 
 which they were prosecuting were in two courts 
 presided over by judges in deep sympathy with 
 them. Yet for them, according to their repre- 
 sentations, the times were out of joint. With 
 the business of maintaining law and order com- 
 pletely in their hands, we find them trying to in- 
 cite the mob to disorder. We have heard them 
 complain that the machinery of justice was 
 broken down ; charge that the upper courts were 
 in league with criminals, and that there was 
 systematic jury-bribing. Yet the fact is that up 
 to this time the upper courts had ruled against 
 them but once. Several writs had been sued out 
 to thwart them, and in vain. The Schmitz de- 
 cision was the only decision against them, and 
 that was a unanimous decision. 
 
 The truth is the regenerators were suffering de- 
 feat right along in the trial courts where they were 
 masters of every situation. Spite of all their 
 machinery for sifting juries, spite of the extra- 
 ordinary latitude they were allowed in their 
 method of getting juries, and notwithstanding 
 the fact that every juror from the day he was 
 sworn was put into the custody of one of their 
 representatives, they could not convict on the 
 purchased testimony of informers. Defeat after
 
 178 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 defeat did they suffer before juries selected for 
 them by friendly judges, and they must have well 
 apprehended the inherent weakness of the prose- 
 cution, which was nothing more nor less than 
 the character of their witnesses and the tainted 
 quality of the only testimony they had to offer. 
 
 It is a truism that when men have truth, rea- 
 son and justice on their side, they reqviire noth- 
 ing else to strengthen their equipment. Assum- 
 ing that the regenerators were thus armed, how 
 singular that with all the other advantages which 
 they are known to have possessed they should 
 have been making such a hullabaloo in the spring 
 and summer of 1908 ! 
 
 Their activities I have but faintly described. 
 At this time we find Heney and Langdon ad- 
 dressing meetings almost every night, exhorting 
 the populace to come to their aid. Also, for the 
 purpose at once of personally interesting a great 
 many people in the prosecution and stirring pub- 
 lic sympathy, we find the Bulletin begging the 
 people to subscribe to a fund to support 
 Heney, who was represented to be growing 
 poor in the public service, and we find the 
 Bulletin collecting dimes and quarters for the 
 little patriot. At the same time Langdon peti- 
 tioned the supervisors for an appropriation of 
 $120,000 which, he said, was needed for secret 
 service men, and which of course was allowed. 
 Addressing the supervisors he said : "It is no 
 longer simply a fight of the law against graft
 
 THE DYNAMITE EXPLOSION 1/9 
 
 and grafters ; it has become a fight of anarchy 
 against law. The issue is whether the people 
 will countenance or conclenni assassination and 
 murder." A few days later a Law and Order 
 League was organized under the auspices of the 
 regenerators. This was probably to indicate 
 that the police were not powerful enough to 
 cope with the crisis. But as there was nothing 
 for the Law and Order League to do, it never 
 did anything but meet and let off steam. 
 
 On June 20 when all the preachers were weary 
 and the newspaper were becoming monotonous 
 a timely message was received from President 
 Roosevelt. It was thus described in headlines 
 in the Call : roosevelt writes a strong message 
 
 AGAINST LOCAL GRAFT; KEEP UP THE FIGHT, 
 writes president ROOSEVELT TO SPRECKELS ; 
 EXECUTIVE TELLS GRAFT PROSECUTION TO IGNORE 
 
 SLANDER OF ENEMIES." T. R. was alivc to the 
 situation. As much so as was the Christian En- 
 deavor L^nion of Sonoma, which contributed to 
 the literature of the period — a letter to the editor 
 of the Bulletin : '"We heartily endorse your pub- 
 lic portrayal of the truth as it exists even though 
 in so doing you almost take your life in your 
 hand as it were." This sentiment was of course 
 apropos of the dynamite' outrage in Oakland. 
 
 On that crime light was presently to be shed. 
 The Bulletin offered a reward of $1,000 for in- 
 formation that would lead to the arrest of the 
 perpetrators. It was still assumed, of course,
 
 180 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 notwithstanding- what Wilhehn had said about 
 "a demonstration against Judge Lawlor," that 
 the higher-ups were guilty of the crime. One 
 day a newsboy found a letter in the street pur- 
 porting to have been written by John Claudianes 
 to his brother Peter Claudianes in the town of 
 Chico, demanding money. "If you don't send 
 the money," said the writer, "1 will give you 
 away, and tell all about the dynamiting." Here 
 was certainly a clue. It was just such a clue as 
 a raw hand at dramaturgy might have contrived. 
 And it was a very good clue. For almost im- 
 mediately after the finding, of the letter John 
 Claudianes was in the hands of the man of preter- 
 natural instinct, Mr. William J. Burns. The let- 
 ter was found on July 1. It was learned that 
 on June 29 John Claudianes appeared in the Bul- 
 letin office and demanded the reward, saying that 
 he could find the dynamiter. But Mr. Fremont 
 Older wouldn't believe him. Why Mr. Older 
 was sceptical in this instance has never been ex- 
 plained ; nor why he let John Claudianes get 
 away. But then explanations are a weariness to 
 the flesh, and it is easy to make them anyway. 
 As it turned out, Older's scepticism didn't matter ; 
 nor his carelessness either. John Claudianes was 
 doomed to be caught. Fate that prepares things 
 from all eternity had decreed the writing of the 
 fatal letter ; the loss of it, also, and the sharp 
 inquisitive glance of a newsboy. John Claud- 
 ianes in custody, the rest was easy. He was
 
 THE DYNAMITE EXPr.OSION 181 
 
 ready to make a confession. JUit like Editor 
 Older, he, too, was sceptical. Where was the 
 reward? Claiidianes inquired. Mr. Older pro- 
 duced one thousand dollars in cash and put it 
 on a table where Claudianes could feast his eyes 
 upon it. Then the prisoner confessed that he 
 and his brother, Peter, had been employed by 
 Felix Paudevaris to explode the dynamite at 
 Gallagher's home. According to Claudianes he 
 was paid by Paudevaris, who got the money 
 from Abe Ruef, "and," said the prisoner, "I 
 understood that Ruef got it from Patrick Cal- 
 houn." Thus was the chain made complete. 
 But John Claudianes, if he really told this story, 
 didn't stick to it. It should be explained that 
 he was a singular individual. A Greek, hardly 
 out of his teens, illiterate, reared in the slums, 
 a moral pervert, apparently insensible of the 
 enormity which he confessed to having per- 
 petrated, it was evident that for money he would 
 do or say anything. Indeed, during the first 
 week of his imprisonment he made it clear 
 enough that he was an absolutely irresponsible 
 person. The confession he is said to have made 
 he stoutly denied. An attorney, engaged for him 
 by his relatives, shortly withdrew from the case, 
 and at the time made this statement for publica- 
 tion : "The feel of a gold piece in his palm means 
 more to John Claudianes than the truth, more 
 than the hope of exculpation, more than any- 
 thing else on earth. I am convinced that he 
 
 ,y
 
 182 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 knows something of the crime, yet I am equally 
 certain that he had no part in the actual per- 
 petration of the crime. There have been many 
 reports to the effect that he implicated several 
 of the defendants in the graft cases, but from all 
 that he has told me that is not so. So far as his 
 personal knowledge extends it does not implicate 
 any person except his brother Peter. He has 
 made no statement which drags in the name of 
 Ruef or any other person. He holds the record 
 for confessions. He made three complete ones, 
 to say nothing of several piecemeal narratives." 
 
 A few months after the arrest of John Claud- 
 ianes his brother Peter was arrested in Chicago. 
 The newspapers were told that he confessed to 
 Detective Burns that he did the dynamiting at 
 the instigation of Felix Paudevans. Peter 
 Claudianes denied that he made the confession. 
 He was convicted of the crime, however, and the 
 principal, almost the only, testimony against him 
 was that of Detective Burns who swore to the 
 confession which the prisoner disavowed. John 
 Claudianes was set free. There was no prosecu- 
 tion of John Claudianes. He had an attorney 
 who challenged the regenerators to appear in 
 court and dare prosecute his client. They were 
 more discreet than daring. 
 
 That Peter Claudianes committed the crime 
 there is but little doubt. Nor is it doubted that 
 he was hired by Felix Paudevaris. But by 
 whom was Paudevaris hired ? Here is a mystery
 
 THE DYNAMITE EXPLOSION 183 
 
 that has never been solved. There is no testi- 
 mony to show that there was ever any connec- 
 tion between Paudevaris and Ruef. The prob- 
 abiHty is that Paudevaris was hired by one of the 
 numerous private detectives that fairly httered 
 the streets of San h>ancisco. If found Paudev- 
 aris might be wilhng to (hsclose the identity of 
 his employer, but the search for him. if it was 
 ever seriously made, was discontinued long ago, 
 though it was a matter of common notoriety that 
 he had fled to a town in Italy. The great 
 American detective, William J. Burns, never 
 tried to capture Paudevaris. What the inspira- 
 tion of the crime was we may never know, but 
 that the purpose was not to eliminate the testi- 
 mony of Gallagher it is not unreasonable to 
 presume, for there is nothing more improbable 
 than Gallagher's story that his home was oc- 
 cupied by himself and family at the time of the 
 explosion. If he had said that, contrary to his 
 usual custom, he and his family were in the back- 
 yard when the explosion occurred there would be 
 no reason to suspect collusion between himself 
 and the dynamiter, but such are the circumstances 
 that they rather point to that conclusion,
 
 ^ 
 
 IX 
 
 THE SHOOTING OF HENEY 
 
 An Infuriated Ex-Convict Revenges Himself on the 
 
 Virulent Prosecutor and Commits Suicide 
 
 Just as Burns is About to Pursue a Clue 
 
 When the work of impanehng- the jury 
 for Ruef's second trial was begun the news- 
 papers were still raging against the defend- 
 ant as the instigator of the dynamiting of 
 Gallagher's home. And hardly had this theme 
 been worn threadbare when they were af- 
 forded new and even better material for 
 the rousing of resentment and indignation. In 
 the midst of the trial, or rather during a lull in 
 the proceedings, Francis J. Heney was shot down 
 as he sat in the crowded courtroom, and for some 
 hours all San Francisco believed his assass- 
 ination had been attempted at the instigation 
 of the defendant. As a matter of fact nothing 
 worse could have happened to the defendant. 
 
 The echo of the pistol shot had scarcely died 
 away when one of Ruef's attorneys, Henry Ach, 
 turned to him and said, "This means your convic- 
 tion." And Ruef knew. No man was more quick 
 to catch the message that sparked from the bullet 
 now lodged in the muscles of Heney's neck. No 
 man, be sure of it, was more profoundly ap-
 
 THE SHOOTING OF HENEY 185 
 
 palled by the shooting than Abraham Ruef. Now 
 were the murmurs of the populace sounding in 
 his ear, portending- something more to be dreaded 
 than conviction. Swiftly the startling news is 
 spreading. Here is the grand pretext for the 
 press to kindle the flame of popular fury and fan 
 it into a conflagration. Nor is the opportunity 
 to conjure the spirit of violence neglected. 
 Quickly spreads the contagion of public senti- 
 ment, with increasing velocity and an ever deep- 
 ening, ever widening sweep of momentum. With- 
 in an hour of the shooting the League of Justice 
 — how true to its name ! — gets busy, ostensibly to 
 stem the torrent of public indignation, its in- 
 spired orators assuming all the while that Ruef 
 instigated the shooting. Was there ever such 
 Pharisaical naivete? And Mayor Taylor — al- 
 ways ready to lend a hand for the furtherance of 
 the beneficent designs of the men that raised him 
 from obscurity to crown their enterprises with 
 smug respectability — alert was he for the poten- 
 tialities of the propitious emergency. With pub- 
 lic indignation foaming under the spur he takes 
 a hint from the patriots of the League of Jus- 
 tice, and attends a meeting of them at which it 
 is decided to hold a great public discussion of 
 the shooting. A mass-meeting is called for the 
 following evening. It would have been less dis- 
 ingenuous to call it an indignation meeting; 
 for though the desire to pacify the public was 
 afifected, the newspapers of the morning after
 
 186 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 the shooting- were filled with the rabble-rousing 
 words of Mr. Spreckels, Mr. Phelan and their 
 several satellites. By all it was assumed that 
 Heney was the victim of a plot. Nobody wished 
 to make sceptics of the people. The avowed 
 purpose of the League of Justice was to exhort 
 the people to be calm ; to lament of course that 
 the machinery of justice was broken down, but 
 to suggest the while that by strenuous efforts it 
 might be repaired. Thus was the mob to be 
 pacified. It was something of the same motive 
 that animated Antony when he kindled the flame 
 of sacred vehemence at the corse of Caesar. A 
 decidedly paradoxical proceeding was this of the 
 League of Justice, sanctioned by Mayor Taylor ; 
 if not disingenuous, to be attributed, then, 
 to a most profound ignorance of psychological 
 phenomena. Fancy rounding up the rabble when 
 clamor is at the loudest, when it is blowing a 
 hurricane, that the still small voice of reason 
 may be heard above the tumult ! Assuming 
 that Mayor Taylor was acting for what he 
 conceived to be the best interests of the 
 community his conduct viewed in the perspective 
 of time is not to be applauded for its wisdom. 
 True, there was no outbreak, but the scene 
 was set for one. There . was the vast throng, 
 composed indubitably of an element sensitive to 
 the emotions of the patriots ; in sympathy with 
 them ; convinced that the patriots were in 
 sympathy with the cause of justice. There they
 
 THE SHOOTING OF HENEY 187 
 
 were, brought tog^ethcr in a narrow compass, 
 where contagion might be facihtated by contact, 
 where the atmosphere might be impregnated with 
 a single breath, where their thoughts could be 
 blown back on themselves ; and there were the 
 orators, the mayor, the district attorney and 
 others all believed to be fighting a desperate up- 
 hill fight for the people against a band of most 
 unscrupulous rascals leagued with thugs, defiant 
 of the laws of God and men. What might have 
 happened had there been no interruption must be 
 left to conjecture. What the tone of the meet- 
 ing foreboded may be inferred from this sig- 
 nificant circumstance. — that an armed body of 
 men was hastily organized for the protection of 
 the Examiner office. The explanation is that 
 the patriots had been writhing under the ridicule 
 with which they were lashed by the author of 
 the Mutt cartoons. Hearst and the whole Ex- 
 aminer stafiF were denounced for "poisoning the 
 public mind." The Mutt cartoons were the in- 
 spiration of much vehement oratory at the mass- 
 meeting. How bitterly those cartoons were re- 
 sented we may learn from the report made by 
 Mayor Taylor's whitewash committee (William 
 Denman, chairman) which was made public about 
 a year after the shooting. "The so-called Mutt 
 cartoons," says the report, "sought by a broad 
 but clever ridicule to convey the impression that 
 Mr. Heney was a coarse and unprincipled char- 
 latan and that the entire prosecution was founded
 
 188 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 in injustice and carried on to satisfy a personal 
 malice. One of these cartoons, which subse- 
 quently became notable, depicted him as a bird 
 flying in the air, about to be brought down by a 
 fowler's gun. It would not have incited any bal- 
 anced person to commit violence, but to a weak 
 or inflamed mind it might have been suggestive ; 
 though no doubt it was not deliberately so in- 
 tended." 
 
 As we have said we can but speculate as to what 
 might have happened as a result of the mass-meet- 
 ing had there been no interruption. At the high- 
 est pitch of the mob's emotions there came a dis- 
 traction that no eloquence howsoever impassioned 
 could overcome. It was the news that the man 
 who shot Heney had committed suicide in his 
 cell in the county jail. The news was brought to 
 the platform by an Examiner reporter, who found 
 the speakers reluctant to make the announce- 
 ment, which they did not make for some min- 
 utes, but kept on haranguing the audience. 
 Whatever their motive for withholding the in- 
 formation they possessed, the fact is that as 
 soon as it was given the people dispersed. There 
 are some occurrences that point to a conclusion 
 without the use of a syllogism. Perhaps it oc- 
 curred to the mob that it was inciedible that Ruef 
 should have hired a man to assassinate Heney 
 and also to commit suicide. Or perhaps it was 
 thought that as the man had committed suicide 
 it might be worth while to hear all the details
 
 THE SHOOTING OF HENEY 189 
 
 of the shooting' before jumping' to conckisions. 
 At any rate the people dispersed to their homes, 
 and the next day they were better informed about 
 what had occurred. 
 
 But let it not be supposed that the pro-prosecu- 
 tion press ever abandoned the theory that Ruef 
 instigated the shooting of Heney. That theory 
 was too valuable for the purposes of the prosecu- 
 tion to be abandoned. No. from the moment 
 that Heney was shot he became a martyr to the 
 cause of civic righteousness, and as such he was 
 employed as an apparition for dramatic effect 
 throughout the remainder of Ruef's trial. In 
 the circumstances it becomes important that we 
 should know how justly qualified he was for the 
 role. 
 
 Heney was shot by Morris Haas, a saloon 
 keeper, who was accepted as a juror for Ruef's 
 first trial, the one which resulted in the disagree- 
 ment of the jury. Haas had served a term in 
 the penitentiary for embezzlement. More than 
 twenty years before his appearance in the jury- 
 box he was arrested on complaint of a firm by 
 which he was employed, for the embezzlement of 
 a small sum of money. He pleaded guilty, and 
 received a light sentence. He served his term, 
 was released from prison and restored to citizen- 
 ship. Thenceforward, so far as anybody knows, 
 he lived an honest life. He married, became the 
 father of several children, and no member of his 
 family knew of the blot upon his record. The
 
 190 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 sin of his young manhood had long since ceased 
 to haunt him. His neighbors knew him as a re- 
 spectable citizen, he had many friends who never 
 dreamt that he had worn stripes. In January. 
 1908, when, in accordance with law, the Superior 
 Court judges of San Francisco were making up 
 the jury roll for the year, one of them put the 
 name of Morris Haas in his list, and when 
 Abraham Ruef came to trial Morris Haas was 
 drawn as a juror. We are told that he was eager 
 to get on the jury. The whitewash committee 
 says in its report that the prosecution had in- 
 formation that Haas intended to sell his vote for 
 Ruef's acquittal. This is not unlikely. The 
 prosecution had a vast volume of information 
 about jurors, not all of it accurate. It was 
 gathered by private detectives who went about 
 learning the sentiments of citizens. When Ruef 
 was on trial they had a bureau from which they 
 sent out a decoy petition to have the graft prose- 
 cution stopped, the purpose being to ascertain 
 the attitude of prospective jurors. By means of 
 another paper they solicited citizens to join a 
 club organized for the prosecution of the higher- 
 ups. They even went so far as to interview 
 men summoned as jurors who had been exam- 
 ined and passed, and from this conduct con- 
 tempt proceedings resulted. Whenever the 
 prosecution wished to get rid of a man with- 
 out wasting a challenge, a private detective 
 would take the witness stand and swear that the
 
 THE SHOOTING OF HENEY 191 
 
 man had made certain statements to him con- 
 ckisive of prejudice. But notwithstanding the 
 industry and adroitness of the detectives Haas 
 was for a time acceptable to the prosecution. 
 The charge that he was eager to get on the jury 
 is hard to reconcile with the_Jact that he went 
 to the judge on the bench and asked to be ex- 
 cused from service. Was it because he feared 
 that his record might be disclosed, and that shame 
 and disgrace would be brought upon his family? 
 He was certainly hazarding much in subjecting 
 himself to the deep scrutiny from which there 
 was no escape for any man sworn as a juror 
 for the trial of Abraham Ruef. It was not likely 
 that he would lull himself into a sense of security. 
 The newspapers were full of the searching in- 
 vestigations that were being made from day to 
 day. Haas must have felt that the resurrection 
 of his past would be the inevitable consequence 
 of his appearance in the jury-box. 
 
 From the record of Haas's examination as to 
 his qualifications to serve as a juror it appears 
 that he answered all questions satisfactorily. 
 At all events he said nothing indicative of 
 bias or prejudice. A middle-aged German, un- 
 sophisticated in appearance and manner, there 
 appeared to be nothing objectionable to him, and 
 so far as anybody knew there was nothing 
 objectionable unless it was from the stand- 
 point of the prosecution, inasmuch as Haas 
 was a Jew. Ruef being a Jew, and the 
 
 X
 
 192 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 two rabbis, Dr. Nieto and Dr. Kaplan hav- 
 ing been involved in the controversy over 
 the immunity contract, it became the policy of 
 the prosecution to exclude Jews from the jury- 
 box. Perhaps for tha t reason it was considered 
 desirable to get rid of Haas, and perhaps for 
 that reason the investigation was made which re- 
 sulted in the discovery that Haas was an ex- 
 convict. At any rate his past was uncovered, and 
 one day it was made public in a manner cal- 
 culated to startle and disconcert the defendant 
 and his counsel ; also to warrant the pro-prosecu- 
 tion press in emitting some fresh shrieks. 
 
 The unveiling of the ex-convict's past was a 
 matter of studied effect and no little craftsman- 
 manship. Whenever Heney had a telling cir- 
 cumstance to present he was partial to the tableau 
 form. Nothing worth while was ever permitted 
 to touch the level of the commonplace. Just be- 
 fore the climax there was much action that 
 seemed to denote that shortly there was to be 
 something in the nature of a denouement. Ru- 
 dolph Spreckels came into court, looking wise. 
 He held a whispered consultation with Burns. 
 The detective hurriedly approached Heney. 
 More whispering, and many glances toward the 
 jury-box. Then up rose the prosecutor. 
 Taking a photograph from his pocket, he 
 walked up to the jury-box and glared at Haas. 
 Exhibiting the photograph to the juror he 
 asked him if he recognized it. It was the photo-
 
 THE SHOOTING OF HENEY 193 
 
 graph of Haas in stripes, taken when the juror 
 was in the penitentiary. The unfortunate wretch 
 was for a moment (hmifounded, transfixed. 
 Heney smiled and repeated his question. Trem- 
 bhng in every fibre, his eyes filled with terror 
 and dismay, Haas staggered to his feet, and in 
 a voice broken with sobs he pleaded like one in 
 the depths of agony to be spared from shame. 
 
 Heney's face wore a cynical smile. "Didn't you 
 serve a term in the penitentiary?" he asked. 
 
 "Oh, Mr. Heney," the cowering wretch ex- 
 claimed, "if you only knew about the penitentiary , 
 you wouldn't be so harsh. I asked the court to ^j 
 excuse me, and he wouldn't." 
 
 Judge Lawlor heard this statement and ut- 
 tered no word of contradiction. Nor did 
 Heney challenge the assertion ; yet his tone 
 and manner plainly denoted that there was 
 not the slightest reason to doubt that Haas had 
 tried 'to get on the jury, and that he was in the 
 jury-box for an improper purpose. No evidence 
 did he introduce to prove that such was the case. 
 If he had any information regarding Haas's pur- 
 pose he never made it public. No information 
 of that nature has ever been made public. But 
 there in the official record is Haas's statement 
 that he tried to evade service, that he importuned 
 the judge of the court to excuse him from 
 service. Nothing more was said on the subject 
 that fatal day. In his panic terror Haas ram- 
 bled on incoherently. His remarks plainly showed
 
 194 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 that his mind was preoccupied with the shame 
 of his past, the humihation of the present ; that 
 he had no thought of the issue of the moment. 
 
 "I was vin(hcated on that charge,"' he ex- 
 claimed. 
 
 "I don't care anything about that," said Heney. 
 
 Of course he didn't care about it. All that he 
 cared about, presumably, was the effect of what 
 the public would regard as the trapping of a 
 scoundrel who had been employed to hang a 
 jury. Perhaps the wincing of the man in the 
 box was balm to his soul. 
 
 "Well," Haas went on, "the man who brought 
 that trouble to me — I never had no trial. I am 
 willing to be tried now and prove my innocence — 
 but the man that brought on that trouble he 
 jumped out of a four-story window." This 
 speech Heney ignored, but went on with his 
 questions till interrupted by counsel for the de- 
 fendant who interposed in behalf of the juror, 
 saying that it was unnecessary to pursue so pain- 
 ful an examination. They would allow the chal- 
 lenge. But Heney wasn't satisfied. He was 
 eager to make it appear that Haas was a tool 
 of the defendant. Not till the incident had 
 yielded sufficient material for the newspapers did 
 Heney desist, and then Haas with bowed head 
 staggered out of the courtroom. 
 
 This incident furnished the pro-prosecution 
 press with much material for telling comment. 
 The newspapers took it for granted, to be sure,
 
 THE SHOOTING OF HENP:y 195 
 
 that the ex-convict had been hired by Ruef to ^ 
 serve as a juror and vote for acquittal. Not to 
 the newspapers did it matter that they had noth- 
 ing but gratuitous assertion on which to base 
 their imputation. True, there had been rumors 
 of jury-bribing, and there had been arrests for 
 jury-bribing, and certainly Ruef was not a man 
 to scruple at jury-bribing, but it is indisputable 
 that the prosecution set the pace in the business 
 of tampering with talesmen, and it will certainly 
 do nobody injustice to assert that most of 
 the noise that was made about jury-bribing was 
 artfully created chiefly for the one purpose 
 of inspiring jurors who might be inclined to 
 vote for acquittal with dread of being sus- 
 pected of having sold themselves. The noise 
 was incessant ; men were arrested for jury-brib- 
 ing, and they were prosecuted, and they were ac- 
 quitted. In the Call of October 30, 1908, the 
 subject was thus discussed by District At- 
 torney Langdon : "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." That state- 1 
 ment served its purpose. It gave color to in- 
 sinuation and rumor. The evidence which Mr. 
 Langdon said he had in his possession was never 
 produced. The statement is characteristic of the 
 ways of the prosecution. It was thus that the 
 business was managed out of court ; thus that 
 the public was prepared for failure in court and
 
 i.j THE REGENERATORS 
 
 rendered susceptible to whatever suggestion was 
 deemed expedient for the moment. And conse- 
 quently when the discovery was made that an 
 ex-convict had been sworn as a juror the poten- 
 tiaHties of the situation must have excited the 
 enthusiasm of the prosecutors. Here was the 
 chance to illustrate by example, to point out a 
 specimen of criminal handiwork, so it was not 
 neglected. Yet there is not an iota of testimony 
 anywhere, not even of the hearsay, variety, to 
 show that Francis J. Heney exposed the brand 
 of infamy on Haas for any other purpose than 
 that of exciting prejudice against the defendant. 
 But there is testimony, there is a flaming record, 
 to show that in the very case in which Haas ap- 
 peared, the prosecution tried their utmost to have 
 accepted on the jury a man whom they believed 
 to be so strongly prejudiced against the defend- 
 ant, so ardently in sympathy with the prosecu- 
 tion, that with him in the box acquittal would be 
 impossible. 
 
 Haas, as we have said, staggered out of the 
 courtroom with bowed head. He vanished. For 
 a brief space he lived unnoticed, unremembered. 
 The trial went on. the jury disagreed. Two 
 months later Ruef is again on trial. This time 
 for bribing a supervisor to vote for the trolley 
 franchise. About four o'clock on the after- 
 noon of November 13, 1908, a recess was taken.
 
 THE SHOOTING OF HENEY 197 
 
 Judge Lawlor went into his chambers, the 
 jury into an adjoining room, Ruef and his 
 attorneys into a corridor. Heney remained 
 seated at a table, the spectators held their 
 places. Suddenly, hurriedly, a man rose from 
 a chair a short distance from where Heney was 
 sitting, drew a pistol, fired. Heney fell to the 
 floor with a bullet in his neck. His assailant, 
 quickly seized by officers of the court, was 
 thrown to the floor and manacled. He was rec- 
 ognized as Morris Haas, the ex-convict. With- 
 in twenty minutes after the shooting, Haas still 
 lying on the floor, was questioned by William J. 
 Burns and a police captain. Questions and an- 
 swers- were taken down by a stenographer. The 
 detective's c[uestions were designed to draw from 
 the prisoner a confession that he had been hired 
 to do the shooting, but there is not a single an- 
 swer to give the slightest color to such a theory. 
 The prisoner's first words were : *T would be 
 ashamed if I hadn't done it. Yet I have lots to 
 live for. I have a wife and four children. But 
 I'd change places with Heney right now. Oh! 
 the life I've lived since Heney denounced me in 
 open court." Burns interrupted with questions 
 as to where he had been, and to whom he had 
 talked, etc., but Haas, hysterical and incoherent, 
 could hardly be dissuaded from talking about 
 anything but the crime for which he had been 
 sent to the penitentiary. 
 
 "There is no use of going over that stufif,"
 
 198 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 said Burns ; "come down to reason — what was 
 your reason for shooting Mr. Heney?" 
 
 "I shot him for humanity's sake," was the 
 reply. 
 
 "Why didn't you shoot Ruef for humanity's 
 sake?" 
 
 "Because he didn't denounce me that day. 
 Don't forget, Mr. Burns, I got married seventeen 
 years ago and raised a family of four children. 
 Now look at what they've suffered. My boy 
 was so proud when my name first appeared in 
 the papers. He said, 'Why papa, your name is 
 in the paper — ' " 
 
 "Whom did you have a talk with about the 
 matter before you came to shoot Mr. Heney?" 
 
 "Oh, not a soul. I kept it to myself. I talked 
 to myself all the time. I wish, Mr. Burns, they 
 would shoot me. What do I care. I don't care 
 a scrap." 
 
 Further questioning elicited the information 
 that immediately after the exposure of him in 
 court Haas closed his saloon, paid no more at- 
 tention to business, and thereafter wandered 
 about the nickelodeons. "They're dark," he ex- 
 plained, "and I used to hide myself in them." 
 What a world of pain and torture was imaged in 
 this confession wrung from an anguished fugitive 
 soul ! But the stern righteous detective, the un- 
 emotional, inexorable Javert, intent upon getting 
 to the bottom of what he conceived to be an 
 atrocious plot, experienced no twinge of pity.
 
 THE SHOOTING OF HENEY 199 
 
 "Why didn't you shoot Ruef instead of 
 Heney?" he demanded. 
 
 The prostrate man, apparently insensible of 
 the question, was now muttering to himself: 
 "Oh! if Heney hadn't brought that picture. He 
 showed my picture in stripes. I couldn't say a 
 word." 
 
 From the detective's standpoint the inquiry 
 was unproductive. It was brought to a close. 
 Haas was sent to the county jail, and Ruef, who 
 was then out on bonds, was locked up there also, 
 as it was feared that his life was in danger. 
 "Ruef," said the Chronicle the morning after the 
 shooting, "is at the county jail by special order 
 of Judge Lawlor. The whole city being horri- 
 fied at the cold-blooded shooting of a public of- 
 ficial this measure was necessary, not only to 
 prevent any possible move on the part of the 
 defendant, but for Ruef's own protection in the 
 present excited state of the public mind." And 
 .it was in this excited state of the public mind that 
 the patriots of the League of Justice got to- 
 gether, and called a mass-meeting. What moved 
 them we learn from the veracious Call, personal 
 property of the Spreckels family : "Imbued with 
 an intensity of feeling born of the crime that dyed 
 scarlet the court of justice where Francis J. 
 Heney pleaded the cause of the people, two hun- 
 dred members of the Citizens League of Justice 
 gathered last night in the Pacific Building, and 
 after listening to stirring addresses called upon
 
 200 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 the public to pledge its aid to the cause of justice. 
 The meeting was hurriedly called, but the re- 
 sponse was a deep toned note of determination." 
 Conspicuous among those present, as may also 
 be learned from the Call, were Father Crowley, 
 William Kent and Will French, all of the im- 
 partial whitewash committee ; also, Hiram John- 
 son, now Governor of California, Fred Sanborn 
 of the Oliver grand jury, now a job-holder of 
 the Johnson administration, Walter MacArthur, 
 labor agitator, Richard Cornelius, president of 
 the Carmen's Union, the man that precipitated 
 the strike against the United Railroads, and 
 Mayor Taylor. The Call said that while all the 
 speakers "counseled moderation the bitterest re- 
 sentment was expressed in the strongest possible 
 language of the methods of the enemies of the 
 prosecution." Among the speakers who coun- 
 seled moderation was Richard Cornelius, who 
 said, according to the Call, "I think the time has 
 come when there should be a vigilance commit-, 
 tee to deal with criminals in this city. I am 
 ready to join such a committee." And the good 
 mayor was quoted in these words: "No one can 
 tell who or what is back of this horrible deed." 
 Assuredly no one could tell. Nor was there 
 any reason for suspecting that there was behind 
 it anybody but the maddened, infuriated wretch 
 by whom it was perpetrated. Indeed it may 
 well be doubted that the patriots entertained the 
 suspicion which they industriously disseminated
 
 THE SHOOTING OF HENEY 201 
 
 whilst pretending to be averse to inflaming the 
 multitude. It was manifestly not to the interest) 
 of Ruef or the higher-ups to cause the assassina- 1 
 tion of Heney. On the contrary it was to their \ 
 interest to keep him alive. He wasn't convicting 
 anybody. His arrogant and brutal conduct had 
 disgusted the whole community. His manner 
 was~o]ffens:ve to juries, and it seemed Impossible 
 for him to try a case without blundering fatally. 
 Why should the defendants turn public sentiment 
 against themselves by making of the impotent 
 Heney a martyr to the cause of civic righteous- 
 ness? In all California there were no men who 
 ought to have been more eager to preserve Heney 
 from harm than the defendants in the graft 
 cases. The patriots may have had a different 
 conception of the matter. And they may have 
 had no desire to incite the passions of the mob, 
 but if so their tone and sentiments were far 
 from felicitous. Not one of them failed to as- 
 sume that Heney was shot because he was prose- 
 cuting bad men. Even Mayor Taylor, who didn't 
 know what was back of the "horrible deed," em- 
 braced this hypothesis, as may be seen from an 
 address which he issued to the people and 
 caused to be published in all the papers in 
 advance of the mass-meeting. 'Tt is no wonder," 
 he said, "that the public is wrought up. The 
 people would not be the good citizens they ought 
 to be unless they were wrought up." And he 
 added : "Of course the whole community with
 
 202 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 but few exceptions will now be behind the prose- 
 cution." Thus we hear it again, — the ever-re- 
 curring- refrain addressed to the ears of the mul- 
 titude : "Come, be good fellows, get behind the 
 prosecution." And still the patriots were in con- 
 trol of the whole machinery of government; not 
 only that, they had their League of Justice, their 
 Woman's Heney League, their perspiring preach- 
 ers, their newspaper organs and no small propor- 
 tion of public sentiment. But they never quit 
 begging for more ; nor for a moment did they 
 cease fulminating against the "poisoners of pub- 
 lic opinion," as they described their critics. 
 
 In the same issue of the Call in which the 
 mayor's address is printed we find, "Burns says 
 murder plot was surely planned by others." And 
 in the Examiner of the same day Burns is quoted 
 thus : "From my investigation, and what I know, 
 I think the whole thing leads up to Ruef." What 
 Burns knew has never been divulged so far as 
 it is possible to ascertain. Yet he may have 
 communicated with Theodore Roosevelt, Presi- 
 dent of the United States, for that gentleman 
 appeared to know, though far away in Washing- 
 ton, D. C. While the movement to assuage the 
 feelings of the people was on, the amiable and 
 timely President uttered himself somewhere in 
 the neighborhood of the psychological moment. 
 From him came a telegram addressed to Rudolph 
 Spreckels, indicating that either he had received 
 important information or that his clairvoyant per-
 
 THE SHOOTING OF HENEY 203 
 
 ceptive faculties had been at work. The follow- 
 ing is an excerpt : "The infamous character of the 
 would-be assassin, no less than the infamous 
 character of the deed, call attention in a striking 
 way to the true character of the forces against 
 which Heney and you and your associates have 
 been struggling." And to the peaceful voice of 
 Mr. Roosevelt were added the clarion tones of 
 the Call, demanding to know, "Will they stop at 
 nothing? Are not stealing, perjury, bribery, 
 dynamiting, murder, enough !" In the evening, 
 just before the people assembled in mass-meet- 
 ing, the Bulletin expressed its desire for 
 peace and quiet in this contribution to the 
 literature of the passing show : "The public will 
 not be easily convinced that a man who would 
 hire a murderer to kill Gallagher would be too 
 scrupulous to hire or procure a murderer to kill 
 Heney." Likewise the Evening News : "Not 
 since the days the Vigilantes strangled the thugs 
 who held the city by the throat, in the gold min- 
 ing days, have the law-abiding citizens been so 
 horrified." And to quell more effectually the 
 spirit of turbulence the Bulletin, deeming it again 
 the psychological moment for an anonymous let- 
 ter, printed one said to have been found among 
 some unopened letters on Mr. Heney's desk. 
 This is the letter : 
 
 Dear Sir: Have Detective Burns look carefully 
 into and after A. Ruef. Be on your guard and 
 await more startling developments. I know where- 
 of I speak. 
 
 — A Friend.
 
 204 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 Doubtless this letter was found by the argus- 
 eyed Burns, but on whose authority it was 
 opened the Bulletin did not say ; indubitably not 
 on Heney's, as Heney was then in the hospital 
 waiting to be operated upon. The detective 
 probably divined the contents, and therefore felt 
 no compunction against opening it. At any rate, 
 that he was sure it was something deserving of 
 his attention, may be inferred from the following 
 quoted from the Bulletin: "Burns says it has 
 every sign of genuineness. It is significant. It 
 is a clew.'' Never since has anything been 
 heard of that letter. The clew was abandoned 
 almost as soon as it was found. The explana- 
 tion probably is that as on the evening of the day 
 on which it was found Haas committed suicide in 
 his cell in the county jail, immediately it be- 
 came expedient for Burns and his associates to 
 propagate a new theory in order to keep alive 
 the flame they had been fanning. This 
 theory was that Haas had been killed by the 
 higher-ups. But it was soon observed that this 
 theory was not winning credence. 
 
 At the time of the tragedy in the jail there 
 were two policemen outside the cell door. They 
 had been stationed there by Chief Biggy, the 
 ex-elisor of the prosecution. And Biggy him- 
 self was in the jail when the tragedy occurred. 
 But a few minutes before he was in the cell talk- 
 ing with Haas. In the circumstances it was not 
 to be believed that Haas had been murdered.
 
 THE SHOOTING OF HENEY 205 
 
 It was more likely that he comniitted suicide. 
 But where did he get the derringer with which 
 the deed was done? Ah, the conclusion was in- 
 evitable. The derring-er must have been smug- 
 gled into the jail by an agent of the higher-ups. 
 So Burns surmised. It would never do to pre- 
 sume that the prisoner had the weapon on his 
 person all the time of his imprisonment, for it 
 was by Bums himself that Haas had been 
 searched. Perish the thought that this renowned 
 policeman had failed in so important a case to 
 make a thorough search ! Yet nobody ever saw 
 Haas's shoes removed in Burns's presence. Nor 
 has Burns ever said that he examined Haas's 
 shoes. 
 
 While conjecture was rife Burns conceived a 
 new theory. As Mrs. Haas, the mother of the 
 dead man's four children, had visited him at 
 the jail, perhaps, suggested Burns, she supplied 
 her husband with the weapon that put an end to 
 his miserable life. This certainly was the mean- 
 est, most cruel of all the surmises expressed 
 in the excitement of the moment. Poor, forlorn 
 woman ! Even she in all her bitter sorrow 
 could not escape the imputation of being the 
 agent of assassins. And such was the brutality 
 of sentiment and feeling in those days that of 
 this wretched woman, whose affliction ordinarily 
 would have stirred the melting passions of 
 humanity and commiseration, not a kind, sym- 
 pathetic word was spoken in any newspaper.
 
 206 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 There was pity for none but Heney, the martyr, 
 with a bullet lodged in the soft tissues of his 
 neck, suffering- from what was little more than 
 a superficial wound, but which was represented 
 to be of the most vital character. For the 
 man whose wound no water could cleanse save 
 Lethe's stream, whose body was now in the 
 morgue, there was nothing but contumely and 
 denunciation. And for the widowed mother of 
 his children there was naught but the suspicion 
 that her hand was dyed in his blood. But the 
 suspicion did not endure. The policemen who 
 entered Haas's cell immediately after the shoot- 
 ing, and who examined the body, had found the 
 bottom of one of the legs of Haas's trousers 
 turned up above the top of his elastic gaiter, 
 and when the body was stripped it was found 
 that the ankle was bruised. It was therefore a 
 plausible theory that Haas had had the derringer 
 concealed in his shoe, and this was demonstrated 
 to be quite feasible, much to the disquietude of 
 Detective Burns. 
 
 All that was subsequently learned regarding 
 Haas was what was told by Mrs. Miriam Cohn, 
 who had known him many years, and in whom 
 he confided, she having known of his charred 
 past. To her he went when summoned for jury 
 duty in the Ruef case, to be advised as to how 
 he might escape service, saying that he feared 
 exposure. Again to her he went when burning 
 with shame and bowed with grief. According
 
 THE SHOOTING OF HENEY 207 
 
 to her testimony he was beliaving Hke a madman, 
 and he talked of killing- his family and himself. 
 He said that one night when his wife and 
 children were asleep he was on the point of kill- 
 ing them all, when Mrs. Haas awoke. His nerve 
 failed him. In such a frame of mind how com- 
 monplace the mad impulse that seized him, the 
 blind passion for revenge ! A man bereft of 
 reason was Haas, incapable of realizing that the 
 last shot fired, the fatal shot, was the one by 
 which he avenged himself.
 
 X 
 
 THE BIGGY MYSTERY 
 
 Hounded by the Regenerators the Chief of Police 
 Conies to a Tragic End 
 
 The shooting of Heney and the suicide of 
 Haas were not the only stirring events that 
 diverted attention from the Ruef trial. Still an- 
 other tragic event marked the progress of the 
 civic drama. Chief of Police William J. Biggy 
 went to his death in the waters of San Francisco 
 Bay, and to this day the mystery of his taking 
 off is unsolved. The death of Biggy gave the 
 regenerators the most severe shock they had yet 
 experienced. For the first time they knew what 
 it was to be suspected of the kind of foul play 
 which they had so often imputed to their ad- 
 versaries. The Biggy tragedy followed on the 
 heels of the Haas tragedy, and may rightly be 
 regarded as the sequence of it, whatever may 
 have been the nature of the fatality. 
 
 As a result of the Haas tragedy the regen- 
 erators demanded that Biggy be removed from 
 office. Detective Burns, seeking to exculpate 
 himself at the expense of Biggy, threw all the 
 blame for Haas's death on the chief of police. 
 He would have the people believe that it was 
 through the chief's negligence that somebody
 
 THE BIGGY MYSTERY 209 
 
 had contrived to give Haas the derringer with 
 which he killed himself. All the reg-enerators, of 
 course, were in sympathy with Burns. Such was 
 their natural tendency, and this tendency was 
 strengthened by the circumstance that Biggy had 
 fallen into disfavor. Made chief of police by 
 the regenerators, Biggy found that he was ex- 
 pected to act as Burns's subordinate. Burns 
 presumed to dictate the policy of the police de- 
 partment, to employ it for the political purposes 
 of the regenerators, and also, (according to 
 Biggy) for his private ends. But Biggy being a 
 man of some independence of character resented 
 the detective's obtnisiveness. The appearance 
 of being dominated by the detective was galling 
 to him. 
 
 Early in his political career Biggy served a term 
 in the State senate, where he made a record as 
 a reformer for the most scrupulous honesty. Of 
 that record he was extremely proud. And so, 
 though as an elisor, in an atmosphere of passion- 
 ate reform, during all the time the regenerators 
 were regarded as sacrosanct and the people were 
 clamoring for the punishment of self-confessed 
 grafters he was in ardent sympathy with all the 
 purposes of the prosecution, as chief of police 
 he became sensitive to the respCnsibilities of his 
 office and scorned to play the part of puppet. 
 Still in sympathy with the prosecution, ready 
 to aid his friends in every legitimate way, yet 
 he revolted at the demands of Burns, and the
 
 210 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 two men fell out. At first there was no per- 
 ceptible breach. Up to the time of the shooting 
 of Heney Biggy remained on friendly terms 
 with Joseph Dwyer and other representatives of 
 the prosecution. But immediately after the 
 shooting, permitting himself to be interviewed 
 by reporters, he enraged the regenerators by 
 pooh-poohing the idea that there had been any 
 conspiracy to kill Heney. He regarded that idea 
 as preposterous. The renegerators pronounced 
 him a fool. Then came the suicide of Haas. 
 And Biggy again incensed the regenerators. He 
 knew that nobody had had an opportunity of 
 putting the derringer into Haas's hands after he 
 reached the jail. It was plain enough to him 
 that Haas had not been thoroughly searched ; 
 and for Captain Duke's complicity in that 
 blunder the chief preferred a charge of neg- 
 ligence against him, and the captain was censured 
 by the police commission. Biggy publicly as- 
 serted that it was clear that Haas had had th e 
 derringer, concealed in his shoe. This was too 
 much for the regenerators. They demanded 
 Biggy's removal. They demanded it in shrieks 
 and yelps. They attacked Biggy with the same 
 blind fury with which they had been assailing 
 the higher-ups. Their newspapers entered upon 
 a systematic course of abuse. To convey an 
 idea of their tone and temper it will suffice to 
 quote from one of many editorials that appeared 
 in the Call, one that was printed on November
 
 THE BIGGY MYSTERY 211 
 
 18, 1908, four clays after Haas's suicide: 
 "Hourly public indignation rises against the 
 chief of police ; hourly the public demand 
 
 for his removal is strengthened 
 
 The public peace is not safe in his incompetent 
 hands. He is unfit to be chief of any public 
 department. Biggy is a blowhard. Biggy is 
 chicken hearted and chicken witted. Biggy has 
 no shame. Biggy has no honor either in his 
 public or his private relations. Nobody respects 
 him. Not even Biggy." This specimen of 
 Eatanswill Gazette journalism is amusing in the 
 blissful unconsciousness that it exhibits ; for be 
 it remembered the men that inspired the fore- 
 going were men who formerly had such great 
 faith in Biggy's courage, ability and integrity 
 that they had him appointed elisor and also chief 
 of police. 
 
 Of course public indignation was not rising 
 against Biggy, though not unlikely the regen- 
 erators believed that it was. As they seemed at 
 all times to be obsessed with the notion that 
 their own emotions were infectious, they may 
 have thought that their indignation had seized 
 upon the whole community. It certainly spread 
 to the League of Justice, but that was what even 
 the regenerators might have expected. The 
 League of Justice went quickly into solemn con- 
 clave to "resolute" against Biggy, to demand that 
 the mayor cast him into the outer darkness. 
 And the Bulletin, its indignation always on tap,
 
 212 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 railed against Biggy in its customary fishwife 
 vehemence. The Bulletin charged Biggy with 
 having turned the police department over to the 
 higher-ups. Spreckels. Langdon and Burns held 
 meetings to denounce Biggy. Singularly enough 
 Mayor Taylor and the police commissioners were 
 not affected by all these manifestations of hos- 
 tility. For the first time Mayor Taylor showed 
 signs of dissenting from the Graft Prosecution. 
 The importunities of the frantic regenerators 
 were becoming a little too unreasonable even for 
 him. He had faith in Biggy. He was not to 
 be moved. Perhaps Biggy had told him a thing 
 or two that opened his eyes. The thought is 
 justified by subsequent events. 
 
 When the regenerators found the mayor dis- 
 inclined to yield to their impassioned demands 
 they neglected to charge him, too, with having sold 
 out to the higher-ups, but they became all the 
 more abusive of Biggy. It was as though they 
 had resolved to cover him all over with infamy. 
 From day to day he figured in lampoons and 
 cartoons. The Bulletin and Call discussed his 
 domestic troubles. They intimated that he was 
 haunting houses of ill repute. Somebody in- 
 duced his wife, from whom he was separated, 
 to go to his office and create a scene, which 
 furnished his enemies with material for offensive 
 discussion. 
 
 The suicide of Haas occurred on the evening 
 of November 14. 1908. From that time till the
 
 THE BIGGY MYSTERY 213 
 
 night of November 30 Biggy was hounded in- 
 cessantly by the regenerators. That night Biggy 
 boarded the pohce patrol boat, and took a trip 
 to Belvedere on the north shore of San Francisco 
 Bay to visit Police Commissioner Hugo Keil. 
 He spent more than an hour with Keil, discuss- 
 ing his relations with the regenerators. He 
 talked of resigning, saying that he did not wish 
 to embarrass the Administration by remaining 
 in office. At first, according to Keil, he seemed 
 somewhat depressed, but his spirits were soon 
 revived. Keil dissuaded him from resigning, 
 told him the commissioners would stand by 
 him and that there was no occasion for worry 
 or anxiety. Thereafter he was in a cheerful 
 mood and communicative, telling Keil of the 
 motives of the men who were attacking him, of 
 the shameful things they wanted him to do, and 
 of his firmness in resisting their evil importun- 
 ities. By the time he was ready to leave for 
 home he seemed refreshed as a result of the 
 interview. Keil accompanied him to the launch, 
 which was in charge of the engineer, William 
 Murphy. So far as Keil knew there was no- 
 body else aboard the boat. The commissioner 
 and the chief bade each other good night. They 
 never met again. 
 
 When. Biggy was last seen alive, according to 
 Murphy's testimony, the launch was near Al- 
 catraz Island, which is about midway between 
 Belvedere and San Francisco. He was then re-
 
 214 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 dining on a seat at the rail. He complained of 
 being cold, and the engineer offered him some 
 whisky, which was refused. That was about half 
 an hour before midnight. Murphy says he 
 never saw him again. When the launch arrived 
 in San Francisco Murphy was alone. His pas- 
 senger had disappeared. In a state of great ex- 
 citement Murphy rushed to police headquarters 
 with the news. Out into the bay went the 
 patrol boat again ; this time with a captain of 
 police aboard in quest of his missing chief. It 
 was a futile trip. The dead body of William J. 
 Biggy was lying at the bottom of the bay, 
 whence it rose two weeks later to float in the 
 sight of men. 
 
 Now what were the circumstances of Biggy's 
 death? Was he murdered? Did he commit 
 suicide? Or was he accidentally drowned? No- 
 body that knew him believes that he committed 
 suicide. He was a Catholic, a regular com- 
 municant of the church, and the church au- 
 thorities had no hesitation in burying him in 
 consecrated ground. He may have been drowned 
 accidentally. Perhaps as a result of the lurch- 
 ing of the boat he was thrown overboard. But 
 Biggy was known to be a powerful swimmer, and 
 certainly, if he had fallen overboard, he would 
 have called lustily for help. On the night of 
 the tragedy there was no wind, and the waters 
 of the bay were smooth, and so there had been 
 no very sudden violent lurching of the boat.
 
 THE BIGGY MYSTERY 215 
 
 Nevertheless the theory that Biggy was ac- i 
 cidentally drowned is not less plausible than 
 the theory that he was murdered. But we ' 
 may entertain the theory of murder with- 
 out going- so far as to believe the leading 
 regenerators capable of having had a hand 
 in so atrocious a crime. 
 
 San Francisco, as the reader knows, was 
 sorely afflicted with a plague of private detect- 
 ives. Among them were some very des- >C. 
 perate characters, and they were ready at all 
 times to do not only what they were ordered to 
 do but to act even on what might be an un- 
 intentional hint of what was desirable to be done. 
 At the time of Biggy's death, as we shall see, 
 nothing seemed to be more desirable to some 
 persons than to be rid of him. Biggy had been 
 threatening to divulge some important informa- 
 tion. On the afternoon of th6 day of his dis- 
 appearance he met Congressman Julius Kahn, 
 and told him that he had much interesting mat- 
 ter to disclose with respect to the persons who 
 were persecuting him. And he promised to un- 
 burden himself to Kahn in the near future. He 
 was big with this interesting matter when he 
 visited Commissioner Keil. And Commissioner 
 Keil, as soon as he heard of Biggy's death, sat 
 down and made a full report of his last conver 
 sation with the chief, reciting therein the charges 
 made by Biggy against some of the most prom- 
 inent of his tormentors. This report he gave to
 
 216 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 Mayor Taylor who refused to accept it, thus pre- 
 venting it from becoming a pubHc record. 
 Whether that was Mayor Taylor's reason for re- 
 turning the report to the commissioner we shall 
 never know. At any rate the report was never 
 made public. Keil refused to give it to the press, 
 but he permitted a few^ of his friends to read 
 it, and I have it on their authority, men of high 
 standing in the community, that it was a pretty 
 severe indictment of a detective and certain 
 editors. I also have it on the authority of men 
 to whom Keil was communicative that he was 
 convinced that Biggy was in danger of assassina- 
 tion. Biggy told him that he was getting in- 
 formation from a traitor in the enemy's camp. 
 With such misgivings did Biggy inspire Keil that 
 the latter, learning that the chief was unarmed, 
 persuaded him to take the loan of a pistol. 
 
 As soon as Biggy 's body was found Joseph 
 Dwyer of the Graft Prosecution obtained special 
 letters of administration on the dead man's estate, 
 and it was reported in the newspapers the follow- 
 ing day that Dwyer accompanied by Heney's 
 partner, C. W. Cobb, went to Biggy's office and 
 took possession of all his private papers. Was it 
 important that some of those papers belonging to 
 the former elisor should not be seen? At a later 
 day, as we shall see, it seemed to be of the high- 
 est importance that all the records of the Graft 
 Prosecution should disappear forever. 
 
 A coroner's jury found that Bigg\' was ac-
 
 THE BIGGY MYSTERY 217 
 
 cidentally drowned. But coroner's juries are not 
 noted for soundness of judgment. Coroners are 
 not given to searching investigations, nor are the 
 resuhs of their inquests always taken seriously. 
 In this instance the coroner did not elicit all the 
 available evidence. Police Commissioner Will- 
 iam Cutler while on the witness stand refused 
 to tell all he knew, and the coroner, an avowed 
 supporter of the regenerators, made no effort 
 to compel him to tell. Apparently he was 
 satisfied with Cutler's explanation, that if he told 
 all he knew it would cause a great scandal. But 
 Cutler did tell some interesting things He said 
 that the life of Chief Biggy had been threatened 
 by men whom he believed ''would stop at noth- 
 ing." He said that Biggy had been spied upon 
 for months by detectives employed by Burns. 
 
 "Did he tell you that his life had been 
 threatened?" the coroner asked. 
 
 "I knew it had," was the reply. 
 
 "Was he in fear?" 
 
 "No, but he knew they would go to any ex- 
 treme to get rid of him." 
 
 "What parties do you refer to?" 
 
 "That I decline to answer." 
 
 "In your own opinion he had sufficient cause 
 for this belief?" 
 
 "I have satisfactory proof." 
 
 Notwithstanding this proof Commissioner Cut- 
 ler said he did not believe Biggy had been mur- 
 dered. Asked if he believed that the chief had
 
 218 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 committed suicide, he said he was certain he had 
 not. '"He was too cheerful," said the witness, 
 "when I last saw him, the day of his death ; be- 
 sides he had plans to carry out, about which he 
 was most enthusiastic." 
 
 Detective Burns took occasion to deny in the 
 ])ul:lic prints that he had hounded the chief of 
 police. The assertion that Biggy had been under 
 the surveillance of detectives, who were the special 
 agents of the district attorney, paid by the city 
 to assist the prosecution, he pronounced a slander, 
 and promised to have the matter investigated at 
 once by the grand jury. But the matter was 
 dropped. Burns was always threatening to con- 
 found his critics with the aid of the grand jury 
 or the courts, but never did he carry out any 
 of his threats. He promised to sue the Post for 
 libel on account of charges that grew out of the 
 Biggy tragedy, and when dared to do so he left 
 town. 
 
 After the coroner's inquest nothing more was 
 heard of the Biggy tragedy till nearly two years 
 elapsed. In the month of June, 1911, William 
 Murphy, the engineer of the police patrol boat, 
 became a raving maniac. In his delirium he saw 
 what he believed to be the ghost of William J. 
 Biggy, and in his terror he shrieked, "I don't 
 know who did it, but T swear to God I didn't."
 
 XI 
 
 THE CONVICTION OF RUEF 
 
 A Jury after Listening to Vague Threats from the 
 
 Prosecuting Attorney Renders a Verdict 
 
 of Guilty 
 
 Let us resume the history of the Ruef trial. 
 It was certainly resumed soon enough after the 
 shooting of Heney. Hiram Johnson, with no 
 little spectacular effect, had volunteered to re- 
 sume where Heney had been obliged to quit. And 
 he was in a great hurry, mindful apparently of 
 the maxim regarding the advisability of strik- 
 ing while the iron is hot. Three days after the 
 shooting he was in Judge Lawlor's courtroom 
 pressing the case to trial. Ruef's attorneys were 
 for delay. They wanted a change of venue. 
 How much reason there was in their demand 
 may be inferred from the newspapers of the day. 
 Consider for example this account from the Ex- 
 aminer : "With nearly a hundred armed detec- 
 tives, mounted police and deputy sheriffs guard- 
 ing Judge Lawlor's courtroom and its precincts 
 Ruef's essay to delay his trial furnished one of 
 the most intense mornings since the beginning 
 of the graft prosecution. To guard against the 
 outbreak, when Ruef appeared the mounted 
 squad kept the crowd from trickling into Larkin 
 and adjoining streets." The atmosphere of the
 
 220 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 courtroom and its environment was, to say the 
 least, portentous. Since the day of the shooting 
 a great change had been wrought in the aspect 
 of affairs, and what that change foreboded Ruef 
 and his attorneys well knew. Ruef himself was 
 no longer in the position that he occupied before 
 the shooting. Before the shooting he was at 
 liberty, on bail. On the day of the shooting he 
 was committed to jail for his own protection, and 
 thereafter he was conducted to and from court 
 by three of the sheriff's deputies, five policemen 
 on foot and ten mounted. The jury which was 
 in charge of the sheriff night and day through- 
 out the trial occasionally met the Ruef procession 
 on the way to court. The supposition was in- 
 dulged that the jury had but an inkling to all 
 that had occurred. For the jurors were not per- 
 mitted to read the newspapers. But the vague- 
 ness of their knowledge was certainly not a cir- 
 cumstance that advantaged Ruef, inasmuch as it 
 was apparent to them that he was no longer free 
 and that he was under police protection. The 
 jury knew that Heney had been shot, for the 
 door leading from the jury-room into the court- 
 room was open at the time of the shooting. 
 But the jury probably did not know whether 
 Heney was dead or alive. The jury did know, 
 however, that public sentiment had been wrought 
 up to a high pitch. This they knew because on 
 the night of the mass-meeting, which overflowed 
 into the street, by a singular coincidence they
 
 THE CONVICTION OF RUEF 221 
 
 were conducted by permission of Judge Lawlor 
 to a theatre adjoining the building in which the 
 people were harangued by the rabble-rousers. 
 What the jury thought of the shooting may only 
 be conjectured, but the fact is, as was learned 
 from affidavits made by jurors after the trial, 
 some of them went to Judge Lawlor before the 
 resumption of the trial, told him they had be- 
 come prejudiced against the defendant by reason 
 of the shooting and could no longer act im- 
 partially. Judge Lawlor refused to discharge 
 them. He told them "to keep their feelings to 
 themselves," and that he would properly instruct 
 them later. These affidavits have never been 
 disputed. Judge Lawlor did instruct the jury 
 with reference to the shooting, saying : "No per- 
 son is to be charged with responsibility for that 
 transaction." This instruction was not satisfy- 
 ing to Henry Ach and Thomas Dozier, attorneys 
 for Ruef. Not for the defendant's sake only, but 
 for their own also, they were eager for a change 
 of venue, since they, too, were under police pro- 
 tection on accounts of threats against their lives 
 for defending their client. But Judge Lawlor 
 quickly disposed of the motion for a change of 
 venue. He denied it. And his decision was ap- 
 plauded by the spectators, many of whom wore 
 the printed badge of the League of Justice, which 
 body was now more energetic than ever. The 
 day on which the trial was resumed the league 
 issued an appeal to the public "to enroll in the
 
 222 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 cause of justice" and "not to allow our citizen- 
 ship to relapse into a state of apparent moral 
 apathy." 
 
 In extraordinary emergencies, as, for example, 
 when public ruin threatens, justice may properly 
 be sacrificed to utility, the safety of the people 
 being the supreme law. But this principle was 
 not invoked in the case of Abraham Ruef. Yet 
 justice was wantonly violated. Justice, which 
 ordinarily is "fearful of doing wrong even to 
 the greatest wrong-doers," on Ruef's second trial 
 was fearful of doing nothing but right. Never 
 from the transplanting of Anglo-Saxon justice 
 was there such a trial as this on American soil. 
 In the atmosphere of this trial one feels as though 
 he had come in contact with the granite hardness 
 of human character on some dark and tragic 
 stage devoted to the exploits of barbaric tyranny. 
 
 Quick work was made of the fallen boss 
 when the trial was resumed. But despite what 
 had occurred the prosecution did not behave to- 
 ward the defendant as though there was no 
 longer necessity of insuring a verdict by taking 
 unfair advantage. It will not be necessary to 
 go into details to indicate the manner in which 
 he was dealt with. What the attitude of the 
 judge on the bench was is evident enough from 
 his rulings, but these are to be appreciated only 
 by lawyers or persons who have some acquaint- 
 ance with juridical procedure. It will suffice to 
 glance at the argument made by Hiram John-
 
 THE CONVICTION OF RUEF 223 
 
 son, for the character of the arg-ument is 
 conclusive of the mood of the court. A 
 glance is no more than is needed to perceive 
 that this lawyer, acting for the district at- 
 torney, must have been somewhat in doubt 
 as to the conclusiveness of the proofs of 
 guilt, since he much preferred to discuss 
 other matters. Before taking this glance it 
 may be well by way of preface to observe that 
 a prosecuting attorney, under the law, occupies 
 a semi-judicial position ; that it is the sworn duty 
 of a district attorney to see that a defendant has 
 a fair and impartial trial ; that it is reversible 
 error under the decisions of the Supreme Court 
 of California for a district attorney to express 
 in his argument his opinion or belief that a de- 
 fendant is guilty ; that remarks tending to 
 prejudice the minds of a jury, personal abuse, 
 vilification, appeals to fear, vanity or passion 
 are also inhibited and deemed justification for 
 reversal. Mr. Johnson, as will be seen, was 
 subject to none of the restraits imposed by law. 
 Early in his argument, discussing a witness 
 named Latham who had left the State to evade 
 judicial process, and who had testified when 
 brought back that Ruef had not induced his 
 departure, Johnson expressed himself in this in- 
 coherent fashion : "Who had him decamp ? First 
 the United Railroads ; secondly Abe Ruef. That 
 is all there is to it. Why did they have him 
 decamp? An innocent man? Jobbed was he?
 
 224 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 Paying- witnesses and bribing witnesses. Oh, 
 yes, away with the suborners of perjury! Away 
 with the bribers of witnesses !" 
 
 An exception was taken to these remarks. 
 Judge Lawlor instructed the jury that the 
 remarks were not justified by the record. 
 But he administered no rebuke. Indeed he 
 permitted Johnson to proceed thus: "I have 
 the undoubted right under my privilege as 
 an advocate, and so say I : Away with the 
 bribers of jurors and away with the brib- 
 ers of witnesses. That is my right, and 
 there is no question concerning it." If the court 
 failed to rebuke Johnson it cannot be said that 
 Johnson failed to rebuke the court. For we see 
 that he boldly challenged the ruling on the ex- 
 ception, and flung the objectionable language in 
 the judge's teeth. And the judge was com- 
 plaisant. The future Governor of California 
 was in a very pugnacious mood on tb , oc- 
 casion. He was not to be restrained by any 
 rule or principle ; he was_ intolerant of all 
 shackles ; his sentiments were free and .uien- 
 cumbered. Let us consult the transcript on ap- 
 peal and see with what vehemence he wandered 
 beyond the record, not so much to persuade as 
 to intimidate. To the record we must go else 
 it w^ould be too great a tax on credulity ■ uldly 
 to assert that a prosecuting attorney, n an 
 American court of justice, in the twentietl cen- 
 tury, was permitted to practice intimidatirn on 
 a jury.
 
 RUEF GOING TO AND FROM COURT 
 
 the lower picture the ruins of the City Hall are seen in 
 the distance.
 
 THE CONVICTION OF RUEF 225 
 
 In folio 13357 of Volume IX of the record is 
 to be found the following language : "Why, if 
 you don't convict this man may God m his in- 
 finite mercy or worse call upon you the conse- 
 quences of your act. If when he pleads himself 
 guilty, as he has in this case, you dare to violate 
 your oaths and say he is not guilty may the good 
 God deal with you because by heaven the people 
 will not." The import of all this language is not 
 clear, but the statement that Ruef had pleaded 
 guilty in the case at bar is bald, unvarnished mis- 
 representation. He never pleaded guilty to brib- 
 ery. He pleaded guilty in one of the French 
 restaurant cases, and even then, in the same 
 breath, affirmed his innocence. Another vague 
 threat is to be found in folio 13380: "Dure you 
 acquit this man ? Dare you ? And when we 
 have finished I will ask you again my friends." 
 In folio 13334 we find a telling allusion to the 
 Haas shooting: "Good God all this blood that 
 has been shed!" Again, in folio 13335: "Men 
 struck down doing their duty"; folio 13337: "All 
 this trial, tribulation and all this blood" ; folio 
 13419: "Away with the assassins"; folio 13444: 
 "Good God, all this time, all this money, all this 
 blood that has been shed." And once more a 
 threat, for Johnson has "damnable iteration" in 
 him : "If he is not guilty may the good God deal 
 with you. There is going to be no shifting of 
 responsibility in this determination. Are you in 
 the face of all this to turn him loose and tell him
 
 226 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 to go hence? And if you are ready to do it by 
 the gods above we will know the reason why you 
 are ready to do it." This language is more to 
 the point. 
 
 Throughout Hiram Johnson's argument the 
 courtroom was filled -with members of the 
 League of Justice, wearing their badges, and 
 glowering at the jury. Johnson doubtless felt 
 that he was one of them, and the jury ought not 
 to have had any difficulty in rightly conjectur- 
 ing to whom he referred when he employed the 
 pronoun in the first person plural. But whether 
 the jury conjectured rightly or not, and whatever 
 the impression made by Johnson's argument, the 
 outcome was highly satisfactory to the patriots. 
 Ruef was found guilty. And Ruef is today in 
 the penitentiary serving a sentence of fourteen 
 years. 
 
 That Ruef deserves to be in prison, perhaps 
 there are not many in San Francisco who 
 will venture to dispute. But beyond doubt 
 there are few who will deny that it is most 
 unfortunate that the everlasting law of re- 
 quital took so tortuous course to visit retribu- 
 tion upon him. Those of us who regard jus- 
 tice as the centre of the whole system of 
 government, who understand that confidence in 
 public justice is the secret of the grand pas- 
 sion of patriotism itself, cannot but take a melan- 
 choly view of the process by which punishment 
 was visited on Abraham Ruef. To deplore the
 
 THE CONVICTION OF RUEF 227 
 
 manner of his undoing is not to compassionate 
 him. Rather is one inchned, while complaining 
 of the injustice of which he was the victim, to 
 be incensed at him for having been the cause of it. 
 
 A thorough-paced rogue is Ruef ; in the capacity >C 
 at once of political boss and lawyer to a municipal 
 administration guilty of many immoral practices, 
 perhaps of statutory crimes ; but it may be 
 doubted whether all of his wanton misdeeds con-^ 
 stituted a greater crime against the State than 
 the one to which he was made a party by the 
 men who prosecuted him — the crime of making 
 a mockery of justice. 
 
 It was bad enough for Abraham Ruef to be 
 convicted in the manner here described, but at least 
 his trial and conviction were in accordance with 
 the forms of law, and thus far he was given the 
 benefit of "due process of law." Eventually it 
 was deemed expedient to deny him even "due 
 process." Ruef's appeal was carried to the 
 highest tribunal in the State. It was his con- 
 stitutional right to be heard by that tribunal. 
 There is a statutory period in which the court 
 must decide whether it shall grant the applica- 
 tion for a hearing. Four of the seven justices 
 of the Supreme Court (all that were necessary) 
 signed the order granting the application. The 
 signatures were appended at different times, but 
 the order was made as of the last day of the 
 statutory period. One of the justices whose 
 signature was attached had departed from the
 
 228 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 State. Quickly the prosecution, through the at- 
 torney-general, took advantage of a technicality 
 by which Ruef through no fault of his own was 
 deprived of his constitutional right. It was 
 argued that under the decisions of the Supreme 
 Court the justice who was beyond the borders 
 of the State when the order granting the hear- 
 ing was made had lost jurisdiction, and therefore 
 that the order was void. And so the court held. 
 Thus was justice meted out to Abraham Ruef, 
 or, rather, thus did Attorney-General Webb join 
 with the fallen boss in a glorious triumph over 
 that great virtue which, some philosopher has 
 said, is as essential to the training of a little in- 
 fant as to the management of a mighty nation.
 
 XII 
 
 THE CALHOUN TRIAL 
 
 I'oUoivcd by the Crushing Defeat of Heney at the 
 
 Polls and a Scattering of the Forces 
 
 of Righteousness 
 
 Between the clay of Ruef's conviction, Decem- 
 ber 19, 1908, and the extinguishment of his hopes 
 in March, 1911, when he entered the penitentiary, 
 the experience of the regenerators was such as 
 to dishearten them. But for a short time, im- 
 mediately after Ruef's conviction, they were in a 
 most sanguine mood and full of energy. The 
 time seemed propitious for the trial which 
 Patrick Calhoun had been demanding from 
 month to month. The supposition was that the 
 conviction of Ruef strengthened the probability 
 of the conviction of the railroad official. So 
 Calhoun was accorded a trial. Judge Lawlor 
 presiding. Once again was the State repre- 
 sented by Francis J. Heney, now recovered from 
 his wound and in the pink of condition, attended 
 by two bodyguards, with Detective Burns and 
 four of his men forming a semi-circle at the 
 little prosecutor's back. Thus was revived the 
 primitive custom of the community of Bitter 
 Creek. Both sides were armed to the teeth. So 
 prevalent was the pistol in the court-room that 
 it seemed to be deemed essential to a proper and
 
 230 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 effective administration of justice. It was as 
 though Justice carried a pistol in her belt to 
 reinforce the menace of the sword. 
 
 The work of impaneling a jury for the Cal- 
 houn case was begun January 12, 1909, and 
 thereafter the spectators supped full of sensa- 
 tions day by day. Sixty-three days were spent 
 in getting a jury. During that period 2310 tales- 
 men were examined. It was hard to get a jury 
 for reasons that must be obvious ; yet perhaps it 
 may be well to remind the reader that the con- 
 test which had been raging for three years had 
 embittered the feelings of almost every citizen of 
 San Francisco. Nothing short of a most sublime 
 celestial spirit could insure a man against ardent 
 sympathy with one side or the other. Hardly 
 anybody could be found who had not formed an 
 opinion as to what should be done either to the 
 higher-ups or to the regenerators. 
 
 It was about this time that the muckrakers of 
 magazinedom were deploring the spread of the 
 sentiment that the Graft Prosecution was "hurt- 
 ing business." The muckrakers indicted a whole 
 cityful. To what great length of insight had 
 these dogmatists of the press advanced ! After 
 a few days in the company of Detective Burns, 
 or as the guest of Rudolph Spreckels, any New 
 York journalist could tell you just what the mat- 
 ter was with San Francisco. It was a degenerate 
 city, its ears closed to the Voice in the Wilder- 
 ness ; dominated by building beavers ; heedful 
 only of the Gospel of Mammonism.
 
 THE CALHOUN TRIAL 231 
 
 Assuredly the Graft Prosecution had "hurt 
 business." Indeed business had not yet recov- 
 ered from the effect of the car strike. Be- 
 sides hurting business the Graft Prosecution 
 was making the whole city very unhappy. Now 
 the happiness of a city is a matter of some 
 consequence. A domestic quarrel involving all 
 the elements of a community is an affair of State, 
 a melancholy one. Were the people to blame 
 that the essay in regeneration had developed into 
 a domestic quarrel? Consider the direction it 
 took from the start by reason of the exhortations 
 of the patriots for public complaisance. This 
 domestic quarrel was a legitimate fruit of cir- 
 cumstance, a natural and normal development 
 which any student of cause and effect might have 
 predicted. And now that it was growing more 
 furious every day, it was also becoming more in- 
 tolerable. Surely it did not argue a lack of vir- 
 tue that "a plague o' both your houses" had be- 
 come the sentiment of many citizens who per- 
 ceived that to the regenerators their cause was 
 their vanity, which was not to be wounded 
 "Though sun and moon were in the flat sea sunk." 
 
 Such, then, being the sentiment gendered dur- 
 ing three years of factional strife, it is no wonder 
 that a jury was hard to get to try Patrick Cal- 
 houn. Citizen after citizen confessed in the jury- 
 box to prejudice against the men behind the 
 prosecution. Scores of citizens asserted that they 
 would not believe testimony purchased with ini-
 
 232 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 munity. Slow and tedious therefore was the 
 task of finding twelve good men and true to 
 administer justice to the pet aversion of the tire- 
 less cabal. But the tedium was relieved at brief 
 intervals by colorful and breezy episodes. As 
 for example, when a man in the jury book com- 
 plained one day that his wife had been questioned 
 at her home by an intrusive detective, who wanted 
 to know what her husband thought of Calhoun. 
 The judge pricked up his ears at this disclosure. 
 Had Calhoun been trying to get advance informa- 
 tion? In all likelihood such was the case. But, 
 alas, it turned out that the detective was of 
 Burns's staff. So Heney concluded that the 
 defendant had tempted the detective to turn 
 traitor and occasion the suspicion that the prose- 
 cution was tampering with jurors. Quick at all 
 times was Heney to impute misconduct to the 
 other side. 
 
 At another time when dullness was making all 
 hands drowsy Earl Rogers, of counsel for defend- 
 ant, fired the combustible Heney with a mild 
 innuendo. Several jurors had been sworn to try 
 the case, making the moment opportune for 
 some verbal fireworks. In his best strident tones 
 Heney announced that he would no longer 
 tolerate unpleasant insinuations. And then re- 
 viving recollection of the spilling of his precious 
 blood on the altar of civic patriotism, he broached 
 :i new theory as to the psychology of his almost 
 glorious extinction. He said that he was shot
 
 THE CALHOUN TRIAL 233 
 
 l)ecause he had so tamely suhmitted to vihfica- 
 tion during the Ruef trials. W'hich seemed to 
 imply that he had ceased to believe that he was 
 the victim of a conspiracy. IJy way of perora- 
 tion Heney launched the ultimatum that over a 
 line which he had drawn no man would be per- 
 mitted to step. Whereupon the cynical A. A. 
 Moore, leading attorney for the defendant, 
 blandly asked, with a glance at the animated ar- 
 senals environing Heney. "Are you going to turn 
 loose your gun fighters?" The superheated lit- 
 tle patriot ignored the pertinent inquiry. 
 
 Heney's irruptions contributed no little gaiety 
 to the proceedings. One day shortly after the 
 trial was begun Judge Lawlor mildly rebuked 
 him, just to indicate, perhaps, that there were 
 bounds to the indulgence of the court. But 
 Heney was not to be awed by the bench. He 
 defied Judge Lawlor to punish him, delivered an 
 oration on his personal status, and again re- 
 minded everybody that an attempt had been 
 made to take his life. Hardly had he subsided 
 when his assistant, John O'Gara, provoked an- 
 other uproar. From long association with Heney 
 O'Gara had caught the infection of the Heney 
 manner. He accused a little boy, who acted as 
 a messenger for defendant's counsel, of sneering 
 at a witness "in full view of the jury." Doubt- 
 less he feared that a juvenile sneer might have 
 the effect of a powerful argument. In the midst 
 of the clash between counsel occasioned by the
 
 234 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 grave accusation against tlie messenger boy, the 
 defendant himself rose and addressed the court. 
 "I am on trial here," he said, "and I desire to 
 enter a protest against the conduct of the district 
 attorney as unbecoming and contrary to every 
 rule of law and of practice among English- 
 speaking people." 
 
 A mild, impressive protest, but futile. Almost 
 every rule of law and practice was abrogated be- 
 fore Calhoun came to the end of his trial. 
 
 The specific charge on which Calhoun was 
 tried was that of promising a bribe to Supervisor 
 Nicholas. The prosecution was to prove that 
 Nicholas received the promise from Gallagher, 
 who received it from Ruef, who received it from 
 an ofificer of the United Railroads. A very small 
 part of the time consumed in the trial was spent 
 in trying to establish the facts charged. Most 
 of the time was spent in efiforts to prejudice the 
 jury against the defendant. And to that end the 
 prosecution was permitted to introduce a large 
 mass of testimony having not the slightest bear- 
 ing on the issue. The street car strike was the 
 topic of much testimony ; also the dynamiting of 
 Gallagher's home and the contest in thievery be- 
 tween the opposing stafifs of detectives. As a 
 consequence of the scope vouchsafed Heney by 
 Judge Lawlor, this trial, involving but one ques- 
 tion, the question as to whether the promise of a 
 bribe had been made to a supervisor, dragged 
 along from January 12 till June 21.
 
 WILLIAM P. LAWLOK 
 
 The "midnight meeting" judge who presided at the 
 Ruef and Calhoun trials.
 
 THE CALHOUN TRIAL 235 
 
 At the close of the trial after the case was 
 in the hands of the jury. Judge Lawlor gave 
 a fresh illustration of his mental attitude in the 
 graft cases. To render the illustration obvious 
 it must be explained that the Ruef jury, a 
 majority of which voted for conviction on the 
 first ballot, was kept out till the last man was 
 converted. This necessitated a session of nearly 
 seventy-two hours. A majority of the Calhoun 
 jury voted for acquittal on the first ballot. It 
 was soon learned that only two jurors were hold- 
 ing out for conviction. Judge Lawlor made their 
 conversion impossible by discharging the jury 
 within twenty-four hours. 
 
 As soon as the trial was over there was talk 
 of starting another trial at once. Heney began 
 vociferating as passionately as ever, pourmg out 
 his torrent of words, uttering the threats that so 
 seldom fructify in achievement. But things were 
 not so bad as in the days when the terrorists 
 were more firmly seated in the saddle. No 
 threats were made to indict the recalcitrant 
 jurors who had not been impressed by Heney 's 
 breezy generalities. No loud proclamations were 
 made by the League of Justice. Mr. Spreckels 
 and his satellites were subdued of manner, the 
 general tone of their utterances being that of 
 sorrow and poignant disappointment. 
 
 The work of impaneling a jury for a second 
 trial was soon begun, but it had not progressed 
 far when a halt was called, the reason being that
 
 236 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 FTeney was in tlie midst of a political campaign, 
 l^istrict Attorney Langclon's term was drawing 
 to a close. An election was to be held in No- 
 vember, 1909. To prolong the life of the reform 
 cabal it was resolved that Heney should become 
 a candidate for district attorney. He was nom- 
 inated by the Democratic machine, which was 
 manipulated by James D. Phelan and the Bul- 
 letin. Heney 's opponent was Charles AI. Fickert. 
 a young lawyer, a graduate of Stanford Uni- 
 versity. His record was flawless. He had taken 
 no active part in the dissensions that were tor- 
 menting the city. To the public he was un- 
 known. The campaign was an exceptionally 
 spirited one. All the attorneys for the Spreckels- 
 Phelan combine took to the platform to exhort 
 the people to avail themselves of the glorious 
 privilege of retaining the priceless services of 
 Francis J. Heney. Heney himself went about 
 reminding the people of his approximate martyr- 
 dom and calumniating his opponent. Judging 
 from the pro-prosecution press at this time the 
 whole country was watching the campaign and 
 taking a feverish interest in the great crisis that 
 was agitating the dizzy heights of uplift. From 
 the most distant parts sounded the clarion tone> 
 of renowned reformers commending Heney to 
 the grace of the people. Judge Lindsay of 
 Denver contributed a fine encomium on Heney. 
 which transported the friends of the little prose- 
 cutor. From Senator La Follette came this im-
 
 THE CALHOUN TRIAL 237 
 
 portant message : "Heney's election will help the 
 cause of decency and righteousness everywhere." 
 Colonel Roosevelt refrained from instructing the 
 people in this crisis, but he sent a letter to Heney, 
 which found its way into the press : — "You are 
 one of the Americans of whom I not merely feel 
 proud, but whose deeds, whose high courage, 
 high integrity and entire disinterestedness of 
 devotion to the country make me thrill with 
 enthusiasm." 
 
 An insensate populace no longer susceptible 
 to the emotions of the hero of Kettle Hill, 
 utterly ignored the Roosevelt thrill. Out of 
 sixty-two thousand votes Heney w^as beaten by 
 more than ten thousand. Seemingly Heney had 
 l)ecome a weariness to the flesh ; likewise the 
 flraft Prosecution. Not so, however, in the judg- 
 ment of Mayor Taylor's whitewash committee. 
 This committee tells us that Fickert's election was 
 due to the support of bad men and to the cir- 
 cumstance that "some of Mr. Heney's speeches 
 lent color to the claim that he was attempting to 
 try the accused men at the bar of public opinion 
 rather than in the courts of justice." Heney's 
 conduct did not receive the approval of the com- 
 mittee because "he permitted himself to be drawn 
 into personalities from which a calmer judgment 
 would have saved him." 
 
 To the regenerators the defeat of Heney was 
 the signal for the ringing down of the curtain 
 on the graft drama. Within a month after his
 
 23S THE REGENERATORS 
 
 defeat, before District Attorney Langdon's term 
 of office expired, the requiem of the regenerators 
 was sung by the whitewash committee. It was 
 in the form of a report to Mayor Taylor, who evi- 
 dently regarded it as of more importance than 
 the report of Police Commissioner Keil with 
 reference to the death of Chief Biggy, for he re- 
 ceived it, and it became an official document, and 
 it was printed and distributed at the expense of 
 the taxpayers of the city. The hand that wrote 
 the report is doubtless the hand of Chairman 
 Denman, but the spirit of the report is the spirit 
 of the regenerators. For one of the objects of 
 the report was to perpetuate the names of all the 
 directors of the public service corporations in- 
 volved in the graft scandal. All vrere not in- 
 dicted, but the names of all were printed. As 
 the report may be justly regarded as the judg- 
 ment of the regenerators on their own conduct, 
 it is of some value. In all the discussion rang- 
 ing from philippic to puerility there is ever 
 present the assumption that the regenerators 
 could do no wrong. The report breathes intense 
 consciousness of kinship with all the virtues and 
 the noblest ideals. It is a sweeping vindication 
 of the regenerators and a farewell snarl at the 
 higher-ups. The whitewash committee found a 
 pretext for going back in a review of municipal 
 affairs to the days when Phelan was mayor and 
 paying him the tribute of its approval. Coming 
 down to the real business in hand the committee
 
 THE CALHOUN TRIAL 239 
 
 gives a recital of all the crimes charged against 
 the grafters and the higher-ups — with one excep- 
 tion. This one exception is noteworthy. No- 
 where in the report is mention made of the crime 
 charged against the officers of the Southern 
 Pacific Company. Notwithstanding what was 
 said in the report of the Oliver grand jury, so 
 far as the report of the whitewash committee 
 shows Mr. Harriman never did anything to 
 justify the fond hopes that were encouraged at 
 the inception of the work of redemption. The 
 whitewash committee tells of the crimes that 
 were committed to defeat the prosecution, among 
 them being the dynamiting of Gallagher's home, 
 the kidnaping of Older and the shooting of 
 Heney. But there is no mention of the hound- 
 ing of Biggy, or of the practices that were in- 
 dulged in to terrorize the courts, or of the short 
 cuts to conviction taken by trial judges. The 
 committee tells of the papers that were stolen 
 by detectives employed by the higher-ups, but 
 nothing is said in the report of the papers stolen 
 by the other side, or of the ignoring of the writ 
 of injunction served upon the prosecution by 
 William Metson, of counsel for the defense, the 
 day that Burns, armed with general warrants, 
 raided the offices of the United Railroads. In 
 the report there is but one invidious reflection on 
 the regenerators and that probably was the re- 
 sult of inadvertence. "The Administration," 
 says the committee, "is still licensing the attrac-
 
 240 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 tive and alluring debauchery of the French 
 restaurants." The Administration referred to 
 was that of Dr. Taylor, the good man discovered, 
 sponsored and vouched for by the regenerators. 
 
 With the defeat of Francis J. Heney the Graft 
 Prosecution petered out. Patrick Calhoun was 
 not given a second trial. The public was in- 
 formed by the regenerators that it was 
 deemed advisable to let Mr. Langdon's suc- 
 cessor inherit the case. At the same time 
 it was predicted by the dejected and disgruntled 
 patriots that nothing more would be done, as 
 Fickert was not likely to prosecute the men who 
 assisted him into office. It was a pretty safe 
 prediction for them to make. For no man, 
 were he the greatest and most zealous of prose- 
 cutors, could have accomplished anything in 
 the circumstances contrived by the prophets. Im- 
 mediately after his election Fickert said that 
 he would do whatever to him seemed just and 
 proper after he had familiarized himself with the 
 evidence against the higher-ups. He soon per- 
 ceived that there was nothing for him to do. 
 Before he took possession of the district at- 
 torney's office it was swept clean of the records 
 in the graft cases. Not a vestige was to be 
 found of the work done by the corps of special , 
 agents employed by the city. A great mass of 
 documents had disappeared. There was no trace 
 of anything that might throw a ray of light on
 
 THE CALHOUN TRIAL 241 
 
 the business transacted by the district attorney 
 in connection with the graft cases. In addition 
 to being deprived of the records of his office 
 District Attorney Fickert was further em- 
 barrassed by the disappearance of James Gal- 
 lagher, the chief witness for the prosecution. 
 Gallagher had been under the surveillance of the 
 former district attorney's special agents. A 
 detective accompanied him everywhere. This 
 surveillance was discontinued a few weeks be- 
 fore Fickert took possession of the district at- 
 torney's office. Before Fickert's election Burns 
 had doubly insured the presence of Gallagher. 
 All Gallagher's loot was in a safe-deposit box 
 which he could not open except in the presence 
 of Burns. Now it is obvious that the regen- 
 erators connived at the disappearance of Gal- 
 lagher. District Attorney Fickert learned that 
 after the defeat of Heney, Gallagher told his 
 friends he was going away. He made no secret 
 of the matter. Fickert also learned that though 
 the second trial of Patrick Calhoun was begun 
 by Heney no subpoena was ever served on Gal- 
 lagher. Consequently no attachment for him 
 could issue, and as he was in V^ancouver, where, 
 as he had told his friends, he intended to re- 
 main until the graft cases had been disposed of, 
 it was impossible to bring him back. These be- 
 ing the facts brought to light before Judge Law- 
 lor through the sworn testimony of witnesses 
 there appeared to be nothing for District At-
 
 242 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 torney Fickert to do but move to dismiss the 
 graft cases. This motion Judge Lawlor would 
 not grant. He postponed the cases from week 
 to week against the protest of the defendants un- 
 til August 3, 1910, when he did something more. 
 With bitter mortification Judge Lawlor realized 
 that the end was approaching. The prospect was 
 a melancholy one for him. The cause with 
 which he was identified, into which he had in- 
 extricably wound himself, had not only been 
 defeated but befouled, and he himself had been 
 besmirched. Agitated by impotent regret, sore 
 from great vexations, it was impossible for a 
 man of his temperament, in whom cunning and re- 
 sentment seem to be congenital deformities, to 
 yield gracefully and amiably to the weight 
 of untoward circumstance. He was resolved 
 to have one more inning. And he had it. Un- 
 der pretense of explaining why he would not 
 grant the motion to dismiss the trolley cases 
 he read a long typewritten arraignment of 
 the defendants. The result was the last of the 
 many explosions that marked the progress of the 
 Graft Prosecution. Judge Lawlor began his 
 discourse by admitting that Gallagher vvas an 
 indispensable witness ; but it was not clear, he 
 said, that Gallagher left town with the permis- 
 sion of the former district attorney. Notwith- 
 standing the control which Judge Lawlor knew 
 that Burns, Heney and Langdon exercised over 
 Gallagher ; notwithstanding the undisputed testi-
 
 THE CALHOUN TRIAL 243 
 
 mony as to the time and circumstances of Gal- 
 lagher's disappearance, Judge Lavvlor thought it 
 as likely that the defendants had induced Gal- 
 lagher to run away as that the former prosecutors 
 had done so. Such was the thought that he 
 expressed. And then he went on to impute to 
 Patrick Calhoun the consciousness of certain 
 crimes, such as the dynamiting of Gallagher's 
 home and the suppression of testimony. There 
 was nothing to justify these imputations. Yet 
 Judge Lawlor made them by way of suggesting 
 the possibility of Calhoun's having instigated the 
 flight of the indispensable witness. At the con- 
 clusion of the court's wholesale gratuitous as- 
 sertions Stanley Moore, of counsel for the de- 
 fendant, asked permission to reply. He was or- 
 dered to take his seat. Thereupon the pent-up 
 indignation that had been fermenting for four 
 years was liberated. In denying Moore the right 
 to be heard Judge Lawlor suggested in an 
 ironical tone that the attorney might reply 
 through the columns of the press. 
 
 "We assign that," said Moore, "as the last 
 word of your partisanship. We insist on a right 
 which any court with a speck of fairness will 
 freely accord us." Judge Lawlor again ordered 
 him to sit down, and threatened to send him to 
 jail. "Your honor," said Moore, "is doing pol- 
 itics from the bench that you disgrace by your 
 occupancy and as you have been doing before 
 the indictments were filed."
 
 244 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 At this point A. A. Moore, father of Stanley 
 Moore, announced that he heartily agreed with 
 his son. "Your honor," he added, "is a bitter 
 partisan and doing- dirty politics." 
 
 Stanley Moore was still insisting on his right 
 to be heard, and the court ordered him into cus- 
 tody, at the same time adjudging him guilty of 
 contempt. A moment later he also adjudged A. 
 A. Moore guilty of contempt. As the senior 
 Moore was not promptly taken into custody he 
 rose and said, "I do not quite understand your 
 honor. I tried to line myself up here in thorough 
 accord with Stanley Moore, holding your honor 
 as I do in thorough detestation, believing you 
 to be an absolutely contemptible man." At this 
 point A. A. Moore was taken into custody. 
 
 The scene was not yet ended. Attorney J. J. 
 Barrett had a few words to say. "I want to 
 register on behalf of Mr. Calhoun," he said, "a 
 most solemn and serious protest. . I want to say 
 that he considers the proceedings of today in- 
 famous ; that his rights have been trampled 
 upon ; that the attempt to silence him in view of 
 that address which your honor has upon your 
 desk typewritten, intending, I assume, to hand to 
 the newspapers reporters to have it go broadcast 
 without a denial by Mr. Calhoun — 1 want to say 
 that it is the most unjust and oppressive ruling 
 that was ever made in an American court of 
 justice. I want to protest in the name of Ameri- 
 cans. I want to protest in the name of my pro-
 
 THE CALHOUN TRIAL 245 
 
 fession. I want to protest in the name of de- 
 cency. To level that kind of a document at these 
 defendants, and then, under penalty of sending 
 their counsel to jail, deny them an opportunity 
 to reply to it, is taking this case out of the sacred 
 temple of justice into the political arena. Your 
 honor being' a candidate for office at this time, 
 and having postponed these cases till the eve of 
 the primaries should not be guilty of any such 
 oppression. In the name of Mr. Calhoun I want 
 to register my protest, and I only regret that I 
 have not more severe language in which to ex- 
 press his indignation." 
 
 Barrett was adjudged guilty of contempt. 
 Then Calhoun addressed the court thus : 
 
 "May it please your honor, I have been 
 educated to have respect for the courts. I have 
 sat in your court under circumstances that would 
 have tried the patience of any American. I have 
 sought, sir, to give you that respect to which your 
 office entitles you. But I cannot sit quiet and 
 listen to the vile insinuations which you your- 
 self have stated there was no evidence before you 
 to justify. There have been periods, sir, when 
 the greatest honor that could come to a man was 
 to go to jail; and as an American citizen I say 
 to you that if you should send me for contempt 
 it will be heralded all over the country as an 
 honor. You have seen fit to send three of the 
 most distinguished counsel of this State to jail. 
 Why? Because thev have sought to express in
 
 246 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 terms of respect, and yet in terms of strength, 
 their protest against injustice." 
 
 "Mr. Calhoun — " interrupted the court. 
 
 "There is a time — pardon me, your honor — 
 but there is a time when every man has a right 
 to be heard." 
 
 Judge Lawlor a second time interrupted, but 
 Calhoun concluded what he had ri$en to say : 
 "Before I take my seat I desire to say that any 
 insinuation that implies that I was a party to any 
 obstructions of justice, or that I was a party to 
 the absence of any witness or that I have sought 
 to control the district attorney's office, is untrue. 
 There is no such evidence before this court. You 
 yourself know it." 
 
 Calhoun was not adjudged guilty of contempt. 
 
 In the course of time the attorneys for the 
 higher-ups applied to the District Court of Ap- 
 peal for a writ of mandate requiring Judge Law- 
 lor to dismiss the cases that he refused to try. 
 The matter was argued by Garret W. Mc- 
 Enerney, who pointed out that it was the estab- 
 lished constitutional and statutory rule of law 
 in California that every man accused of crime 
 must be brought to trial, unless good cause for 
 delay be shown, within sixty days after the filing 
 of the indictment. Of neither the law nor the 
 facts was there any dispute. It was admitted 
 that the continuance of a case for more than sixty 
 days, notwithstanding the protest of the defend- 
 ant, entitled him to a dismissal unless it could be
 
 THE CALHOUN TRIAL 247 
 
 shown that there was good cause for postpone- 
 ment. The District Court of Appeal issued the 
 writ of mandate on August 16, 1911. The opin- 
 ion of the court is of some interest inasmuch as 
 it bears out what has been said in this chapter 
 with reference to the flight of Gallagher. The 
 only question before the court was whether the 
 State was responsible for the absence of the in- 
 dispensable witness. "It was shown," said the 
 court, "that Gallagher had left the vState if not 
 openly, at least without concealment of his inten- 
 tion. It was shown that he had openly and 
 freely visited ticket offices inquiring about rail- 
 road and steamship transportation. He declared 
 to his friends that it was his intention to make 
 an extended tour of Europe ; that he was not un- 
 der the process of the court ; that the time in 
 wdiich he could be indicted for complicity in the 
 crime charged against petitioner had expired ; 
 and that he was 'not coming back until the whole 
 thing blows over.' " All this, it is important to 
 note, occurred when Langdon was district at- 
 torney and when Heney was his assistant. It is 
 also important to note that Judge Lawlor in his 
 return to the application for a writ of mandate 
 admitted the facts to be as recited in the fore- 
 going language. This is important because 
 Judge Lawlor, as we have seen, thought it pos- 
 sible on one occasion that the defendants might 
 have prompted Gallagher to run away. Having 
 this thought Judge Lawlor continued the Ford
 
 248 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 case fifty-six times and kept Ford's motion to dis- 
 miss under advisement four hundred days. He 
 said tliat the facts of the case "warranted the in- 
 ference" that Gallagher would return. The Dis- 
 trict Court of Appeal said no such inference was 
 warranted ; furthermore, that so clear was the 
 right of the defendant that "to deny it would 
 be a deliberate defiance of the plain mandate of 
 the law and a manifest misuse of judicial power." 
 So much for Judge Lawlor. 
 
 There is little more to be said. But now that 
 the smoke of battle has lifted, let us, dear reader, 
 before parting, take a survey of the battlefield. 
 The higher-ups with one exception are at lib- 
 erty. The one exception is A. K. Detweiler of 
 the Home Telephone Company. When indicted 
 he was not in sight, and Detective Burns never 
 tried very hard to find him. After Gallagher's 
 disappearance Detweiler surrendered himself to 
 the authorities, and afifected an eagerness to be 
 tried. But nothing has yet been done in his 
 case. It will probably be dismissed. 
 
 In all there were 383 indictments in the Graft 
 cases. The only persons found guilty were 
 Abraham Ruef, Eugene Schmitz, Supervisor 
 Michael Cofifey and Louis Glass, vice-president of 
 the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Com- 
 pany. Glass was convicted when public senti- 
 ment was at white heat. He was given the 
 regulation Heney style of trial ; and for what re- 
 formers are pleased to describe as "technicalities"
 
 THE CALHOUN TRIAL 249 
 
 the verdict was set aside. These "technicalities" 
 are plain, nnvarnished transgressions of consti- 
 tutional rights. Coffey was tried in violation of 
 his immunity contract for not giving the right 
 kind of testimony. An appeal was taken in his 
 case, and is still pending. The principal point 
 on which he relies is that he was convicted on the 
 testimony of an accomplice. 
 
 So, as we have seen, the attorneys for the 
 prosecution met with a great deal of discourage- 
 ment in the trial courts, of which they have 
 never had occasion to make complaint. To ac- 
 count for their defeats they have charged 
 the appellate courts with having shielded the 
 higher-ups, whereas they never succeeded in 
 convicting more than one of the representatives 
 of the public service corporations. Tirey L. 
 Ford was acquitted, and Patrick Calhoun almost. 
 Theodore Halsey, of the Pacific States Telephone 
 and Telegraph Company, was tried twice, de- 
 fended by liert Schlesinger and acquitted both 
 times. In addition to these cases there were the 
 cases of two men charged with jury-bribing, de- 
 fended by Bert Schlesinger, and acquitted. There 
 was also the case of Luther Brown, charged with 
 the kidnaping of Fremont Older. Brown was 
 defended by Bert Schlesinger and acquitted. 
 Obviously if justice was "broken down" in San 
 Francisco, as the regenerators have frequently 
 asserted, the catastrophe occurred in the jury- 
 box, over whjch the prosecution exercised a
 
 250 THE REGENERATORS 
 
 supervision never surpassed in the history of the 
 criminal courts of this country. To the recal- 
 citrance of jurors, if not to the inherent weakness 
 of the evidence, must be attributed the failure 
 of Heney and his associates to procure the con- 
 viction of the higher-ups. But throughout the 
 length and breadth of the land, and even in 
 California itself, the impression prevails that the 
 great scheme of redemption was rendered 
 frustrate by the appellate courts, owing to a 
 strong bond of sympathy between the judges and 
 the rich men under indictment. Perseverance 
 in slander seldom goes unrewarded. California 
 has been frequently pointed to of late as a State 
 that needs the application of the principle of the 
 recall to the judiciary; and the failure of the 
 Graft Prosecution is the reason. The failure of 
 the Graft Prosecution is the reason that the 
 Legislature of California, at the suggestion of 
 Governor Johnson, decided to submit to the 
 people a proposal to put the recall in the Con- 
 stitution. Men have a curious facility in be- 
 lieving what they want to believe. They can 
 even, by frequent repetition, come to believe 
 false assertions about their own experience. 
 Probably Governor Johnson really believes that 
 the judges of the appellate courts thwarted the 
 regenerators, and that consequently those judges 
 should be recalled. It remains to be seen what 
 measure of success will attend the efforts of the 
 Governor and his associates .They are still
 
 THE CALHOUN TRIAL 251 
 
 devoting- their talents to the work of regenera- 
 tion. Their field of operations now extends over 
 the whole State and even into the domain of 
 national politics. Rudolph Spreckels, impervious 
 to discouragement, has consecrated his genius to 
 the task of redeeming a nation. Francis J. 
 Heney, now a lawyer without a client, cherishes 
 the hope of becoming a Senator of the United 
 States, and keeps himself before the public in 
 the role of platform muckraker. James D. 
 Phelan appears to be attending strictly to busi- 
 ness. Once the star performer on all public 
 occasions, months have passed since this fore- 
 most citizen enjoyed the opportunity of deliver- 
 ing so much as an address of welcome What- 
 ever may be the sentiment' of the people of the 
 State, it is certain that the affections of the people 
 of the metropolis have been alienated from the 
 zealous exemplars of the unwisdom of being 
 righteous overmuch. Long ago the populace 
 ceased to scjuander its reverence on patriots, who, 
 while professedly eager to purge the city of cor- 
 ruption, made a mockery and a scandal of the 
 most sacred of the institutions of government.
 
 IM Ml 1_I_>S >\IN(jfc.l_E.S 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 RENEWAL AU(| 1 1 1966 
 
 fci^^ 
 
 t^'UHL 
 
 Y 271968 
 
 JAN 19 
 
 
 gTWt 
 
 R£Co lo-oiii 
 
 ,*««St.-^|jjf; 
 
 
 C^ 
 
 'Ft 
 
 Form L-9 
 
 20JIV-1, '42(8519) 
 
 I AN 9 1978 
 
 1978 
 
 UHTBIIH 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS AJNGELES 
 
 T.TRRAWV
 
 3 1158 00142 77^ 
 
 (