leaders of the Republican party at the home of Major Frank McLaughlin,
then Chairman of the Republican State Central Committee. Ruef was one of
the select few present. A flash-light picture of that banquet board
shows him seated in the place of honor at the center of the table, the
remaining guests with the exception of the host, McLaughlin, who is
seated at Ruef's side, standing.

At Ruef's back stands James N. Gillett, who had just received, with
Ruef's assistance, the party nomination for Governor, his hand resting
upon Ruef's shoulder. Others in this flash-light group are George
Hatton, political manipulator, whose connection with the 1905 mayoralty
campaign in San Francisco has already been noted; J. W. McKinley, head
of the Southern Pacific Law Department at Los Angeles, who was chairman
of the convention; Rudolph Herold, a politician prominent in the
counsels of the old "Southern Pacific machine"; Justice F. W. Henshaw of
the California Supreme Bench, who was nominated at the convention for
re-election;[66] Walter F. Parker, political agent for the Southern
Pacific Company; Warren R. Porter, who had just received the nomination
for Lieutenant-Governor; Congressman J. R. Knowland, prominent in the
counsels of the "machine" that at the time dominated the State, and
Judge F. H. Kerrigan of the Appellate Bench, whose decision in favor of
the Southern Pacific Company while on the Superior Bench, in the
so-called San Joaquin Valley railroad rate case, made him a conspicuous
figure in California public life.[67]

The group represented the most effective forces at the time in
California politics. Ruef, at the Santa Cruz convention, reached the
height of his power. He left Santa Cruz planning a State organization
that would make him as great a factor in State politics as he was at the
metropolis.

But on his return to San Francisco, Ruef found himself harassed by
criticism and beset by opposition. At every point in the municipal
administration, with the exception of the District Attorney's office,
was suggestion of graft and incompetency. The police department could
not, or would not, control the criminal element. Merchants, in the
middle of the day, were struck down at their places of business and
robbed. Several were fatally injured in such attacks, being found dying
and even dead behind their counters. Street robberies were of daily
occurrence.

In the acres of ash-strewn ruins, was junk worth hundreds of thousands
of dollars. The police seemed utterly powerless to protect this
property. It became the loot of unchecked bands of thieves.

A reign of terror prevailed. Citizens feared to appear on the streets at
night. Merchants charged that their business was seriously injured by
these conditions. On all sides, blame was placed upon the Schmitz
administration which Ruef was known to control.[68]

Then again, Ruef's toll from the tolerated gambling, saloon and social
evil interests was getting too heavy for his own safety.[69] The public
was given hint of this when the newspapers quoted George Renner, a
prominent businessman, as asserting that a liquor license could be
secured if the applicant "put the matter into Ruef's hands and paid a
fat little fee." Ruef, in his reply, stated that the liquor people were
nuisances anyhow. Ruef had long acted as attorney for the California
Liquor Dealers' Association. The Association, after Ruef's flippant
characterization of the liquor people, boldly dispensed with his
services and employed another attorney, Herbert Choynski, in his stead.
Choynski made no effort to placate Ruef. On the contrary, he gave out
interviews to the press charging that Ruef had received $500,000 for the
trolley permit, and that each Supervisor had been given $4000 or $5000
for his vote.

This story was given some credit, although few realized the amount of
truth it contained.

The Supervisors were spending money freely. Men, who in private life had
earned less than $100 a month, and as Supervisors were receiving only
that amount, gave evidence of being generously supplied with funds.
Supervisor Coffey, a hack driver, took a trip to Chicago. Lonergan,
driver of a delivery wagon, announced plans for a tour of Ireland with
his wife and children. Wilson planned a trip through the Eastern States.
The official head of the administration, Mayor Schmitz, left on a trip
to Europe, leaving Supervisor Gallagher as acting Mayor.[70] Reports
printed in San Francisco papers of Schmitz, the orchestra player, as
guest of the most expensive European hotels, did not tend to lessen the
opposition to the administration.

The general dissatisfaction with the administration finally found
expression in a mass meeting intended to inaugurate a movement to rid
the community of Ruef's influence.[71] The meeting was called in the
name of various promotion associations and improvement clubs. It was to
have been held in the rooms of the California Promotion Association, a
temporary shack that had been erected in Union Square, a public park in
the business district. But the crowd which gathered was so great that
the meeting had to be held in the park itself.

When the committee in charge met to complete final preparations,
preliminary to calling the meeting to order, Ruef and Acting Mayor
Gallagher, with astonishing assurance, appeared before the committee and
offered their co-operation in the work in hand. Their presence does not
appear to have been welcome. Nevertheless, before the resolutions which
the committee had under consideration were read before the crowd, all
harsh references to Ruef and the municipal administration had been
expurgated. In effect, the expurgated resolutions called upon commercial
organizations, clubs, labor unions and similar bodies to form a
committee of 100 for public safety.

In the meeting which followed the expurgation of the resolutions, the
organizers of the movement lost control. Their counsel was for
moderation in a situation where all elements were at work.

The crowd was made up of Ruef claquers who shouted everybody down;
members of Labor Unions who had been led to believe that the purpose of
the gathering was to break down the unions; and of radicals who were for
proceeding immediately to clean up the town. Those responsible for the
gathering appeared appalled at its magnitude, and showed themselves
unable to cope with the situation.

William A. Doble presided. Samuel M. Shortridge, an attorney who was to
play a prominent part in the graft trials, stood at Doble's side and
acted as a sort of director of the proceedings. The expurgated
resolutions were read by the President of the Merchants' Association, E.
R. Lillienthal. The ayes were called for and the resolutions declared to
have been adopted. The next moment announcement was made that the
meeting stood adjourned.

An angry demonstration followed. The people had met to discuss
lawlessness. They refused to be put off. The adjourned meeting refused
to adjourn. There were cries of =Drive Ruef out of Town=. One speaker, A.
B. Truman, denounced Ruef as a grafter. For the moment an outbreak
seemed imminent. At this crisis, Acting Mayor Gallagher appeared.

"I would suggest," he announced,[72] "that you disperse to your
respective homes."

Citizens who did not care to participate in what threatened to become a
riot began leaving the park. But Ruef's henchmen did not leave.

Ruef, who had cowered in fright when the crowd was denouncing him, was
concealed in a room in the so-called Little St. Francis Hotel, which
after the fire had been erected in Union Square Park. From his hiding
place he could see the crowd without being seen. At the right time, he
appeared on the steps of the building which were used for the speaker's
stand. His followers, now in a majority, cheered him wildly. The next
moment, Ruef was in control of the meeting which had been called to
protest against the conditions in San Francisco, for which the
administration, of which he was the recognized head, was held to be
accountable.[73] The first serious attempt to oust Ruef from his
dictatorship had failed.

But while the protestants against prevailing conditions were hot with
the disappointments of this failure, District Attorney Langdon issued a
statement that he had determined to seize the opportunity presented by
the impanelment of a new Grand Jury to inaugurate a systematic and
thorough investigation into charges of official graft and malfeasance in
office. To assist in this work, he announced, Francis J. Heney had been
requested to become a regular deputy in the District Attorney's office,
and had accepted. That the investigation might not be handicapped by
lack of funds, Mr. Langdon stated Rudolph Spreckels had guaranteed that
he would personally undertake the collection from public-spirited
citizens of a fund to provide for the expenses necessary to make the
investigation thorough.[74] It became known that William J. Burns, who
had been associated with Heney in the Oregon land-fraud cases, had been
retained to direct the investigation, and that for several months his
agents had been quietly at work.

The effect of these announcements was immediate. All talk of "vigilante
committee" and "lynching" ceased. The case of The People of San
Francisco vs. the Schmitz-Ruef Administration was to be presented in an
orderly way in the courts.

And the united press of San Francisco, legitimate business interests,
and a great majority of the people welcomed the alternative.

FOOTNOTES:

 [48] See Keane's testimony in The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, Part 3,
      vol. 1, page 455.

 [49] See footnote 41, page 43.

 [50] Supervisor Gallagher testified in the case of The People vs.
      Ruef, No. 1437, that about a week before the fire "Mr. Ruef
      stated that the United Railroads wanted to secure a permit to
      use electricity upon their lines and asked me to speak to the
      members of the Board of Supervisors about it and let him know
      whether it could go through the Board, and about what amount of
      money it would take. I told him that I would do so." (See
      Transcript on Appeal, page 850.) Similar testimony, to show
      that the United Railroads was dealing with Ruef during the
      month preceding the fire, was brought out at trials of other
      defendants in the "graft" cases. This would make the date of
      Ruef's activity on behalf of the United Railroads about the
      time of Mr. Calhoun's announcement that he would proceed to
      present plans for the trolley system, to the "proper
      representatives" of the People (the Supervisors), who were even
      then, through Ruef, receiving bribe money from public-service
      corporations.

      Gallagher testified further (see same transcript, page 853)
      that within a week after the fire Ruef stated to him that the
      United Railroads still wanted its electric permit, and directed
      that Gallagher find out whether such a permit could be put
      through the Board. Gallagher testified that he saw members, put
      the question to them, and reported back to Ruef that in his
      judgment the permit could be put through by paying each member
      of the Board the amount which Ruef had specified, $4,000.

 [51] Supervisor Gallagher testified at graft trials that Ruef had
      told him the payment of this $75,000 to the Relief Fund was a
      good thing, as it would tend to shut off adverse criticism. But
      the Home Company people had asked that the money be not turned
      over to the Relief Fund until such time as the ordinance
      granting the franchise had been approved or the matter
      definitely determined.

 [52] As early as May 5, C. E. Loss, a railroad contractor, came out
      with the proposition that the city should abandon all idea of
      conduit systems, because the cable slots had been closed by the
      earthquake. In this, Loss was disputed by City Engineer Thomas
      P. Woodward. Woodward, in an interview printed in the Examiner
      on May 5, 1906, said:

      "I think Mr. Loss was mistaken when he said the earthquake
      closed the cable slots. I have not made a careful examination
      of the various roadbeds in San Francisco, but from what I have
      seen as I have gone about the city, I am inclined to think that
      no injury was done the cable slots by the earthquake.

      "The lines on Sacramento, California, Geary, Sutter and Haight
      streets appear to be all right outside the burned district.
      Where the metal was subjected to the intense heat, the slots
      are warped out of shape, and in some places closed."

      Loss's allegations called forth the following editorial comment
      in the Examiner of May 5th:

      "Even an earthquake shock and a conflagration do not long
      obscure the vision of certain wealthy gentlemen where there is
      a chance to turn a calamity to their individual account.

      "Before the catastrophe, San Francisco had indicated with great
      emphasis to the United Railroads that it would not permit the
      reconstruction of the cable system into an overhead trolley,
      but would insist upon a modern up-to-date conduit electric
      railroad, the safety, utility and efficiency of which had been
      demonstrated in New York and other Eastern cities.

      "The emergency created by the destruction of the traffic
      systems in the city has compelled permission for a temporary
      trolley line because it could be constructed more quickly than
      any other.

      "It is not intended, and the United Railroads must be made to
      realize that it will not be permitted, that the unsightly poles
      and dangerous wires will be allowed to cumber the new and more
      beautiful San Francisco, any more than it will be permitted
      that the rough shacks and sheds which temporarily shelter the
      people in parks and streets and otherwise vacant lots shall
      remain after the emergency which called them into being has
      ceased."

 [53] A. D. Shepard, vice-president and secretary of the Geary-street
      Railroad Company, gave the following statement to the Examiner
      as to the condition of the Geary-street roadbed:

      "We can run cars as far as the road goes, but the power-house
      is not ready for business. The smokestack at Geary and Buchanan
      streets must be built up to comply with the ordinance of the
      city before we can get a permit to build fires under the
      boilers. The smokestack should be repaired by the end of this
      week, and cars will probably be run over the road then. I
      cannot say just what day we will begin to run cars. All depends
      upon the smokestack and the Board of Public Works.

      "Our line was not injured by the earthquake, and we ran cars
      for some time after the shake. It was the fire that drove us
      out of business. The heat warped the slot, making it narrow in
      places and wide in other spots, but this is easily remedied."
      (See Examiner, May 30, 1906.)

 [54] Sharon's affidavit was introduced at the graft trials. It was
      as follows:

      "State of California, City and County of San Francisco--ss.

      "Frank E. Sharon, being first duly sworn according to law,
      deposes and says: That he was for many years prior to April 18,
      1906, the superintendent of cables and stables belonging to the
      United Railroads of San Francisco, and situate at the corner of
      Market and Valencia streets; that on the property situate at
      said Market and Valencia streets were located what is known as
      the Market and Valencia Power House and Shops, consisting of
      power-house, stables, machine shops, special machine shops,
      mill, offices, store-rooms, sheds, etc.; that he was such
      superintendent on April 18, 1906; that on the morning of April
      18, 1906, immediately following the earthquake he proceeded to
      the above described premises, arriving there at about 8 a. m.;
      that none of the buildings above described were materially
      damaged by the earthquake; that the walls of all the buildings
      were standing and intact; that the roofs of all the buildings
      were on and uninjured by the earthquake, with the exception of
      the roof of a portion of what is known as the power-house,
      which was damaged by reason of a small portion of the chimney
      adjoining the power-house on the west falling thereon; that the
      greater portion of said brick from the top of said chimney fell
      toward the south or east into the driveway; that extending from
      the base of said chimney to the crown thereof and on the east
      and west side thereof are cracks which were in said chimney for
      many years prior to the earthquake of April 18, 1906, which
      cracks were opened somewhat by said earthquake; and the boilers
      in said power-house were not injured to any extent and steam
      was kept under said boilers for some time after the earthquake;
      that in his judgment the building as a whole was intact and the
      machinery not injured in any material part of the earthquake;
      that the building caught fire from the adjoining buildings on
      the east and southeast late in the afternoon of April 18, 1906;
      said buildings were not dynamited nor backfired for any
      purpose.
                                                  "F. E. SHARON.

      "Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of August, A.
      D. 1906.
                                             "CHARLES R. HOLTON.

      "Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco,
      State of California."

 [55] The loss included $25 damage to two engines which cost new
      $24,000; $2,000 damage to six boilers, new cost $30,000; $210
      water-tank, cost new $350; $500 damage to pipes, valves and
      fittings, which cost new $10,500; material in store-room worth
      $2,000, a total loss; $4,800 loss of two tension carriages used
      for taking up slack of the cable. These tension carriages could
      very easily have been restored. This loss, $4,800, and the
      $2,000 stock loss, deducted from the total of $9,375, leaves a
      total loss of $2,575 to the machinery of a plant estimated to
      have cost $115,842.

 [56] As late as November 13, 1906, seven months after the fire, the
      San Francisco Call published an editorial article on the
      trolley permits which showed that even then their nature was
      not fully understood. The Call said:

      "The insolent disregard of public rights in the streets by the
      United Railroads is inspired, of course, by ulterior purpose to
      entrench the corporation in the possession of privileges,
      permits or franchises granted at a time of stress and confusion
      whose legality may and probably will be questioned later.

      "The Call does not desire to assume an attitude of hindering or
      hampering progress. We recognize fully that every new
      street-car line adds materially to the value of property within
      its tributary territory. In a word, the growth of a city or a
      neighborhood is, to a considerable degree, dependent on
      facilities for urban transit.

      "But it does not follow from these considerations that
      franchises should be granted for nothing to any and every
      applicant who is able to construct a street railway. The right
      to use the streets is the most valuable privilege possessed by
      a municipality. It should be made to yield a corresponding
      revenue.

      "All this might seem so obvious as scarcely to require
      statement, but in practice the principles here laid down have
      been virtually disregarded in San Francisco. In no instance was
      there more flagrant disregard of public rights than in the
      wholesale grants of permits or franchises to construct overhead
      trolley lines made after the fire.

      "The United Railroads at the time professed to regard these
      permits as merely temporary, but that profession was not very
      long maintained. The company now declares that many, if not
      all, of these permits amount to absolute franchises in view of
      the capital invested in making the necessary changes. That is
      the explanation of the outrageous disregard of public rights
      shown in tearing up some five or six miles of streets at once
      and in different parts of town. This process is obviously
      wasteful as a financial proposition, and is calculated besides
      to arouse general indignation. We find these weighty
      considerations disregarded on the advice of the corporation's
      lawyers, to bolster up an invalid claim to the possession of
      franchises obtained by trick and device in an hour of public
      confusion.

      "What the extent of the corporation's claim under these permits
      may be we are not advised, and there is no immediate means of
      finding out as long as the administration which granted these
      hole-and-corner permits remains in power. The same influences
      that made the Mayor and Supervisors so complaisant to the will
      of the United Railroads are still operative. It was only the
      other day that another permit for a street-car line was
      granted, and granted illegally. This administration stays
      bought.

      "Therefore, the streets are torn up in a dozen different parts
      of town and left in that condition untouched for months with
      the full consent of the administration. But this political
      condition is not permanent. Some of these people will go to
      jail. They will all be ousted at the next election. San
      Francisco has had enough of them.

      "The United Railroads is endeavoring to fortify one wrong by
      committing another. These things will not be forgotten in a
      hurry. We are convinced that the corporation is pursuing a
      shortsighted policy. Costly litigation must ensue to test the
      validity and extent of the overhead trolley permits. The people
      will not consent to see their most valuable property traded
      away by a lot of conscienceless boodlers, and if it should
      prove that the United Railroads has been able to make two
      wrongs constitute one right, it is very certain that a movement
      of irresistible force will follow for a reduction of street-car
      fares.

      "We are convinced that it will pay the United Railroads to be
      fair and decent with the people of San Francisco. The present
      policy is neither fair nor decent. The service is bad, public
      rights in the streets are outraged, and, worst of all, the
      corporation is the most malign, corrupting influence in the
      politics of our municipal government. There will come a
      reckoning."

 [57] See statement printed in San Francisco Examiner, May 4, 1906.

 [58] Calhoun's letter to the Supervisors read:

                          "United Railroads of San Francisco.
                                 "President's Office.
                                      "San Francisco, May 14, 1906.

      "To the Honorable Board of Supervisors of the City of San
      Francisco--Gentlemen: The United Railroads of San Francisco
      respectfully represents that, notwithstanding its urgent and
      earnest efforts to provide adequate street railway
      transportation on the lines being operated, constant pressure
      is being applied and innumerable requests are being presented
      to it to increase its transportation facilities.

      "The company is anxious to please the people, and is willing to
      do its part in the immediate upbuilding of the Greater San
      Francisco, but owing to the unavailability of material and
      machinery for operating its cable systems, as well as the great
      length of time necessary to rebuild destroyed power-houses and
      reconstruct its cable conduits, a long time would necessarily
      elapse before the cable systems could be operated so as to give
      the required relief to traffic congestion.

      "If your Honorable Board will permit the use on the cable lines
      of a standard electric system such as is now used on the
      company's other lines, we will be glad to put all of our lines
      in commission, and will agree to have them in complete
      operation wherever grades will permit as rapidly as the most
      liberal expenditure of money and the largest possible
      employment of men will accomplish. The necessary expenditure
      for labor and materials to do this work will run into the
      millions, and will afford much-needed employment to several
      thousand deserving men.

      "We believe the prompt reconstruction of your lines of
      transportation will inspire confidence in all investing capital
      and greatly aid in the prompt rebuilding of your city.

      "We submit these suggestions for your consideration at the
      request of many of our citizens from every walk of life.

                                   "Respectfully,
                                            "PAT. CALHOUN, President."

 [59] The trolley permit was passed to print on May 14. The Examiner,
      in its issue of May 15, said:

      "The United Railroads, with the rapacity for which it has ever
      been noted, is seeking to capitalize the city's woe to its own
      advantage.

      "Before the disaster of April 18 it had been balked in its
      purpose to make San Francisco a trolley town. The protests of
      citizens who knew that the underground system is better than
      the cheap, unsightly trolley system and had been proved safer,
      had blocked the United Railroads project. And it seemed certain
      that the scheme to cumber Market street and Sutter street with
      poles and wires was definitely stopped.

      "The emergency which demanded the swiftest possible
      establishment of a transportation system, gave the United
      Railroads its opportunity to revive the discreditable scheme.
      As an emergency service nobody could object to the overhead
      trolleys. But it was understood that the service was absolutely
      temporary in its character and should only obtain during the
      pendency of present conditions.

      "Yesterday, however, there appeared out of the void of
      forbidden things an ordinance that was hastily passed to print,
      granting a franchise to the United Railroads to trolleyize its
      whole system.

      "It was expected evidently that this iniquitous measure could
      be sneaked through under cover of the present stress and
      excitement without people realizing until it was too late what
      had been done.

      "When the scheme was flushed it was still attempted to make it
      appear that this was a temporary measure, a representation
      absolutely varying with the language of the ordinance.

      "But the scheme has not succeeded yet.

      "It was to be expected that, like the looters who have to be
      kept from other people's property by soldiers and police, San
      Francisco's misfortune would bring out a horde of corporate
      ghouls eager to snatch privileges during the time of disorder.
      But it was likewise to be expected that the city
      administration, which has been so alert to protect private
      property, would be equally alert to protect the precious
      possessions of the city.

      "The railroads can only do what the city permits, and a strong
      official scrutiny of the ordinance which was yesterday passed
      to print should result in its final defeat.

      "No matter what other claims an administration may have to the
      gratitude and respect of the citizens of San Francisco, it
      cannot afford to be known as the administration that put
      trolley poles on Market street."

 [60] The day that the ordinance granting the trolley permit was
      ordered printed, Mayor Schmitz stated in an interview as
      published in the Examiner:

      "The proposed franchise is merely a temporary measure. It does
      not mean that the United Railroads can indefinitely operate
      their cars by the overhead trolley in Market street, or in the
      streets formerly occupied by cable roads. It is necessary now
      to have transportation. The cable roads cannot be repaired, I
      am told, for some time. Meanwhile, the franchise to string
      overhead wires has been granted. It can be revoked."

 [61] At the Calhoun trial, William H. Sanderson testified to having
      been introduced to Calhoun by Ruef at a public meeting, a few
      days before the trolley permit was granted. He was then asked:

      "Q. What, if any, conversation then ensued between yourself,
      Mr. Ruef and Mr. Calhoun? A. Well, I stated--Mr. Calhoun was at
      that time sitting at a large table in the room, where the
      committee had held its session, and he rose out of his seat,
      and the three of us held a conversation following that
      introduction. I stated to Mr. Calhoun--I asked him when the
      people of North Beach were or might expect railroad facilities,
      that the population was coming back to that portion of the
      city, and that other portions of the city were provided with
      facilities, and that we were compelled to walk through miles of
      burned district in order to get anywhere; and Mr. Calhoun said
      in reply, that if the people of San Francisco desired railroad
      facilities, they should co-operate with the railroad company
      that was here to provide them with the same; and I said to Mr.
      Calhoun that I thought that we were ready to do anything that
      the company desired us to do, and asked him what in particular
      he wished us to do, and he said: 'There is that trolley
      privilege matter before the Supervisors; that comes up next
      Monday, and you people of San Francisco ought to come down
      before that Board, that the people of San Francisco, or you,
      are vitally interested in the matter of this trolley permit.'
      Mr. Ruef then said: 'Come down before the Board next Monday,
      Sanderson, and make a talk on behalf of your organization in
      favor of the trolley permit. We will see that you get the
      privilege of the floor. A number of citizens of San Francisco
      will be there, and we propose to show the press that the people
      of San Francisco are behind this permit.' I said to Mr.
      Calhoun: 'The papers tell me that this is a very valuable
      franchise and you ought to pay the city something for it.' And
      Mr. Calhoun said in substance that he thought that the company
      would be paying all that the privileges was worth if it built
      the road. Then I suggested to him that perhaps that sentiment
      which objected to the disfigurement of Market street and Sutter
      street by the erection of poles and wires, ought to be placated
      to some extent, and I asked him why he would not at least put
      the feed-wires under ground; and he said that that would entail
      an expense which the company at that time was not or did not
      think it advisable to meet. And then I asked him why he would
      not put the poles 200 feet apart instead of 100 as--or 200 feet
      apart, as was done in European cities, and he said that the
      100-foot system was the more advisable in his opinion. And then
      Mr. Ruef said to me: 'The passage of this permit will mean
      immediate work for 5,000 men. We will be able to take them out
      of the camps and put them at work.' And I said to Mr. Ruef:
      'That is all very well, Mr. Ruef, but it seems to me that there
      is another side to this question--a political side. The people
      of San Francisco are at last all behind your administration.
      What they need in this crisis is leadership, and we will have
      to take such leadership as you give us; and now that everybody
      is with you, and even the Bulletin has quit, it is not good
      policy on your part to stir up another newspaper war. The
      Examiner has been your friend ever since Schmitz was first
      elected, and it will not swallow the trolley proposition in its
      present form, and it is charging your administration with
      corruption. If it persists in its fight it will eventually
      break your back. It seems to me that it would be a
      comparatively easy matter to placate this opposition by
      exacting some compensation for this permit, either in the way
      of cash or by way of a percentage of the proceeds of the road,
      or you might limit it as to time; give them a permit for five
      or ten years. You have them at your mercy and they are bound to
      accept whatever terms you prescribe.' Mr. Ruef then said: 'To
      hell with the Examiner, no public man can afford to swallow
      that paper. This thing will go through on Monday. It is all
      settled.' And then I said: 'You don't need me then,' and Mr.
      Calhoun said: 'I don't think we do, Mr. Sanderson.' That is all
      the conversation, or that is substantially all the conversation
      that took place in regard to that matter."

 [62] Said the Examiner in its issue of May 16, 1906: "It looks very
      much as if Patrick Calhoun, Thornwell Mullally and their pals
      of the United Railroads had sneaked up behind San Francisco
      just as she lay wounded from earthquake and conflagration. In
      the guise of helping her, they were caught picking her pocket.
      If the Supervisors aid and abet them, the people will be
      warranted in setting up their effigies in lasting bronze, a
      group of everlasting infamy, with the inscription: 'THESE MEN
      LOOTED SAN FRANCISCO AT THE TIME OF THE GREAT FIRE OF 1906.'"

 [63] Of the failure to exact pay for the franchise, the Examiner of
      May 17, 1906, said:

      "Mayor Schmitz and the Board of Supervisors must know, and if
      they do not know they are now informed, that the franchises
      they propose to give away to the United Railroads are worth a
      great deal of money to the city of San Francisco, and they
      certainly do know that the city never was so greatly in need of
      money as now. To give away so much of value at such a time is
      so hideous a crime that it will leave a scar upon the
      reputation of everybody concerned in it, no matter what that
      reputation has been up to the time of the infamy."

 [64] The Supervisors' letter to the Examiner was as follows:

                                "San Francisco, Cal., May 26, 1906.

      "To 'The San Francisco Examiner,' City--Gentlemen: The Board of
      Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, regretting
      the hostile stand which your journal has in these distressing
      times assumed toward the rebuilding of our destroyed city, by
      indiscriminately attacking every vested interest and all
      intending investments of capital in this city, respectfully
      submits for your consideration the propriety of joining with
      instead of assailing those who are in good faith and with their
      energy and ability striving to restore and rebuild our beloved
      city.

      "Irrespective of any personal feeling caused by your wanton
      attacks on his Honor the Mayor, and on this Board, we ask of
      you, as citizens of San Francisco and as the legislative branch
      of our government, to cease your thoughtless and dangerous
      efforts to drive away from our city every interest which has
      expressed its intention to assist in our rebuilding and which
      has manifested a practical confidence in our future. Otherwise,
      the day will certainly not be far distant when the people,
      realizing the result of your course, will seek to protect the
      city against its further continuance.

      "In all good faith for the city's interests and without any
      personal rancor, these suggestions are submitted to your
      careful attention.

      "Respectfully, James L. Gallagher, Max Mamlock, Chas. Boxton,
      L. A. Rea, F. P. Nicholas, Andrew M. Wilson, Geo. F. Duffey, J.
      J. Furey. M. W. Coffey, Daniel G. Coleman, C. J. Harrigan, J.
      J. Phillips, P. M. McGushin, E. I. Walsh, Sam Davis, Jas. T.
      Kelly, Thomas F. Lonergan, W. W. Sanderson."

 [65] Ruef, in his story of his political career, "The Road I
      Traveled," states that in an interview with William F. Herrin,
      chief of the Southern Pacific law department, previous to the
      primary campaign, the necessary expenses of the primary
      campaign and of the primary election were discussed. Herrin,
      according to Ruef's account, agreed not to oppose the Ruef
      tickets. "As agreed prior to the primary," Ruef goes on to say
      in his narrative: "Herrin paid me $14,000 for the purpose of
      securing for his organization the certainty of the votes of the
      San Francisco delegation." See San Francisco Bulletin, August
      31, 1912.

 [66] Henshaw was re-elected. After Ruef had been convicted and the
      Appellate Court had refused to grant him a new trial, Henshaw,
      before the briefs had been filed in the matter of the appeal
      from the Appellate to the Supreme Court, signed an order
      granting Ruef a new hearing. See Chapter XXIX.

 [67] See decisions in Edson vs. The Southern Pacific Co., 133 Cal.
      Reports and 144 Cal. Reports.

 [68] Nor was this criticism confined to San Francisco; it was
      general throughout the State. The Sacramento Bee, in describing
      the conditions prevailing at San Francisco, said:

      "In the hold-ups which are now terrorizing the people of San
      Francisco the citizens are seeing the effects of a loose or
      dishonest municipal administration. The form of lawlessness now
      prevailing in San Francisco follows upon bad local government
      as inevitably as night follows day."

 [69] Definite figures, alleged to be the graft schedule enforced in
      the San Francisco tenderloin after the fire, were published.
      The Chronicle of April 24, 1907, said on this score:

      "After the great disaster of last April, or so soon as the new
      tenderloin began to build up and the Barbary Coast district
      began to establish itself, a schedule of prices for protected
      vice was formulated. This schedule has been rigidly adhered to.
      In the case of houses of ill-fame, the proprietors were
      required to pay the policemen on the beat the sum of $5, the
      sergeants $15, the captains $25, and the chief of police $75 to
      $100 every week for the privilege of conducting their nefarious
      business. The gambling houses were assessed according to their
      ability to pay, but the average price for police protection,
      according to Heney, was about the same as the houses of
      prostitution. The dives along Pacific street and in the Barbary
      Coast district were required to pay $50 every week to the
      police captain and the chief, those two functionaries
      presumably dividing the money. The sporting saloons where women
      of the night life congregate were taxed a similar amount."

 [70] Ruef advised strongly against Schmitz leaving San Francisco. In
      an interview printed in the San Francisco Call, May 16, 1907,
      the day after he had plead guilty to a charge of extorting
      money from French restaurant dives, Ruef said:

      "The great mistake of this whole thing began with the Mayor's
      trip to Europe. The Mayor had been proclaimed as the man of the
      hour after the disaster of last April. He was suddenly seized
      with the desire of making a trip to Europe, where he expected
      to be received as one of the crowned heads. He thought his fame
      would spread throughout the world and he hoped to be lionized
      abroad and, incidentally, gain social prestige. The whole thing
      was a mistake. I begged him not to go. I pointed out to him
      that the city was in ruins and the place for the Mayor was at
      home. He persisted, and all my pleadings were in vain."

 [71] At a preliminary meeting of the organizers of this movement,
      held in the office of the California Canners, October 10, 1906,
      responsibility for the state of affairs in San Francisco was
      charged to Ruef. It was stated at this meeting, and given out
      to the press, that convincing evidence had been secured against
      Ruef which warranted his prosecution.

 [72] Acting Mayor Gallagher was emphatic in declaring that no
      vigilance committee should disgrace San Francisco. The interior
      press, which was following the San Francisco situation closely
      and from an independent standpoint, advised Mayor Gallagher
      that the best way to prevent organization of such a committee
      would be to enforce the laws. Said the Stockton Record:

      "If Acting Mayor Gallagher and his associates wish to abate the
      agitation in favor of a committee of safety for San Francisco,
      they should do less talking and take more energetic action
      against the thug element. The police department of the
      afflicted city is now virtually on trial. It is even under
      suspicion of offenses graver than that of inefficiency. One or
      two more crimes of violence with well-known people as victims
      will fire the public indignation of San Francisco to a point
      where incapable officers will be forced aside and an authority
      created to meet the grave emergency confronting respectable
      citizenry."

      The Stockton Independent went even further. Said that paper of
      the San Francisco situation:

      "Acting Mayor Gallagher of San Francisco declares there shall
      be no vigilance committee and no lynching in San Francisco. If
      he and the police are unable to prevent daily murders, or
      attempted murders, by single criminals, how can he prevent good
      citizens in hundreds of thousands from lynching those criminals
      if they catch them? Perhaps some of the purblind members of the
      police force may be among the first to be lynched."

 [73] After Ruef's capture of the Union Square meeting, Rev. P. C.
      Macfarlane, pastor of the First Christian Church at Alameda,
      said in a sermon (October 21, 1906) of the San Francisco
      situation:

      "Let a few resolute, clean-handed business men of San Francisco
      who are not cowards, who are not quitters or grafters, get
      together and make a purse of twenty, fifty or a hundred
      thousand dollars, then employ the ablest attorney to be had and
      set quietly to work to find the graft and punish the grafters.
      They could make chapel exercises on Sunday afternoon in San
      Quentin look like a political rally in San Francisco inside of
      two years.

      "Thus Eugene E. Schmitz stands before the world as a man who
      tried to reform and could not. He is a moral inebriate. He is a
      welcher. He is a wanderer on the face of the globe, a man
      without country, expatriated by his own cowardice. This is Dr.
      Jekyll.

      "But there are some who see in Schmitz Mr. Hyde. These do not
      give the Mayor credit for even a spasm of virtue and say that
      the great work of the morning of April 18 was done by General
      Funston and prominent citizens of their own volition. These
      people say that he has now gone from San Francisco, taking with
      him vast sums of money gained through the granting of the
      trolley franchise, plotted even while the embers smoldered, and
      that he will never return.

      "The United Railroads is universally believed to have acquired
      its trolley franchises by corrupt means. It is said that
      prominent merchants will crane and crook and bow and scrape to
      get a nod of recognition from Abe Ruef. Ruef has used the
      advantages given him by the state of affairs to corrupt the
      greatest city in California. Ruef owns the Board of
      Supervisors. The Police Commissioners belong to him. The
      saloon-keeper who wants a license, a corporation that wants a
      favor from the Board of Supervisors, has only to retain Ruef as
      an attorney at a fee sufficiently large."

      Dr. Macfarlane gave expression to what many thoughtful men were
      thinking, but of which few with interests at San Francisco
      dared to admit openly.

 [74] Mr. Langdon's statement was published October 21, 1906. It was
      in full as follows:

      "In view of the present extraordinary conditions prevalent in
      the City and County of San Francisco, the unusual increase in
      crime, which threatens to grow worse as the winter sets in, and
      in view of the numerous charges of official graft and
      malfeasance in office, I have determined to seize the
      opportunity presented, by the impanelment of a new grand jury,
      which has been set down for next Wednesday by Hon. Thomas F.
      Graham, the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in the City
      and County of San Francisco, to inaugurate a systematic and
      thorough investigation into these conditions. It is my official
      duty to do so, and in pursuance of that duty and in view of the
      magnitude of the task, I have decided to seek the best
      assistance obtainable. It is my purpose to set at rest these
      charges of official graft by either proving them false or
      convicting those who are guilty. If the charges be untrue,
      their falsity should be demonstrated to the world, so as to
      remove the impressions which have been circulated to the injury
      of the credit and fair name of the city. If they be true we
      should show to the country that there is enough strength,
      virtue and civic pride in our people to enable the regularly
      constituted machinery of justice to re-establish conditions on
      a clean, righteous and just basis, without resort to any
      extraordinary expedients outside the law. This is to be an
      honest, fair, thorough and searching investigation. We shall
      protect no man. We shall persecute no man, but we shall
      prosecute every man who is guilty, regardless of position or
      standing in the city. In order that we may have the benefit of
      expert services in this work I have requested Mr. Francis J.
      Heney, who has won national fame for his work in the
      prosecution of the Oregon land fraud cases, to become a regular
      deputy in my office. Mr. Heney has accepted. It is unfortunate
      that this work should be commenced during a political campaign,
      but the conditions in San Francisco to-day require that radical
      action be taken at once, and though I may be charged with
      instituting this investigation at this particular juncture for
      political advantage, I must ask the public to judge me by the
      results attained, which will be the best answer.

      "I am not unmindful of the great difficulties involved in this
      investigation. It will be both laborious and costly. The money
      available under the appropriations made to the District
      Attorney's office and the grand jury is, of course, utterly
      inadequate. Often previous investigations by other grand juries
      have been made abortive because of this lack of necessary funds
      to meet expenses. In the present instance we shall not suffer
      this severe handicap. I am authorized to announce that Mr.
      Rudolph Spreckels has guaranteed that he will personally
      undertake the collection from public-spirited citizens of a
      fund to provide for the expenses necessary to make the
      investigation thorough and so that good results may ensue. The
      city is in deep affliction consequent upon the dreadful
      calamities of last spring; it is in danger from certainly
      increasing invasion of desperate criminals from all over the
      world; some of the public departments are undoubtedly in bad
      hands, and I appeal to my fellow-citizens to give this
      investigation their moral support, so that the innocent may be
      protected, so that the guilty may be punished, and so that San
      Francisco may be helped to her feet and started again on the
      high road of prosperity in her material conditions, and have
      restored decency, efficiency, honesty and honor in her public
      affairs.
                              "WILLIAM H. LANGDON, District Attorney."

                                CHAPTER V.

                         GRAFT PROSECUTION OPENS.

Three days after the announcement of his plans, District Attorney
Langdon appointed Heney to a regular deputyship. But even before Langdon
had taken office, as early as December, 1905, Fremont Older, editor of
the San Francisco Bulletin, had suggested to Heney that he undertake the
prosecution of those responsible for conditions in San Francisco.

The Bulletin had been the most fearless and consistent of the opponents
of the Schmitz-Ruef regime.[75] After Ruef's complete triumph at the
November election in 1905, he boasted that he would break the Bulletin
with libel suits. With every department of government in his control,
Ruef appeared to be in a position where, even though he might not be
able to make good his threat, he could cause the Bulletin much annoyance
if not great financial loss.

Older went on to Washington to engage Heney to defend the paper, should
Ruef attempt to make his boast good. Heney gave Ruef's threats little
credence. "I would be very glad to defend you," he told Older, "but I am
afraid I'll never get a chance to earn that fee."[76]

Incidentally Older stated that he believed a fund could be raised to
prosecute the corrupters of the San Francisco municipal government, and
asked Heney if he would undertake the prosecution, if such a fund could
be secured.

Heney replied that he would be glad to undertake it, but stated that at
least $100,000 would be required. And even with this amount, Heney
pointed out to Older, all efforts would be futile, unless the District
Attorney were genuinely in sympathy with the movement to better
conditions.

On Heney's return to California early in 1906, Older brought him and
Rudolph Spreckels[77] and James D. Phelan together. Heney and Spreckels
met for the first time. Phelan vouched for Langdon's[78] integrity and
honesty of purpose. Indeed, Langdon was already giving evidence of his
independence of the Ruef organization. Up to that time no attempt had
been made to raise the funds necessary to conduct a practical
investigation. Phelan stated that he would subscribe $10,000 and
Spreckels agreed to give a like amount. Spreckels undertook to look the
field over and expressed confidence that he could get twenty men who
would subscribe $5000 each, making the $100,000 which Heney had declared
to be necessary for the undertaking. The question of Heney's fee was
then raised.[79]

"If there be anything left out of the $100,000 we will talk about fee,"
Heney replied. "But I don't think there will be anything left and I will
put up my time against your money."

It was practically settled at this meeting that Heney should devote
himself to the prosecution of corruptionists against whom evidence might
be secured. He returned to Washington early in March to wind up his
affairs there. Before he could return to San Francisco, came the
earthquake and fire.

Heney got back to San Francisco April 25, one week after the disaster.
He had another conference with Spreckels.[80] Spreckels told him that he
wanted the investigation begun at the earliest possible moment, and that
he (Spreckels) would himself guarantee the expenses which might be
incurred.[81] Heney notified Burns, and as early as June[82] Burns had
begun the investigation that was to result in the downfall of Ruef, and
the scattering of his forces.

By the middle of the following October, Heney had so arranged his
affairs as to be free to devote himself to the San Francisco
investigation. His appointment as Deputy District Attorney followed.

In view of one of the principal defenses advanced by Ruef and his
allies, namely, that the graft prosecution was undertaken to injure the
United Railroads, these dates are important. The services for which the
bribe money which got the United Railroads into difficulties was paid,
were not rendered until May 21, 1906, long after final arrangements had
been made for Burns to conduct the investigation and Heney to assist in
the prosecution. The actual passing of the United Railroads bribe money
was not completed until late in August[83] of that year. Burns was at
work, and had received pay for his services before the bribe-giving for
which United Railroad officials were prosecuted had taken place.[84]

Langdon's announcement that he would appoint Heney as a Deputy District
Attorney, to assist in investigating into charges of official
corruption, brought upon him the condemnation of the municipal
administration and of the leaders of the Union-Labor party. P. H.
McCarthy and O. A. Tveitmoe, who, from opposing the Union-Labor party
movement in 1901-3 had, by the time the Graft Prosecution opened, become
prominent in its councils, were particularly bitter in their
denunciations. At a Ruef-planned mass meeting held at the largest
auditorium in the city October 31, 1906, for the purpose of organizing a
league for the protection of the administration, Langdon was dubbed
"traitor to his party," a man "who has gone back on his friends," "the
Benedict Arnold of San Francisco."

Heney was denounced as "the man from Arizona." On the other hand Mayor
Schmitz was called "the peerless champion of the people's rights," and
Ruef, "the Mayor's loyal, able and intrepid friend."

Thomas Egan, one of the organizers of the Union-Labor party, stated of
the graft prosecution: "This movement, led by Rudolph Spreckels and
engineered by James D. Phelan, conceived in iniquity and born in shame,
is for the purpose of destroying the labor organizations and again to
gain control of the government of our fair city."

Ruef, in an earnest address, insisted upon his innocence of wrongdoing.
"As sure as there is a God in heaven," he announced solemnly, "they have
no proof as they claim."[85]

Acting Mayor Gallagher issued a statement in which he took the same
ground as had Egan at the Dreamland Rink mass meeting, that the
prosecution was a movement on the part of the Citizens' Alliance to
disrupt the labor unions.[86]

From another angle, officials of public service corporations charged
those identified with the investigation with being in league with the
labor unions. In one of his statements to the public, Patrick Calhoun,
president of the United Railroads, set forth that, "I confidently expect
to defeat alike the machinations of Rudolph Spreckels, his private
prosecutor, with his corps of hired detectives, and Mr. Cornelius,
president of the Carmen's Union, the leader of anarchy and lawlessness,
and to see fairly established in this community the principles of
American liberty, and the triumphs of truth and justice."[87]

Then, too, there were points at which the two supposed extremes,
corporation magnates and Labor-Union politicians, touched in their
opposition to the prosecution. At a meeting held on November 2, 1906,
less than two weeks after Heney's appointment, John E. Bennett,
representing the Bay Cities Water Company, read a paper in which Heney
and Langdon were denounced as the agents of the Spring Valley Water
Company. The Chronicle, in its issue of November 3, charged that the
paper read by Mr. Bennett was type proof of a pamphlet that was to be
widely distributed, and that the proof sheets had been taken to the
meeting by George B. Keane, secretary of the Board of Supervisors.[88]

On the other hand, practically the entire press of the city,[89] the
general public and many of the labor unions gave the prosecution
unqualified endorsement, welcoming it as opportunity, in an orderly way,
either to establish beyond question, or to disprove, the charges against
the administration of incompetency and corruption.[90] Rudolph
Spreckels's statement, that "this is no question of capital and labor,
but of dishonesty and justice,"[91] was generally accepted as true
expression of the situation.

Those directly connected with allegations or suggestion of irregular
practices, issued statements disclaiming any knowledge of irregularity
or corruption. General Tirey L. Ford, chief counsel of the United
Railroads, in a published interview,[92] stated that no political boss
nor any person connected with the municipal administration had
benefited financially to the extent of one dollar in the trolley permit
transaction, and that had any one profited thereby, he (Ford) in his
official capacity would have known of it. Those connected with the
administration were as vigorous in their denials.[93] Many of them
expressed satisfaction at the prospect of an investigation. Supervisor
Kelly went so far as to suggest that the municipality give $5000 to
assist in the inquiry. "Let us," said Supervisor Lonergan, "get to the
bottom of this thing. These cracks about graft have been made right
along, and we should have them proved or disproved at once."

But in spite of this brave front, the developments of the years of
resistance of the graft prosecution show the few days following Heney's
appointment as Assistant District Attorney to have been a period of
intense anxiety to Ruef and his immediate advisers. Ruef held daily
consultations with Acting Mayor Gallagher, Clerk Keane, and his
attorney, Henry Ach. The public knew little of these consultations, but
a rumor became current that Mayor Gallagher would suspend District
Attorney Langdon from office. Little credence was given this, however.
Nevertheless, on the night of October 25 Acting Mayor Gallagher
suspended Langdon from office, and appointed Abraham Ruef to be District
Attorney to conduct the graft investigations.[94]

The following morning the San Francisco Call, under a large picture of
Ruef, printed the words: "THIS MAN'S HAND GRIPS THE THROAT OF SAN
FRANCISCO."

FOOTNOTES:

 [75] The persecution of the Bulletin during this period was
      characteristic of Ruef's methods and reflected the state of
      lawlessness which prevailed in San Francisco. R. A. Crothers,
      proprietor of the paper, was assaulted and badly beaten. The
      newsboys organized into a union. The boys were sincere enough,
      but the movement was in reality engineered from the tenderloin.
      Soon a strike of newsboys against the Bulletin was inaugurated.
      Copies of the paper were snatched from the hands of citizens
      who purchased it. Bulletin carriers and agents were assaulted.
      Tugs of its delivery wagons were cut. When the paper was
      delivered to stores, sticks and stones were thrown in after it.
      The police did not interfere. The manifestations of lawlessness
      went unchecked. Libel suits were brought against the Bulletin.
      Business boycotts were attempted against it.

 [76] See address made by Heney before Citizens' League of Justice in
      October, 1908.

 [77] Rudolph Spreckels, although connected with large enterprises,
      had steadfastly refused to employ Ruef as an attorney, or to
      join with him in any way. Given control of the San Francisco
      Gas Company, for example, although he was importuned to do so,
      Spreckels refused to employ Ruef as attorney for that company.
      Spreckels testified at the trial of The People vs. Patrick
      Calhoun, that he had first realized the necessity of proceeding
      against Ruef and the Ruef-Schmitz administration when Ruef
      proposed to him to organize a syndicate to purchase San
      Francisco municipal bonds. Spreckels testified that Ruef set
      forth his plan as follows:

      "He (Ruef) asked me if I would get together a syndicate for the
      purpose of bidding on these bonds; that he would guarantee that
      if I did get up such a syndicate, our bid would be a successful
      bid; that we would not be obliged to bid above par, and that he
      would guarantee that we would be the successful bidders. My
      reply to Mr. Ruef was that I could not understand how anybody
      could make such an agreement or promise, and how did he propose
      to make such a statement--to carry out what he had stated. He
      said: 'Why, that is a simple matter. You know my connection
      with the Labor Unions and the Labor Union party. Just at the
      time that the bids are about to come in, I will arrange to tie
      up this town; we will have the biggest strike that the
      community has ever known, and I would like to see any of your
      bankers or your capitalistic friends bid on the bonds under
      those circumstances, excepting yourself, those that are in the
      know'--words to that effect, was his expression. I said to Mr.
      Ruef: 'Do you mean to say, Mr. Ruef, that for the purpose of
      making money you would bring about a strike which might entail
      even bloodshed, for the mere sake of making money?' And Mr.
      Ruef flushed up and said: 'Oh, no; I was only joking.' And he
      soon withdrew from my office."

      It is interesting to compare Spreckels' attitude toward Ruef
      with that of I. W. Hellman, as shown by Hellman's testimony at
      the trial of Tirey L. Ford. See footnote 7, page 15.

 [78] Heney, in his address on the work of the Graft Prosecution,
      October, 1908, paid Langdon the following high tribute:

      "Mr. Langdon, as soon as we laid the matter before him and
      convinced him it was in good faith and not to serve private
      interests, said: 'Yes, I will appoint Mr. Heney assistant in my
      office and give him full sway to make a thorough investigation,
      on one condition, and that is that I am kept personally in
      touch with everything going on at all times. I am District
      Attorney and I propose to be District Attorney and to act upon
      my own judgment.' And there never has been a time that Mr.
      Langdon didn't have absolute sway over all matters, and did not
      wholly consent to what was done, and he has had the final say
      in everything, and I wish to say that there is more credit due
      to him than to any of us. He had a greater personal sacrifice
      to make.

      "The first thing he had to take into consideration was that he
      had gone into office as the candidate of the Labor party, and
      he knew he would be called a traitor and denounced if it
      appeared that any man who had been on the same ticket as he had
      been elected upon had been grafting. He had to possess more
      moral than physical courage, and a higher kind of moral
      courage, and that courage was exercised to the credit of San
      Francisco as well as to the credit of Mr. Langdon."

 [79] The Graft Defense labored without success to make it appear
       that Heney was compensated for his service. Out of the
       Prosecution fund, the expenses--rental, clerical hire,
       etc.--of offices, so far as they were maintained especially
       for the work of the Graft Prosecution, were paid. These were
       known as "Heney's offices." When Rudolph Spreckels was on the
       stand at the Calhoun trial, he testified under Heney's
       announcement that the Defense could ask him any question it
       chose and no objection would be made. Earl Rogers, for
       Calhoun, endeavored to make it appear that Heney was getting
       pay.

      "Mr. Spreckels," Rogers asked, "in addition to paying Mr.
      Heney's office expenses, amounting to five or six hundred
      dollars a month, have you paid other expenses for Mr. Heney?"

      "No, sir," Spreckels replied.

      Heney, the testimony all through shows, received not a dollar
      to compensate him for his services to the city; moreover, it
      shows that he had given up business which would have brought
      him large fees, that he might be free to conduct the Graft
      Prosecution. See transcript Calhoun trial, pages 3837 and on,
      3746, 3743, etc.

      The efforts of well-compensated attorneys for the Defense to
      make it appear that Heney was paid for his work, furnish one of
      the amusing features of the graft trials.

 [80] The conference was held on May 10 or 11. This was four days
      before the Supervisors took the preliminary steps toward
      granting the United Railroads its overhead trolley permit, and
      several months before the bribe money was paid.

 [81] See testimony of Rudolph Spreckels at trial of The People vs.
      Patrick Calhoun, No. 1436.

 [82] Al McKinley was the first detective put to work for the Graft
      Prosecution. On May 25, 1906, Chief Burns detailed him to
      watch Ruef. Later, June 19, 1906, Burns directed Robert Perry
      to shadow Ruef. Perry did so until nearly a year later, when
      Ruef was placed in the custody of an elisor.

 [83] That prosecution of officials of the United Railroads was not
      thought of when the graft prosecution was begun, was brought
      out at the trial of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, No. 1436.
      The following, for example, is taken from Rudolph Spreckels'
      testimony:

      "Mr. Heney--Q. At the time that Mr. Phelan agreed to contribute
      the $10,000, Mr. Spreckels, what did you say, if anything,
      about contributing yourself? A. That was in the first meeting,
      I think, Mr. Heney, and I told him that I was ready and willing
      to contribute a similar amount: that I believed it would be
      possible to get others to join and contribute.

      "Q. At that time was anything said by any person about
      prosecuting Mr. Calhoun? A. Absolutely no.

      "Q. Or any person connected with the United Railroads Company?
      A. The discussion was entirely confined to the administration,
      the corrupt

      "Q. At that time did you have any purpose or intention of
      prosecuting Mr. Calhoun? A. I had not.

      "Q. Did you have any reason to believe that Mr. Calhoun at that
      time had committed any crime? A. I had no indication of such a
      crime.

      "Mr. Moore--Was that time fixed, Mr. Heney?

      "Mr. Heney--Yes, it was fixed; the first conversation, and he
      has fixed it as nearly as he could.

      "The Court--Have you in mind the testimony on that point, Mr.
      Moore? There was some reference to it in an earlier part of the
      examination.

      "Mr. Heney--Q. When you had the talk with Mr. Heney in April,
      1906, did you say anything about prosecuting Mr. Calhoun, or
      anybody connected with the United Railroads? A. I did not.

      "Q. Did you at any time tell Mr. Heney that you desired to have
      him prosecute Mr. Patrick Calhoun? A. I did not, at any time.

      "Q. Did you tell him at any time that you desired to have him
      prosecute any person connected with the United Railroads
      Company? A. I did not." See transcript The People vs. Patrick
      Calhoun, No. 1436, page 3730.

 [84] Rudolph Spreckels testified at the trial of The People vs.
      Patrick Calhoun, No. 1436:

      "Mr. Perry was employed to get information in regard to Mr.
      Abraham Ruef and the city administration as early as June,
      1906, and his efforts and of one other man employed at that
      time were directed toward that and that only."

 [85] See San Francisco newspapers, November 1, 1906.

 [86] Gallagher's statement was in full as follows:

      It seems to me that these assaults that are being made upon
      Mayor Schmitz are exceedingly reprehensible. It is strange that
      the gentlemen who are making the attacks did not see fit to
      make them while Mayor Schmitz was here. Especially does this
      apply to Langdon, who, by reason of past association with Mayor
      Schmitz, and favors received by him from the Mayor, should have
      been the last man to attempt to besmirch the Mayor in his
      absence. I am satisfied that all these attacks upon the
      administration officials have their origin in the
      long-continued attempt on behalf of the Citizens' Alliance to
      disrupt the labor organizations of the city. An administration
      that is friendly to organized labor is an impassable obstacle
      in the way of such a purpose. The enormous amount of labor of
      all kinds that will have to be performed in this city during
      the next few years has undoubtedly prompted the organizers of
      the old Citizens' Alliance to renew their assaults upon the
      officials elected by the Union Labor party in the hope that
      they may thereby themselves secure control of the municipal
      administration and thus work out their own will in the matter
      of the conditions under which labor shall perform the task of
      rebuilding this city.

      "So far as I am concerned personally, I consider that the
      disruption of the labor organization would be a great sacrifice
      of the interests of all of the people. The city must be built
      up; but the Citizens' Alliance and all organizations and
      individuals in sympathy with it may as well understand, first
      as last, that the work will only be done through organized
      labor, and not by the employment of pauper labor in competition
      with the mechanics and artisans of the labor unions.

      "That this view of the situation is well recognized by the
      labor organizations of the city is shown by the action of the
      Building Trades Council last night in approving and indorsing
      my action in removing Mr. Langdon."

 [87] Contained in a statement published May 18, 1907. See San
      Francisco papers of that date.

 [88] The nature of the attacks upon the supporters of the
      Prosecution is shown by the proceedings in the libel suit
      brought by the San Francisco First National Bank against the
      Oakland Tribune. Rudolph Spreckels was president of the bank;
      the Tribune was one of the stanchest of the opponents of the
      prosecution. The Tribune charged that the Graft Prosecution
      had for one of its objects the unloading of the Spring Valley
      Water Company's plant upon San Francisco, and that the First
      National Bank was burdened with Spring Valley securities.
      Among other things the article set forth:

      "The recent disclosures of the methods by which it was sought
      to unload Spring Valley's old junk, called a distributing
      system, together with its inadequate supply of inferior water,
      on the city at an outrageous figure by the swinging of the 'big
      stick' has not enhanced the value of the securities of the
      corporation in the view of the national examiners. Even the
      efforts to cloud the real purposes of the promoters of the
      Spring Valley job by calling it a civic uprising to stamp out
      municipal graft is said to have failed to mislead the Federal
      experts. The suggestion that the 'big stick' would force the
      city to purchase the plant of the decrepit corporation for
      $28,000,000 after its real estimate was appraised by an expert
      at $5,000,000 and held by the bondholders to be worth, as
      realty speculation, $15,000,000, has not enthused the Federal
      bank examiners in relation to the value of Spring Valley bonds
      as security for a national bank."

      The First National Bank did not hold Spring Valley Company
      securities. As the Tribune's charges were calculated to injure
      the bank, action for libel followed. At the hearings, it
      developed that the articles had been furnished the Tribune by
      the political editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, who
      testified that he was paid fifty dollars a week for his Tribune
      articles. This was more than his salary as political editor of
      the Chronicle. He admitted on the stand that he had heard what
      he stated in his article, "only as a matter of gossip."

 [89] The San Francisco Call, in an editorial article, printed
      October 22, expressed the general sentiment in San Francisco.
      The Call said:

      "San Francisco will welcome the undertaking by Mr. Francis J.
      Heney of the duty to search out and bring to justice the
      official boodlers and their brokers that afflict the body
      politic. Public opinion is unanimous in the belief that
      Supervisors have been bribed and that administrative functions
      such as those of the Board of Works and the Health Board have
      been peddled in secret market. Even the Board of Education is
      not exempted from suspicion.

      "These convictions, prevailing in the public mind, call for
      verification or refutation. The sudden affluence of certain
      members of the Board of Supervisors, the current and generally
      credited reports that the United Railroads paid upward of
      $500,000 in bribes to grease the way of its overhead trolley
      franchise, the appearance of public officials in the guise of
      capitalists making large investments in skating rinks and other
      considerable enterprises--these and other lines of
      investigation demand the probe. If there has been no dishonesty
      in office the officials should be the first to insist on a
      thorough inquiry.

      "If it is true, as we believe, that official boodling has been
      the practice, a systematic inquiry will surely uncover the
      crimes. It is impossible to commit such offenses where so many
      are concerned without leaving some trace that can be followed
      and run to earth. The crimes of the gaspipe thugs seemed for
      the moment hidden in impenetrable mystery, but patient search
      discovers the trail that leads to conviction. Criminals are
      rarely men of high intelligence. They betray themselves at one
      or other turn of their windings. We are convinced that some of
      our Supervisors and not a few of the executive officials
      appointed by Schmitz are in no degree superior in point of
      intelligence and moral sense to the gaspipe robbers.

      "Mr. Heney's record as a remorseless and indefatigable
      prosecutor of official rascals is known. He will have the
      assistance in his new work of Mr. William J. Burns, who did so
      much to bring to light the Oregon land frauds. Those crimes
      were surrounded and protected by fortifications of political
      influence that were deemed impregnable. When the inquiry was
      first undertaken nobody believed it would ever come to
      anything. It was a slow business, even as the mills of the gods
      grind slowly, but if fine the grist of the criminal courts of
      Oregon is large and satisfying.

      "The people of San Francisco have been sorely tried. Fire and
      earthquake we cannot help, but the unhappy city has been made
      the prey of a set of conscienceless thieves who have done
      nothing since our great calamity beyond promoting schemes to
      fill their own pockets. Our streets, our sewers, our schools
      and our public buildings have been neglected, but the sale of
      permits and franchises, the working of real estate jobs and the
      market for privileges of every variety have been brisk and
      incessant. Officials have grown rich: Some of them are spending
      money like a drunken sailor. It is time for housecleaning and a
      day of reckoning. Heney and Burns will put the question: 'Where
      did they get it?'"

 [90] Bishop Montgomery, of the Roman Catholic Church, in an
      interview in the San Francisco Call, October 20, 1906, said in
      reference to the San Francisco graft prosecution:

      "Mere accusations have been so long and so persistently made
      that the public has a right to know the truth; and, above all,
      those who are innocently so charged have a right to a public
      and complete vindication. Nothing now but a thorough and honest
      investigation can clear the atmosphere and set us right before
      the world and with ourselves.

      "I have such confidence in the courts of California that I
      believe no innocent man needs to fear that he will suffer from
      them, and no guilty man has any just right to complain.

      "I believe the investigation has been undertaken in good faith
      for the best interests of the city, and that it will be
      conducted thoroughly and honestly."

 [91] Mr. Spreckels' statement was contained in an interview printed
      in the San Francisco Call, October 28, 1906. It was as
      follows:

      "This is no question of capital and labor," he said, "but of
      dishonesty and justice. There is no association of men,
      capitalists or others, behind what we have undertaken, and it
      cannot be made a class question. No one knows that better than
      Ruef. And it will be impossible for him to fool the workingman
      by these insinuations.

      "I want the workingmen of this city to recall that meeting
      which was recently held in Union Square. I was asked to attend
      that meeting and be its chairman. I refused to preside, to
      speak or go there unless I could be assured that it was not to
      be a movement of the capitalistic class on the one hand against
      the workingmen on the other. And because I did not receive that
      assurance I did not attend. Mr. Heney stayed away for the same
      reason.

      "Now, who was it that originated that meeting? Sam Shortridge.
      Who was it who drew the resolutions; who was it who prompted
      the speakers and the chairman? It was Sam Shortridge.

      "Mr. Ruef says that meeting was dominated and arranged by the
      Citizens' Alliance. Very well. Then let Mr. Ruef explain to the
      workingmen why it was that a few days afterward he hired Sam
      Shortridge as his attorney.

      "I believe that it is impossible to fool the laboring men of
      this city now. Absolutely and definitely I want to say to them
      that there is nothing behind this movement but the desire for a
      clean city. It is absolutely regardless of class. Every man who
      owns a home, who has a family, is as much interested in what we
      have undertaken as is the wealthiest citizen."

 [92] See San Francisco Examiner, October 28, 1906, from which the
      following is taken: "=Of course there was no bribery= (said
      General Ford), =nor offer to bribe, nor was there anything done
      except upon clean and legitimate lines=."

      "Q. General, if any bribe, or offer to bribe, had been made by
      your company to any person connected with the San Francisco
      municipal administration, or to any political boss having
      control of the same, or if any member of the Board of
      Supervisors, or of the municipal government had benefited to
      the extent of one dollar financially by the agreement to grant
      to the United Railroads the privilege desired, you, in your
      official capacity, would undoubtedly be aware of it, would you
      not? A. I am certain that I would; I am, therefore, equally
      certain that no such thing was ever done or contemplated."

 [93] The following are excerpts from interviews published in the San
      Francisco Examiner, October 23, 1906:

      Abraham Ruef: "I am satisfied that if Mayor Schmitz had known
      that this investigation was afoot he would have postponed his
      trip abroad and would have remained here to disprove all
      allegations of graft."

      Supervisor Andrew Wilson: "I shall be glad to welcome any
      investigation as to my official acts or as to my official
      conduct. I never took a dishonest dollar in my life."

      Supervisor Patrick McGushin: "The more they investigate, the
      better I shall like it. I do not believe Mr. Heney has any
      evidence of graft. Speaking for myself, he can investigate me
      or my bank account if he likes."

      Acting Mayor James L. Gallagher: "So far as the administration
      is concerned from the statements I have received, everything is
      straight. So far as the Police Department is concerned no one
      can tell. I can not tell."

      Supervisor Jennings Phillips: "This investigation will be a
      good thing. There has been so much talk of graft and so many
      accusations that it all will be settled once and for all. If
      Mr. Heney has any evidence I know nothing of its nature nor
      against what part of the administration it is directed."

      Supervisor Edward Walsh: "As a Supervisor I have tried to do my
      best. I court an investigation. I do not pay much attention to
      Mr. Heney's statements. I have been here thirty-seven years and
      I can hold up my head, as can every other member of this
      Board."

      Supervisor Michael Coffey: "Nothing would afford me more
      pleasure than to have them investigate my integrity and my
      official acts. I hope they'll make a full and thorough
      investigation and clear us all of the slurs that have been cast
      upon us."

      Supervisor S. Davis: "I think there is nothing to this whole
      thing. If Mr. Heney can find out anything let him do it. It is
      hard to have insinuations cast at you. My personal connection
      with the administration has been straight."

      Supervisor F. P. Nicholas: "There has been so much noise about
      graft that it will be a good thing to go thoroughly into the
      matter. Personally I court an investigation of my official
      acts. If Mr. Heney has any evidence of corruption I know
      nothing of it."

      Supervisor Daniel Coleman: "These loud cries of graft that have
      been current of late will be silenced through this
      investigation. It should be thoroughly gone into so that the
      purity of the administration cannot hereafter be questioned."

      Supervisor Max Mamlock: "I do not think it is worth my while to
      think about this investigation. I do not see where Mr. Burns or
      Mr. Heney could get any evidence of graft."

 [94] Acting-Mayor Gallagher's order removing Langdon is printed in
      full in the appendix. One of the charges alleged against
      Langdon was that he had appointed Francis J. Heney to be his
      deputy for ulterior purposes. Of Heney it was alleged that he
      had "in a public speech in said city and county (San
      Francisco), aspersed the character and good name of a
      prominent citizen of this community (Abe Ruef), and stated
      that he knew him to be corrupt, etc."

      Acting-Mayor Gallagher's order of removal was made in persuance
      of Sections 18 and 19 of Article XVI of the San Francisco
      Charter, which read as follows:

      "Sec. 18. Any elected officer, except Supervisor, may be
      suspended by the Mayor and removed by the Supervisors for
      cause; and any appointed officer may be removed by the Mayor
      for cause. The Mayor shall appoint some person to discharge the
      duties of the office during the period of such suspension.

      "Sec. 19. When the Mayor shall suspend any elected officer he
      shall immediately notify the Supervisors of such suspension and
      the cause therefor. If the Board is not in session, he shall
      immediately call a session of the same in such manner as shall
      be provided by ordinance. The Mayor shall present written
      charges against such suspended officer to the Board and furnish
      a copy of the same to said officer, who shall have the right to
      appear with counsel before the Board in his defense. If by an
      affirmative vote of not less than fourteen members of the Board
      of Supervisors, taken by ayes and noes and entered on its
      record, the action of the Mayor is approved, then the suspended
      officer shall thereby be removed from office; but if the action
      of the Mayor is not so approved such suspended officer shall be
      immediately reinstated."

                             CHAPTER VI.

          RUEF'S FIGHT TO TAKE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

The impaneling of the Grand Jury was to have been completed on October
26. Heney was appointed Assistant District Attorney on October 24. Ruef,
to secure control of the District Attorney's office before the Grand
Jury could be sworn, had little time to act. But he was equal to the
emergency. Gallagher removed Langdon and named Ruef as District Attorney
the day after Heney's appointment and the day before the impaneling of
the Grand Jury was to have been completed.

Ruef had, however, considered Langdon's suspension from the day of the
District Attorney's announcement of his plans for investigating graft
charges. Gallagher testified at the graft trials that Ruef had, several
days before Langdon's suspension, notified him it might be necessary to
remove Langdon from office[95]. The Acting Mayor expressed himself as
ready to carry out whatever Ruef might want done.

Gallagher testified that the names of several attorneys, including that
of Henry Ach, Ruef's attorney and close associate, were canvassed as
eligible for appointment as Langdon's successor. Nothing definite was
decided upon, however, until the day that Langdon's position was
declared vacant. On that day, Gallagher received word from Ruef to call
at his office. There, according to Gallagher's statement, he found
Thomas V. Cator, a member of the municipal Board of Election
Commissioners. Henry Ach came in later.

Ruef told Gallagher that he had decided it was necessary to remove
Langdon, and that he had decided to take the place himself. Gallagher
assured Ruef that whatever Ruef decided in the matter he, the Acting
Mayor, would stand by. The papers removing Langdon had already been
prepared. Gallagher read them over, for typographical errors, he states
in his testimony, and signed them.

The Board of Supervisors was to have met that day at 2:30 P. M. in
regular weekly session. Gallagher, as Acting Mayor, was to preside. But
it was well after 6 P. M. when Gallagher arrived, from Ruef's office, at
the council chamber.

He appeared worried and disturbed. The Supervisors, who had been waiting
for him for nearly four hours, were called to order. The communication
removing Langdon was read and adopted without debate or opposition.[96]
Gallagher then announced that he had appointed Ruef to be Langdon's
successor.

How completely Ruef dominated the municipal departments was shown by the
fact that he filed his bond, his oath of office, and his certificate of
appointment at the various municipal offices without hint of what was
going on reaching the public. Ruef had commanded secrecy, and secrecy
was observed. After Gallagher had announced Ruef's appointment in open
meeting of the Supervisors, the filing of the papers was made public.

Although the Supervisors, in open board meeting, endorsed Gallagher's
action without apparent hesitation, nevertheless the abler among them
did so with misgivings. Supervisor Wilson went straight from the meeting
of the board to Ruef's office. He told Ruef that in his judgment a
mistake had been made; that the papers would call the removal of Langdon
confession of guilt.[97] But Ruef laughed at his fears, and to cheer
him up, took him to a popular restaurant for dinner.

But before leaving his office, Ruef performed his first act as District
Attorney. He wrote a curt note to Heney, dismissing him from the
position of assistant.[98] Later in the evening he appointed as Heney's
successor Marshall B. Woodworth.

The order of dismissal was delivered to Heney within ten minutes.
Heney's answer reached Ruef as he sat at dinner with Supervisor Wilson
and Henry Ach, who had joined the group. Heney's reply was quite as
pointed as Ruef's letter of dismissal. Heney stated he did not recognize
Ruef as District Attorney.

The battle between the two forces was fairly on. Ruef and his
associates, as they sat at dinner, discussed the advisability of taking
possession of the District Attorney's office that night, but concluded
to wait until morning. In this Ruef suffered the fate of many a general
who has consented to delay. When morning came, District Attorney Langdon
had his office under guard, and San Francisco was aroused as it had not
been in a generation.

Supervisor Wilson had not misjudged the interpretation that would be
placed upon Langdon's suspension. The Call the following morning
denounced Ruef as "District Attorney by usurpation; a prosecuting
officer to save himself from prosecution." The Chronicle set forth, in
a biting editorial article, that "as long as they (the Ruef-Schmitz
combine) felt safe from prosecution, they jauntily declared that they
would like to see the accusations fully justified, but the instant they
began to realize the possibility of being sent to San Quentin, they
turned tail and resorted to a trick which every man in the community
with gumption enough to form a judgment in such matters will recognize
as a confession of guilt."

The Examiner called the removal of Langdon and the appointment of Ruef,
"the last stand of criminals hunted and driven to bay."

"They have," said the Examiner, "come to a point where they will stop at
nothing.... William H. Langdon, the fearless District Attorney, and
Francis J. Heney, the great prosecutor, have driven the bribe-seekers
and the bribe-takers to a condition of political madness. In hysterical
fear they last night attempted their anarchistic method of defense."

The Bulletin devoted its entire editorial page to Ruef's new move,
heading the article, "Ruef's Illegal Action is Confession of Guilt."

"Nothing," said the Bulletin, "in the history of anarchy parallels in
cool, deliberate usurpation of authority this latest exhibition of
lawlessness in San Francisco.... Government is seized to overthrow
government. Authority is exercised in defiance of authority. The office
of the District Attorney is seized deliberately, with malice
aforethought, with strategy and cunning and used as a fort for thieves
to battle down the forces of citizenship. The criminals, accused of
felony, after inviting investigation and pretending to assist, have
shown their hypocrisy by committing an act of anarchy which, while it
might be tolerated for the time being in San Francisco, would result in
the execution of these men in any government of Europe."

Gallagher's action, while upheld by the Union-Labor party leaders, and
by the unions which these leaders dominated, was condemned by
independent labor organizations.

The Building Trades Council, with which all the building trades unions
were affiliated, dominated by P. H. McCarthy, promptly endorsed
Gallagher's action in removing Langdon. But many of the affiliated
unions not only withheld endorsement, but some of them repudiated the
action of the central body.

The Bricklayers and Masons' Union, for example, with 800 members
present, and without a dissenting vote, adopted resolutions declaring
that "the President and Secretary[99] of the Building Trades Council are
not fit persons to be at the head of the Union movement in San
Francisco," and denouncing the course of the municipal administration,
which the Building Trades Council had approved, as "high-handed defiance
of the law."[100]

In spite of this repudiation by the unions, Ruef issued a statement in
which he denounced the prosecution as a movement "to destroy the Union
Labor organization and to control the situation in San Francisco in the
interest of those who are opposed to the success of the wage-earning
classes." He announced further, "I have accepted this office, the first
political position I ever held in my life, because I believe it to be my
duty to the public to bring to an end this constant defamation and to
stop the publication of matter detrimental to the city's growth and
material interest."

"I do not intend," he said, "to make any changes in the personnel of the
District Attorney's office until it is determined what fate Mr. Langdon
shall meet, with the exception that Mr. Heney will not be retained. I
will not have Mr. Heney in my office because I do not believe that his
moral standing is equal to the position."[101]

District Attorney Langdon was out of the city when Acting Mayor
Gallagher announced his suspension from office. Langdon hurried back
prepared to resist the executive's action.[102] Even while Ruef and his
associates were debating the advisability of taking possession of the
District Attorney's office that night, attorneys for the prosecution
were at work on papers in injunction proceedings to restrain Acting
Mayor Gallagher, the Supervisors and Ruef from interfering with the
District Attorney in the discharge of his duties. The papers were not
ready before 5 o'clock of the morning of the 26th. At that hour,
Superior Judge Seawell signed an order temporarily restraining Ruef from
installing himself as District Attorney, and from interfering with
Langdon in the discharge of his duties as District Attorney. By eight
o'clock that morning, Presiding Judge Graham of the Superior Court had
assigned the case to Judge Seawell's department; a police officer and
two deputy sheriffs had been installed in the District Attorney's office
with instructions to enforce the restraining order. For the time, at
least, District Attorney Langdon was secure in his office.

Ruef appeared two hours later. He was that morning to have represented
the defendant in a murder trial, The People vs. Denike, but began the
day by formally withdrawing from the case on the ground that as District
Attorney he could not appear for the defense. He appeared in the police
courts ready to prosecute a libel suit which he had brought against the
proprietor of the San Francisco Bulletin, but the justice had been
served with Judge Seawell's restraining order and the libel-case hearing
was postponed. In Judge Dunne's department of the Superior Court, Ruef
received something of a setback. The Court made a special order
permitting one of Langdon's deputies to prosecute in a criminal action
then pending, regardless of who might be District Attorney. The
restraining order kept Ruef and Woodworth out of the District Attorney's
office. By noon it was evident that at the big event of that eventful
day, the impaneling of the Grand Jury, Langdon, and not Ruef, would, as
District Attorney, represent The People.

FOOTNOTES:

 [95] Gallagher testified at the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No.
      1437, to the conversation at Ruef's law offices when Ruef first
      broached the matter of Langdon's removal, as follows: "The
      substance of the conversation was that Mr. Ruef stated that it
      might become necessary to remove Mr. Langdon from the office of
      District Attorney, and to appoint somebody else. I replied that
      that was a matter for him to make up his mind on; if he
      determined it had to be done. I would do it; words to that
      effect. I cannot give the exact language."

 [96] The San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of October 26, thus
      describes the proceedings attending Langdon's removal:

      "Gallagher took the chair at 6:30 p. m. and there was ten minutes'
      perfunctory business.

      "His honor seemed uneasy, but at the careful prompting of
      Secretary Keane, he called for 'communications from executive
      officers.'

      "Keane then announced, 'From his honor, the Mayor,' and read
      Gallagher's letter suspending District Attorney Langdon 'for
      neglect of duty' and sundry other charges.

      "During the reading of the long document there was no sound In the
      hall save the hoarse voice of Secretary Keane, and on its
      completion Supervisor Sanderson arose.

      "Gallagher explained that Langdon would 'be given an opportunity
      next Thursday afternoon at 2:30 o'clock to appear before the board
      and defend himself against the charges.'

      "He then recognized Sanderson, who offered a motion accepting the
      communication from the Mayor and directing that Langdon be
      directed to appear to answer.

      "Supervisor Wilson seconded the motion.

      "Upon the call for the 'ayes,' although the Supervisors usually
      let silence Indicate their consent, there was a chorus of
      approval, and upon the call for the 'noes' there was dead silence.

      "Supervisors L. A. Rea and J. J. Furey were not present."

 [97] At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, page of
      Transcript 2654, Wilson testified: "I told him (Ruef) that I
      thought it was a bad move at this time and that the papers in
      the morning would state it was simply a confession of guilt;
      and I said that I had stood there and taken my program on the
      matter, but I felt it would ruin my chances in the face of an
      election, running for Railroad Commissioner, and he said I
      would feel better after I had something to eat, and we went
      over to Tait's and had supper. On the way over he (Ruef) sent
      Charlie Hagerty in to notify Mr. Heney of his removal."

 [98] Ruef's order dismissing Heney was as follows:

      "Mr. Francis J. Heney: You are hereby removed from the position
      of Assistant District Attorney of the City and County of San
      Francisco.

      "Dated. October 25, 1906.
                                           "(Signed) A. RUEF,
                                        "Acting District Attorney."

 [99] P. H. McCarthy and O. A. Tveitmoe, respectively president and
      secretary of the Building Trades Council.

 [100] The resolutions adopted by Bricklayers' and Masons'
       International Union No. 7, were as follows:

       "Whereas, The office of District Attorney of San Francisco
       County has been declared vacant by the Acting Mayor and
       Supervisors at a time when the said District Attorney was
       preparing an investigation into the official acts of the said
       Supervisors and others; and

       "Whereas, One of the persons accused by the said District
       Attorney of being guilty of criminal acts, has been appointed by
       the Acting Mayor and Supervisors to fill the office thus vacated;
       and

       "Whereas, The Building Trades Council of San Francisco has
       indorsed the action of the administration, and the president and
       secretary of said Council has aided and abetted said usurpation
       of power to the utmost of their ability; therefore, be it

       "Resolved, That this Union condemn the action of the Council in
       this matter, and that we condemn the president and secretary of
       the Council for lending or selling their aid to help to prevent
       the investigation of the public acts of officials who have thrown
       themselves open to suspicion, and thereby placing the honest
       union men of San Francisco in the false light of indorsing such
       high-handed defiance of the law; and be it

       "Resolved, That we deny that the proposed prosecution of the
       present administration is an attack on organized labor; and
       further, be it

       "Resolved, That it is the sense of this Union that the president
       and secretary of the Building Trades Council are not fit persons
       to be at the head of the Union movement in San Francisco, and
       that the delegates representing this Union in the Council are
       hereby instructed to use every honorable means to carry out the
       spirit of this resolution; and further, be it

       "Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be furnished by the
       corresponding secretary to each and every Union affiliated with
       the Council, so that they will consider this an invitation from
       this Union to assist in ridding the central body of officers whom
       we believe have done all in their power to bring unionism into
       disrepute."

       Similar resolutions were adopted by Journeymen Plumbers, Gas and
       Steam Fitters' Local, No. 442.

 [101] See Ruef's statement as published in the San Francisco
       Chronicle, October 26, 1906.

 [102] Mr. Langdon, on arriving in San Francisco, issued the
       following statement:

       "No person in California believes that my alleged suspension
       is due to neglect or inefficiency. No dissent is necessary
       before the people. It is plain that my removal is deemed
       necessary by Ruef and Gallagher to prevent an honest,
       searching investigation of conditions that prevail in
       municipal affairs in San Francisco. Their plan will come to
       naught, however.

       "As District Attorney I shall pursue this investigation to the
       end. I deny the legal right of the Mayor or the Board of
       Supervisors to suspend or dismiss me. The provision of the
       Charter purporting to give that authority is clearly
       unconstitutional. The citizens must determine whether or not
       they will countenance this high-handed proceeding in a
       community which is supposed to be governed by the law, and not
       by the will of a boss and his puppet."

                           CHAPTER VII.

                   OLIVER GRAND JURY IMPANELED.

The hard fight of the morning of October 26th to prevent Ruef taking
possession of the District Attorney's office had been carried on
practically without the general public being aware of the proceedings.
Langdon had been suspended early in the evening of the previous day. The
temporary order restraining Ruef from interfering with the District
Attorney had been signed at 5 o'clock in the morning. The general public
found by the morning papers that Ruef had attempted to seize the office,
but of the steps taken to stay his hand the papers had nothing. The
question on every man's lip was: Will Judge Graham recognize Ruef or
Langdon as District Attorney at the impaneling of the Grand Jury?

The court was to meet at 2 o'clock. Long before that hour arrived, the
halls of Temple Israel, a Jewish synagogue in which several departments
of the Superior Court met during the months following the great fire,
were packed with citizens. The street in front of the building soon
became jammed with a struggling mass of men demanding entrance. The
crowd became so great that none could enter or leave the building.

Plain-clothes men were on all sides, and succeeded in clearing a space
about the entrance. The work of clearing the building of all who could
not show that they had business there, then began. In this work,
deference was shown Ruef's adherents. Notorious saloon-keepers,
ex-prize fighters and strong-arm men friendly to Ruef were permitted to
remain. Opponents of the administration who protested against removal
were unceremoniously thrown out.

Although little groups of partisans of the administration appeared in
the crowd, the citizens assembled were in the main clearly in sympathy
with the prosecution.[103] The arrival of Langdon, Heney and Spreckels
was signal for outbursts of applause. Ruef apparently appreciated the
feeling against him. He appeared guarded by two detectives of the
regular police department,[104] and a body-guard of partisans. The crowd
began to press about him. Several of his followers made motions as
though to draw revolvers. Ruef hurried into the building. To add to the
confusion, there was, planned or without planning, misunderstanding as
to the room in which the hearing was to be held. The representatives of
District Attorney Langdon's office finding themselves misinformed as to
the meeting place, forced their way from hall to hall seeking reliable
information. When the room was finally located, it was found to be
packed with Ruef followers. The sheriff ordered the doors closed. The
Court's attention was called to this. District Attorney Langdon insisted
that the doors be opened and the crowd permitted to enter to the
capacity of the room. He pointed out that some had been admitted and
others kept out, and insisted there should be no discrimination. This
course was taken. The crowd poured in until every available foot of
standing room was occupied.[105]

Eighteen of the nineteen citizens required under the California law for
Grand Jury service had already been drawn at former sessions of the
court. As soon as order had been secured, the name of the nineteenth was
taken from the jury box.

This detail over, Heney called the Court's attention to the provision of
the California law, that no person whose name does not appear on the
assessment roll of the county in which he serves is eligible for Grand
Jury service, and that the courts have held further, that bias or
prejudice of a Grand Juror against a person indicted is sufficient
grounds for setting aside the indictment. Heney then stated that he
wished to examine the nineteen men as to their qualifications as Grand
Jurors.

Ruef, announcing himself as an officer of the court, arose to speak.
Heney objected to Ruef appearing, if by officer of the court he meant
District Attorney or Acting District Attorney. Ruef answered that he
appeared only in his capacity as member of the bar. On this showing he
was allowed to proceed.

Ruef contended that the procedure proposed by Heney was irregular; that
if followed the validity of the Grand Jury would be imperiled. He stated
that he did not want to see the Grand Jury made an illegal body.

Heney replied that he intended, as Assistant District Attorney, to
present felony charges against Ruef, and desired to examine the
prospective Grand Jurors as to their bias for or against Ruef.
Furthermore, Heney insisted, the Court had authority to excuse a juror
if he were not on the assessment roll. To accept as Grand Jurors men
whose names were not on the assessment roll, or men biased or prejudiced
against Ruef would, Heney insisted, make the proceedings a farce.[106]

In reply to Heney, Ruef defied him to produce any evidence "in open
court before an untutored Grand Jury for an indictment." Ruef charged
Heney further with employing abuse "to make the Grand Jury illegal so
that nothing might come of any indictment."

At this point, the Attorney General of the State, U. S. Webb,[107]
addressed the Court. At his suggestion the Grand Jurors were excused
for the day. General Webb then stated that he knew of no law for the
procedure which Mr. Heney suggested. He admitted, however, that such
procedure would be desirable, and advised that no hasty action be taken
in coming to a decision.

Heney in reply read from California decisions to show that The People
have the authority to make examination of Grand Jurors, and continued:

"The only question remaining is as to when this examination shall be
made. Suppose the foreman of the Grand Jury is biased or prejudiced.
Does it require any argument that now is the time to make this
examination instead of waiting until we have presented our evidence to
the Grand Jury? Shall we first have to give those whom we accuse time to
bribe witnesses and get them out of the country? Shall we let the
defendant come in and quash the indictment, if there is any bias or
prejudice, and then be enabled to protect himself against prosecution?

"After the miserable fiasco (the attempted removal of Langdon) which
occurred last night," Heney went on, "what more important duty for this
Court to perform than to say immediately that the law is more powerful
than any man or any set of men in San Francisco?"

As Heney concluded, the packed courtroom burst into applause. The crowd
outside heard, took it up and cheered wildly. As soon as order was
restored, Henry Ach, one of the attorneys appearing for Ruef, suggested
that Heney, the Attorney General and himself, get together to present
the question of whether Langdon or Ruef were District Attorney to the
Supreme Court. Ach stated that he feared if Langdon or Heney attended a
session of the Grand Jury and Ruef were to be found to be District
Attorney, then the acts of the Grand Jury might be invalidated.

Heney replied that in acting as prosecutor it had been his rule "to have
no conferences, treaties or alliances with persons charged with crime,
or with their attorneys." On this ground, Heney declined Mr. Ach's
proposition.

Judge Graham made no rulings that day on any of the points raised, but
ordered a continuance until the following Monday.

After adjournment of court, the appearance of Langdon and Heney at the
entrance of the building brought forth cheers from the crowd that all
through the proceedings had waited outside. A speech was demanded of
Langdon.

"My friends," he replied, "we have no speeches to make. We have a duty
to perform and we will perform that duty."

Immediately behind Langdon came Ruef, closely guarded by police and
detectives. He was pale and worn and clearly frightened. The crowd
pressed about him. Threats came from his followers to shoot into the
crowd if it pressed too closely. Ruef finally reached his automobile and
was driven away.[108]

The topic of discussion of the two days that elapsed before Judge Graham
decided the questions that had been raised by Heney's proposal to
proceed with the examination of the Grand Jurors, was whether Graham
would allow such examination. It was alleged that no less than four of
the citizens drawn for Grand Jury service were not on the assessment
roll. There were, too, charges that Ruef controlled several of them.
Some of the papers printed the names of those whom it was alleged were
either under obligations to Ruef or connected with his political
organization.

A second crowd filled courtroom, building and street when Judge Graham's
court was called to order the following Monday. Mounted policemen,
plain-clothes men and detectives, directed by two captains of police,
were, however, on hand to preserve order.[109] There were no
demonstrations. Judge Graham announced from the bench that after due
deliberation, he had concluded that the District Attorney had the right
to interrogate the Grand Jurors as to their qualifications. He stated
further that inasmuch as Langdon was the de facto District Attorney,
Langdon would conduct the examination.

The prosecution had won the first skirmish in the years-long fight upon
which San Francisco was entering for the enforcement of the law.

The next move came from Attorney Samuel M. Shortridge. Shortridge
appeared with Ruef's attorney, Henry Ach, and Marshall B. Woodworth.
Ruef had named Woodworth, it will be remembered, as Heney's successor in
the District Attorney's office.

Mr. Shortridge read Acting Mayor Gallagher's order suspending Langdon
and appointing Ruef, and also called the Court's attention to the fact
that Ruef had filed his official bond as District Attorney. Shortridge
stated that the matter was pending before Judge Seawell, and asked the
Court, "in deference to Judge Seawell," to postpone proceedings until
the District-Attorney controversy should be decided. Shortridge
expressed himself as fearful that, if the examination of the Grand
Jurors went on, Judge Seawell's decision might invalidate the Grand Jury
proceedings.

W. T. Baggett, Assistant City Attorney,[110] followed Shortridge. Mr.
Baggett read a letter from the Acting Mayor, setting forth the fact of
Langdon's removal, and joined with Shortridge in pleading for delay. But
the pleas of both gentlemen were denied. Judge Graham repeated his
opinion given earlier in the day that Langdon should be recognized as
the de facto District Attorney, and ordered the impaneling of the Grand
Jury to continue.

Shortridge thereupon announced his desire to participate in the
examination of the Grand Jurors. Heney objected to Shortridge appearing
as a representative of the District Attorney's office. Shortridge
replied that he respected Judge Seawell's order, and had no intention of
violating it. He asked if he would be permitted to act in the capacity
of amicus curiæ[111] in examining jurors. This privilege was accorded
him.

The examination of the Grand Jurors occupied more than a week. Several
of the nineteen were excused, it being found that their names were not
on the assessment roll.

The examination was concluded[112] on November 7th and the Grand Jurors
sworn. B. P. Oliver was appointed foreman. From him the body received
its name of Oliver Grand Jury. The Grand Jury organized by electing C.
G. Burnett secretary. But one important question remained to be decided,
namely--Was Ruef or Langdon to represent The People at the investigation
into graft charges which the Grand Jury was ready to begin?

FOOTNOTES:

 [103] The San Francisco Chronicle in its issue of October 27 thus
       described the crowd: "Every man the police put out of the
       building was cheered by the crowd and every time policemen
       laid hands on anyone they were hissed. However, it was evident
       that the citizens who gathered outside the Temple Israel
       yesterday afternoon did not come prepared to fight with the
       police force. In the crowd standing outside almost every man
       prominent in the business and professional life of the city
       could be seen. Manufacturers, merchants, lawyers, doctors, men
       engaged in all the various lines of wholesale and retail
       business, and all the professions, included among the latter
       being many Protestant ministers, Catholic priests and Jewish
       rabbis. Here and there in the great concourse of people were
       scattered little groups of men of the type that may be seen
       hanging around the tenderloin."

 [104] Detectives Steve Bunner and Tim Riordan. These men accompanied
       Ruef for nearly a month. Late in November, after Ruef had been
       indicted, they were sent back to active duty.

 [105] While the crowd was pressing into the room, a deputy sheriff
       undertook to search Heney for concealed weapons. Heney
       complained of the officer's conduct, protested vigorously.
       "That is the man standing there," cried Heney, "he did so at
       the request of Abe Ruef."

       "Who was informed that Mr. Heney was armed," responded Ruef.

       It developed that Heney was not armed, and the incident went
       no further. But it indicated the sharpness of the division
       between the two factions.

 [106] The Chronicle of October 27, 1906, contains the following
       account of Heney's reply to Ruef: "'I now announce to the
       court,' said Heney fervently, 'that I intend as Assistant
       District Attorney, to present charges of felony and
       misdemeanor against Abraham Ruef, and I desire to examine the
       members of this panel to determine if any member entertains
       bias or prejudice for or against Abraham Ruef in the matter of
       the charges which are to be presented by the District
       Attorney's office. I understand that there is no question as
       to Abraham Ruef's right to have the indictment set aside if
       any member of the Grand Jury is biased or prejudiced against
       him. It would be a farce,' Heney went on, his voice swelling,
       'it would be adding to the comedy of errors enacted last night
       (the attempted removal of Langdon from office), if we have a
       Grand Jury which is biased or prejudiced. It has become public
       through the newspapers--to some extent, at least--that Abraham
       Ruef is to be investigated. The People have the same right as
       the defendant to examine the members of the panel as to their
       qualifications. I know that a number of the members do not
       possess the qualifications provided by the statute, as they
       are not on the assessment roll, and I desire to question them
       on that point. The Court has the right to excuse a juror if he
       is not on the assessment roll. The Supreme Court has decided
       that a man has the right to be investigated by a Grand Jury of
       nineteen men who are qualified according to the statute and
       none others. It is not necessary to take for grand jurors the
       nineteen whose names are first drawn from the box. We should
       examine them, so that a member who has a bias or prejudice as
       to a particular person may be instructed that he shall not
       participate in the investigation of that person.'"

 [107] Under the California law, the Attorney-General may at his
       discretion, take the prosecution of a criminal case out of the
       hands of a District Attorney. It was within General Webb's
       province to have taken charge of the San Francisco graft
       trials. In a statement given wide publicity at the time,
       General Webb stated that he had no intention of taking charge
       of the graft trials unless Ruef succeeded in seizing the
       District Attorney's office. Long after, however, Heney, in an
       affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun,
       Thornwell Mullally, Tirey L. Ford, William M. Abbott, Abraham
       Ruef and Eugene E. Schmitz, No. 823, set forth a statement
       made to him by Ruef when Ruef was pleading for immunity, in
       which Webb's presence at the impaneling of the Grand Jury was
       touched upon as follows:

       "Ruef said in reply in substance, 'You are prejudiced against
       me, Heney, ever since we had that quarrel during last
       election. You know that the public-service corporations are
       responsible for the conditions which exist in San Francisco
       and that I can help you send some of the officials of those
       corporations to the penitentiary, and I can also help you to
       clean up this city and make it impossible for corruption to
       get a foothold here again for a long time. You are afraid to
       trust me, but you are making a mistake. The moment it becomes
       known that I have gone over to the prosecution the most
       powerful influences in this State will all be arrayed against
       us, and particularly against me. The moment you attack Pat
       Calhoun you in fact attack Herrin. You don't know the relation
       between these parties and the corporation as well as I do. I
       am very fond of Tirey Ford, but I don't care a rap about Pat
       Calhoun, and would just as soon testify against him as not.
       But the moment it becomes known that I am ready to do so my
       life will no longer be safe. I will have to stick to the
       prosecution from the moment I start in with it. You don't know
       what desperate means these people are capable of resorting to.
       My life will not be safe. If they keep me in the county jail
       with O'Neil as Sheriff they will kill me to a certainty. You
       don't know how many influential people are involved in this
       thing. You and Burns think you know, but there are a lot of
       people whom you don't know anything about who are mixed up in
       it. I tell you that the combined influence of all these people
       will make it next to impossible to secure convictions, and
       will make it very dangerous for all of us. It will not do to
       lessen the weight of my testimony any by having me plead
       guilty in that extortion case. Besides that, the Court would
       not allow me bail after I had pleaded guilty, and the Supreme
       Court may knock out the elisor, and then I would be absolutely
       in the hands of the other people, and they would surely kill
       me. Sheriff O'Neil is loyal to me now, but the moment he knew
       I was going to testify against Schmitz he would be very bitter
       against me, and would do whatever those people wanted him to
       do. Moreover, Herrin will get Attorney-General Webb to come
       down and take these cases out of the hands of Langdon and
       yourself, and he will declare the immunity contract off upon
       the ground that the District Attorney has no power to make one
       and will prosecute me on some of the bribery cases now pending
       against me, and if they convict me Herrin will see to it that
       I am not pardoned by the Governor. He now controls the
       Governor and the chances are he will continue to name the
       Governor and control him for the next twenty years. Webb was a
       deputy in Ford's office when Ford was Attorney-General, and it
       was Ford who got him to come down here and 'butt in' at the
       time you were impaneling the Grand Jury. I know you fellows
       thought it was I who got him to come down here, but as a
       matter of fact I did not know any more about it than you did
       until he appeared there, and I am sure it was Ford who did
       it."

 [108] While Ruef was struggling through the crowd to reach his
       automobile Dr. Shadwick O. Beasley, Instructor in Anatomy at
       the Cooper Medical College, was assaulted by some unidentified
       person. Dr. Beasley turned, shook his fist at Ruef and hissed
       him. The doctor was immediately placed under arrest. Dr.
       Beasley, on his part, swore out a warrant charging an unknown
       deputy sheriff with battery. Beasley was then made subject of
       petty persecution. He was, for example, held up on the street
       by a deputy sheriff and charged with carrying a concealed
       weapon. He was searched by two men, but nothing more deadly
       than a case of surgical instruments was found upon him. Dr.
       Beasley complained bitterly of the rough treatment from the
       officers.

       The San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of October 27, 1906,
       thus describes the scene which followed Ruef's appearance
       before the crowd:

       "With fists and clubs Chief of Police Dinan and his squad from
       the Central Police Station fought off the crowd of angry
       citizens assembled about the Temple Israel who sought to lay
       violent hands on Abe Ruef when the curly-headed usurper of the
       functions of the municipal government was leaving the scene of
       the Grand Jury meeting yesterday afternoon. And in the wake of
       the police were the Ruef heelers from the tenderloin with
       their hands on their pistols, threatening to shoot down the
       citizens of the city of San Francisco who should dare to
       approach too near the sacred person of their tenderloin idol.

       "It was one of the most remarkable scenes ever witnessed in
       any city of this country. Stung with the outrageous assumption
       of the powers of the public prosecutor when he was about to be
       placed on trial himself for crime, the citizens of the city,
       among whom are names that stand highest in business and
       professional circles, sought to make him realize the impudence
       of his conduct. That he escaped a swift punishment for his
       arrogant seizure of the office of the District Attorney is
       solely due to the presence and strenuous efforts of the
       police."

 [109] In sending his officers to handle this crowd, Chief of Police
       Dinan gave the following instructions:

       "The captains, sergeants and officers so detailed are
       instructed that they are sent to the place designated for the
       purpose of doing strict police duty. They will see that the
       streets and sidewalks are not obstructed, and that no
       violations of the law are permitted."

 [110] Under the San Francisco municipal charter, the District
       Attorney has charge of criminal cases, and the City Attorney
       of civil cases in which the city is concerned. The City
       Attorney also acts as adviser to the Mayor and Board of
       Supervisors. The two are independent offices.

 [111] Shortridge stated that as amicus curiae, it was his duty to
       see that the proceedings were without flaw. Heney refused to
       take him seriously, however, referred to him facetiously as
       the "curious friend of the Court." and suggested that the
       Court unassisted might be able to determine what was competent
       evidence.

 [112] The following nineteen citizens composed the Grand Jury that
       conducted the investigation of San Francisco "graft" charges:

       E. J. Gallagher, photographic supply dealer; Frank A. Dwyer,
       real estate; Herman H. Young, baker and restaurant proprietor;
       Mendle Rothenburg, liquor dealer; James E. Gordon, merchant;
       Alfred Greenebaum, merchant; Wallace Wise, haberdasher;
       Jeremiah Deasy, insurance agent; Rudolph Mohr, brewer; C. G.
       Burnett, capitalist; Charles Sonntag, merchant; Morris A.
       Levingston, liquor dealer; B. P. Oliver, real estate; W. P.
       Redington, druggist; Christian P. Rode, drayman; Ansel C.
       Robinson, merchant; Dewey Coffin, real estate; F. G. Sanborn,
       law book publisher; Maurice Block, merchant.

                            CHAPTER VIII.

              RUEF LOSES THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

While the impaneling of the Grand Jury was going on before Judge Graham,
Ruef was disputing Langdon's title to the office of District Attorney
before Judge Seawell. In these proceedings Samuel M. Shortridge appeared
with Ruef's attorney, Ach, and Deputy City Attorney Baggett, not as
amicus curiæ, but as Ach's associate in the legal contest to force
Langdon out of office.

The principal feature of Ruef's case was the introduction of affidavits,
signed by sixteen members[113] of the Board of Supervisors, in which
the Supervisors denied committing felony of any character. Later, after
the Supervisors had confessed, these affidavits were to be used by the
defense at practically all the graft trials in efforts to break down
their testimony against the bribe-givers.

During the examination, Ach endeavored to force from Langdon and his
deputies a statement of what evidence they had against Ruef. In this Ach
failed. On the other hand, the prosecution sought to bring out testimony
that Ruef had directed Gallagher to suspend Langdon.[114] To this end
Heney placed Ruef on the stand. But Judge Seawell stated[115] that he
did not at that time wish to go into question of motive and the point
was not pressed.

The outcome of the proceedings was a second victory for the prosecution.
The injunction against Ruef was granted;[116] Langdon was left in
peaceful possession of the District Attorney's office.[117] Later, Judge
Seawell issued a permanent writ of prohibition against the Board of
Supervisors restraining that body from removing Langdon from office.

Langdon and his deputies, after a three-weeks fight, were free to
proceed with the graft investigation.

FOOTNOTES:

 [113] The Supervisors who signed the affidavits exonerating Ruef and
       themselves were: Charles Boxton, Jennings J. Phillips, W. W.
       Sanderson, F. P. Nicholas, L. A. Rea, Edward I. Walsh, Andrew
       M. Wilson, J. J. Furey, Sam Davis, C. J. Harrigan, James T.
       Kelly, P. M. McGushin, Thomas F. Lonergan, Daniel G. Coleman,
       Max Mamlock and M. W. Coffey. Each of them made declaration as
       follows:

       "This affiant has never committed a felony of any kind or
       character, and has never been a party thereto, and there is
       not and can be no evidence presented of or concerning any
       felony committed by the undersigned or threatened by the
       undersigned. It is not true that this affiant has ever been