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 curiƦ, 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
party to the commission of any crime or any misdemeanor.

"This affiant further says that any and all charges,
assertions and innuendoes contained in the complaint and
contained in the public press of and concerning any alleged
felonies, misdemeanors or wrongful acts committed or alleged
to have been committed by this defendant are absolutely untrue
and false, and this affiant has never been guilty of any
violation of the law, and, so far as the knowledge of this
affiant is concerned, each and all of the other defendants
named herein are absolutely innocent of the commission of any
crime or felony or offense against the laws of the State of
California; and this affiant further says that he has no
knowledge, direct or indirect, of the commission of any felony
or of any misdemeanors or of any violations of the laws of the
State of California, or any thereof, or of the City and County
of San Francisco, by either or any of the defendants named
herein."

At the graft trials it developed that the Supervisors had
signed this affidavit without reading it. At the trial of The
People vs. Glass, No. 675, Supervisor Michael Coffey testified
that "On the afternoon that affidavit was signed, I came down
late to a meeting of the board and the members of the board
were in the Notary Public's office. I went over there and met
Mr. Keane, and Mr. Keane produced that paper and asked me to
sign it, and I signed it and gave him a dollar to pay the
Notary fees. I did not read the affidavit at that time. It was
not read aloud to me while I was there. I did not talk with
any person about what was in this affidavit before it was
prepared. I did not know who prepared it." See page 237 of
transcript on appeal.

Supervisor Wilson testified: "Mr. Ruef got up that affidavit,
I believe. I signed it because there was a rumor going about
that some of the Supervisors had gone over to the prosecution.
It was so stated in the public press and there was a little
excitement among the members of the board and we understood
this was sent down by Mr. Ruef to stiffen them up and to find
out if that was so. It was not read at the notary's office
while I was there. I did not read it before signing it." See
Transcript on Appeal The People vs. Glass, page 278.

Supervisor Boxton testified: "I signed the affidavit just
shown me at the request of the clerk of the Board of
Supervisors, Mr. George Keane. I do not know who prepared the
affidavit. No one had talked with me as to the facts that were
to be put in it. I knew nothing about its contents at all. It
was supposed generally amongst the members there was some talk
about it, that there was some of the members there that were a
bit weak-kneed, and would probably tell all they knew, so this
affidavit was framed up, as I understand it, to tie them down
a little tighter." See Transcript on Appeal, The People vs.
Glass, page 251.

Practically the same testimony was given by other Supervisors
at the various graft trials.

[114] See footnote 95, page 87.

[115] The passage between Heney and Ruef's lawyers which followed
Judge Seawell's ruling is thus set forth in the San Francisco
Chronicle of November 3rd:

"'You can ask Mr. Ruef if he is guilty of any crimes or
felonies,' Ach suggested to Heney.

"'I suppose he'll plead guilty here?' responded Heney
skeptically.

"Samuel M. Shortridge, of Ruef's legal staff, took this
remark to heart and hotly said to Heney, 'You'll plead guilty
before he does.' The Judge informed Shortridge that Heney
obviously spoke in jest, but Shortridge thought it a poor
joke. Ruef considered Heney's whole proceeding a joke."

[116] Judge Seawell in his decision said:

"I am clearly of the opinion that the Charter, in so far as it
relates to removal and suspension, does not apply to the
District Attorney. I am firmly convinced that neither the
Mayor nor the Board of Supervisors has any power to remove or
suspend him. The District Attorney should not be left to the
investigation of the municipal authorities. I can conceive how
he might be compelled to proceed against the very persons who
might be conducting an inquiry. I will grant the injunction as
prayed for against Mr. Ruef."

[117] A movement to secure Heney's dismissal from the District
Attorney's office, on the ground that he had accepted a fee in
addition to his salary as Assistant District Attorney, to act
as prosecutor was started. But the allegation was not
sustained and another failure was scored by the defense.