Chapter XII: Trapping of the Supervisors

Months before the Oliver Grand Jury was convened, it was common gossip in San Francisco that the members of the Board of Supervisors were taking money from the public service corporations.[154] Belief of this had got beyond the stage of mere newspaper accusation. It had become the firmly-settled conviction of the law-abiding element of the community. For this reason, as the months wore away in technical wrangling in the "French Restaurant" extortion cases, the public became impatient that time and energy should be expended in comparatively unimportant matters, while big graft went unprobed.

Partisans of the administration took advantage of this sentiment to belittle the prosecution.

Under this sort of hammering, the prosecution, during the months of February and March, 1907, unquestionably lost ground in public opinion.

But with Ruef holding the Supervisors to rigid accounting, and agents of public-service corporations lynx-eyed[155] to detect any weakness in their position, and quick to report with warning and advice to Ruef at any suggestion of danger, Burns and his associates were able to make little headway in securing evidence of big graft that would justify indictment or warrant trial.

The Supervisors looked to Ruef absolutely. Some of them took bribe money from others than himself in spite of his warning, but when they scented a trap they hurried to Ruef for advice.

When he directed them to return the bribe money they promised to do so, and in some cases actually returned it.

Ruef was a competent captain over men who had all confidence in his ability to keep them out of trouble. So long as he was in touch with the Supervisors his position so far as the Supervisors was concerned was almost impregnable. When, however, Ruef was caught in a position where he could no longer consult freely with his men, advise them and reassure them, his organization went to pieces in a wild scramble of every member thereof to save himself.

This occurred when Ruef was placed in the custody of Elisor Biggy.

Ruef fully appreciated this weak point in his position. He realized from the beginning of the Graft Prosecution the danger of members of the Board of Supervisors being trapped in independent bribery, and himself becoming involved through their confessions. Even before his flight from trial in the extortion case, he knew that his fears bade fair to be realized.

Some fortnight before Ruef's flight, Supervisor Lonergan had been to Ruef with confession of having taken $500 from Golden M. Roy. Roy was proprietor of a well-known cafe and was counted by men in Lonergan's position as one of the supporters of the administration. But the more astute Ruef at once suspected betrayal. Ruef bluntly informed Lonergan that he had been trapped, directed him to return the money Roy had given him and warned him of the risk he ran in accepting bribes.

Ruef's fears were well founded. Roy, in his dealings with Lonergan, was acting for Detective William J. Burns.

The trap which Burns had prepared for the eager Lonergan was plausibly baited.

Roy was a restaurant keeper with several side enterprises, among them interests in a skating-rink. An ordinance regulating skating-rinks was pending before the Supervisors. Roy, acting under direction of the District Attorney, approached Lonergan with a statement that he wished the ordinance defeated. Lonergan accordingly met Roy at the skating-rink office. In an adjoining room, placed so they could see and hear, were Detective William J. Burns and two others. From their places of concealment the three men heard the bargain, and saw Roy pay Lonergan $500 to defeat the skating-rink ordinance.

Roy, acting for the District Attorney, then attempted to trap Gallagher. He offered Gallagher $1000 for his work on the skating-rink ordinance. Gallagher refused to take any money and said that Roy was a friend of the administration and it should not cost him anything. Roy urged Gallagher to accept the money, alleging that it came from a pool; that Gallagher was entitled to it; that he, Roy, had given money to several Supervisors already. Gallagher asked him to tell which ones. Roy refused, saying, "You would not expect me to tell on you."

Gallagher immediately suspected Lonergan and told his suspicions to Wilson, and the two hunted up Lonergan and charged him with getting the money.

Gallagher hurried Lonergan to Ruef much the same as they would have rushed a man showing the symptoms of a deadly malady to a physician. Ruef warned him and advised him. The thoroughly frightened Supervisor assured Ruef that he would be careful in the future, and that he would return the money he had received from Roy.[156]

But even as Ruef was dealing with Lonergan, Supervisor Edward I. Walsh was walking into a trap set in duplication of that into which Lonergan had fallen.

Walsh, at the skating-rink, with the eyes of Burns and others upon him, accepted $500 from Roy--who was working as before under direction of the District Attorney--as the price of his vote on the skating-rink ordinance.

The third Supervisor to fall into the District Attorney's trap was Dr. Charles Boxton.

Dr. Boxton[157] was a different type from Lonergan and Walsh. He had had the advantage of superior education and training. A specially prepared trap was set for him at Roy's house. Boxton was introduced into the front room separated from the dining-room by folding doors. The dining-room had been darkened, and the folding doors left slightly ajar. Burns, with his assistants, was concealed in the dining-room, where they could see all that took place in the front room, as well as hear what was said. They saw Roy offer Boxton the money; heard him tell Boxton that the ordinance was to be defeated; saw Boxton take the money.

The trap was to be sprung once more, with Lonergan, for the second time,[158] the victim.

Lonergan, instead of returning the $500 he had accepted in the skating-rink transaction, as he had promised Ruef he would do, accepted an additional $500 from Roy. As before, Burns and his men witnessed the transaction.

Roy had told Lonergan of an ordinance authorizing the establishing of an oil refinery in which Roy claimed to be interested. He promised Lonergan $500 to support the measure. The ordinance had been cleverly prepared, with an acrostic in the title, spelling the word "Fake."[159] Roy had interested Boxton in the measure as well as Lonergan. Boxton had introduced it at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors. On March 7, while Ruef was a fugitive, Lonergan went to Roy's house to get the money to be paid him for the support of the "Fake" ordinance.

The same arrangements had been made for Lonergan as for Boxton. Burns and his men were concealed in the darkened dining-room; the folding doors were ajar. Lonergan took the money.

"What," he demanded of Roy, "have you in the next room?" and advanced toward the partially-open folding doors. At that Burns threw the doors open.

"You see," said Burns, "what he has in there."

"I want you to arrest this man," cried Lonergan, indicating Roy. "He bribed a Supervisor."

"Yes, I saw him do it," replied Burns. "But you did not tell me to arrest him when he bribed you down at the skating-rink."

Lonergan at first denied the skating-rink incident, but finally admitted it. Langdon and Heney were sent for, and joined the party at Roy's house. Lonergan was urged to tell what he knew of graft of the Schmitz-Ruef administration. He finally consented. It was not a long story. Supervisor James L. Gallagher had acted as go-between, Lonergan stated, from Ruef to the Supervisors. From Gallagher, Lonergan testified, he had received $475 to influence his vote in the ordinance granting permits to the organized prize fight promoters to hold fights once a month; $750 to influence his vote in fixing gas rates at 85 cents per thousand instead of 75 cents, as had been pledged in the Union Labor party platform on which he had been elected; $3500 in the matter of granting the Home Telephone Company's franchise; $4000 for his vote in granting the United Railroads its permit to establish the overhead trolley system. Lonergan stated further that Gallagher had promised him $750, and later $1000, to influence his vote in the matter of passing an ordinance for the sale of a franchise applied for by the Parkside Realty Company, with the "biggest thing yet" to come, when the deal was consummated, by which the city would accept the plans of the Bay Cities Water Company.

In addition to the sums received from Gallagher, Lonergan confessed to receiving $5000 from T. V. Halsey, representing the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company. Halsey had paid Lonergan the money, the Supervisor said, to oppose the granting of a franchise to the Home Telephone Company.

Walsh and Boxton were sent for. On their arrival at Roy's house they were closely questioned, and urged to confess, but neither would make a statement that night. Boxton insisted that he would admit nothing unless the other Supervisors made statements. But on the following day, March 8, Walsh made a statement under oath to the District Attorney and Heney, in which he confessed to receiving bribes from Gallagher, except in the Home Telephone bribery, in the same amount and under like conditions that Lonergan had stated bribes had been paid him.

Startling as these confessions were, they as a matter of fact involved none but Lonergan, Walsh, Gallagher and Halsey. At no point did they touch Ruef, or Schmitz, or those who had furnished the bribe money. Boxton with Walsh and Lonergan had been trapped in bribery. Two had confessed to receiving money from Gallagher, but even though the third, Boxton, added his confession to theirs, it would not have provided sufficient to convict. The confessions of the three were uncorroborated as to each bribe. The remaining fifteen Supervisors would to a certainty have sworn they voted for the several measures without inducement. With such testimony from the fifteen, no motive could have been shown for Gallagher to bribe Lonergan, Walsh and Boxton; the measures could, with the votes of the fifteen, have been passed without the votes of the three Supervisors trapped. To make out even a fairly good case against Ruef, it was absolutely essential to have Gallagher's testimony, and in addition thereto, the testimony of a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors.[160]

The prosecution had made progress in trapping the three Supervisors, and in getting confession out of two of them. But at best it was only an opening wedge. The least slip would have lost all the ground gained. The three trapped Supervisors might be sent to State Prison. Had they been, Schmitz with the fifteen Supervisors remaining would have filled their places by appointment. The situation would then be more difficult for the prosecution than ever.

While the agents of the District Attorney were dealing with the complicated problems which the first break in the line of the graft defense brought upon them, Ruef continued a fugitive. Gallagher, Ruef's immediate representative, realized the seriousness of the situation. He had no real loyalty for Ruef. His one thought was for Gallagher. He could for the moment see no hope for himself, except in the defeat of the prosecution. He accordingly exerted himself to block Burns, and to prevent the conditions of graft in the Board of Supervisors from becoming public.[161] Supervisor Wilson was assisting him. As encouragement, the anxious Ruef had sent Gallagher word by his sister to remain firm. But the leader was gone; Ruef's grip was loosened. From Gallagher down to the wretched Lonergan, the Supervisors were thinking of saving themselves alone.

Ruef's word, sent by his sister to Gallagher, was for Gallagher "to sit on the lid." Gallagher soon after observed to Wilson that "the lid was getting a little warm"; that he thought he would get in touch with the prosecution to see what could be done with the other side. Wilson assured Gallagher that he considered such a move would be a wise one.

Gallagher's first definite word that as many as three Supervisors had been trapped reached him through Dr. Boxton's attorney, H. M. Owens. Owens told Gallagher that Boxton had made full statement of the situation to him and that he was convinced, and so was Boxton, that if Boxton went to trial he would be convicted.

The effect of this information upon Gallagher can be appreciated when it is realized that Gallagher, acting as Ruef's go-between, had himself paid Boxton money. Owens stated further that the question of giving the Supervisors immunity, provided they made complete confession, had been broached, and the suggestion had been made that Gallagher meet some member of the prosecution to discuss this point. The names of Langdon and Burns were suggested, but Gallagher did not care to meet them. He finally agreed, however, to an appointment with Rudolph Spreckels.

Before the meeting between Gallagher and Spreckels took place, Langdon, Heney, Spreckels and Burns had a conference. It was suggested that Spreckels might indicate to Gallagher that the prosecution would like to have his confession and statement, and that the District Attorney would unquestionably be able to extend to him immunity[162] on the strength of his giving full and free, truthful testimony concerning crimes in which he was involved while acting as a Supervisor in connection with the public service corporations and others.

Three meetings were held between Spreckels and Gallagher before the matter was concluded. The meeting-place was in the grounds of the Presidio, the military reservation at San Francisco.

The first of the three meetings was preliminary only. Spreckels explained to Gallagher the aims and purposes of the prosecution.[163] Gallagher would make no admissions, and indicated that under no circumstances would he consider the District Attorney's immunity proposition unless all the Supervisors were included within its provisions.

After this preliminary meeting, Spreckels conferred with Langdon and Heney. It was agreed that Gallagher's testimony was essential. He was, indeed, the pivotal witness. The confessions of Lonergan, Boxton and Walsh showed that he had carried the bribe money from Ruef to the Supervisors. Furthermore, the testimony of a majority of the Supervisors would be necessary. Under the circumstances it was decided that immunity could very properly be extended to all the Supervisors.

This decision Spreckels took back to Gallagher. Gallagher called his leaderless associates together.

By this time it was generally known among the Supervisors that Lonergan, Walsh and Boxton had been trapped, that at least two of them had made statements to the prosecution. Furthermore, there were rumors that other members had been to the prosecution and made confessions.

Gallagher explained the seriousness of the situation.[164] He explained to them the immunity proposition which the prosecution had made, and stated that the matter rested in their hands. He said that he was willing to sacrifice himself, if necessary, but that the whole matter was with them to decide.

Wilson and Boxton urged that the terms offered by the prosecution be accepted.[165]

The Supervisors present were at first divided. Some of them announced that they would take the attitude of denying all graft.

"Very well," replied Gallagher, "any one who wants to take that attitude will be excused from further discussion."

But none of the troubled officials left the room.

Boxton stated that he would involve Gallagher in a statement, and that Gallagher would have to testify to all the money transactions he had had with the board. The Supervisors knew, even then, that Gallagher had already been involved by the confessions of Walsh and Lonergan. Under the urging of Gallagher, Wilson and Boxton, they finally decided to make confession.

Ruef was not present at that last secret caucus of the Schmitz-Ruef Board of Supervisors.

Gallagher took back word to Spreckels that he had communicated to the Supervisors the message which Spreckels had delivered to him from the District Attorney, to the effect that immunity would be granted to the Supervisors, provided they would make sworn declaration of the crimes in which they were involved, giving a truthful account of all matters. The Supervisors, Gallagher told Spreckels, had decided to accept the proposition, and would meet the District Attorney for the purpose of making their statements.

Gallagher rather tardily asked immunity for Ruef, but Spreckels stated that he had not discussed this feature with the District Attorney, and that Gallagher would himself have to take the matter up with the authorities directly.

In considering this immunity arrangement with the bribed Supervisors, the fact should not be overlooked that during the five months which had passed since the opening of the graft prosecution, Spreckels and Heney had been meeting officials of the public service corporations involved practically every day at luncheon. But the corporation officials would give no assistance in exposing the corruption which was undermining the community.[166]

FOOTNOTES:

[154] At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, Supervisor
Andrew M. Wilson testified to a conversation which he had had
with Ruef at Ruef's office early in September, 1906. He was
asked to state what he had said to Ruef on that occasion.
Wilson replied:

"A. I told him Mr. Choynski was across the street; I pulled
the blind aside at his office, and showed him Mr. Choynski
talking to Jesse Marks; that he had stated to Marks the exact
amount on the trolley proposition.

"Mr. Sullivan: Q. Who had stated to Marks the exact amount on
the trolley proposition? A. Mr. Choynski, and that I had
advised him a few weeks before that not to continue that fight
for the attorneyship of the Liquor Dealers.

"Q. Advised who? A. Mr. Ruef; and that Mr. Choynski was
telling him what he had said to McGushin at one of the
meetings regarding the $4,000 on the trolley.

"Q. That who had said what he had told Mr. McGushin? A. Yes,
sir.

"Q. That who had said it? A. That Mr. Choynski had said that
McGushin looked paralyzed when he mentioned the exact amount,
but denied it; and I says to Mr. Ruef, 'He has the correct
amount on the trolley,' and he stated that there must be a
leak somewhere in the Board; and I told him I thought----

"Q. (Interrupting). Who stated that there must be a leak
somewhere in the Board? A. Mr. Ruef; and I stated that I
thought it came through Morris Levy, and that possibly he got
his information through Supervisor Kelly, as they were very
friendly.

"Mr. Ach: Q. Who said that, you or Ruef?

"Mr. Sullivan: Q. Who said that? A. I stated that to Mr. Ruef,
that I thought the source of the leak was through Supervisor
Kelly telling Morris Levy, and Morris Levy telling
Choynski."--See Transcript, page 2643.

[155] Supervisor James L. Gallagher testified at the trial of The
People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, of a note which had been delivered
to him by Mr. Abbott, attorney for the United Railroads, from
Tirey L. Ford, head of the United Railroads law department, to
be delivered to Ruef. The substance of the note, Gallagher
testified, was that "The Grand Jury is taking up the
investigation of the charges concerning the United Railroads
permit; not much headway has been made; it is intended to
endeavor to trap some of the Supervisors."

Gallagher, unable to find Ruef, went back to Ford, according
to Gallagher's testimony, and asked if the note were so
important that Ruef should be hunted up. Ford had directed him
to open the envelope and read the note. Gallagher did this,
made a shorthand memorandum of it, and read the message to
Ruef later. See transcript, The People vs. Ruef, Part 3, Vol.
2, pp. 976 to 983.

[156] An interesting incident of this transaction grew out of word
being carried to Roy, that Ruef had told Lonergan that Roy was
a stool pigeon for Burns. Roy went to Ruef's office with a
show of great indignation, demanding to know what Ruef meant
by such a charge. Ruef apologized and denied.

[157] Boxton is thus described by Ruef, in his account of the graft
cases: "Dr. Boxton was a dentist; he held the position of dean
and professor of dentistry in an established medical and
dental college. He was a popular man about town; had been one
of the grand officers of the Native Sons' organization; an
officer of the First California Regiment in the Philippines,
and had been several times elected Supervisor by large and
popular votes."

[158] The reason for springing the trap on Lonergan the second time
was that the plan of Burns's had miscarried on the first trap.
Burns had put a man in partnership with Lonergan, who was to
induce Lonergan to cash a draft for $200, shortly after
Lonergan had received the $500 in marked currency.

When Lonergan was asked to cash the draft, he said all right,
but that he would have to go home and get the money. He went
home and brought back gold. About this time the Chronicle
published a story to the effect that several Supervisors had
been trapped.

[159] The acrostic was made by skipping two lines to the third, the
first word of which began with "F," then skipping two lines to
the sixth, skipping two lines to the ninth, and finally
skipping two lines to the twelfth; the first letter of the
first word of each of these lines spelt the word "Fake."

[160] With the testimony of all the Supervisors, including
Gallagher, the prosecution subsequently found great difficulty
in convicting Ruef. In the Parkside case, all the Supervisors
testified in regard to two promises made to them, and all the
officials of the Parkside Company testified to negotiations
with Ruef and to the payment of money to him. In addition
thereto, William J. Dingee, who was an entirely disinterested
party, testified to a conversation with Ruef, which was highly
incriminating in its character, and which amounted to an
admission on the part of Ruef that he was receiving money in
the Parkside matter.

With all this evidence before it, the jury stood six for
acquittal and six for conviction.

[161] Wilson testified at the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No.
1437, of the anxiety of the Supervisors during this period.
Although Wilson had resigned from the board to accept the
office of State Railroad Commissioner to which he had been
elected, he went to a conference of the Supervisors to decide
what should be done. The following is from Wilson's testimony:

"Q. You were not then a Supervisor, were you? A. No, sir.

"Q. Who told you to go there? A. I was helping Mr. Gallagher.

"Q. Helping Gallagher do what? Don't you know? A. Sit on the
lid, that is what we called it.

"Q. Helping Gallagher sit on the lid? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. What does 'sitting on the lid' mean? That is a bit of the
vernacular that I am not acquainted with.

"Mr. Dwyer: That is vernacular authorized by the
President-elect of the United States, I suppose it is good
English?

"Mr. Ach: Well, he is a big man; I suppose he might sit on
something that might be a lid. The Court: Finish your answer.

"Mr. Ach: Q. What do you mean? A. Trying to keep the facts of
the condition of the Board of Supervisors from becoming
public.

"Q. What do you mean by that? A. The condition of the Board,
the graft matters."

[162] At the trial of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, No. 1436,
Spreckels testified to his own attitude on the question of
immunity. He said: "I would be willing to grant immunity to
any man who would bring to bar a man of great wealth who would
debauch a city government, and who would use his wealth to
corrupt individuals and tempt men of no means to commit a
crime in order that he might make more money."--See transcript
of testimony, page 3326.

[163] At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, Gallagher
testified that Spreckels told him in substance as follows:

"Mr. Spreckels then stated that he was not actuated by
vindictiveness in the matter, that he did not wish to make any
more trouble or cause any more distress than was necessary in
carrying out what he had undertaken, and that his purpose was
to endeavor to stop the unlawful transactions,--dealings of
corporations and large interests in this city with public
officials; that his reason, that his view of the matter was
that in order to accomplish that, that it would be necessary,
or that he did not desire unnecessarily to injure anyone, and
that the members of the Board of Supervisors and those who
were engaged with them in the matter, outside of those who
represented the corporations and big interests, were not as
important from his standpoint as those who had, as those in
control of those interests, because the members of the--the
public officials and political bosses would come and go, but
that the corporations and big interests remained; that they
were, as he thought, the source of the trouble, and therefore,
he did not consider it important, or so important, to punish
the officials as to reach those that were in his judgment
primarily responsible for the conditions, that he felt that
the District Attorney would grant immunity to the members of
the Board of Supervisors if they would tell the whole truth of
their transactions with the corporations and other persons,
large interests, that had had any dealings with them of an
unlawful character. I think I then said to him I would
consider the matter and would talk with the members of the
Board of Supervisors about it."

[164] Gallagher at the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, made
the following statement of what he said to the Supervisors:

"My best recollection of the statement is that I said to them
that some of the members of the Board of Supervisors had been
trapped in accepting money on some matters before the Board,
and that they had made statements to the prosecution, as I
understood, or were about to do so, and that I had seen Mr.
Spreckels and talked with him concerning the other members of
the Board of Supervisors, and that Mr. Spreckels had stated to
me that the purpose was not to prosecute the members of the
Board of Supervisors provided they would make statements, full
and true statements, of their relations in the transactions
with the quasi-public corporations and large interests in the
city that they may have had unlawful dealings with; that Mr.
Spreckels had stated that the public officials were coming and
going, and that the political bosses were coming and going;
his object was to reach the source of the condition that he
was trying to eradicate; that the corporations and these other
interests remained all the time, and that he felt that they
were the ones that should be the object of his efforts at
eradicating that condition in the city. Mr. Spreckels stated
that he was not actuated by vindictiveness in the matter; in
other words, Mr. Ach, as nearly as I could, I repeated the
statements of Mr. Spreckels to me."

See Transcript on Appeal, page 1471.

[165] "I told them," said Wilson in his testimony in the case of The
People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, "that I had always taken orders
from Mr. Ruef, that I looked upon him as the political captain
of the ship, that I had followed out his orders; that I did
not feel that I should sacrifice myself, or ask Mr. Gallagher
to sacrifice himself through the condition that had been
brought about; that I thought it would be unreasonable for any
Supervisor to ask Mr. Gallagher to sacrifice himself, that
some of the others might walk the streets and feel that they
were honest men; that I did not feel he should be sacrificed
alone in the matter."

[166] The public service corporation officials were encouraged by
Spreckels and Heney to give information which would lead to
the indictment and conviction of Ruef and Schmitz, and thus
clean up the city. Instead of giving such information, they
pretended that the rumors in regard to bribery were all
baseless.

At the Pacific Union Club, where they generally lunched,
Spreckels and Heney were the recipients of many kind words of
encouragement and of congratulation, up to the time that Ruef
plead guilty in the French-restaurant case. Immediately
thereafter the atmosphere commenced to change. The indictment
of some of the prominent members of the club was not pleasing.
During the first trial of Glass, he and his attorneys
constantly lunched at the Pacific Union Club, and many men,
prominent in finance, would stop and chat ostentatiously with
Glass and his lawyers, and would then ignore Spreckels and
Heney, who would be sitting at a near-by table.

An attempt to keep Rudolph Spreckels out of membership in the
Bohemian Club was almost successful about this time, while
Drum was elected a director of the Pacific Union Club while
still under indictment, and Thomas Williams, of the New
California Jockey Club, one of the bondsmen for Schmitz, was
elected President.