Chapter XVII: Schmitz Ousted From Office

The confession of the Supervisors to bribery had no sooner become known than angling for control of the municipal government under its prospective reorganization began.[235]

The public-service corporation that had during the 1905 municipal campaign contributed to the campaign funds of both the Union Labor party and the opposing "Reform" fusion organization, had no care as to who reorganized, or in what name the reorganization was accomplished, so long as they continued in control. These corporations had larger interest in public affairs than ever; there was prospect of their officials being indicted for felonies. But so long as Schmitz continued to be Mayor, neither those who aimed to reorganize for the best interests of San Francisco, nor those who were plotting to continue the old order with new men, in the interests of the corporations, could act. The old order controlled Schmitz; the opposition, having whipped confessions out of the Supervisors, controlled the board. Neither element could undertake reorganization until in control of both Mayor's office and Supervisors.

This deadlock was brought about by charter provisions empowering the Board of Supervisors to fill vacancies occurring in the mayoralty office, and providing that the Mayor shall fill vacancies on the Board of Supervisors.

Had Mayor Schmitz resigned, the Supervisors, controlled by District Attorney Langdon, would have elected his successor. This would have given the Prosecution the Mayor as well as the Supervisors. On the other hand, had the Supervisors resigned, then Mayor Schmitz would have appointed as their successors men in accord with him and with his policies. Schmitz could then have resigned and the Supervisors of his appointment would have named his successor. This would have permitted the corrupt element to continue the old order in defiance of the Prosecution. Thus, so long as Schmitz held the office of Mayor, the Prosecution, laboring for good government, could not permit the bribe-taking Supervisors to resign. On the other hand, those who had furnished the bribe money did not dare permit Schmitz to give up his office.

In this astonishing situation, that bribe-givers might not gain the upper hand, it was necessary that the sixteen confessed bribe-taking Supervisors should continue in the offices which they had betrayed, so long as Schmitz's power to appoint their successors continued.[236]

There were, too, further complications. The Prosecution could and did secure the discharge from municipal positions of Ruef's satellites who held their places under the Board of Supervisors. Thus, soon after the Supervisors had confessed, Charles Keane,[237] Clerk of the Board, was forced from his position. On the other hand, the old-time Schmitz-Ruef followers who owed their appointments to the Mayor, continued secure in their jobs. Thus, former Supervisor Duffey, appointed by Schmitz to head the Board of Public Works, continued in that position, although involved by Gallagher in Gallagher's confession of the bribery transactions.

The Chief of Police held office under the appointment of the Board of Police Commissioners. But Schmitz controlled the commissioners. The chief had been indicted with Schmitz and Ruef. The city was clamoring for his removal. But in spite of protests, Schmitz's influence kept the indicted chief in his place at the head of the police department.[238]

The situation could not but cause confusion. To the average man on the street, the Supervisors had confessed to bribery. Why, then, were they permitted to remain an hour in office? Why were they not indicted, placed on their defense and sent to the penitentiary?

The graft defense naturally took advantage of this sentiment. "Government by the big stick," as the hold of the District Attorney's office over the Supervisors was called, was condemned and ridiculed. One heard, however, little reference to the hold of the beneficiaries of the Ruef administration upon the Mayor's office. From all sides the Prosecution was importuned to oust the "boodle Supervisors." But the fact that a "boodle Mayor" would then appoint their successors was not given such wide publicity.

In addition to the complications in the municipal government, due to the Schmitz faction's dogged resistance to the Prosecution, combined with the unqualified yielding of the Supervisors and the partial confession of Ruef, San Francisco was in a condition of confusion and discord.

At the time Ruef entered his plea of guilty to extortion, a year had passed since the great fire of 1906. Thousands were still living in shacks erected in the ruins of the old city. The principal business streets were littered with building materials. There had come the depression following the activity of rehabilitation and the pouring into San Francisco of millions of insurance money. Titles to real property were confused if not in doubt, much of the records having been destroyed in the fire. Thousands found themselves forced into court to establish their titles. A little later, the community was to suffer a visitation of bubonic plague. There were many authentic plague cases and some deaths. For months the city was in dread of quarantine.

There were labor disturbances which for weeks at a time paralyzed industry. At one period between 7,000 and 10,000 iron-trades workers were out on strike. At the time Schmitz was finally convicted of extortion the telephone girls had been on strike since May 3rd. This alone threw the complex organization of a modern city into extraordinary confusion. The linemen struck. On June 21, telegraph operators in San Francisco and Oakland left their keys.

But by far the most serious labor disturbance was the strike of the street-car conductors and motormen. For weeks the entire street-car system was paralyzed. The first attempt to move a car resulted in riot in which one man was killed outright and twenty-six wounded. A number of the wounded died.

President Calhoun of the United Railroads rejected all offers to compromise, announcing his intention to break the Street Carmen's Union. He succeeded; in the end the union was broken and scattered, but at frightful cost to Mr. Calhoun's company and to San Francisco.

During the strike of the carmen the city was filled with gunfighters and thugs admittedly in the employ of the United Railroads. Indeed, there was no attempt made to disguise the fact that the United Railroads had brought them into the city. Clashes between the two factions were of daily occurrence.

Aside from horse-drawn vehicles which had been pressed into service, street transportation was, for a considerable period, practically at an end. The inability of the people to go from place to place paralyzed industry and business. Merchants, hotel keepers, manufacturers, all suffered. There were many failures. Citizens in all walks of life implored Mr. Calhoun to arbitrate his difference with his men. He refused absolutely.[239] Henry T. Scott, president of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company, as doggedly refused to submit to arbitration the questions involved in the telephone girls' strike.

The police seemed utterly unable to deal with the situation, Governor Gillett threatened to call out the militia, and companies at Los Angeles were actually directed to be in readiness to enter San Francisco. But this move was finally abandoned. And through it all, President Calhoun refusing to arbitrate or to compromise, issued numerous proclamations[240] in which he intimated that the Graft Prosecution had brought on the trouble which confronted San Francisco. The Prosecution's object, Mr. Calhoun held, was to injure him and his railroad company. In this connection, it may be said, that during the searching investigation of the graft trials, not one word of testimony was produced to indicate basis for Mr. Calhoun's insinuations and open charges that the carmen's strike was part of a plot to injure him and his company.[241] On the contrary, the strike might have been averted had the United Railroads adopted a more tactful policy in dealing with its men. And, in addition to this, a more conciliatory attitude on the part of President Calhoun would, during the progress of the strike, have brought it to a close at any time. The fact remains, too, that during the 1907 municipal campaign, which opened even while the United Railroads was crushing the carmen's union, the support of the United Railroads went to the Union Labor party candidate for District Attorney. Heading the Union Labor party ticket was P. H. McCarthy, one of the strongest opponents of the Graft Prosecution, and at the same time ardent backer of the striking carmen.

The efforts of the United Railroads to crush the carmen's union, while at the same time exerting itself to elect the Union Labor party candidate for District Attorney, indicates the confusion that existed in San Francisco following the confessions of the Supervisors and the revelations made by Ruef. And the efforts of the various factions to seize the municipal government increased this confusion materially.

The day following Ruef's confession, a committee of businessmen, representing the Merchants' Association, the Board of Trade, the Chamber of Commerce, the Manufacturers' and Producers' Association and the Merchants' Exchange waited upon Spreckels and Heney to enlist the co-operation of the Prosecution in restoring normal conditions. The committee--called the Committee of Seven because of its numbers--[242] already had the endorsement of Mayor Schmitz. The Chronicle, which acted from the start in the capacity of special pleader for this committee, announced in startling headlines in its issue of May 18, that "Mayor Schmitz practically turns reins of government over to citizens. Committee of Seven may run this city."[243]

"With the exception of the administration of merely routine affairs," said the Chronicle of that date, "the committee, by Mayor Schmitz's written agreement, is to all intents and purposes, the Mayor of San Francisco."

Governor James N. Gillett[244] was reported to be heartily in accord with the committee's purposes. Finally, in an editorial article, the Chronicle announced that "the public looks to this committee to restore the good name of the city, and to the prosecuting authorities to stand solidly behind them while they do it."

But in spite of the Chronicle's insistence, the public gave no evidence of spontaneous outburst in favor of the committee. Instead, there was a general turning to the leaders of the Prosecution to note their attitude. The Prosecution gave no evidence of enthusiastic support; quite the contrary. "The District Attorney," announced Langdon, "will not act with any committee that is named by Mayor Schmitz to take charge of the government of San Francisco."

After several conferences with the committee, Rudolph Spreckels refused to join with it on the ground that it had placed itself in a position "to directly or indirectly accomplish results very much desired by Calhoun, Herrin and the coterie who are inimical to the Prosecution." Mr. Spreckels also expressed his belief that a majority of the committee were sincere men who went on the committee with proper motives, but, Spreckels suggested, "if this committee really has its origin in an honest motive, I do not see why it cannot act on its own volition. I do not see the necessity of this committee demanding that I co-operate with it. If its members want to have a change in the municipal offices and the members of the various municipal commissions, let them go ahead and outline their own programme. I have no desire to dictate who shall constitute the membership of the various city offices. I started out in this graft prosecution to bring all guilty municipal officials to the bar of justice and have them punished. That is my single motive. I have no ulterior designs in this matter regardless of whatever anyone may say to the contrary."[245]

In spite of the Chronicle's statement that the public looked to the Prosecution to stand solidly behind the committee, and the protestations of Governor Gillett, the public was content to accept the judgment of Mr. Langdon, Mr. Spreckels and Mr. Heney as final. Without popular demand for it, there was nothing for the committee to do but resign. And it did resign.[246]

The resignation of the Committee of Seven brought from Governor Gillett a statement urging the appointment of "a strong governing body to take charge of affairs."[247] Acting upon the Governor's suggested plan, the five commercial bodies decided upon the appointment of a committee of seventy-five, or, as the Chronicle, mouthpiece for the advocates of this course, put it, "Seventy-five prominent citizens are to be appointed to restore order." The Chronicle went on to say that "It is understood that Mayor Schmitz is ready to agree to act in accordance with the recommendations of the new committee as he did when the Committee of Seven was formed. He would be glad, it is believed, to have the assistance of such a body of men in meeting some of the conditions which he has to face."[248]

At the time (May 29) of the publication of the Chronicle's belief that Mayor Schmitz would be glad to have the assistance of such a body of men as had been proposed, the Mayor's trial was drawing to its close. A fortnight later he was convicted of one of the gravest felonies that can be charged against an executive. Mayor Schmitz's conviction brought complete change in the situation. It made possible the ousting of the entire corrupt administration. In the ousting, the commercial bodies, as well as the representative labor union organizations, were given opportunity to co-operate. The refusal of the majority of them to participate threw the obligation upon the District Attorney's office.

When the Jury returned its verdict finding Mayor Schmitz guilty of felony, District Attorney Langdon found himself in an extraordinary position. Upon him, as District Attorney, fell the responsibility of naming the chief executive of San Francisco to succeed the discredited Mayor.

There was no question about a vacancy existing in the Mayor's office. Under the California laws, a vacancy in office exists upon conviction of the incumbent of felony. The courts had held repeatedly that a jury's verdict of guilty in a felony case carries conviction.

A vacancy, therefore, existed in the Mayor's office. Under the municipal charter the Supervisors alone were empowered to fill it. But sixteen of the Supervisors, having confessed to felonies, were taking no steps without the approval of the District Attorney. They would name for Mayor, him whom the District Attorney approved and no other. Naturally, Langdon consulted those associated with him in the Graft Prosecution. No better earnest of the sincerity and disinterestedness of Langdon and those who were assisting him is furnished than in this crisis. They had it within their power to select first Mayor and then Supervisors who would be utterly subservient to them. Instead, they proposed a plan by which representative associations were given opportunity to reorganize the municipal government by naming Mayor Schmitz's successor.

Nor was there any hasty action. The office of Mayor was not declared vacant until after Schmitz had been sentenced to the penitentiary. But Schmitz was in the county jail and incompetent to act. It was of immediate necessity that a temporary successor be substituted. Until this were done, San Francisco would be without a chief executive. To meet the emergency, the Supervisors named Supervisor Gallagher to be acting Mayor.[249]

After the sentencing of Schmitz the rapidly developing situation made it necessary that the convicted official's office be declared vacant and his successor appointed. But the successor had not been named, nor had plans for the change in administration been formulated.[250] In this further emergency, it was decided to name one of the Supervisors to be Mayor to serve until a permanent successor of Mayor Schmitz could be named. The unhappy Boxton[251] was decided upon. The Supervisors, by resolution, definitely declared the office of Mayor vacant and elected Supervisor Boxton to be Mayor.

On the day that Boxton was named Mayor of San Francisco, District Attorney Langdon made public a plan for a convention to select a Mayor to serve until the successor of Mayor Schmitz could be elected and qualified. Mr. Langdon proposed that the convention should be made up of thirty members, fifteen to be appointed by organized labor and fifteen by the organized commercial bodies. On the side of Labor were apportioned eight delegates to the Labor Council and seven to the Building Trades Council. The five commercial bodies, the Chamber of Commerce, Merchants' Association, Board of Trade, Real Estate Board and Merchants' Exchange, were allowed three delegates each. That the convention might proceed in its choice unhampered, the District Attorney pledged that he and his associates would wholly refrain from participation after the convention had assembled.[252]

But this did not suit the several factions at all. Admittedly, the Prosecution could name the Mayor. Each faction wanted its man named, and while there remained a chance for its man to be named, did not care to see the extraordinary power in the hands of the District Attorney delegated to the uncertainties of a convention.

In the scramble for advantage, the self-control and self-forgetting attitude of the members of the Prosecution, instead of exciting admiration, was condemned. The Examiner, referring to Langdon's associates, for example, announced: "Their failure to agree on anyone has led to some alarm for fear their divergent political ambitions are making each of them endeavor to secure a place for his personal puppet." Had the Prosecution named the Examiner's "personal puppet," this particular source of criticism would undoubtedly have been silenced and the Examiner's vilification and abuse of the Prosecution during the years that followed averted. What is true of the Examiner in this regard is true of the other institutions and interests which, in this crisis of the city's history, were clamoring for "recognition."[253] District Attorney Langdon's plan, on the whole, was not received in the spirit in which it was offered.

The Building Trades Council, under the influence of P. H. McCarthy and O. A. Tveitmoe, promptly rejected the District Attorney's proposal and refused to name delegates.[254] This action influenced the Labor Council, which, on the ground that in the absence of delegates from the Building Trades Council the Labor Council representatives might be outvoted, refused to participate.

Of the five commercial bodies, the Real Estate Board alone promptly accepted the District Attorney's invitation. The board named its three delegates and so notified the District Attorney.

The Merchants' Exchange demanded that the number of delegates be increased from thirty to forty-five by the addition of fifteen professional men, and proposed that the convention name a new Board of Supervisors as well as Mayor.[255]

The Board of Trade refused to co-operate unless the delegates be increased in number by the addition of "professional men and others."

The Chamber of Commerce and the Merchants' Association finally accepted, but stipulated that a two-thirds vote of the thirty delegates should be required for a choice.

The failure of the several organizations to join in the selection of a Mayor, made it necessary for Langdon himself to proceed with the reorganization. All that Langdon and his associates required was that the new executive should be independent of political control and free of the influence of those public-service corporations that had been trapped in bribe-giving. It was also the aim of the Prosecutor to name as Mayor one whose standing was such that none could be so unfair as to charge him with being in the slightest degree under the influence of the Prosecution.

Langdon and his associates agreed that Dr. John Gallwey was independent of corrupting influences and to Dr. Gallwey the appointment was offered. But Dr. Gallwey declined to accept the responsibilities of the Mayor's office on the ground that he could not afford to devote his time to the duties of the office to the extent that would be required in order to conduct it properly, and on the further ground that he could be of more service to humanity in the practice of medicine than in the discharge of the duties of Mayor.

The place was then offered to Ralph Harrison, a former member of the Supreme Bench. But Judge Harrison declined on the ground that he thought the duties of the office, under the conditions existing[256] would be too onerous for him to undertake at his time of life.

Dr. Edward R. Taylor,[257] dean of the Hastings College of Law, was then consulted. Dr. Taylor agreed to accept the position. In tendering Dr. Taylor the mayoralty, the Prosecution left him entirely free to conduct the office according to his own judgment. He was assured that no one connected with the Prosecution would expect or ask him to be guided or controlled or influenced in any way by all or any of them.

Boxton, after Taylor had agreed to serve, resigned his office. The Supervisors then elected Dr. Taylor to fill the vacancy.[258]

The next step in the reorganization of the municipal government was the resignation of the sixteen Supervisors who had confessed to bribery and the appointment of their successors. When Mayor Taylor[259] had found sixteen representative citizens willing to serve, the change was made. One by one the discredited officials resigned their positions. After each resignation had been accepted Mayor Taylor named the resigning member's successor.[260]

The scene was as painful as it was extraordinary. When it was over, the Schmitz-Ruef administration, so far as the legislative and executive branches were concerned, had passed.

FOOTNOTES:

[235] As early as March 20, 1907, two days after the Supervisors
gave their confession to the Grand Jury, The Chronicle touched
upon the growing resistance to the prosecution. It said:

"In the leading political clubs there is talk of Governor
Gillett removing Mayor Schmitz and appointing a successor.
This is in the line of gossip, however, for there is a legal
question involved, the framers of the municipal Charter having
provided no means for the removal of the head of the municipal
government should he be found criminally derelict. There is
also some talk of Schmitz resigning if Heney will vaccinate
him and render him immune from punishment for his offenses, as
he is said to have done with the Supervisors. Another angle of
the gossip in this regard is that the Mayor will appoint a
Board of Supervisors picked by prominent merchants and
professional men who have organized for the purpose of
redeeming San Francisco from the toils of the grafters."

[236] The Chronicle, in its issue of April 3, in discussing this
phase of the situation, said:

"The spectacle of the entire legislative body of a city
confessing to the acceptance of great bribes is astonishing.
Their continuance in office and consultation with the good
citizens as to the best methods of restoring good government
is unique. In many parts of the country there is outspoken
disapproval of the course which is being taken, and loud
declarations that if there were any good citizenship in San
Francisco the confessed rogues would be driven out of office
and hustled into the penitentiary. It is declared that in
granting 'immunity' to these Supervisors the city is again
disgraced. Of course, all this is absurd. In the first place,
there is no evidence and little probability that immunity has
been promised to anybody. Secondly, if the present Supervisors
should resign Schmitz would promptly fill their places with
men whom he can more implicitly trust but who would not be
subject to indictment or in any way amenable to decent
influence. As for Schmitz, he will remain Mayor until he is
convicted of crime. The public does not know how that
conviction is to be got. It is supposed that some Supervisor
can give part of the necessary evidence, but no Supervisor can
be compelled to give any evidence at all, and they probably
would give none, if driven out. They are not obliged to
criminate themselves. As for Schmitz, he is still defiant. He
apparently does not believe that under the legal rules of
evidence he can be convicted of what he evidently did. The
journals which contrast our slow movement with the swift
punishment which befell briber and bribed when the Broadway
street railroad franchise was purchased doubtless do not
understand that the laws and court procedure in California are
designed not to convict criminals, but to aid their escape
from justice, and that when Jake Sharp bought the New York
Aldermen he did not also buy the authority which filled
vacancies in the Board. As the situation in this city is
unique, so, also, must be our methods of dealing with it. It
may be that every Supervisor ought to be promptly indicted but
it is certain that that is the one thing most ardently desired
by the innumerable company of grafters outside the board. And
it may not be but to help them."

[237] Keane had two champions on the board, however. Supervisors J.
J. O'Neil and O. A. Tveitmoe. They resisted Keane's discharge,
denouncing it as unwarranted and cowardly. Mayor Schmitz
vetoed the resolution removing Keane. The Supervisors,
however, adopted the resolution over the Mayor's veto.

[238] The San Francisco Call, in its issue of June 10, 1907, said of
Schmitz's continued hold on the Police Department:

"The Call has never attached much importance to the well meant
efforts of the various citizens' committees to persuade Mayor
Schmitz to reorganize the police force and the governing
commission of that body. It is easy to understand that Schmitz
might engage in some such transaction or bargain if he could
be shown his own advantage therein, but that he would
surrender control of his most valuable personal asset at this
time or, indeed at any other time, was scarcely conceivable in
view of the character of the man. This is said advisedly. It
is notorious that Schmitz all through his long session in
office has treated his control of the police not as a public
trust for the common good, but as so much personal property to
be used to the limit for his private advantage. Therefore,
when Schmitz, in the first instance, gave a committee some
sort of pledge that he would comply with its desire or
requests, there was a very natural suspicion that the terms of
the bargain as a whole had not been disclosed. There was the
insistent inquiry, 'What does Schmitz get by the bargain?'

"That question has never been answered from the inside and
probably will not be answered, but the committee very shortly
quit in disgust, realizing, doubtless, that Schmitz wanted
something it could not grant as a consideration for his
abandonment of power.

"A second committee that took up the work now finds that
Schmitz is deaf to its requests for a reorganization of the
police force. The lack of discipline in that body has become a
public scandal. At its head is seen a man under indictment for
felony, the associate of criminals and accused of tampering
with veniremen called to try Schmitz--an accusation whose truth
he admits. Governor Gillett has expressed the common knowledge
that the Chief of Police is incompetent. He might have used a
harsher word. But Dinan suits Schmitz. He is the ready and
unscrupulous tool. An honest man in the same place would be of
no use to Schmitz!"

[239] When, through the good offices of a committee of citizens, the
difficulties of the iron trades were finally adjusted, The
Call took occasion to urge an ending of the stiff-necked
policy which kept other employers and employees apart.

"In the car strike," said The Call in its issue of June 1st,
"in the telephone strike, in the laundry strike, there is
nothing that cannot be disposed of by the same method and
through the same agency as those that ended the iron trades
controversy. There is no reason why all those disputes cannot
be settled reasonably. The conciliation committee stands for
public opinion. It voices the demand of the public for peace.
No employer can afford to refuse its offices, nor can any
representative of the employed afford to decline its offers of
mediation. And if this committee, standing as it does for
public opinion, could speak with conviction to the iron
masters and their striking workmen, it should be able to deal
even more effectively with the car strike and with the
telephone strike. Those disputes concern public utilities.
Street-cars are run and telephones are operated under and by
virtue of grants and privileges made by the people, wherefore
the people have the right to intervene when the grantees of
those privileges are at war with their employes. The people
have the right, at least, to mediate for peace. Mr. Cornelius
and Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Scott and the leader of the telephone
strikers may refuse to listen to the pacific overtures of the
conciliation committee, but if they do they must understand
that the price of refusal is the loss of public sympathy and
support--elements without which ultimate victory is
impossible.

"San Francisco has had about enough industrial warfare. The
city wants peace, lasting peace. No sane man wants a fight to a
finish between labor and capital, or if he does he is San
Francisco's enemy. The adjustment of the iron-workers' strike
is a hopeful sign. It points the way to an end of all
bitterness and contention. It augurs an early return to the
harmonious relations of those who earn and those who pay wages,
relations which are essential to the progress and prosperity of
any community. It is the best news of this stormy, stressful
month."

[240] The following, issued on May 17, is a fair sample of the
statements which Mr. Calhoun gave out during the period of
confusion in San Francisco, in the spring and summer of 1907:

"To the American People--The newspapers of this city published
yesterday afternoon and this morning contain sensational
statements purporting to give the testimony of Mr. Abraham
Ruef before the Grand Jury yesterday afternoon. It is alleged
that he confessed that the United Railroads, through some of
its officials, bribed the Supervisors to grant the permit for
the overhead trolley over certain of its roads. I do not know
if Mr. Ruef made any such statements. If he did, they are
untrue. I repeat with renewed emphasis my former declaration
that no official of this company ever bribed any one,
authorized Mr. Ruef or any one else to bribe anybody, knew of
any bribery, or approved of any bribery.

"I charge the Prosecution with having prostituted the great
office of the District Attorney to further the plans of private
malice in the interest of a man who organized the Municipal
Street Railways of San Francisco on the 17th day of April,
1906, the day before the earthquake and fire with a capital
stock of $14,000,000, of which $4,500,000 were subscribed for
as follows: Claus Spreckels subscribed $1,900,000, James D.
Phelan subscribed $1,000,000, George Whittell subscribed
$500,000, Rudolph Spreckels subscribed $1,000,000, Charles S.
Wheeler subscribed $100,000. Ten per cent of the amount
subscribed, or $450,000, was paid in cash, as shown by the
affidavit of the treasurer of the company, James K. Moffitt,
duly filed in the County Clerk's office.

"I charge that, in furtherance of the plans of the private
prosecutor to assure evidence that would involve the United
Railroads, the District Attorney has been willing to purchase
testimony with immunity contracts, purporting to grant immunity
to self-confessed criminals, which contracts I am informed were
placed in escrow with the private prosecutor, and through which
he controls a majority of the Board of Supervisors who, as a
member of the prosecution has declared, are 'dogs' to do his
bidding.

"I charge that the District Attorney was in consultation with
the members of the self-confessed criminals on the Board of
Supervisors in regard to the passage of the resolution holding
up the Geary street railroad company, providing for the
forfeiture of its license, unless it yielded to the demands of
its striking employes.

"I charge that while the best element in this community was
seeking to preserve law and order the District Attorney was in
secret conference with self-confessed criminals, giving aid and
comfort to the strikers. Shall his great office be prostituted
to the support of lawlessness?

"The officials of this company are ready to meet their enemies
in the open, and before they are through, they expect to show
to the whole country the infamy of the methods of the
prosecution, the baseness of the motives of the private
prosecutor, his readiness to grant immunity to self-confessed
criminals, and the willingness of the prosecution to aid the
strikers, even if it involved this community in disorder and
bloodshed, provided it furthered the private prosecutor's
personal ends.

"The organization of the Municipal Street Railways of San
Francisco, the attacks upon the officials of the United
Railroads, the immunity granted to self-confessed criminals,
the strike of the carmen, the hold-up of the Geary-street
Railroad Company, the forfeiture of its license to operate, all
seek one common end, the injury of the United Railroads and its
officials, and the advancement of the personal schemes of the
private prosecutor.

"I ask from the American people fair play, and a patient
consideration. I ask them to withhold their judgment, freed
from the bias naturally created by sensational charges. The
contest in which I am engaged is grave, and I cannot afford now
to disclose the whole strength of my hand, but before this
contest is over, I confidently expect to defeat alike the
machinations of Rudolph Spreckels, the 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 firmly established in this community the principles of
American liberty, and the triumph of truth and justice."

On May 21 Calhoun issued a statement directly charging the
lawlessness in San Francisco to the Prosecution. He said:

"The drama is now unfolding itself and the citizens of this
city will have an opportunity to fix the responsibility for
existing conditions. The prosecution has said that the
Supervisors would be 'good dogs' and do its bidding. The
resolutions concerning the Geary-street line and the United
Railroads are on a par with the neglect of the board to see
that order is preserved. The prosecution is now responsible for
the government of the city: therefore it is responsible for
existing conditions, including the failure to suppress violence
and to protect life and property."

[241] Although representatives of the Defense had intimated
repeatedly that the supporters of the Graft Prosecution had
brought on the strike for the purpose of injuring the United
Railroads, when the Prosecution attempted to introduce
evidence to the contrary, Calhoun's attorneys resisted.

[242] The seven members of the committee were: F. B. Anderson,
manager of the Bank of California; Percy T. Morgan, president
of the California Wine Association and a director in the
Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company; F. W. Van
Sicklen, president of Dodge Sweeney & Co.; F. W. Dohrmann,
president of Nathan, Dohrmann & Co.; Henry Rosenfeld, a
shipping and commission merchant; C. H. Bentley, president of
the Chamber of Commerce, and Judge Charles W. Slack, who, in
1909, was to be one of the principal supporters of the
opposition to the prosecution candidate for District Attorney.
Illness compelled Mr. Dohrmann to sever his connection with
the committee. Mr. William A. Magee served in his stead.

[243] The Chronicle, in its issue of May 19, printed the following
as the committee's declaration of principles:

"Declaration of principles by the Committee of Seven and what
it intends to do:

"We propose to carry out our duty, irrespective of who is
affected.

"We have adopted the Constitution of the United States as the
fundamental basis for our final action.

"We intend to bring about a clean condition of affairs in this
community and make it safe for habitation by human beings and
for the investment of capital.

"We shall do nothing in the nature of class legislation and
recognize that every element in the community has a right to
representation in the government."

[244] In a published statement printed May 19, 1906, Governor
Gillett said: "The good citizens of San Francisco are for
preserving order and the good name of this city, and
protecting the constitutional rights of its people. The
Committee of Seven, as I understand it, were appointed for
this purpose, and every law-abiding citizen and every loyal
paper in this city, the Bulletin with the rest, are expected
to strengthen their hands and encourage them in their work."

[245] The failure to enlist Spreckels with the Committee of Seven
brought down upon him the condemnation of leaders of the State
machine. "My surprise at this attitude of Mr. Spreckels," said
Governor Gillett in an interview printed in The Examiner, May
21, 1907, "is great. It means a bad moral effect on the local
industrial disturbance. If a banker like Mr. Spreckels will
not act in harmony with the committee from the leading
commercial organizations of this city, then I can readily
account for the friction all down the line in this city. There
ought to be unity of action to get the city out of its present
plight, but evidently the leading business men of the town,
for reasons I certainly cannot understand, are not in a mood
to act in harmony."

[246] When the Committee of Seven retired, May 20, Committeeman
Slack issued the following statement:

"The Committee of Seven yesterday decided that nothing could
be accomplished by it, in view of the attitude of Mr.
Spreckels and Mr. Heney. We met those gentlemen for the fourth
time yesterday morning and were informed that they could not
act with us. Mr. Spreckels declared, in spite of assurances to
the contrary from every member of the committee, that he
believed Herrin and Calhoun to be behind us. We had agreed, in
the first place, that nothing should be done which would
interfere in any way with the work of Mr. Spreckels and Mr.
Heney. When we went to them and asked their co-operation they
declined to co-operate. Under the circumstances we felt that
the committee could not be of any further value and asked to
be discharged.

"I think Mr. Spreckels was sincere in his belief that we
represented interests opposed to him, and I have nothing but
the kindest feelings toward him, although I believe that he was
mistaken. I believe the other members of the committee are with
me in this.

"My acquaintance with Mr. Herrin is only of the most casual
sort, and I should be more likely to act against rather than
for him. I do not know Mr. Calhoun at all.

"It is with great regret that the committee has abandoned the
work which it felt called upon to undertake, and only the
belief that without the assistance of Mr. Spreckels its work
would be valueless led it to take this step."

[247] Governor Gillett's suggestions were contained in a statement
published in the San Francisco papers on May 25th. It was as
follows:

"Mr. Cornelius, as president of the Carmen's Union, and the
other labor leaders of San Francisco can bring an end to the
acts of violence that are committed daily in this city if they
will, and in the event that they don't they will be held
morally responsible for what happens in the future, if
anything of a serious nature does happen.

"San Francisco does not want to see the State troops enter the
city. It is better for the labor unions, the citizens, the city
and the State that they should not take charge of affairs, but
I will say, if this violence continues and increases the
militia will be brought in and will take charge of affairs.
Nothing along that line has been planned as yet and the State
will wait a reasonable length of time for conditions to be
adjusted.

"Something must be done. There must be a strong governing body
to take charge of affairs, and along this line I have one
suggestion to make. Let the various civic bodies of San
Francisco get together and appoint a committee of twenty-five
or fifty from their members, a committee of strong-minded men
who will not allow politics to enter into the question, and who
will fight for San Francisco as plain citizens interested in
the welfare of the city.

"Such a committee could accomplish much. The first step to be
taken would be to demand the appointment of a new police
commission, the removal of officers in charge of districts who
are incompetent, and the substitution of competent, firm men.

"Mayor Schmitz would not dare to refuse to accede to the
demands of such a committee, and if the body acted with a firm
hand the citizens would soon see an improvement in conditions.

"The executive committee, which appointed the Committee of
Seven can bring about the organization of such a body as I
suggest. It was noticeable that when the Committee of Seven
took hold of affairs there was less violence for a couple of
days, but as soon as the body tendered its resignation there
was an increase in these acts of violence.

"Acts of violence must cease. No self-respecting community will
permit a reign of crime day after day, the throwing of bricks
and other missiles, the use of vile and abusive language, and
the beating of men walking along the streets peaceably. Then,
too, we have our wives and daughters to think of. Conditions
are certainly deplorable when they cannot go upon the streets
of a great city like San Francisco without being compelled to
hear obscene language and witness acts of violence such as have
been committed within the last three weeks.

"There are strong men here, and if they set about the matter in
the right way there will be no occasion for the entrance of the
State troops into the city."

[248] See footnote 229, page 206.

[249] Of the eighteen Supervisors, two, O'Neil and Tveitmoe, had
been appointed by Mayor Schmitz to fill vacancies after the
bribery transactions. They were in no way involved in the
briberies. They were, therefore, independent of the District
Attorney. O'Neil put Tveitmoe in nomination against Gallagher.
"What is the difference," demanded O'Neil, "between Eugene E.
Schmitz and James L. Gallagher?" Gallagher's face went red
with rage, but there was no way of silencing the critic.

[250] This tardiness of appointment was not due to any lack of
candidates. Practically every faction in San Francisco had its
choice for Schmitz's successor.

[251] The election of Boxton to be Mayor may be called the
refinement of cruelty. His elevation to high executive office
but emphasized the shame of his position. From taking his oath
of office he was rushed to the witness stand to testify
against Louis Glass on trial for participation in bribing him
to oppose the granting of the Home Telephone Company
franchise. D. M. Delmas was conducting the case for the
defense. Delmas suavely turned Boxton's elevation to account.
He scrupulously addressed Boxton as the "Mayor." And, in
comparison, he wrung from the new Mayor's lips: "I took bribes
and was a spy for Halsey."

Nor did Delmas confine his refined ridicule to the unhappy
Mayor Boxton. Heney had, for example, asked the court to take
judicial notice of the fact that while Schmitz was in Europe,
Gallagher had served as acting Mayor.

"I don't think," interrupted Delmas, "your honor will extend
your judicial knowledge that far, because that would be to keep
track of the change of Mayors here, and it would keep you too
busy to discharge your duties."

A grim party surrounded Boxton while he took his oath of
office. Boxton gave no evidence of pride of his new station.

"When I think," he said during a lull in the proceedings, "of
the things that have come into my life in the last ten years, I
realize how few of them were of my own planning. When we came
back from Manila, I had no idea of politics, but they insisted
in making heroes of us, and I had to run for Supervisor. Now I
wish I had not done it."

Later on he gave out the following interview:

"This has come to me as a great surprise. I very much regret
the circumstances which have led up to this appointment. I hope
the people will bear with me for the few weeks that I am in
office. As to my official policy, I cannot discuss that at
present.

"You know, it is with a feeling of sadness I take the office. I
am glad it is a temporary appointment and will last only a
short time. I didn't know when I told you this morning that I
was willing to do whatever was thought best, either to remain
in office or to resign from the board, that this would be put
upon me. I am sorry they have asked me to take the office, and
will be glad when it is over. The only thing I can say is that
I believe during the short time I will hold the office the
people will have no cause to----"

Boxton halted for his words--"Again find fault with me."

The Examiner commenting upon Boxton's elevation, said "Having
put our bribe-taking Mayor in jail, and having put in his place
a taker of smaller bribes, we have now substituted for
Gallagher, Boxton, who differs from Gallagher principally in
having sold his vote for still less of the bribing
corporations' money."

[252] The District Attorney's statement of his plan to the various
organizations concerned will be found in full on page xxii of
the Appendix.

[253] The Chronicle, however, endorsed Langdon's plan, and urged the
several labor and industrial bodies to participate. "As the
matter appears at present," said The Chronicle, "the
prosecution has resorted to the only safe and reasonable plan
of restoring good government, and fault-finding with the
method adopted will be confined to the hyper-critical and
those who imagine that they would find profit in a continuance
of unsettled conditions."

[254] The resolutions adopted by the Building Trades Council
rejecting Langdon's plan for reorganization of the municipal
government, were as follows:

"Whereas, An invitation has been received by this council from
the District Attorney of this city and county, requesting this
council appoint seven delegates to participate in a convention
composed of thirty delegates, made up of fifteen
representatives from the labor organizations of this city and
fifteen representatives from the civic organizations outside
of the labor organizations; and whereas, said convention is to
be called for the purpose of selecting a person to be
appointed Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco; and
whereas, at this time this council is not possessed of
sufficient information upon the subject to determine whether
or not the action proposed to be taken by the convention would
be legal, and whether or not such action, if taken, would not
lead to a multiplicity of suits by reason of the appointment
to an office where a doubt as to the vacancy in said office
exists, and as a result lead to endless litigation and
regrettable confusion; and whereas, those who have arrogated
to themselves the duty of guiding the destinies of the entire
municipality of San Francisco only last Tuesday, by the
exercise of assumed power, through the Board of Supervisors,
placed in the Mayor's chair one who is to their own knowledge
legally disqualified, to the exclusion of one or the other of
two gentlemen who are members of that board in the personnel
of O. A. Tveitmoe and J. J. O'Neil, whose characters, both
public and private, are above reproach; and whereas, the
Building Trades Council was organized and is maintained for
the purpose of directing, protecting and conducting the
building industry from the standpoint of the journeymen with
justice alike to the owner, contractor and artisan, and not
for the purpose of making mayors through the instrumentality
of star chamber conventions, thereby usurping the rights and
prerogatives of the people; therefore, be it

"Resolved, That this Building Trades Council, in regular
meeting assembled, instruct its secretary to acknowledge the
receipt of the said invitation, and decline to act thereon for
the reasons herein stated."

[255] Langdon's reply to the objections of the Merchants' Exchange
was as follows:

"We cannot entertain any such proposition at this date. We
have already had submitted to us, and have considered at least
one hundred plans for calling an electoral convention, and
after carefully deliberating on all these plans, decided upon
the plan which we have announced. This plan gives the opposing
factions of labor and capital each an equal representation in
the electoral body. The responsibility of deciding who shall
be the Mayor is distinctly imposed on the two most important
factions in the community, and as far as giving a square deal
to everybody, we do not see how our announced plan can be
improved upon. Certainly the addition of fifteen delegates
appointed by any special committee cannot improve the plan. In
our announcement it has been clearly stated that all the
commercial and labor organizations called have until Saturday
to name their delegates, and these delegates will assemble
next Monday to nominate the new Mayor. The plan announced will
not be modified in any way. It places the issue squarely
before the people and if they do not wish to act upon it we
cannot help it.

"In regard to the proposition to permit the electoral
convention to name sixteen new Supervisors, I will say that
while there is no objection to it, we do not think it is wise
to incorporate it in our present plan."

[256] Schmitz's resistance of the elevation of Gallagher no doubt
influenced the aged Justice in his refusal. From the county
jail Schmitz continued to insist that he was still the de
facto Mayor of San Francisco. The Chief of Police, himself
under indictment, sided with Schmitz. Gallagher during his
eventful term blocked by the police, was not permitted to
enter the Mayor's office. When Boxton was made Mayor, Langdon
went with him to the Mayor's office and seized the furniture.
Schmitz's partisans boasted that the Mayor would be released
on bail, march with his followers to the meeting place of the
Supervisors, and, with the aid of the police, oust Gallagher
by force. Schmitz's resistance made itself felt in many ways.
For example, an athletic club had arranged for a boxing match,
for which a permit signed by the Mayor had to be issued.
Gallagher had signed the permit. Chief of Police Dinan,
however, refused to recognize it unless it were signed by
Schmitz. The manager of the affair was compelled to go to the
county jail for Schmitz's signature. Schmitz notified the
bondsmen of City Treasurer Charles A. Bantel that he would
hold them responsible for any moneys paid out by Bantel
without his (Schmitz's) signature. The bondsmen notified
Bantel that as a matter of precaution he must have the
signature of Schmitz as well as that of Gallagher as
authorization for paying out funds. This precautionary course
was followed to its logical conclusion. On July 12, a
contractor by the name of J. J. Dowling cashed a municipal
warrant which bore the signatures of no less than three
Mayors, Schmitz, Gallagher and Boxton.

Late in June, Schmitz sent to the auditor warrants signed by
himself for June salaries for himself, his secretary, his
stenographer and his usher. The auditor decided to allow these
warrants for that part of the month up to the date of
Schmitz's conviction. San Francisco allows its Mayor $300 a
month for contingent expenses. Both Schmitz and Gallagher
claimed this $300 for July. The auditor decided to recognize
neither claim. In answer to Schmitz's demand that Gallagher be
ignored as Mayor, the auditor sent the imprisoned executive a
soothing or grimly humorous letter, as one may view it, in
which he recognized Schmitz as the de jure Mayor, possessing
"the honor and the title," and Gallagher "simply as a de facto
Mayor," possessing the office.

When the bribe-taking Supervisors resigned, Schmitz, from the
county jail, appointed their successors. Seven of these Schmitz
appointees actually took the oath of office. On the night of
Taylor's election to succeed Boxton as Mayor, one of Schmitz's
appointees, Samuel T. Sawyer, appeared before the board and
demanded that he be sworn in as Supervisor. Gallagher, who was
presiding refused to recognize Schmitz as Mayor and refused
Sawyer a seat.

Even after Taylor had been elected, Chief of Police Dinan
continued to recognize Schmitz as Mayor. Dinan, for example,
placed the automobile maintained by the city for the use of the
Mayor, under guard of a policeman and for several days
prevented Mayor Taylor securing it.

Mayor Taylor gave effective check to this harassing opposition
by refusing to sign warrants upon the treasury which bore
Schmitz's signature. Gradually Schmitz's resistance to the new
order died out.

Schmitz contented himself with issuing a statement through the
Associated Press that he would be a candidate for re-election.
He said:

"You may announce that I will be a candidate for re-election
this fall, and that I expect to win. I have already begun my
campaign in a preliminary way, and shall carry it forward
steadily from this time. I have no fear of the race. I am
willing to make it without the aid of the Ruef organization,
whose support I had in each of the three campaigns since 1901.
Presumably that organization no longer exists, but its
component parts, though scattered, are as much in existence as
ever. It is up to me to gather them together and cement them
into an organization of my own--a task I am prepared to
undertake."

[257] Dr. Edward Robeson Taylor was born at Springfield, Ill., Sept.
24, 1838. He came to California in 1862, In 1865 he graduated
from the Toland Medical College. In 1872, he was admitted to
the California bar. He served as dean of the Hastings College
of Law. For thirty years he was Vice-President and President
of the Cooper Medical College. He was one of the freeholders
who framed the present San Francisco municipal charter, and at
the time of his selection as Mayor, had served San Francisco
and the State in many important public capacities.

[258] Dr. Taylor's selection gave general satisfaction. "My belief
is," said Governor Gillett in a published interview, "that Joe
will make an able and trustworthy executive. It is
particularly fortunate that he is identified with no factional
politics and can work for a clean reorganized administration
of the city government."

"The most important feature connected with the selection,"
said the Chronicle, "is the doctor's absolute freedom from
alliances with any particular interest. He is free from all
entanglements, and his ability and firmness of character give
assurance that his efforts will be wholly directed to
bettering the condition and restoring the confidence of the
community. We repeat that San Francisco owes the doctor a debt
of gratitude for sinking considerations of personal comfort
and devoting himself to the general welfare, and that the
prosecution has acted wisely in selecting and inducing him to
act."

On the other hand, The Examiner ridiculed the selection. Labor
Union party leaders of the type of P. H. McCarthy were loud in
expressions of their disapproval.

[259] Mayor Taylor, the day of his election, issued the following
statement:

"I accepted this office with much reluctance, and only because
I believed that any man who was requested to serve the city in
this capacity in the hour of her need should heed the request,
no matter what the personal sacrifice might be.

"Had any pledges been exacted of me by those who tendered the
office, I would not have considered the tender for
one-thousandth part of a second.

"I would not submit to any dictation in the administration of
the office, nor do I believe that any one who knows me would
attempt to dictate to me.

"If I am called upon to appoint a Board of Supervisors, I will
select the very best men who can be induced to accept the
offices, and I shall exercise my own judgment as to who are the
best men.

"I am going to do the best I can for the city without regard to
partisan politics, and, so far as I am concerned, there will be
no partisan politics.

"As Mayor of this city, every man looks just as tall to me as
every other man.

"The first essential to good government is perfect order, and I
shall employ every arm of the law to the end that such order
shall prevail.

"I believe in autonomy in every department of the city
government, and I believe that commissioners should be
permitted to administer the affairs of their respective
departments, free from dictation, as long as they demonstrate
by their acts that they are honest and competent."

[260] The citizens named by Dr. Taylor to act as Supervisors were:

Dr. A. A. D'Ancona, dean of the Medical Faculty of the
University of California; Harry U. Brandenstein, attorney and
former Supervisor; Gustave Brenner, capitalist and retired
merchant; James P. Booth, newspaperman and former Supervisor;
A. Comte, Jr., attorney and former Supervisor; George L.
Center, real estate; Bernard Faymonville, vice-president
Firemen's Fund Insurance Company; E. J. Molera, civil engineer
and president of the Academy of Science; W. G. Stafford,
president of the W. G. Stafford & Co., coal merchants; Henry
Payot, retired merchant and former Supervisor; Matt I.
Sullivan, attorney; Thomas Magee, real estate; Lippman Sachs,
capitalist and retired merchant; L. P. Rixford, architect; C.
A. Murdock, printing and bookbinding; D. C. Murphy, attorney.

A. Comte, Jr., successor of Supervisor McGushin, did not take
office until several days after his associates on the new
board. This was due to McGushin's hesitation about resigning.
Mr. McGushin finally resigned, however, and Comte was named in
his stead.

Of the Taylor Board of Supervisors, The Chronicle, in its issue
of July 27th, said:

"Mayor Taylor's choice of men for the new Board of Supervisors
will fortunately not meet universal approval. It will satisfy
all honest men who regard public office as a public trust and
not as a private snap, but it will not satisfy those who are
accustomed either to actually corrupt public servants or to use
a secret pull to obtain private and undue advantage. It will
not satisfy the criminal element who thrive by the wide-open
town, and who abhor a Board of Supervisors who will back up an
honest and capable Mayor.

"The board which the Mayor has selected may be safely accepted
as the leaders of the people. All interests are recognized
except that of the boodlers. The city has many knotty problems
to solve. Somebody must work them out. Probably no two capable
and honest men would resolve the various doubts which will
arise in precisely the same way, and yet out of all the
possible ways in each case some particular way must be chosen.
And it will be the duty of the Mayor and Supervisors, in the
light of much more information than the majority of us can
obtain, to select that way. And when it has been determined all
patriotic citizens must get behind them."