Chapter XVIII: The Real Fight Begins

Nine months after Heney assumed his duties as Assistant District Attorney, Mayor Taylor named the successors of the Ruef-Schmitz Board of Supervisors.

In those nine months much had been accomplished. Ruef had plead guilty to extortion and had made partial confession of his relations with the public-service corporations. The Schmitz-Ruef Supervisors had made full and free confession, and had been removed from office. Mayor Schmitz had been convicted of extortion, ousted from office, and pending his appeal to the upper courts was confined in the county jail. The back of the Schmitz-Ruef political organization was broken, and its forces scattered.

Had the Prosecution stopped here, the men whose devotion and self-sacrifice had made the undoing of the corrupt administration possible, would have retired with nothing more serious confronting them than the condemnation of the impotent puppets of large interests whom they had brought to grief. But those behind the Prosecution were not content to leave their work at a point where the regeneration of San Francisco had scarcely begun. They proposed to go to the bottom of the graft scandal. It was not sufficient, they held, to punish poor men who were without friends or influence, while their rich and powerful associates went unpunished. The bribe-taking Supervisors might be put in the penitentiary, but other bribe-taking Supervisors would eventually take their places. Ruef, punished by imprisonment, would serve as an example for political bosses that would cause them to hesitate for long before embarking in corrupt enterprises such as had brought the discredited boss to grief. This would make it hard for bribe-giving corporations to secure agents for bribe-passing, and make bribe-giving correspondingly difficult. But the conviction of high corporation officials, responsible for the bribe-giving of public-service corporations, was regarded as more important than all, for this would demonstrate bribe-giving to be unsafe, and check the practice at its very fountain-head. Such conviction, the Prosecution held, would have greater deterrent effect against bribery of public officials than the confinement of 500 bribe-taking Supervisors in the penitentiary.[261]

"I would be willing," Rudolph Spreckels testified at the Calhoun trial, "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 crime in order that he might make more money."

Such was the stand taken by District Attorney Langdon and his associates. The announced policy of the Prosecution, therefore, included the prosecution of the bribe-giver to the end. In pursuing this policy, Mr. Langdon and his associates aroused the astonishingly effective opposition of interests representing hundreds of millions of capital. Every indictment of capitalist charged with bribe-giving was signal for a new group of financial leaders, their satellites, beneficiaries and dependents, to array themselves on the side of the graft defense.[262]

With every indictment came a new group of attorneys to raise technical objections to the proceedings, all of which the attorneys for the Prosecution were obliged to meet.

The first attack was upon the validity of the Grand Jury. The attorneys for Ruef and Schmitz had apparently exhausted every point that could be raised for the disqualification of the Grand Jurors, but this did not prevent the heads of corporations who found themselves under indictment making similar attacks. And between them, in this new move to quash the indictments, the defendants enlisted the ablest members of the California bar.[263]

In this new opposition an astonishing number of technical points were raised by one or the other of the groups of defending lawyers. Nothing was overlooked.

Just before the principal indictments were brought, for example, the San Francisco merchants had given a banquet to celebrate the progress which San Francisco had made during the first year following the fire.[264] Langdon and Heney were given places of honor. They were the heroes of the occasion. Every reference to their work was signal for tremendous demonstration. There was no suggestion then that the pursuit of criminals would "hurt business."

"A severe earthquake," observed Frank J. Symmes, president of the Merchants' Association, "is a serious misfortune, and a great conflagration a great trial, and each awake the sympathy of the Nation, but a corrupt government is at once a crime and a disgrace and brings no sympathy."

"We foresee," said Bishop William Ford Nichols, another of the speakers of the evening, "the greater San Francisco. We mean to make it fairer to the eye. But how about making it better? Size and sin may go together. Rehabilitated buildings may house debilitated character."

A month later, after indictments had been brought against some of the most prominent business men of the city, word went out that steps would be taken to disqualify every member of the Grand Jury who had attended that merchants' banquet.

The Grand Jurors were again called to the witness stand and put through a grilling to determine whether or not they were biased. Rudolph Spreckels was under examination for hours in efforts to show that his motives in backing the Prosecution were bad.[265]

Every step of the proceedings at the organization of the Grand Jury was scrutinized. The question of the method of employing the stenographer to the Grand Jury was made subject of hours of argument. If she were irregularly employed, it was held, she was an unauthorized person in the Grand Jury room and her unwarranted presence sufficient to invalidate the indictments. Garret McEnerney, representing Eugene de Sabla, Jr., Frank Drum and John Martin, whose indictments grew out of the bribery of the Supervisors to fix the gas rate at 85 cents per 1000 cubic feet instead of 75 cents, was the first to raise this question. But attorneys for other defendants took it up and seriously considered it as valid objection to the sufficiency of the indictments. A further point was raised by several of the defendants that the stenographer had not been properly sworn. The question was seriously debated, whether she had looked at Prosecutor Heney or Foreman Oliver at the moment she was sworn to secrecy.[266]

Another point was brought up by the defendants in the United Railroads bribery case, that inasmuch as the defendants Calhoun, Mullally and Ford, had been called to the Grand Jury room and compelled to fall back upon their constitutional rights to avoid testifying, that they had been placed in a prejudicial position before the Grand Jury, which constituted reversible error.[267] Another objection was that the Grand Jury box had been destroyed in the great fire of 1906, and that no order had come from any department of the Superior Court ordering its restoration. Again, it was asserted, that Grand Juror James E. Gordan was a member of the Grand Jury panel of 1906, while the other Grand Jurors were chosen from the 1907 list. Indictments brought by a Grand Jury thus constituted were claimed to be without effect.

Had any one of these and many other similar objections been sustained, all indictments against the graft defendants would have been invalidated. Every objection had to be met. Days and weeks were spent by the District Attorney's office in meeting, or preparing to meet objections which to the layman appear trifling and ridiculous.

In the midst of this technical fight to have the indictments against them set aside, the graft defendants received aid from an unlooked-for source. Sympathizers with the United Railroads conductors and motormen, then on strike, whose union Patrick Calhoun was at the time endeavoring to crush--and finally did crush--started an independent attack upon the Grand Jury.

Four union sympathizers had been indicted in connection with street riots. Their attorneys, before Superior Judge Cook, raised the point that as the Oliver Grand Jury had continued in service after a new panel had been drawn in the office of the clerk and put on file, the term of the Grand Jury's service had expired. It was, therefore, no longer part of the machinery of the Court and had no power as an inquisitorial body. Under this interpretation, not only would the indictments against the strikers be invalidated, but those against the alleged bribe-givers also.[268] Thus four of Mr. Calhoun's striking carmen, in their efforts to evade trial on charges growing out of opposition to the United Railroads, were making stronger fight to release Mr. Calhoun from indictment than Mr. Calhoun, although enjoying the ablest legal counsel that money could secure, had been able to make for himself.

Eventually, these technical objections were decided adversely to the defense; the validity of the Oliver Grand Jury was never successfully attacked. But the technical objections raised caused delays which the defense was able to put to good account. While the prosecution was battling to force the graft cases to trial on their merits, the graft defense was conducting a publicity campaign to misrepresent and undermine the prosecution. The astonishing success of these efforts were to appear later. By 1909, for example, in the city which when the graft prosecution opened, the practically universal sentiment was for the crushing out of corruption, there was strong opinion that the prosecution of influential offenders had gone too far, had been injudiciously conducted, was "hurting business," and that for the good of the community the graft cases should be dropped.[269]

The evident policy of the defense was to undermine the prosecution and create public opinion against it, until both prosecution and community should be worn out, and made to quit.

The principal attack was through the newspapers. The prosecution had not been long at work before the weekly papers, with few exceptions, were devoting the bulk of their space to ridiculing and vilifying all who were in any way responsible for the graft exposures and impuning their motives.

What these publications received for their work is indicated by the subsidies paid one of the least of San Francisco weekly papers--a publication since suspended--the Mission Times.

In January, 1907, a man by the name of Williams purchased the Times for seventy-five dollars, giving his unsecured note for that amount. In less than a month the new proprietor had received $500 from an agent of the United Railroads. Later on, he received a regular subsidy of $250 a week, something more than $1,000 a month, which continued for thirteen weeks. The subsidy was later reduced to fifty dollars a week. But during the interim between the weekly subsidy contracts, lump sums were paid. It is estimated that in little over a year, Williams received from agents of the United Railroads upwards of $7,000. The Times at first covertly, and later openly, opposed the prosecution. If the unimportant Mission Times, which at the opening of the year 1907 had changed hands for seventy-five dollars, received upwards of $7,000 from agents of the defense, the not unreasonable question may be asked, what did more important weekly papers, whose graft prosecution policy was practically the same as that of the Times, receive? In this connection it is pertinent to say that the majority of these publications gave evidence during 1907, of a prosperity that was quite as mysterious, if not as suggestive, as had been the prosperity of the Schmitz-Ruef Supervisors during 1906.

As has been seen, the entire daily press of San Francisco was, in the beginning, heartily in accord with the prosecution. Gradually, however, The Examiner and The Chronicle[270] shifted their policy. Even while The Chronicle was backing the prosecution in its editorial columns, its reports of the proceedings at the various hearings were colored in a way well-calculated to undermine Langdon and his associates.[271] Gradually the covert opposition of its news columns became the open editorial policy of the paper.

But the most effective opposition came from The Examiner. The Examiner supported the prosecution until the conviction of Schmitz and the change in the municipal administration. Failure to dictate the selection of Mayor and Supervisors may have had more or less influence in the change of policy. At any rate, the invention of The Examiner's writers and artists was tortured to make the prosecution appear to disadvantage.

The most tawdrily clever of The Examiner's efforts were the so-called "Mutt cartoons." The cartoons appeared from day to day, a continuous burlesque of the work of the prosecutors, and of the graft trials.

Heney was pictured as "Beaney;" Detective Burns, as Detective "Tobasco;" James D. Phelan as "J. Tired Feeling;" Rudolph Spreckels, as "Pickles;" Superior Judges Dunne and Lawlor, before whom the graft cases were heard, as Judge "Finished" and Judge "Crawler," respectively. In these "Mutt cartoons" every phase of the prosecution was ridiculed. For example, when the excitement over the graft trials was at its height, there were rumors that the assassination of Heney or Langdon would be attempted. In ridiculing this, The Examiner pictured "Beaney" with a cross on his neck where the bullet was to strike. A few weeks later, during the progress of one of the graft trials, Heney was shot down in open court, the bullet taking practically the same course which in the "Mutt" cartoon The Examiner had pictured. After the shooting of Heney, The Examiner discontinued the anti-prosecution "Mutt cartoons."

Mr. William Randolph Hearst's San Francisco Examiner did effective service in discrediting the graft prosecution. But Mr. Hearst, with curious inconsistency, outside California, gave the prosecution his personal endorsement.

In his Labor Day address at the Jamestown Exposition, September 3, 1907, for example, Mr. Hearst among other pleasing observations on the work of the San Francisco Graft Prosecution, said: "You hear much today of how a Mayor of San Francisco has fallen, but you hear little of how powerful public service corporations tempted a wretched human being with great wealth and brought a once respected man to ruin and disgrace. You hear much of how a Mayor elected on a Union Labor ticket is in jail, but little of the fact that it was an honest District Attorney, elected on the same Union Labor ticket, who put him there, an honest District Attorney, who is doing his best to put beside the Mayor the men really responsible for all this debauchery and dishonor. While it is the fashion to criticise San Francisco just now, I venture to assert that the only difference between San Francisco and some other cities is that San Francisco is punishing her corruptionists. There is many an official elsewhere who has stolen office or dealt in public properties who would fare like Schmitz if there were more honest and fearless District Attorneys like Union Labor Langdon."

Later on, after Ruef had been sent to the penitentiary, an article on the San Francisco Graft Prosecution appeared in one of Mr. Hearst's magazines.[272] The article was printed under the signature of Mr. Edward H. Hamilton, one of the ablest of Mr. Hearst's employees. Mr. Hamilton gave the credit for the work of the graft prosecution to Mr. Hearst and The Examiner. The men whose steadfastness of purposes and high integrity had made even approach to the prosecution of influential offenders possible, upon whom Mr. Hearst's Examiner had poured ridicule and abuse, were more or less favorably mentioned in the article, but Mr. Hearst was given the bulk of the credit for what the prosecution had accomplished. In California, where The Examiner's treatment of the prosecution was well known, Mr. Hamilton's article was received with some amusement and not a little resentment.[273]

Although, with few exceptions, the policy of the San Francisco press was adverse to the prosecution, the principal interior papers gave Langdon and his associates loyal support. But eventually a chain of papers covering the greater part of the interior of northern and central California was enlisted on the side of the defense. The papers were started or purchased by a newspaper publishing company known as the Calkins Syndicate.

The Calkins people had for several years been identified with a number of unimportant papers, printed in the interior. Suddenly, from publishing obscure weeklies and dailies, the Calkins Syndicate became one of the most important, if not the most important, publishing concern in California. A modern printing plant, one of the finest on the Pacific Coast, was installed at San Francisco. The establishment took over much of the printing of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, including the printing of the railroad corporation's monthly, The Sunset Magazine. The Sacramento Union, the most important California morning newspaper printed north of San Francisco, and the Fresno Herald, an afternoon daily, were purchased outright. A bid was made for the San Francisco Post,[274] but terms could not be made. The Calkins people accordingly started the San Francisco Globe, an afternoon daily newspaper. Less important papers were established at various points. In an incredibly short period, the Calkins Syndicate had a chain of newspapers covering the greater part of northern and central California.

The distinctive feature of these publications was their opposition to the San Francisco graft prosecution. But the abuse of the Calkins newspapers was not so cleverly presented as in the Examiner, nor so adroitly handled as in the Chronicle. So violent were the Calkins papers' attacks, in fact, that they injured rather than assisted the defendants' cause. This was generally recognized. The Calkins Syndicate, after losing whatever effectiveness it may have had, eventually went into bankruptcy.[275]

Almost as effective as the newspaper publicity against the prosecution, was the opposition of fashionable social circles and of the clubs. The graft defendants became much in evidence at the best clubs in the city. To be sure, their persistent appearance all but disrupted some of the clubs, members in sympathy with the enforcement of the law openly objecting to their presence.[276] But in the end, the defendants prevailed and were loudly apparent at the principal clubs of the city even while under the inconvenience of indictment.

San Francisco's so-called fashionable society was, during the graft trials, practically organized as an adjunct of the defense. Those in accord with the prosecution were cut off visiting lists. Some of the non-resident indicted ones brought their families to San Francisco. Their wives and daughters at once became prominent in social matters. It was the refinement of the custom of bringing in "the wife and innocent children" of the defendant at a criminal trial.

This character of defense was most effective. The charming entertainment of those wives and daughters of indicted magnates who engaged in the social publicity campaign in the interests of their troubled male relations, went far toward building up public opinion against their prosecutors. The supporters of the prosecutors were treated with scant ceremony. To be a supporter of the prosecution was not regarded as "good form." All in all, the social side was one of the cleverest and most effective features of the publicity campaign carried on by the graft defense.[277]

The boycott of those in sympathy with the prosecution extended to the larger business world as well as to exclusive social circles. When, for example, the American battleship fleet visited San Francisco on its tour around the world in 1908, the committee appointed by the Mayor to arrange fitting reception and entertainment of its visitors, organized by making James D. Phelan, prominently associated with Mr. Spreckels in the Graft Prosecution, chairman.

That Mr. Phelan should be made head of the committee, or even identified with it, gave serious offense to the large business and financial interests that did not approve the prosecution.[278] The large interests thus offended refused to contribute to the reception fund. William C. Ralston, United States Sub-Treasurer at San Francisco, and treasurer of the Fleet Reception Committee, reported to the committee that several large banks and public service corporations would not contribute to the reception of the fleet unless Mr. Phelan left the reception committee.[279]

The committee, refusing to submit to this arrogant dictation, accordingly proceeded to the entertainment of the fleet without assistance from the anti-prosecution financiers and institutions. The smaller merchants, assisted by those banks and enterprises which had not been offended by the proceedings against the corrupters of the municipal government, contributed upwards of $75,000. The reception to the fleet was thus carried to successful conclusion without the assistance of the graft defense element.

In the work of undermining the prosecution, the humbler circles of municipal life were not neglected. The claquer in labor union, and wherever groups of laboring men and women met, was quite as active as his prototype at club and exclusive function. In labor circles the prosecution was described as a movement to discredit labor and to disrupt the unions. Here, Rudolph Spreckels was described as the unrelenting foe of labor organizations. At club and function, on the other hand, the prosecution was condemned as agent of "labor organization and anarchy," and Mr. Spreckels denounced as a man who had "gone back on his class." In all quarters stories were circulated, questioning Spreckels' motives. The most persistent charge against him was that he had started a street-car system of his own, and had instituted the graft prosecution to drive the United Railroads out of business. This story was told and retold, although the purposes for which Mr. Spreckels had contemplated engaging in the street-car business were well known.[280] It was quite as well known, too, that the briberies alleged against officials of the United Railroads were committed long after the graft prosecution had been inaugurated.

Heney[281] was also made target for criticisms. His whole life was gone over in the search for flaws. It was discovered that in self-defense he had, years before, shot a man in Arizona.[282] This was made basis of a charge that Heney had committed murder. The new version of the Arizona incident was fairly shouted from San Francisco housetops.

Heney was denounced as a "special prosecutor, a human bloodhound, engaged in hounding of men to the penitentiary." It was charged against him that he had received excessive fees from corporations; that he had accepted fees from the Federal government while acting as deputy to the San Francisco District Attorney, and that therefore his San Francisco employment was illegal;[283] that he had been a drunkard.

A most effective attack consisted in charging connection of the graft prosecution with the California Safe Deposit and Trust Company.

This institution closed its doors during the 1907 panic. It had carried an enormous volume of deposits. Thousands of homes were affected. The California Safe Deposit and Trust Company was, as a result, very unpopular. Stories were circulated that the company had backed the prosecution, and had contributed funds for its work. J. Dalzell Brown, one of the leading spirits of the company, was also described as one of the prosecution's backers. It was shown at the Calhoun[284] trial that neither Brown nor his company had contributed a dollar toward the prosecution fund. Nevertheless, persistent reports that the prosecution had had this support, unquestionably had its effect upon the losing depositors. Hiram W. Johnson had acted as Brown's attorney. Johnson had appeared as assistant to the District Attorney at a number of the graft trials. Johnson was condemned for taking the case of a criminal guilty of the offenses charged against Brown. Mr. Johnson's critics did not, however, condemn the attorneys who had taken the cases of the alleged bribe-givers.

Another charge was that the prosecution was hurting business; that the material prosperity of California demanded that the proceedings be stopped; that capital would not seek investment in California until the disturbance caused by the prosecution had subsided.

Every move of the prosecution was made subject of criticism. Announcement, for example, that immunity had been given the Supervisors was received by the anti-prosecution press with a storm of protest, and used by the pro-defense claque most effectively.

The treatment accorded Ruef was subject of constant objection and criticism. During the period of Ruef's apparent co-operation with the prosecution, when he was in custody of the elisor, the pro-defense press harped on the uselessness of the expense of keeping Ruef in the luxury of a private jail.[285] The Chronicle even went so far as to say it would be well if Ruef forfeited his bail, provided the bail were set high enough. Ruef was, at the time, thought to be a willing witness for the prosecution. That the case of The People would be weakened were he to leave the State did not seem to appeal to the Chronicle. Later on, when it became evident that Ruef was not assisting the prosecution, there were outcries against the alleged cruel treatment that had been imposed upon him during his confinement in the custody of the elisor.

But this potent and far-reaching opposition did not cause a moment's hesitation on the part of the prosecution. The work of bringing influential offenders before trial juries went steadily on. As soon as the Schmitz extortion case had been disposed of, Louis Glass of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company, the first of the indicted capitalists to face a jury, was brought to trial.

FOOTNOTES:

[261] Heney's attitude toward the bribe-givers is expressed in an
affidavit filed in the case of The People vs. Calhoun et als.,
No. 823. Heney in setting forth a statement made to Rabbi
Nieto says:

"I consider that the greatest benefit which we will have done
this city and this country by these prosecutions will be the
insight which we will have given them into the causes of
corruption in all large cities, and into the methods by which
this corruption is maintained. The testimony of the members of
the Board of Supervisors throws great light on this question,
and Ruef could aid considerably in making it an object lesson
to the world, if he would do so. The only way we can stop this
kind of corruption is by enlightening the people as to its
causes and by thereafter endeavoring to remove the temptation
which causes evil by proper remedial legislation, and in order
to impress this object lesson on the people strongly enough to
accomplish much good we must punish the principal men who have
been involved in it. Do not imagine this is a pleasant task to
me. It is far from being so. It involves men like Frank Drum,
whom I liked and respected as a friend for years, and who has
quite recently paid me a good attorney's fee for services
performed for a company represented by him. I have met Patrick
Calhoun socially, and greatly admire his ability and found him
to be a man of very agreeable, attractive manners. I wish
there was some other way to secure a proper deterrent effect
without causing these men and their innocent families to
suffer, but unless the laws are enforced, Doctor, our
republican form of government cannot continue very long. It is
not sufficient to punish the poor man who has no friends or
influence. The people will lose respect for the courts and for
the law unless the rich and powerful can be made to obey the
laws. It has a greater deterrent effect, in my opinion, to put
one rich and influential man in prison than to put a thousand
poor ones there. It would do no good to send a few miserable,
ignorant Supervisors to the penitentiary. Others of the same
kind would soon take their places, and the carnival of crime
would continue as before. If we can put Ruef in the
penitentiary it will have a wholesome effect upon other
political bosses for the next decade at least. And if we can
put a few captains of industry there with him, and
particularly a few of the head officials of public service
corporations, it will have a greater deterrent effect against
bribery of public officials than putting five hundred of such
officials in the penitentiary."

[262] "I subscribed to the Graft Prosecution fund," said one
capitalist whose own skirts were clean of the graft scandal,
"but before the investigation was over I had to exert myself
to prevent my own attorney going to jail."

The manner in which every indictment increased the circle of
opposition to the prosecution is well illustrated by the
following selection from the San Francisco Chronicle of March
25, 1907:

"The indictment of Louis Glass, former vice-president of the
Pacific States Telephone Company, for bribery, on testimony
given to the Grand Jury by E. J. Zimmer, who was the auditor of
the company under Glass, and is now vice-president of the
reorganized corporation, has caused consternation in certain
fashionable circles, in which Glass was one of the most popular
men.

"At the clubs of which the indicted telephone magnate was a
member, much sympathy is expressed for him. He was extremely
popular because of his affability and good-fellowship, and he
has a host of friends, who are loth to believe that he has
committed a crime which may put him behind the bars of San
Quentin for fourteen years.

"Attorney George Knight, who, it is expected, will be retained
as counsel for Glass, voiced the sentiment of many of his
friends, yesterday, when he said:

"'Louis Glass is one of the best fellows in a social way that
ever lived. He is proud, high-spirited and in all his personal
relations with others he has always been most particular. I
cannot imagine what has led him into doing what he is said to
have done in the telephone bribery, and I am sure that in spite
of the indictment, when the truth is known, he will not appear
in such a discreditable light.'"

[263] Among those who challenged the validity of the Grand Jury
were: Patrick Calhoun, Thornwell Mullally, Tirey L. Ford and
William Abbott of the United Railroads, represented by A. A.
Moore and Stanley Moore; Louis Glass of the Pacific States
Telephone Company, represented by Delmas and Coogan; John
Martin, Eugene de Sabla and Frank Drum of the San Francisco
Gas and Electric Company, represented by Garret McEnerney; T.
V. Halsey, represented by Bert Schlesinger, William P.
Humphries and D. M. Delmas. The several attorneys represented
the best legal ability obtainable in San Francisco. No less
than fifty-two attorneys, all working to the same end, were
employed by the several graft defendants.

[264] The Merchants' Association banquet, April 18, 1907, the first
anniversary of the great earthquake and fire.

[265] At one of the examinations of Spreckels, Attorney A. A. Moore,
representing the United Railroads, is reported as demanding:

"Can it be that we have got to a point where a private
prosecution, hiring a lawyer, hiring an attorney, hiring a
detective--and then when indictments are found that you cannot
set them aside? That is the line of testimony I intend to
pursue."

"In addition," said Attorney Stanley Moore, A. A. Moore's
associate in the defense, "we expect to show that Mr. Spreckels
is the head and shoulders of a large street railroad company,
organized by himself for the purpose of putting the United
Railroads out of business.'

"I will say this again," went on Moore, "we will prove the
statement that we have made, to wit: that Mr. Heney was an
unauthorized person before the Grand Jury by reason of the fact
that he was during all that time privately employed by Rudolph
Spreckels, who was entertaining a plan to destroy the property
of the United Railroads, and to carry out that plan they gave
immunity to the Board of Supervisors to carry out their
bidding."

[266] The Chronicle, in its issue of June 7, 1907, in discussing the
delaying tactics of the defendants, said:

"It cannot be too often repeated that in connection with the
boodle cases there are but two questions which are of
importance, and those are, first: Did the accused commit
bribery within the meaning of the statute? and secondly, If
not, did they commit bribery in such a way that the law cannot
reach them? Both these questions will be settled by the
evidence in the trials. If the verdict is that the accused
committed bribery within the meaning of the statute, they will
go to State's prison. If the evidence shows that they
committed bribery so skilfully that it cannot be legally
proved, they will not go to the penitentiary, but they will
stand disgraced men and unconvicted felons. In either case all
that an honest man prizes most highly is at stake, and as all
claim to be as innocent as unborn babes, one would expect the
band to be tumbling over each other in their eagerness to be
first to face a jury and rehabilitate their damaged
reputations by a public demonstration of their untarnished
character.

"Quite the contrary. So far from their taking this obvious
course to secure justification the aid of a shining and costly
array of legal talent is invoked to prevent, if it may be
possible, any show-down whatever of the evidence in any court.
They object to even coming into court and pleading whether they
are guilty or not. It is declared that it will be alleged that
the purported Grand Jury, which went through the form of
indicting them, is an illegal body, with no standing whatever
in court, and that, therefore, there is no indictment at all.
It will not, apparently, be claimed that the members of the
alleged Grand Jury were not discreet citizens, legally
competent to serve as Grand Jurors; that they were not
regularly appointed as such according to law; that they were
not duly sworn into office, or that, having listened to sworn
evidence delivered under the forms of law, these reputable
citizens, upon that evidence, accuse them of felony. None of
these things, it is supposed, will be alleged. What is to be
alleged, it is said, is that the number of names from which the
Grand Jury was drawn was 113, instead of 125, which, by the
way, is promptly denied. What earthly bearing could that have,
if it were true, on the guilt or innocence of the men accused
of felony? Can it be conceived as possible, even if that were
proved, that our laws are drawn so completely in the interest
of criminals as to enable men accused of felony to escape
trial?

"The personal character and qualifications of the Grand Jurors
were fully brought out in the Ruef case. For weeks they were
subjected to a grilling which it was a disgrace to our laws to
permit. That was not repeated in the Schmitz case. In that the
counsel of the accused have seemed to be relying for
overturning a conviction on the alleged over-zealousness of the
prosecuting officer. Again, what has that to do with the guilt
or innocence of the accused, even if it has occurred? A
District Attorney is in possession of all the evidence, and if
that is such as to arouse his indignation, shall the people
thereby be deprived of all remedy? Obvious misconduct of an
attorney is more likely to injure the people than the accused.
It could hardly have any other influence on the verdict of a
jury. If no crimes are to be punished in which there is
energetic prosecution, which may occasionally involve
expressions which the law discountenances, we may about as well
shut up our criminal courts. Almost any attorney may be baited
into making uncourteous remarks. Happily the Supreme Court has
recently decided that no matter what the District Attorney
does, a felon duly convicted upon sufficient evidence shall not
thereby be turned loose. And that is as it should be."

[267] Heney in court made caustic answer to this argument: "After
the Supervisors had confessed," he began, "and sixteen of them
had testified that they had been paid $4,000 apiece to vote
for the trolley franchise, these defendants thought in their
own minds that they were so connected with the crime that
Patrick Calhoun, Thornwell Mullally and Tirey L. Ford each
made a public explanation in the press, denying that they had
bribed a city official. A crime had been committed, and the
first question to be asked was, Who had the motive? The
Supervisors had testified that they received the money from
Gallagher, and Gallagher had testified that he received it
from Ruef. Did Abraham Ruef own the trolley lines? The
question arose as to who had the motive. Ford and Mullally
came to me personally and told me they had not bribed a city
official. Wasn't that an explanation? Will it not be an
explanation when these defendants are put on trial that they
will say it was an attorney's fee? If, under these
circumstances, the Grand Jury cannot call the officers of the
company to learn who authorized the giving of the bribe money,
what would an investigation be worth? If we had not called
them, then you would have heard the other cry, that this was a
conspiracy to destroy the good name of Patrick Calhoun.

"If it had been a poor, ignorant man, or a helpless woman--if
the Grand Jury had dragged her from the jail and compelled her
to testify against herself, and she had not known what her
constitutional right was, it would have been a different
picture. But these four gentlemen are learned in the law. One
of them had been Attorney-General of this State, another had
been his assistant in that office for four years. Mullally is
an attorney and Patrick Calhoun is an attorney whose mind is
equal to that of any man's in California.

"Advised of their rights! Why, they came in there on a subpoena
which General Ford has declared in his own affidavit was faulty
and ineffective. They came on a defective process, which they
knew to be defective. They refused to be sworn, and they were
not sworn, and they left the Grand Jury room without having
answered a question, for the purpose of coming solemnly here to
get these indictments set aside on the grounds that their
constitutional rights have been invaded. That's trifling with
the law. Laws weren't made to juggle with. Laws were made for
the protection of the innocent.

"They knew they didn't have to go, but they went, and they
refused to testify; and now they want the indictments set aside
because their great constitutional rights have been tampered
with.

"They say he could have waived the point and testified, but
because he refused and walked out he has been deprived of his
constitutional right."

[268] In commenting upon the point raised by the indicted carmen,
the Chronicle, in its issue of July 30, 1907, said:

"In attacking the legality of the Grand Jury the attorneys of
the carmen indicted for making assaults with deadly weapons
and throwing bricks at street cars may have played into the
hands of their arch enemy, the president of the United
Railroads. If the Supreme Court should hold that the Oliver
Grand Jury passed out of legal existence when the 144 new
names were selected by the twelve Superior Judges, the
indictments against those connected with the telephone, gas,
trolley and Parkside briberies would be set aside and all the
work of the prosecution would have to be done over. It would
be a curious outcome to the efforts of an attorney to free men
charged with crimes which the unions condemn, but it would not
be the first instance of a miscarriage of the purposes of
organized labor."

[269] Some went so far when examined for jury service at the later
graft trials as to say they would not vote to convict.

[270] The graft investigation uncovered something of the curious
ethics governing this sort of publicity. For example, Mark L.
Gerstle of the law firm of Thomas, Gerstle and Frick, who
acted as attorneys for the Home Telephone Company, testified
before the Grand Jury that the company paid the San Francisco
Chronicle $10,000 to educate the people to the idea of a
competing telephone system. The testimony was as follows:

"Q. During that time in 1905, were any newspapers paid to help
the good cause? A. Yes.

"Q. What papers? A. Only one.

"Q. What paper was that? A. Chronicle.

"Q. How much was paid to it? A. $10,000.

"Q. What were the terms of that employment? A. The object of
paying that money was to educate the people to the idea of a
competitive telephone system. There seemed to be a prejudice
among everybody, or a great many people, as to the value or
necessity of another telephone system, and we could not obtain
the assistance of any newspaper in that work without paying for
it. Some required it in the shape of advertising which we did
not need--don't do any good--others wouldn't take it in that
way; the Chronicle wouldn't take it that way and we were forced
in order to have some newspaper assist us in that work, to pay
the price which was $10,000.

"Q. Did they give editorial work for that? A. No. They were
supposed when the matters came up before the Board of
Supervisors to write it up favorably, that is to say, talk
about the advantage of a competitive telephone system in the
way of keeping out a monopoly, and doing away with the poor
system of the Pacific States."

[271] The Chronicle's reports of the work of the Graft Prosecution
are models of the journalism which strikes in the dark. When,
for example, the defense called Rudolph Spreckels to the stand
in its efforts to disqualify the Grand Jury, The Chronicle,
while in its editorial columns condemning such proceedings,
reported the incident in its news columns as follows:

"Spreckels, who had been keeping in the background, came
forward, glancing furtively at Heney, whose lips were moving
nervously." In the column from which this quotation is taken,
Heney is represented as replying "nervously" to charges made
by attorneys for the defense, and Spreckels, when a question
was put to him as looking "appealingly" to the attorney
representing the prosecution. But observers of the proceedings
recall no perceptible nervousness on Heney's part, nor
"furtive" nor "appealing" glances from Spreckels.

[272] The Cosmopolitan, issue of July, 1911.

[273] The Sacramento Bee, in an editorial article, "Laureling the
Brow of a Harlequin 'Reformer'," said of Mr. Hamilton's claims
for Hearst:

"The San Francisco Examiner is advertising an article by
Edward H. Hamilton in the July Cosmopolitan--an article which
is a tissue of the most shameless misrepresentations from
beginning to end--an article which falsely and most
mendaciously credits the conviction and imprisonment of
Abraham Ruef to William Randolph Hearst.

"The Cosmopolitan is a Hearst magazine; Hamilton, a Hearst
writer. Undoubtedly in New York many will believe Hamilton has
written the truth. Every man in California knows otherwise.

"It is strange that a writer with the ability and the
reputation of Edward H. Hamilton would for any consideration
write an article so brazenly false that one marvels at the
audacity alike of the eulogist and the laureled.

"For Hearst had no more to do with the fate of Ruef than Ruef's
own lawyers. He labored on the same side--to make the graft
prosecution so unpopular that no conviction of the guilty could
result. Day in and day out the Examiner reeked with slanders
aimed at the men who were endeavoring to place Ruef behind the
bars.

"Day in and day out, the most malicious cartoons were published
against Spreckels, Heney, Phelan, Burns and all who were
battling for the punishment of public and semi-public
scoundrels. Day in and day out in the Examiner Judge Wm. P.
Lawlor was referred to as 'Crawler.'

"Day in and day out the reports of the trials were so colored,
so exaggerated in favor of the defense and so emasculated when
the prosecution scored a point, that the Examiner was ranked
with the gutter weeklies as a friend, champion and defender of
the indicted, and a most venomous traitor to good government
and to public honor.

"The Examiner knew the feeling against it in San Francisco.
For, when Heney was shot and there was danger of mob violence,
the editorial rooms of the Examiner were barricaded and the
Examiner men were supplied with rifles.

"And their fears were to a certain extent justified. One of the
vilest cartoons against Heney pictured 'Beany' in danger of his
life from imaginary assassins. On 'Beany's' neck was a mark to
show where the bullet was to strike. By an extraordinary
coincidence, the bullet that struck Heney down at the Ruef
trial found almost the identical spot that a few days before
had been marked on 'Beany's' neck in Hearst's humorous cartoon.

"On the night of the day that Heney was shot, indignant San
Francisco in an immense mass meeting thundered its denunciation
of Hearst and the Examiner. And graft-prosecution leaders found
it necessary to plead with an inflamed populace to attempt no
violence.

"No more 'Beany' cartoons made their appearance. The Examiner
wrote of all connected with the graft prosecution in terms of
respect. But this repentance born of fear did not prevent
Californians by the thousands stopping the Examiner.

"The Cosmopolitan eulogy of Hearst in the graft-prosecution
matter is a long line of known misstatements from beginning to
end.

"It is humiliating to have to record that a man of Ned
Hamilton's talents could so debase them as to present in the
light of a militant Paul of the graft prosecution one who was
its most contemptible Judas Iscariot.

"Regrettable indeed is it that

"Poor Ned 'must torture his invention
To flatter rogues or lose his pension.'"

[274] After the failure of the Calkins syndicate its successors to
the ownership of "The Globe," purchased the Post and combined
the two in one publication under the name of Post-Globe. The
policy of the paper was not changed.

[275] The astonishing business conditions under which the Calkins
Syndicate was conducted were brought out during the
proceedings in bankruptcy. For example: The Union Trust
Company, closely connected financially with the Southern
Pacific Company, and the United Railroads, advanced the
syndicate $175,000.

To secure this loan, the Syndicate gave the Union Trust
Company as collateral 1251 shares of the 2500 shares of the
capital stock of the Sacramento Publishing Company, 150,100
shares of the 300,000 shares of the capital stock of the
Calkins Publishing House, the majority of the capital stock of
the Fresno Publishing Company, which published the Fresno
"Herald" and bonds of the company publishing the San Francisco
"Globe," valued at $30,000.

This loan remained unpaid at the time of the Syndicate's
failure. The stock of the Fresno Publishing Company sold under
the hammer for $4,850. The 1251 shares of the Sacramento
Publishing Company were estimated to be worth $51,000. The
stock of the Calkins Publishing House was of doubtful value.
The Union Trust Company, before the failure, released the Globe
bonds without payment of the note or consideration of other
security. This left the stock of the Sacramento Publishing
Company, valued at perhaps $51,000, as sure security for the
$175,000 loan.

But this stock was curiously involved. The entire stock of the
company consisted of 2500 shares of a par value of $100 a
share. The corporation's property consisted of the Sacramento
Union newspaper and the real property where the paper was
published.

Soon after purchasing the Sacramento stock, the Calkins
Syndicate organized a second Sacramento Publishing Company. The
first company--that of the 2500 shares--was organized as The
Sacramento Publishing Company. The Calkins people in organizing
the second company dropped the "The," calling it "Sacramento
Publishing Company." The second company was organized with a
capital stock of 300,000 shares,--175,000 shares common stock
and 125,000 shares preferred.

The Syndicate took 100,000 shares of this preferred stock to
the London, Paris and American Bank, and used it with certain
stock of the Nevada County Publishing Company, another Calkins
concern, as collateral to secure a loan of $30,000. Of the
25,000 (preferred) shares remaining, the Calkins people sold
10,000 shares for money. The 15,000 shares remaining, Mr.
Willard P. Calkins, head of the Calkins Syndicate, took to
compensate him for his peculiar labors in the transaction. This
disposed of the 125,000 shares of preferred stock in the second
company.

The 175,000 shares of common stock still remained to be
disposed of. Mr. Calkins, as president of the Calkins
Syndicate, wanting more money, took the 175,000 shares to the
London, Paris and American Bank, and pledged them as part
collateral for a second loan. He did more--he pledged the
"Union's" Associated Press franchise as further security for
this second loan.

Eventually, the second loan was paid off, but the London, Paris
and American Bank continued to hold the 175,000 shares of
common stock and the Associated Press franchise, under an
alleged collateral agreement, as further security for the first
loan of $30,000. The first loan was eventually reduced to
$16,085.02. When the crash came, two Sacramento Publishing
Companies, one with a "The" and one without a "The," claimed
ownership of the Sacramento "Union." A majority of the stock of
the first company was pledged to the Union Trust Company as
part collateral for a loan of $175,000; 175,000 shares of the
common stock of the second company and 100,000 shares of its
preferred stock, together with the paper's Associated Press
franchise, were in the hands of the successor of the London,
Paris and American Bank, the Anglo & London, Paris National
Bank, to secure a balance of $16,085.02 due on an original loan
of $30,000.

But there were further complications. The first Sacramento
Publishing Company, the directors and officers of which were
the directors and officers of the second company, transferred
the corporation's office building to the second corporation.
The second corporation thereupon mortgaged this real estate to
the People's Bank of Sacramento to secure a second loan of
$20,000.

When Mr. I. W. Hellman, Jr., manager of the Union Trust
Company--also one of the prominent managers of the Hellman
movement in local politics--was on the witness stand, at the
time of the Calkins investigation, he was asked to whom he
looked for the payment of the $175,000.

"To the Calkins Syndicate," replied Mr. Hellman.

[276] The presence of President Calhoun at an Olympic Club dinner in
July, 1907, met with strong objection. Calhoun was not a
member of the club. He had, it was charged, been brought there
by one of the employees of the Southern Pacific Company, who
was a member. His appearance led to open protest. It was
finally arranged that objection should not be made to him, on
condition that he would not attempt to make an address. But
the defense claque had evidently planned otherwise. A
demonstration was started for Calhoun. He began a speech which
brought members to their feet in protest.

"I object," said Dr. Charles A. Clinton, one of the oldest
members of the club, "to the presence here of Mr. Calhoun and
I protest against his making a speech on the ground that the
gentleman has been indicted by the Grand Jury for a most
heinous offense; that he has been charged with bribing and
debauching public officials, and should not be a guest of the
club until he can come with clean hands. I do not pass upon
this man's innocence or guilt, but feel that until his hands
are clean he should not come to the club."

The outcome was that, by action of the Board of Directors, Dr.
Clinton was expelled from the club. The course was generally
denounced. "The Olympic Club of San Francisco," said the
Sacramento Bee, "has shamed itself in the eyes of every decent,
honest, manly, self-respecting citizen in this State by its
recent act, through its Board of Directors, in expelling Dr.
Charles A. Clinton from membership. The offense of Dr. Clinton
was merely that he protested, as every other honorable member
of the Olympic Club should have protested, not so much against
the plotted appearance in that club at a banquet, of Patrick
Calhoun, indicted for high crimes, as against the subsequent
effort on the part of some members of the Olympic Club to force
Calhoun to make a speech and become the hero of the affair."

When the American battleship fleet visited San Francisco in
1908, much opposition developed over the efforts of upholders
of the defense to have Calhoun invited to the banquet given in
honor of the visitors. Calhoun's representatives finally
overcame the resistance, and Calhoun was invited.

Calhoun's social and other activities during this period
resulted in much newspaper discussion. "The action of Patrick
Calhoun," said the Examiner, "in appointing himself, Thornwell
Mullally and William Abbott, all under indictment on bribery
charges, as delegates to the Industrial Peace Conference caused
such indignation and protest on the part of the other delegates
that a committee on arrangements last evening demanded that
Calhoun withdraw the names of himself and his two subordinates
and substitute others." Mrs. Eleanor Martin gave a dinner in
honor of Congressman and Mrs. Nicholas Longworth on the
occasion of the visit of President Roosevelt's daughter to San
Francisco. Mrs. Martin ranked as highest of San Francisco's
so-called social leaders. The alleged fact that neither Calhoun
nor Mullally was present on that important occasion was made
subject of much curious newspaper comment. The "social side" of
the graft defense not infrequently furnished saving comedy for
an overstrained situation. It was, however, most effective in
breaking down the prosecution. "Socially" the defense had
decidedly the better of the situation. Calhoun, for example,
became a member of the Olympic Club. There was a deal of
newspaper protest at the club's action in admitting him, and
defense of the club and other comedy. But Calhoun wore the
"winged O" emblem of the Olympic Club on his automobile,
nevertheless.

[277] One of the most amusing experiences which the writer had
during this period was in listening to a woman, prominent in
Episcopalian Church affairs, as she voiced her indignation
because of a slight put upon her at an important social event
of her church, at which daughters of one of the graft
defendants had place in the receiving line.

[278] Some of the letters of refusal to contribute are of curious
interest. For example, Timothy Hopkins, a capitalist of large
affairs, wrote curtly: "Yours of the 4th in reference to
contributions for the entertainment of the United States Fleet
has been received. I am not contributing. Yours truly, TIMOTHY
HOPKINS."

E. E. Calvin, for the Southern Pacific, wrote "that under
present conditions we cannot afford to contribute money to any
purpose other than charity or a pressing public necessity."

A. H. Payson, for the Santa Fe, wrote that under his
instructions he "was not able to make a subscription for this
purpose in behalf of the Atchison Company."

[279] Mr. Ralston, in an interview printed in the San Francisco
Examiner, September 26, 1908, said of this incident:

"The true facts of the case are that when P. N. Lilienthal and
myself called on many of the banks and all of the public
utility corporations they came out boldly and stated that they
would not give one dollar while Phelan was Chairman of the
Executive Committee, or connected with the reception of the
fleet.

"Some of the banks that refused are the Crocker National Bank
and the Wells-Fargo National. Some of the other banks only gave
$100 when they would have given much larger amounts. They
disliked Phelan. Among the corporations were the Telephone
Company, the Spring Valley Water Company, and the Gas and
Electric Light Company. The Southern Pacific and Santa Fe
refused to subscribe and it is presumed their reasons were the
same as the other corporations.

"When I learned the true situation," Mr. Ralston went on, as he
widened the mouth of the bag for the certain escape of the cat,
"I went before the Executive Committee, at a meeting at which
Mr. Phelan was present, and guaranteed the sum of $25,000 more
if Mr. Phelan resign or step out. I even went further and said
that besides guaranteeing $25,000, I felt assured that the sum
of $50,000 could be easily collected if Mr. Phelan would drop
out. This Mr. Phelan refused to do. These matters all came up
in executive meetings."

In this connection it is interesting to note that at the 1914
election in California, Mr. Phelan was elected to represent the
State in the United States Senate, while Mr. Ralston was
defeated at the Republican primaries for nomination for
Governor.

[280] See Chapter III.

[281] President Calhoun's denunciation of Heney was scarcely
consistent with the high regard in which Heney was at the
opening of the prosecution, held by the United Railroads'
executives. So well did they think of Heney that they selected
him to sit on the Board of Arbitration which met late in 1906
to adjust differences between the United Railroads and its
employees. This fact was given by Acting Mayor Gallagher as
one of the reasons for removing Langdon from office, in
October, 1906, when the Graft Prosecution opened.
Specification 7 of Gallagher's order removing Langdon because
of the appointment of Heney reads: "Specification 7, That said
Francis J. Heney at and prior to the time of his appointment
as assistant district attorney was the representative of the
corporation controlling the street-car system of said city and
county (The United Railroads), in a certain dispute between
said corporation and its employees. That the appointment of
said Heney to said office will, in regard to the enforcement
of law against said corporation, be prejudicial and
detrimental to the interests of said city and county."

Heney resigned his position as arbitrator in the United
Railroads controversy soon after the prosecution opened.

[282] The graft defendants sent men to Arizona to have Heney
indicted, charging murder of a Dr. Handy. Years before, Heney
had taken the case of Handy's wife in divorce proceedings,
after other attorneys had declined it because of fear of
Handy. Handy had boasted that he would kill the man who took
his wife's case. After Heney had agreed to represent Mrs.
Handy, Handy announced that he would kill Heney with Heney's
own gun. He actually attempted this, and Heney, in
self-defense, shot him. Heney was exonerated at the time. When
the graft trials opened, first representatives of Ruef, and
then representatives of the United Railroads went to Arizona
for the purpose of working up this case against Heney, and if
possible secure his indictment for murder. Ruef's
representatives even went so far as to attempt to secure the
services of Handy's son to get Heney indicted. Young Handy
went to Heney, told him what was going on, and offered to go
to Arizona to protect Heney. But Heney declined to permit this
sacrifice. Young Handy expressed gratitude for what Heney had
done for his mother. Heney's brother, Ben Heney, with full
knowledge of what was going on, watched the efforts of those
who were endeavoring to make this case, long since disposed
of, a matter of embarrassment to the prosecutor. As the graft
defense investigators found nothing upon which to base a
charge this move against the graft prosecution failed.

[283] Dean John H. Wigmore of the Northwestern School of Law at
Chicago, author of Wigmore on Evidence, made sharp reply to
this contention. In a letter to President Calhoun, dated
August 10, 1909, Dean Wigmore said:

"Chicago, 87 Lake Street, 10 August, 1909.

"Mr. Patrick Calhoun, San Francisco.

"Sir:--Recently there arrived in my hands by mail, with no
sender's address, a pamphlet of ninety pages, entitled 'Some
Facts Regarding Francis J. Heney.' On page 12 your name
appears as a printed signature. I am assuming that you caused
the contents to be prepared and mailed.

"The pamphlet contains assertions reflecting on the conduct of
Francis J. Heney and the Federal Department of Justice, in
taking part in the prosecution of a criminal charge of bribery
in the State Court of California against yourself. The pamphlet
contains no defense of yourself; it does not even mention your
name, except as its signer and in the title of exhibits; much
less does it allege or attempt to show your innocence. It
merely asks an answer to 'three important constitutional and
moral questions' affecting Mr. Heney and the Department of
Justice.

"Before answering those questions, let me say that this does
not appear to be the method of an innocent man. The public
press has made notorious the charge against you and its
prosecution by Mr. Heney. Thoughtful citizens everywhere have
discussed it. Many (not including myself) had assumed that you
were guilty. You now appear to have spent a large sum to print
and circulate widely a pamphlet concerning the case. Anyone
would expect to find the pamphlet devoted to showing your
innocence; and thus to removing unfavorable opinions based on
casual press dispatches. An honest man, desiring to stand well
with honest fellow-citizens, and possessing means to print,
would naturally take that course. You do not. Your pamphlet
merely attacks the technical authority of one of the attorneys
for the prosecution, incidentally abusing two judges. This is
not the course of an innocent man. It is the course of a guilty
man who desires to divert the attention of the tribunal of
public opinion. The tradition is here fulfilled of the
attorney's instructions to the barrister acting for his guilty
client, 'No case; abuse the opposing counsel.' I am compelled
now to assume that you have no case, because all that your
expensive pamphlet does is to abuse one of the counsel for the
prosecution. Until now I have supposed it proper to suspend
judgment. I do so no longer.

"And what are your three 'constitutional and moral'
questions,--since you have sent me a pamphlet asking an answer
to them? I will answer them frankly.

"1. Was Mr. Heney's payment by the Department of Justice
covertly for the California prosecution but nominally for other
and Federal services?

"Answer: I do not know. But I and other honest citizens will
presume in favor of the honesty, in this act, of a President,
an Attorney-General, and an Assistant Attorney-General who
proved in all other public acts that they were honest and
courageous beyond example, especially as against a man like
yourself who publishes a pamphlet based throughout on anonymous
assertions.

"2. Can a Federal Assistant Attorney-General, under Federal
salary, lawfully act at the same time as State Assistant
District Attorney?

"Answer: As to this 'constitutional' question, I leave this to
the courts, as you should. As to this 'moral' question, I say
that it is moral for any Federal officer to help any State
officer in the pursuit of crime, and that only guilty
lawbreakers could be imagined to desire the contrary.

"3. Can a private citizen contribute money to help the State's
prosecuting officers in the investigation and trial of a
criminal charge?

"Answer: He can; and it is stupid even to put the question.
Under the original English jury-system (of which you received
the benefit) and until the last century, the private citizen
was usually obliged to pay the prosecuting expenses; for the
State did not, and crime went unpunished otherwise. If
nowadays, in any community, crime is again likely to go
unpunished without the help of private citizens, there is no
reason why we should not revert to the old system. As for Mr.
Spreckels (the private citizen here named by you), his name
should be held in honor, and will ever be, as against anything
your pamphlet can say. As for Mr. Heney and his receipt of
$47,500 officially and 'large sums of money additionally' from
Mr. Spreckels, it may be presumed that he spent most of it on
trial expenses, and did not keep it as a personal reward. But
even if he did so keep it, let me register the view that he is
welcome to all this--and to more--if anybody will give it; that
no money compensation is too high for such rare courage; that
the moral courage displayed by him is as much entitled to high
money compensation as the unprincipled commercial skill
displayed by yourself--and this solely by the economic test of
money value,--viz., demand and supply.

"Apart from this, the high sums said to have been paid by you
to Abraham Ruef solely for his legal skill estop you from
questioning the propriety of lesser sums said to have been paid
to Francis J. Heney for his legal skill.

"Just twenty-five years ago I sat in an upper room on Kearny
street, with five other young men, and helped to organize a
Municipal Reform League. Two or three others, still living,
will recall the occasion. Abraham Ruef was one of them.

"Fate separated all of us within a short time. Ruef went his
own way,--the way we all know. It is the memory of those
earlier days, in contrast with the recent course of events in
my old home, that has interested me to give you these answers
to the questions asked in the pamphlet you purport to have sent
me.
"JOHN H. WIGMORE."

[284] See Rudolph Spreckels' testimony in The People, etc., vs.
Patrick Calhoun.

[285] As early as April 20, 1907, the Chronicle began its objection
to Ruef's confinement. The Chronicle on that date said, in an
editorial article:

"It appears that it is costing the city about $70 a day to
keep Ruef in jail. That expense should be shut off and shut
off now. There is no reason why Ruef should be treated
differently from any other criminal who jumped his bail.
Incidentally the public is getting impatient to hear that the
$50,000 bail already forfeited has been collected. If that
were in the treasury we should be more willing to incur this
large expense. The public will very sharply criticise
authorities who incur such expense for the care of Ruef
without promptly collecting the forfeited bail or beginning
suit for it. Perhaps it has already been collected and the
public has not heard of it.

"The city has provided a jail and a jailer. Let him have Ruef.
Of course, he will 'connubiate' with him, but what of it? The
Sheriff will be under the direction of the Court and if, when
otherwise ordered, he grants Ruef privileges not proper, he
can himself be put in jail, we suppose. We trust the trial
judges will not be discouraged in their efforts to enforce
respect to their courts. They will find the people behind them
who are already sitting in critical judgment on the legal
refinements of the higher courts.

"We suppose that a criminal who has once jumped his bail may be
kept in jail when caught. But we see no use of it. By once
running away he has warranted the Court in fixing new bail at
such a rate that the public would gladly have it forfeited. We
could afford to pay something handsome to clear Ruef entirely
out of the country and into Honduras, and if we could extort
from him a few hundred thousand dollars for the privilege it
would be the best trade we ever made. But we do not believe he
would run away if the bail were made right. But if he is not to
be bailed, let him go to jail, where the total cost of his keep
will not exceed 25 or 30 cents a day or whatever it is. And if
the Sheriff is not trustworthy--as, of course, he is not--let
Elisor Biggy have a key to a separate lock on his dungeon. But
there is no sense in spending $70 a day for the keep of only
one of our municipal reprobates."