Chapter XIX: The Glass Trials and Conviction

On the day that Mayor Schmitz was sentenced to serve five years in the penitentiary for extortion, six jurors were secured to try Louis Glass, for bribery.

Mr. Glass had been indicted with T. V. Halsey for alleged bribery transactions growing out of the opposition of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company to competition in the San Francisco field. Mr. Halsey's business was to watch, and, so far as lay in his power, to block, such opposition telephone companies as might seek entrance into San Francisco.

Mr. Glass was Mr. Halsey's superior. To Glass, Halsey reported, and from Glass, Halsey took his orders. Eleven Supervisors had confessed that Halsey had paid them large sums to oppose the granting of a franchise to the Home Telephone Company. Testimony given before the Grand Jury had brought the source of the bribe money close to Halsey's superior, Glass.

Glass was indicted. The specific charge on which he was brought to trial was that he had given Supervisor Charles Boxton a bribe of $5000.

As in all the graft cases, there had been in Mr. Glass's defense technical attack upon the validity of the Grand Jury, demurrers, and other delaying moves. But point by point the prosecution had beaten down opposition, and by the time the Schmitz extortion case had been disposed of, District Attorney Langdon and his associates were able to proceed with the trial of Glass.[286]

The District Attorney's office was represented by Heney. D. M. Delmas and T. C. Coogan appeared for Mr. Glass.

There were none of the difficulties in securing the jury, as were experienced in the later graft trials. The Glass jury was sworn two days after the trial opened.

Dr. Boxton took the stand and testified, with a minutia of detail, how the bribe had been paid to him. Dr. Boxton was the first of the Supervisors to testify before trial jury and public, of his corruption. During the next year and a half San Francisco was to hear the story repeated time after time from the lips of sixteen men who had occupied the supervisorial office. But Boxton was the first. The spectacle of a man testifying that he had taken bribes and betrayed the city was new; it was astonishing, thrilling with sensation.

Boxton's position was emphasized by his elevation, on the day of the beginning of his testimony, to the mayoralty office. He was spared by neither prosecution nor defense. He was kept on the witness stand for hours. The prosecution treated him with coldness, making no attempt to palliate or excuse his conduct. The defense harassed him with subtle ridicule.

During the greater part of Boxton's examination, the Board of Supervisors was in session. As Mayor of San Francisco, Boxton was supposed to preside over the Board. He was repeatedly dragged from presiding desk to witness stand, and hustled back from witness stand to presiding desk, the whole city watching every move.

"You were elected Mayor of this city?" inquired Delmas after one of the witness' shameful admissions.

"Through no fault of mine," replied Boxton wearily.

But in spite of the ridicule and the hammering, Boxton testified positively to receiving money from Halsey to influence him against casting his supervisorial vote to give the Home Telephone Company a franchise. That Halsey paid the money was not seriously disputed. The question raised by the defense was, did the bribe money necessarily come through Halsey's superior, Glass?

This question the prosecution attempted to meet. Halsey, it was shown, was employed under Glass in an inferior position and had neither authority nor power to use the corporation's funds without authorization.

Mr. Glass's position in the company was an important one. He had long been vice-president and general manager. After the death of John I. Sabin, president of the company, in October, 1905, Glass became acting president, a position which he held until Henry T. Scott assumed the duties of that office late in February, or early in March, 1906. The evidence went to show that at the time of the alleged bribery transactions, Glass was serving as general manager and acting president. Officials of the company testified that during Sabin's administration checks had been signed by "John I. Sabin by Zimmer," or "E. J. Zimmer for the president," and countersigned by the treasurer. Zimmer was Sabin's confidential clerk.

During Mr. Glass's administration, after Mr. Sabin's death, up to the time that Mr. Scott took hold, the checks were signed by Mr. Glass, or Mr. Zimmer for Mr. Glass, bearing as well the treasurer's signature.

Zimmer had testified before the Grand Jury that at the direction of Mr. Glass, he had drawn large sums in currency from the banks, and given the money to Halsey. Halsey[287] gave no vouchers for this money which he received from Zimmer. The amounts were accounted for at the company's office by tags in the cash drawer.

The testimony which Zimmer had given before the Grand Jury connected Glass directly with the large amounts which Halsey, without giving vouchers, had received from the telephone company's treasury at the time of the bribery transactions. The prosecution depended upon Zimmer's testimony to solidify their case. But when Zimmer was called to the stand, he refused to testify.

Zimmer based his refusal upon the ground that in his opinion the Grand Jury had indicted a number of gentlemen upon evidence which Mr. Zimmer regarded as insufficient, and that he would not, to protect his own interests, testify.[288]

The court instructed Mr. Zimmer that his position was untenable. The witness continued obdurate. The court sentenced him to serve five days in the county jail for contempt.

After his five-days' term had expired, Zimmer was again called to the stand, and again did he refuse to testify; again was he sentenced to serve in the county jail, this time for one day. Upon the expiration of this second sentence, Zimmer was for the third time called to the stand, for the third time refused to testify. For the third time was he adjudged guilty of contempt. His third sentence was to serve five days in the county jail and pay a fine of $500. Before he had served his time, the Glass trial had been concluded. Zimmer, therefore, escaped testifying against his associate, Glass. But for his refusal, he served eleven days in the county jail and paid a fine of $500. The maximum penalty for the crime of bribery alleged against Glass was fourteen years penal servitude. Mr. Zimmer thus served fewer days than Mr. Glass might have been sentenced to serve years had he been convicted. The testimony which Zimmer[289] gave before the Grand Jury, was not presented to the trial jury.

Nevertheless, the prosecution considered that it had made out a strong case, but Mr. Heney and his associates had reckoned without D. M. Delmas, Glass's chief counsel. The defense introduced no evidence, but Delmas, in a masterful argument, raised the question of reasonable doubt. He insisted that Glass had not necessarily given the money to Halsey. He argued that several others of the officials of the company could have authorized the transaction. By an elaborate chain of reasoning, for example, Delmas insisted that if the money had been given Halsey at all, President Henry T. Scott[290] could have provided for it.

The jury, after being out forty-seven hours, failed to agree. At the final ballot it stood seven for conviction and five for acquittal. That Delmas's argument had strong influence upon those who voted for acquittal was indicated by their published interviews. If these statements are to be credited, Glass escaped conviction because a number of the jurors held to the opinion that some telephone company official other than Glass could have authorized the passing of the bribe money.[291]

As soon as the prosecution could bring Glass to second trial, impaneling of the jury began.[292] Glass, at this second trial, was tried for the alleged bribery of Supervisor Lonergan. The trial was in many particulars a repetition of the first. Again, there was no serious attempt to dispute that Halsey had paid Lonergan the bribe money. Zimmer again refused to testify against his superior, and was again committed for contempt. But the prosecution was careful at the second trial to show beyond the possibility of the question of a doubt that neither President Henry T. Scott, nor any other official of the Pacific States Telephone Company, other than Glass, could have authorized the payment of the bribe money.

By the minute books of the corporation, the prosecution showed that checks drawn by the corporation on San Francisco banks were to be signed "by the assistant treasurer or his deputy, and by the president, or his private secretary, E. J. Zimmer, for him, or by the general manager." As for Mr. Scott, the prosecution showed by the testimony of Assistant Treasurer Eaton[293] of the telephone company that the corporation did not notify the banks to honor President Scott's signature until February 27, which was after the alleged bribery of Supervisor Lonergan had been consummated.

The jury, after being out less than a half hour, brought in a verdict of guilty.

Pending his appeal to the Appellate Court, Glass was confined in the county jail.

Of the Pacific States Telephone bribing charges, those against T. V. Halsey remained to be disposed of.

Even while the second Glass trial was under way, Halsey's trial for the bribery of Supervisor Lonergan was begun. There had been the same delaying tactics to ward off appearance before a jury which had characterized the other graft cases. The impaneling of the trial jury was, however, finally undertaken. But the proceedings were suddenly brought to a close. Halsey, after eight jurors had been secured to try him, was stricken with appendicitis.

On this showing, his trial was postponed. Later on, Mr. Halsey was threatened with tuberculosis, which further delayed proceedings against him. Until after the defeat of the Graft Prosecution in 1909, Mr. Halsey's health did not permit of his being tried. His trials under the new administration of the District Attorney's office, resulted in acquittals.

Mr. Halsey, in August, 1913, still survives both the appendicitis attack and the threatened tuberculosis.

FOOTNOTES:

[286] Glass's attorneys contended to the last moment that the trial
judge had no jurisdiction to hear the case. After the District
Attorney's opening statement had been made, but before the
taking of testimony had begun, Mr. Delmas for the defense,
stated that in the opinion of the counsel for the defendant
the court had no jurisdiction to try the case on the ground
that the Grand Jury which returned the purported indictment
was an illegal body, having no power to sit as a grand jury at
the time it returned the indictment.

[287] See Chapter XIV and footnotes 189 and 190, page 171.

[288] Mr. Zimmer's statement to the court was as follows: "As
previously stated, the Grand Jury has heretofore charged and
indicted a number of gentlemen on evidence which I have read,
and which seems to be insufficient, for which reason I have
taken this stand to protect my own interests; the stand I
refer to is not to testify in the case which I had intended
and not knowing my rights in the matter. I was sworn, though
my intention was not to be sworn." Zimmer positively refused
to place his declination on the ground that his testimony
might tend to subject him to prosecution.

[289] Zimmer was later tried before a Justice of Peace for contempt,
found guilty and sentenced to three months in the county Jail.
He appealed to the higher courts.

[290] Scott had been elected President before the alleged bribery
transactions, but had left soon after for the East. The
Prosecution held that Scott did not assume his duties as
president until after his return from the East, when the
alleged briberies had been completed. Delmas concluded his
argument on Scott's possible responsibility as follows:

"And then you are called again further on in this same process
of elimination. 'We expect to prove to you that Halsey had no
power to expend moneys without a voucher, and that no person
at that time in the Telephone Company had any power to expend
money without the approval of the executive Board of
Directors, except Glass, and Scott, who was away.' Scott had
gone, we were told, on the 18th or 19th. These transactions
took place on the 22d, 23d and 24th. Scott could not have
authorized them from the simple fact that Scott was then in
the East, and he was not here in San Francisco to direct or
authorize the management of the affairs of this corporation. A
true elimination, gentlemen, if the facts were true, but the
facts are not true. Mr. Scott did not leave for the East--bear
this in mind--Mr. Scott did not leave for the East until all
these transactions were closed; he did not leave until the
27th of February when the last of these checks had been paid.
Who drew it? Scott himself. I challenge contradiction. The
Assistant District Attorney told you on the first day that he
addressed you that Scott left on the 18th or 19th. Did he know
that Scott did not leave until the 27th? Did he? If he did,
then there are no words that would apply to the deception that
was sought to be practiced upon you, and I do not charge any
such deception. Had Mr. Scott informed the District Attorney
that he left on the 18th or 19th? I do not know. There is no
evidence before you that he had. How, then, did he get the
idea which he made to you under the oath of his office as
District Attorney that Scott left on the 18th or 19th, when in
point of fact Scott did not leave until the 27th? He came back
from Portland on Monday or Tuesday of the preceding week. He
was here during the whole of these transactions; he remained
until the last check had been paid. He remained until the
ordinance had been passed on the 26th of February, and left
the defeated camp on the next day. How, then, upon that
evidence, is Scott eliminated from this transaction? And I do
not want you to understand that I am charging Mr. Scott with
crime. That is no part of my business. It is no part of my
office. I am assuming, upon the theory of this prosecution,
that a crime was committed, and I say you, yourselves, Mr.
District Attorney and your attendants, have undertaken by the
process of elimination which you have selected, to show us
that Mr. Scott could not have committed this crime. It is
sufficient for us to show you that he could without charging
that he did."

[291] The following are taken from interviews with the several
jurors which appeared in the Examiner of July 29, 1907:

Juror Jacob Wertheimer--"I voted as I did (for acquittal)
because there was a reasonable doubt in my mind as to whether
or not Glass had authorized the giving of the money. There
were too many others that might have been the ones."

Juror Charles P. Fonda--"I voted not guilty. It was simply a
question of whether Glass paid over this money as charged.
Five of us did not believe that the Prosecution produced
sufficiently convincing evidence to find the defendant
guilty."

Juror Michael C. Samuels--"The evidence did not link Glass up.
So far as the bribery went, it might have been done by another
official of the company than Glass."

Juror Hugo Schnessel--"There was always something lacking in
the evidence to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt of the
defendant's guilt. It seemed to me that possibly some one else
other than Glass might have paid over the money."

[292] Of the delaying tactics in the Glass case, The San Francisco
Call in its issue of August 14, 1907, said:

"Anything to delay trial and judgment is the policy of the
accused bribe givers. Every day's proceedings in the retrial
of Glass provides ample proof to convince the most skeptical
citizen that the last thing desired by the men charged with
debauching the boodle Board of Supervisors is prompt
determination of the issues on their merits, and every
pettifogging move for delay, every cunning attempt to betray
the court into technical error is confession of a case too
weak to be given to a fair jury on a plain showing of the
facts. The attitude of the lawyers for Glass is sufficient to
indicate that he needs lawyers of their peculiar
expertness--'distinguished attorneys,' Heney calls
them--'distinguished for their ability to defeat justice.'

"Judge Lawlor's unhesitating denial of a motion to permit the
lawyers for Glass to shift their ground in the midst of the
impaneling of the jury and hark back to an attack on the
validity of the indictments, and his sharp reprimand to
Attorney Coogan for his method of misleading talesmen by
adroitly framed questions, ought to expedite this trial.
Lawlor has a reputation for dealing sternly with legal
tricksters and for compelling counsel in the cases that he
hears to get down to business and keep at it. At the same time
his record on the bench is that of a just judge and always
impartial. It is because he is impartial and stern that
crooked lawyers, with crooked clients, deem it 'hard luck'
when their cases are assigned to Lawlor.

"Now Judge Lawlor has a rare opportunity to prove anew his
worth as a jurist. He will please a patient and long suffering
public and will satisfy the ends of the justice which he
administers when he makes the lawyers quit trifling and forces
them to let the trial go on. We may expect to see the trial
made as tedious and as costly in time and money as high priced
counselors can arrange. It is all part of the game--tire out
the public, the jury and the prosecution; delay is the safest
course for the man accused against whom the people's case is
strong. But we may also expect to see Judge Lawlor trimming the
matter of technicalities and pressing it to a conclusion. It
was because the people had come to expect such things from
Judge Lawlor that they re-elected him, when all the machines of
municipal corruption were grinding against him."

[293] Eaton testified at the second Glass trial as follows: "Mr.
Scott did not sign any checks between February 8, 1906, and
the latter part of March, 1906, for the company; not to my
knowledge. Notices were sent out by me to the different banks
in regard to the signatures that could be accepted upon checks
after Mr. Scott was elected president. They were sent on the
27th of February, 1906, to all the San Francisco banks that we
had an account with."

Eaton testified further that the day the banks were notified,
Mr. Scott went East. Mr. Scott could, Eaton said, previous to
that date, have signed checks, but up to that time they would
not have been honored at the banks. Halsey, in the Mills
Building, gave the Supervisors, of whom Lonergan was one,
their bribe money not later than February 26. Supervisor
Lonergan testified that to the best of his recollection he had
been paid by Halsey some time between February 14 and February
20.