Chapter XX: The Ford Trials and Acquittals

The conviction of Glass, following immediately upon the overthrow of the Schmitz-Ruef municipal administration, and coupled with the pitiful position in which, all recognized, Halsey would find himself before a jury, stirred the graft defense to astonishing activity. Although it developed later that the defendants had had their agents at work even before the bringing of indictments,[294] little was suspected of the extent of their labors until after the Glass trials. During the trials of General Tirey L. Ford, who followed Glass before trial jurors, however, the work of the defendants' agents and their methods became notorious. From the opening of the Ford trials, the representatives of the various graft defendants who congregated in the courtroom ranged in social and professional standing from the highest priced lawyers of the character of Alexander King, President Calhoun's law partner, down through layers of the typical, criminal lawyer of the Earl Rogers-Porter Ashe[295] grade, to characters of the type of Harry Lorenstzen,[296] notoriously known throughout Central California as the "Banjo-Eyed Kid," and Dave Nagle, the gun-fighter, who numbered among his accomplishments the slaying of Judge Terry. Nor were the defending corporations alone represented. The Southern Pacific, although none of its officials were under indictment, had men at work in the interest of the defense.[297]

With such motley array of attorneys, detectives, gunfighters and agents, District Attorney Langdon and his associates contended until, what was practically the ending of the graft prosecution, the defeat of Heney for District Attorney at the municipal election of 1909.

Ford had been indicted for his alleged part in the bribery of the Supervisors by the United Railroads to secure its over-head trolley permit. At his first trial, Ford answered to the charge of bribing former Supervisor Lonergan. Lonergan had not been long on the stand before the defense demonstrated the astonishing effectiveness of the work of its agents.

Earl Rogers, for the defendant, on cross-examination, presented a paper signed by Lonergan within the month, in which Lonergan set forth that when he voted for the trolley permit he had not been promised, nor did he understand, there would be any monetary consideration allowed him--nor any other member of the board--for voting in favor of the measure.

Lonergan had testified on direct examination that some time prior to the granting of the permit, Supervisor Wilson had brought word to him there would be $8000 for him in the passing of the trolley ordinance. Later Wilson had told him that the amount would be $4000 only. This amount, Lonergan testified, Gallagher had paid him. Lonergan's statement, signed a few days before the opening of the trial, to the effect that when he voted to grant the United Railroads its trolley permit no monetary consideration had been promised him, came as a surprise to the prosecution.

The story of the manner in which the paper came to be in Rogers's possession, however, was quite as sensational as the statement itself. Lonergan, the driver of a bakery wagon, confronted by the keenest practitioners at the California bar, harassed and confused, stammered out explanation of the manner in which he had been induced to sign the paper in Rogers's hands.

Long before he had signed it, one Dorland had secured introduction to him. Dorland had represented himself to be a magazine writer, who held that the ousted Supervisors had been misused. Dorland stated that his purpose was to set the Supervisors right in the East. He represented that he was to prepare an article on the San Francisco graft situation from an independent, unbiased standpoint. Dorland made himself very agreeable to Lonergan. He took the unhappy fellow to lunch. He gave him and members of his family automobile trips and expensive dinners. Lonergan finally signed the statement which the agreeable "magazine writer" was to use in his behalf, and with which the graft defense[298] confronted him on the witness stand.

The statement which Lonergan had signed was a rambling account of conditions in San Francisco, the one pertinent paragraph touching upon the United Railroads graft being buried in a multitude of words.

"And you intended to say to all the readers of the magazine what you set forth over your signature there?" demanded General Ford's attorney.

"Yes," replied Lonergan, weakly, "but when I made that statement I was not under oath."

Then Lonergan was confronted with the affidavit which he had signed at the opening of the Graft Prosecution when Langdon was fighting against Ruef, Acting Mayor Gallagher and the Schmitz-Ruef Supervisors to keep himself in the office of District Attorney and Ruef out. In that affidavit Lonergan set forth that he had "never committed a felony of any kind or character," and had "never been a party thereto."[299]

"I didn't read that paper at the time I signed it," faltered the miserable witness. "I did not consider I was committing a crime when I signed that document."

"If it be a crime to have me sign that," he continued in answer to General Ford's attorney's merciless hammering, "then I must have (committed a felony)."

Then on re-direct examination Lonergan testified as to how he had come to sign the affidavit. George B. Keane, clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Ruef's right-hand man, secretary of the Sunday-night caucuses, had, Lonergan testified, said to him, "Tom, there is a document across the street there for you to go over and sign. All the boys are signing it." Lonergan testified that he had gone over and signed it. "I am almost sure," Lonergan continued, "that some of them said to me that it was a matter of form, merely eulogizing the board."

"When proper inducements or circumstances occur," sneered General Ford's attorney, "you will testify falsely concerning your offenses."

"I will not testify falsely on this stand," replied the unhappy witness, "to whatever has happened during my term as Supervisor."

But complicated as the position in which the prosecution found its principal witness, it might have been more complicated had all the plans of the agents for the defense been carried out.

On the night before Lonergan was to take the stand against Ford, Dorland, the alleged magazine writer, called him up by telephone and invited him "to make a night of it." Dorland stated two women would accompany them. Before accepting the invitation, Lonergan notified Detective Burns. Burns instructed him not to go on the trip, but to meet Dorland and to take Mrs. Lonergan with him. Lonergan, with his wife, accordingly met Dorland and the two women at the appointed place. Dorland expressed his chagrin when he found Lonergan not alone.

"He said," Lonergan testified, "he was sorry I was not alone; two nice young ladies were there."

Lonergan's testimony of Dorland's dismay when the detective found that Mrs. Lonergan accompanied her husband, was received with amusement. The one-time Supervisor went on no automobile ride that evening. Thus tamely ended what the prosecution insisted was a plot to kidnap, or at least compromise, Lonergan on the eve of his appearance as a witness against General Ford.[300]

Out of this attempt to involve Lonergan, grew the scarcely less astonishing kidnaping of Fremont Older, managing editor of the San Francisco Bulletin.

Among those alleged to have participated in the Lonergan affair was an employe of the graft defense by the name of Brown. The defense had at the time two employes of that name, "Luther" and "J. C.," the latter of whom is alleged to have been the one who co-operated with Dorland in his attempt upon Lonergan. The Bulletin, in its account of the affair, confounded Luther with J. C. Brown. Based on the Bulletin's allegations against Luther Brown, warrants were sworn out at Los Angeles, charging Managing Editor Older with criminal libel. The manner of serving these Los Angeles warrants was characteristic of the times.

Late in the afternoon of September 27, Older, while at Heney's office, received a telephone message that he was wanted at a prominent hotel. As he approached the hotel in response to the message, he was stopped by a number of men who claimed to be peace officers from Los Angeles. These displayed the warrant, and hustled Older into an automobile. Older demanded that he be taken before a local court. His captors promised him he should be. But instead they headed the machine for Redwood City, a town some twenty miles south of San Francisco on the line of the Southern Pacific. When Older protested a revolver was pressed against his side, and he was ordered to keep silent.

At Redwood City, Older was put on board a Los Angeles train. On the train were R. Porter Ashe and Luther Brown. Older was not permitted to communicate with his friends nor with the passengers, but was confined in a stateroom which his captors had secured.[301]

In the meantime, the entire police force of San Francisco was scouring the city for the missing man. There had been rumors that those prominent in the prosecution, Older among them, were to be made away with. Older's unaccountable disappearance tended to confirm these rumors. His alarmed friends were prepared to act promptly when word finally reached them that Older was on the southbound train.

The train was due to reach Santa Barbara early the following morning. Arrangements were accordingly made to rescue Older at that point. When the train arrived there, deputy sheriffs were awaiting its arrival. Older was taken into court under habeas corpus proceedings. His release followed,[301] another sensation of the graft defense thereby coming to sorry ending.[302]

There were other surprises for the representatives of the prosecution at the Ford trials well calculated to confuse them. Alex. Latham, chauffeur for Ruef, whose testimony connected Ruef and Ford, during the period of the alleged bribery transactions was, when his name was called as a witness, found to be missing. He was alleged to be in Colorado.

George Starr, treasurer of the United Railroads, whose testimony was needed in the tracing of the exact amount of the bribe money paid Ruef in the overhead trolley deal, $200,000, that had been placed in Ford's hands under somewhat peculiar circumstances, went East about the date the trial opened. The United Railroads' cash book was sent East about the same time, and could not be produced at the trial.[303]

Then again, witnesses who had testified freely before the Grand Jury became forgetful. Supervisor Wilson, who had conveyed word to Lonergan from Gallagher that there would be $4000 in the trolley deal for Lonergan, could, when brought to the witness stand, remember nothing of the incident. Supervisor Coffey also proved equally forgetful.[304]

In the midst of these extraordinary happenings, General Ford's trial went on, marked by repeated attacks by attorneys for the defense upon those who had been instrumental in bringing about the Graft Prosecution. Rudolph Spreckels in particular, was made object of vicious denunciation. It was recognized from the beginning that the defense was battling not for General Ford alone, but for President Calhoun, and the other officials of the United Railroads under indictment.

The State's attorneys, target for constant abuse and ridicule at the hands of the defense, proceeded, however, to present the case of The People. In spite of sensations, the disappearance of witnesses and the forgetfulness of witnesses, the prosecution brought out testimony to show that the Supervisors had received $85,000 for their votes granting the trolley permit. By the testimony of officials of the United States Mint it was shown that Patrick Calhoun had, after the fire, but before the opening of the San Francisco banks, created a fund of $200,000 at the Mint.

None of the directors of the United Railroads who could be dragged to the stand knew anything about this $200,000. Other amounts, which the United Railroads, during the days of stress following the fire, had received at the Mint from the East, could be accounted for by the books and vouchers, but not this $200,000.[305] United Railroads employes who could be made to testify could throw no light upon its final disposition.

But the prosecution did show by the Mint officials that President Calhoun had ordered the $200,000 paid to General Ford and that it was paid to General Ford.

The following dates, brought out by the testimony, showed the receipt and suggested the disposition of the money:

May 21--Overhead trolley franchise granted by the Board of Supervisors.

May 22--$200,000 placed in the Mint to the credit of Patrick Calhoun.

May 25--General Ford drew $50,000 from the Mint which he exchanged for currency of small denominations.

July 31--General Ford drew $50,000 from the Mint, which he exchanged for currency.

August 1--The Supervisors received from Gallagher their first payment for voting to grant the overhead trolley permit. Gallagher testified that he had received the money from Ruef. The payments were in currency, the bills being of small denominations.

August 23--General Ford drew $100,000 from the Mint, which he exchanged for currency, receiving bills of large denominations.

August 24-30--The Supervisors received their final payments from Gallagher for their votes on the trolley permit. These last payments were made in bills of large denominations. Gallagher testified that he had received the money from Ruef.

The withdrawals from the Mint had been made by General Ford, on Mr. Calhoun's instructions to the Mint officials that the payments should be made to the General.

The testimony of the Mint officials and employes was to the point and at times sensational. Nathan Selig, a clerk at the Mint, for example, assisted Eugene D. Hawkins as assistant cashier,[306] in making up a package of $50,000 in bills which were turned over to Ford. Selig fixed the time of the occurrence at "shortly after the Mayor signed the franchise bill for the overhead wire."

"What impressed that upon your mind?" was asked him. "Because I made the remark to Mr. Hawkins, as he was going out," replied Selig, "that that was--I thought it was, the Supervisors' 'bit'."

Having traced this $200,000 from Calhoun to the Mint and from the Mint to Ford, the prosecution proved by Charles Hagerty, Ruef's office boy, that during the weeks after the fire General Ford and Mr. Mullally of the United Railroads, had had conference with Ruef at Ruef's office. Ruef was traced to Ford's office. Ford's stenographer testified, reluctantly, to Ruef's presence there. Ford was shown to have sent warning, through his assistant Abbott, to Ruef, at the opening of the graft investigation, that the Grand Jury was taking up the matter of the United Railroads trolley privilege, that the prosecution had not made any headway, that it was thought the next step would be to lay some trap for the Supervisors.[307] That Ruef and Ford had more or less intimate relations during this period was fully established.[308] The question raised was: Did the $85,000 in currency which Ruef gave Gallagher to be paid to the Supervisors for their votes on the overhead trolley permit pass from Ford to Ruef? Did the money paid the Supervisors come out of the unaccounted-for $200,000 which had disappeared into General Ford's possession?[309]

A word from Abe Ruef would have lifted the case out of the plane of circumstantial to that of positive evidence.

A word from General Ford would have shown the manner in which the money had been disposed.

Those who took seriously Ruef's protestations at the time of his plea of guilty to extortion, that his life would thereafter be devoted to undoing the wrong he had wrought, looked to see the prosecution put Ruef on the stand.

The many supporters of General Ford--he was one of the most likable and popular men in the State--who still held belief in his innocence, looked to see him take the stand to clear his name by accounting for the disposition of that $200,000 which he had received, at the order of President Calhoun, from the Mint officials.

But neither Ruef nor Ford took the stand.

Later developments in the graft cases showed why the prosecution did not call upon Ruef to testify.

But no satisfactory showing has been made why General Ford did not take the stand to tell, under oath, of the disposition of that $200,000 last seen in his possession.

Heney, in an affidavit[310] acknowledged March 10, 1908, tells why Ruef was not called upon to testify.

Some ten days before the taking of testimony in the first Ford trial began, according to this affidavit, Heney had Gallagher and Ruef at his office. The two men had told stories of the passage of the ordinance granting the trolley permit, which conflicted slightly. Heney's purpose in confronting them, he tells us in the affidavit, was that he might determine in his own mind which was right. Heney had not seen Ruef, except as he had passed him in court or corridor, since he had proved that Ruef had made misrepresentations to him in the French Restaurant cases.[311] The conversation between Ruef and Gallagher did not tend to change Heney's opinion of the broken boss. Indeed, Heney became more firmly convinced than ever that Ruef was not acting in good faith, that he was not telling the whole truth. A few days after this meeting, Burns brought Heney word that Ruef would not testify at the Ford trial at all, unless the prosecution allowed him to withdraw his plea of guilty in the extortion case, and dismissed all the indictments against him. Heney refused to be coerced. He sent word back to Ruef that the prosecution had had sufficient evidence to convict Ford before Ruef had told anything; that if Ruef were called to the witness-stand it would be without further talk with him; that none of the cases against him would be dismissed, and that if called to the stand he could testify or not testify, as he saw fit.

That night, according to Heney, Rabbis Nieto and Kaplan, with Ruef's attorney, Henry Ach,[312] appeared at Heney's office. Ach announced in substance, according to Heney's affidavit, that inasmuch as Heney and Langdon had promised to permit Ruef to withdraw his plea of guilty to the extortion charge, and then dismiss the case, as a condition upon which Ruef signed the immunity contract,[313] the time had arrived when, in justice to Ruef, this ought to be done.[314]

Heney let Ach finish.

"We might as well understand each other," Heney then announced. "You know perfectly well that I did not at any time make any such promise to Ruef or to you, or to any one present, or to any one else on earth."

Heney then recited the exact terms of his promise.[315] Both Kaplan and Nieto agreed with him that his statement was correct, but Kaplan insisted that he had understood that Ruef was to be allowed to withdraw his plea, arguing that he had told the truth and that his evidence was very important.

"Ruef lied to us," answered Heney emphatically, "in the French Restaurant case, and I proved it to him in this very room, and he simply laughed in my face. He also lied to us in all the other cases. He is not entitled to immunity in any case, and I not only will not permit him to withdraw his plea of guilty in case number 305, but on the contrary it is my present intention to ask the court in that case to give him no leniency whatever, but to sentence him for the maximum term which is prescribed by law."

Heney suggested that Ruef's representatives take this word back to their principal.

"Ruef," Heney concluded, "tried to job the prosecution and he has only succeeded in jobbing himself into the penitentiary."

Ten days later, when Heney made his opening statement before the first Ford jury, he carefully refrained from stating that the prosecution expected to prove any fact that necessarily depended in whole or in part upon Ruef's testimony. And with all San Francisco on tiptoe of expectancy,[316] Heney closed the case of The People without putting Ruef on the stand.[317]

The defense offered no evidence. The case went to the jury on the evidence which the prosecution had presented. The jury failed to agree, eight standing for acquittal, and four for conviction.

General Ford was immediately brought to trial for the second time. The case selected was for the bribery of Supervisor Jennings Phillips.

Heney, in his opening statement, announced that he did not intend to put Ruef on the stand. The second case presented was, if anything, stronger than the first, but the jury brought in a verdict of "not guilty." General Ford was tried on a third of the indictments against him, and again was the verdict of the jury "not guilty."

Long after, the prosecution discovered that agents for the United Railroads had systematically corrupted members of its detective force. On the evidence in the hands of the prosecution, a search warrant was secured, and the offices of the United Railroads raided in a search for stolen documents. Copies of over 2400 documents belonging to the prosecution were found. It developed that men in the employ of the prosecution were receiving regular monthly salaries from agents of the United Railroads to turn these reports over to agents of the defense for copying. The defense was in this way kept informed of all that had been reported to the prosecution regarding jurors, etc., by Burns's own agents.[318]

At the time of the third Ford trial, for example, Heney was engaged with Ruef's trial in the Parkside case. The Ford trial was conducted for the State by John O'Gara. One of Burns's men, Platt by name, was appointed to assist O'Gara by advising him of the character of the men drawn for jury service. O'Gara repeatedly discovered Platt's advice and suggestions to be unreliable. Long after it was discovered that Platt was at the time in the employ of agents for the United Railroads. The reason for the character of his advice and suggestions was then apparent.

At none of the Ford trials did the defense attempt to meet the evidence which the prosecution presented. At the third trial, the prosecution called President Calhoun and Abe Ruef[319] to the stand. But both declined to answer. The disposition of the $50,000 in currency in small bills, and of the $150,000 in currency in large bills, which passed into General Ford's hands, at the time that currency of this exact amount and description passed into the hands of Abe Ruef, $85,000 of which Ruef distributed among the Supervisors for voting for the United Railroads trolley permit, continues as great a mystery as it was on the day that the first Ford trial opened. Ruef at the time of his plea of guilty to the extortion charge, and five years later in the story of his career published in the San Francisco Bulletin, admitted that the $200,000 that on Calhoun's order was turned over to Ford was soon after paid to him (Ruef) because of the granting of the trolley permit. The $85,000 that Gallagher divided among the Supervisors on account of their granting this permit, Ruef has stated in his several confessions, came out of this Calhoun-to-Ford, Ford-to-Ruef $200,000.

And in California there are many who hold that in this instance, at least, Ruef is telling the truth.

FOOTNOTES:

[294] John Helms, a detective, testified at the trial of Patrick
Calhoun that he had been employed by the United Railroads as
early as May 3, 1907; that his duties consisted of "mostly
shadow work, watching out for things being done by the
prosecution"; that Patrick Calhoun had himself authorized him
(Helms) to employ men to follow Burns on motorcycles. Later on
automobiles were substituted for the motorcycles.

If Helms's employment began on May 3, as he testified, the
United Railroads was preparing for its defense at least three
weeks before indictments were brought against its officials.
The extent of that corporation's defense, or the details of
it, are not known to those outside the corporation. At the
Calhoun trial the Prosecution accounted for every dollar spent
in the operations against the Schmitz-Ruef regime. The
attorneys representing the United Railroads were invited to
make as frank statement of the expenditures made by the
defense, but they declined.

[295] Ashe participated in the first Ford trials. At the time of the
later trials he was involved in the scandal of the alleged
kidnaping of Fremont Older.

[296] In referring to the men and women employed by the graft
defense, The Call, in an editorial article, in its issue of
September 26, said:

"The retinue of the trolley magnates, as exhibited in the Ford
case, makes a remarkable picture. Behind the expert lawyers of
last resort troops a motley train of gun fighters,
professional plug-uglies, decoys, disreputable 'detectives,'
thugs, women of the half world and the wolfish pack of gutter
journalism. It must be, indeed, a hard case that needs such
bolstering.

"How will Mr. Calhoun square with his protestations of
high-mindedness the presence and the efforts in his behalf of
such creatures of the slums and stews as 'Bogie' O'Donnell and
'The Banjo Eyed Kid'? Are these and the others of their kidney
laboring in the same behalf as friends and sympathizers of Mr.
Calhoun or merely as his hired men?"

[297] At the Ford trial, Supervisor Lonergan had testified that he
had been followed during a recess of the court. The following
testimony followed:

"Q. Was that Mr. Melrose, a detective of the Southern Pacific,
who is sitting there? A. I don't know Mr. Melrose.

"Q. Is he the gentleman sitting immediately back of Mr. Ford?
A. That is the gentleman; that is him.

"Q. He was following you around during the noon hour? A. Yes,
sir.

"Q. Don't you know he is a detective of the Southern Pacific?
A. I don't know anything about the gentleman."

[298] The Call, in its issue of September 26, 1907, stated in
explanation of how the graft defense had come by the statement
Lonergan had made to Dorland that: "After court adjourned
(September 25) Attorney Rogers offered an explanation for
Walter Dorland, the man who was charged by the prosecution
with having attempted to kidnap Lonergan. Rogers's story
differed from that told by Dorland. Rogers stated that Dorland
was not a detective, but was in charge of a hospital in
Chicago. He came to San Francisco, where he met Luther Brown,
an associate of Rogers. Brown and Dorland were old friends and
the former induced Dorland to get statements from the
Supervisors for him. Dorland did this. Rogers says he has
statements from all the Supervisors with the exception of
Gallagher."

[299] Heney states in an affidavit filed in the case of The People
vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., No. 823, that he had been
informed that the reason given by Ruef for securing the
signatures of the Supervisors to this affidavit was to find
out which, if any of them, had confessed, upon the theory that
any one of them who had confessed would refuse to sign an
affidavit, and upon the further theory that if such a
confessing member did sign the affidavit, he would thus be
making a contradictory statement under oath, which could thus
be further used against him by Ruef or Gallagher, upon the
trial of either of them.

But whatever Ruef's far-seeing motive, this affidavit which
he, through Keane, induced the Supervisors to sign, was used
by the attorneys for the defense at the graft trials to show
contradictory statements of the confessing Supervisors.

[300] The San Francisco Call, in its issue of September 25, 1907, in
commenting on Lonergan's testimony, says: "While Lonergan's
narrative tells a portion of the story, it is not all. In
another automobile were Detective Luther Brown and the
'Banjo-Eyed Kid' of the United Railroads. They followed close
on the heels of the auto occupied by Detective Dorland. Both
machines sped to a resort near the park, where a meeting place
had been arranged and where Lonergan was to be turned over to
the custody of the 'Banjo-Eyed Kid.' The rest was to be left
to the Kid. If the plan had carried there would have been no
Lonergan at the trial yesterday, the defense would have
flashed the statement secured by Dorland and set up the cry
that the entire prosecution of the United Railroads was a plot
set on foot by Rudolph Spreckels."

[301] Several who participated in this affair were later indicted
for kidnaping. There were no convictions.

[302] Burns in an affidavit filed in the case of The People vs.
Patrick Calhoun et als., 832, refers to a plot hatched about
the time of the Ford trials to kidnap Ruef. Burns charges that
Ruef was to have been taken into a mountain county and held
there until the United Railroads cases had been disposed of.
He states his belief that Ruef was party to the plot.

[303] The disinclination of the United Railroads to produce its
books continues to cause that corporation inconvenience and
trouble. In 1913, for example, the corporation applied to the
California State Board of Railroad Commissioners for
permission to issue promissory notes to the amount of
$2,350,000. That the Commission might determine the necessity
of such an issue, request was made for the corporation's
books. This request was denied. The Commission withheld
authorization of the note issue. In commenting upon its
refusal, the Commission said:

"It should be understood that the conclusions hereinbefore set
out have been reached on the partial information which has
been submitted to the Commission, and that if an examination
of the original books which the company has refused to supply
should reveal a different condition, the responsibility for
these conclusions, which we contend inevitably must be drawn
from what evidence is before us, lies with the applicant
because of its failure to submit its books for examination by
the Commission.

"It is an axiom that evidence suppressed is deemed to be
adverse, and having in mind this axiom certainly the Commission
is justified in concluding that the books which the applicant
refuses to produce at least would not better its showing."

Following the defeat of the graft prosecution in November,
1909, peculiar transactions are recorded against the United
Railroads. For example, the Railroad Commission found, and has
so reported, that "in the minutes (of the United Railroads) of
May 25, 1910, it appears that four years' 'back salary' was
voted to Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads of
San Francisco, in the sum of $75,000 a year, or a total of
$300,000. No explanation is made of this item, but it at once
suggests the necessity of a thorough investigation in order to
determine the items claimed by applicant as operating expenses
of the United Railroads over a series of years." See Decision
No. 439 Railroad Commission of California, in the matter of the
application of the United Railroads, etc., February 4, 1913.

[304] Both Wilson and Coffey were indicted for bribe-taking. Wilson
later on found his memory. At other graft trials he explained
that his testimony at the first Ford trial had been given
after he had undergone an operation that had involved the use
of large quantities of cocaine. He insisted that he did not
know to what he was testifying. Coffey was tried for
bribe-taking and convicted. The Supreme Court, however, set
aside the verdict on technicalities.

[305] It was shown at the Ford trial that about $175,000 in addition
to the unaccounted-for $200,000 was received by the United
Railroads through the United States mint. Every dollar of this
$175,000 except $3,000 loaned to Ruef by Mullally, was taken
out by the treasurer of the company, and carried to the United
Railroads' office and there put in its safe and used as
needed, that it was taken in gold and was paid out to its
employees in gold. It was further shown that not one dollar of
currency was ever put in any of the safes at the United
Railroads' office by any person during that period of time
covered by Ford's withdrawal of money from the mint, and that
no currency was deposited to the credit of the company in any
of its bank accounts nor to the credit of Ford or Mullally or
Abbott, and that no currency was turned over to the treasurer
of the company during that time. Thus by a process of
exclusion this $200,000 was left in the hands of Ford
absolutely unaccounted for upon any theory consistent with an
honest use of it. Add these facts to the further facts that
Ruef was traced to Ford's office on two of the days on which
Ford got the money, and that Ruef on each occasion, within a
day or two, paid the same kind of money to Gallagher, that
currency was not generally in circulation at all in San
Francisco.

[306] The two men were at the time detailed to handle the money of
the relief fund. The mint officials could not accommodate Ford
with the currency he wanted. They gave him gold. The gold
which Ford secured at the mint was trucked across the hall to
relief headquarters, where it was exchanged for the currency.
Selig and Hawkins counted out the bills.

[307] See transcript of testimony, trial of The People vs. Tirey L.
Ford, No. 817, taken September 25, 1907, page 270.

[308] Mr. Mullally, assistant to Mr. Calhoun, and also Mr. Calhoun
were known to have enjoyed friendly relations with Mr. Ruef
during this period.

[309] The facts brought out at General Ford's trial are interesting
in connection with General Ford's interview in the San
Francisco Examiner of October 28, 1906, soon after the Graft
Prosecution opened. See Footnote 92.

Ruef, in "The Road I Traveled," printed in the San Francisco
Bulletin, states that he gave Schmitz $50,000 and kept $50,000
for himself out of the $200,000 which was given to him by
Tirey L. Ford from Patrick Calhoun to pay for the granting of
the trolley permit.

[310] This affidavit deals with the Graft Prosecution from its
beginning down to the spring of 1908. This document was filed
in the case of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun et als., No.
823.

[311] See Chapter XVI, page 211, and footnote 119, page 111.

[312] This is the same Ach who dramatically left the Ruef defense at
the time of Ruef's plea of guilty to extortion. See Chapter
XV, page 204.

[313] For immunity contract see page xix of the Appendix. For the
negotiations upon which Ach's claim was based see Chapter XV.

[314] Heney sets forth in his affidavit that Ach's claim did not
surprise him. He says of Ach's statement: "I was not very much
surprised by its substance as I had long before commenced to
suspect that Ruef, Ach, Dr. Kaplan and Dr. Nieto would claim
eventually that such agreement existed in regard to case
number 305 (the extortion case) if it became necessary to do
so in order to keep Ruef out of the penitentiary. In fact I
would not have been greatly surprised by anything that Ach
might have claimed, as I have learned to know him pretty well
and am sometimes at a loss to decide whether he or Ruef is
entitled to first place as an artistic and imaginative
'equivocator,' to use Ruef's language."

[315] See Chapter XV, pages 190-7. Heney states in his affidavit
that both Nieto and Kaplan agreed that Heney's statement of
the arrangement was correct. "Yes, you are right, Mr. Heney,"
the affidavit sets forth Nieto said. "I understand it that
way, and consequently I never told Ruef anything about that.
He never got that from me." The affidavit sets forth that
Kaplan said in substance: "Yes, that is what you said, Mr.
Heney, but I always understood that Mr. Ruef would be allowed
to withdraw his plea of guilty in the French Restaurant cases
and would not receive any punishment."

Heney replied in substance: "You may have so understood,
Doctor, but you had no right so to understand from anything
which I said."

[316] Heney, in his closing argument, told the jury that Ruef had
not been put on the stand because the prosecution did not
trust him. Heney said: "Nobody except Mr. Ford and Mr. Ruef
could tell about it (the passing of the $200,000). They did
not complain about my asking why they did not put Mr. Ruef on
the stand. They asked why we didn't put him on the stand and
vouch for his veracity and enable them to put words in his
mouth, and I will answer now, because we DID NOT TRUST HIM."

[317] Heney, in his affidavit, describes the disappointment of Ruef,
Ach and Nieto when the case was closed without Ruef being
called. Heney says: "I rested the case on behalf of the
prosecution in the first Ford trial in this department of this
Court on the 2nd day of October, 1907, and the attorneys for
the defendant asked for time to consider what they would do
about putting in evidence, and Court adjourned for the purpose
of giving them such time. I had noticed Henry Ach and Ruef
sitting together next to the aisle, which was directly in
front of where I sat, and could see that up to the time I
closed the case they were anxiously waiting for me to call
Ruef as a witness. When Court adjourned they remained sitting
and as I passed them Ach stopped me and said in substance,
'Why didn't you put Ruef on the stand as a witness? Are you
not going to dismiss these cases against him?' I replied in
substance, 'There are a lot more cases to be tried. There will
be plenty of opportunities to dismiss these cases if I want to
do it.' Ruef said, with one of his most winning smiles, in
substance, 'I guess he is going to put me on in rebuttal just
as he did in the Schmitz case.' I replied in substance, 'Oh, I
don't know about that, Ruef. I don't like to try all my cases
the same way.' I started to leave and Ach stopped me as I had
taken only a couple of steps, and said in substance, 'There
isn't any change in the situation, is there in regard to
Ruef?' I smilingly and meaningly replied, in substance, 'Not a
particle, Henry, since our last talk,' meaning thereby the
talk which Ach and myself had on or about the 19th or 20th day
of September, 1907, at night in my office in the presence of
Dr. Nieto, Dr. Kaplan, William J. Burns and Charles W. Cobb,
as hereinbefore set forth. As I made this statement I walked
on out of the courtroom and someone stopped me somewhere
between there and the entrance door of the building and Dr.
Nieto came up to me, all smiles, and said in substance, 'You
didn't put Ruef on the stand, did you?' I replied, 'No, I did
not, Doctor.' Dr. Nieto then said in substance, 'There isn't
any change in the situation, is there?' And I replied with a
smile in substance, 'None whatever since our last talk,
Doctor,' meaning the talk at my office just hereinbefore
referred to, at which Dr. Nieto, Dr. Kaplan and Ach were
present. The manner of Ach and the manner of Dr. Nieto when I
made this reply to each of them indicated plainly that each
understood exactly what I meant."

[318] Calhoun protested vigorously against the raiding of his
offices. Concerning the raid and Mr. Calhoun's protests, the
interior press expressed general approval of the first and
condemnation of the latter.

"It is not a question," said the Oroville Register, "alone of
graft in San Francisco now. It is rather a question as to
whether in America, where 'all men are free and equal,' there
is a law for the rich and another law for the poor, and
whether a little money can put our whole penal system at
naught and make monkeys of judicial officers. Unluckily in the
Calhoun case we can not in America resort to the czar-like
methods which should be resorted to, but must fight it out by
the long and slow process of law. Luckily for the honor of
America Mr. Heney and his associates are gifted with the
courage, ability and tenacity to fight it out on this line
even if it takes this summer and the whole of the next so to
do."

"The 'private sanctity' of Calhoun's offices," said the Santa
Barbara Independent, "was violated, his defenders say, when the
police entered to search for stolen goods. The fact that the
goods were concealed in the offices--that the police unearthed
there a 'fence' for the reception of stolen goods--doesn't seem
to have destroyed the sanctity of the place.

"Recently the police in Los Angeles raided a cigar store, where
they found concealed some of the money that three months ago
had been stolen from the Monrovia bank. The cigar dealer's
lawyers should go into court and protest against violation of
the 'private sanctity' of the thief's hiding place.

"It is beyond understanding how men can view a similar
circumstance in different lights. To an unprejudiced mind a
thief is a thief, whether he has stolen an old pair of shoes or
robbed the public through a municipal or other government. And
the honest man rejoices in his capture, the recovery of the
stolen goods and apprehension and punishment of persons who
receive and conceal the fruits of theft."

[319] Calhoun and Ruef were placed on the stand April 29, 1908.
Their refusal to answer will be found in the transcript of
testimony taken that day. Complete records of all the graft
cases were in 1912, when this review was written, in the
possession of A. A. Moore, prominently connected with the
graft defense.