Chapter XXIV: Jury-Fixing Uncovered

From the beginning of the graft trials rumors of efforts to tamper with the trial jurors had been current. The failures of juries to agree in the face of what to the man on the street appeared to be conclusive evidence, lent more or less color to these reports. But it was not until Ruef's trial[389] for offering a bribe in the over-head trolley transaction opened, that the jury-fixing scandal took definite shape. Then, came sensational exposures, involving indictments and trials for jury-fixing which for a time over-shadowed in interest the graft trials themselves.

Ruef's trial for offering a bribe to Supervisor Furey to vote for the over-head trolley franchise, began August 27, 1908.[390] But nearly a month before, on July 31, District Attorney Langdon had been given definite information that an attempt had been made to bribe one of the talesmen who had been called for jury service at the Ruef trial. The talesman in question was John Martin Kelly, a real estate salesman.

The list of prospective jurors had been made public in July. Late on the afternoon of July 31, Mr. Langdon received a telephone message from Kelly requesting an interview, which was granted immediately.

Kelly told Langdon[391] that that afternoon he had been approached by a building contractor, E. A. S. Blake, and offered $500 if he would qualify on the Ruef jury and vote for acquittal.[392]

Langdon called in Burns. Burns advised Kelly to pretend to listen to Blake's overtures, to insist that $500 was too little, and to demand $1000, to the end that Blake might be trapped and the jury-fixing, which all believed to be going on, be uncovered.

Kelly, co-operating with Burns, followed these instructions. In his dealings with Blake, Kelly insisted upon $1000 as the price of his services in Ruef's behalf, which Blake finally consented should be paid him. The negotiations were carried on during August. Finally on September 3, Burns directed Kelly to step up to the bar of Judge Lawlor's court where Ruef's trial was proceeding, and tell his story.

As Kelly on that day approached the bar, during a lull in the proceedings, Ach, it is alleged, was heard to ejaculate to the little group about Ruef, "There she goes."

Frank J. Murphy, one of Ruef's attorneys, immediately jumped to his feet, and claimed the court's attention.

"If your honor please," said Murphy, "if that completes the examination of this panel and it is necessary to draw further from the box, there is a statement I desire to make to this Court which is based upon some reflection and upon the advice of the Presiding Judge of this court. Some several weeks ago, or about two weeks ago I should say, one of the jurors upon this panel sent to me indirectly and offered to accept money for his vote. Charges of bribery, of course, have been numerous in connection with this case, but this is the first instance that I have ever heard of in connection with this case or in connection with any other case that any juror has solicited a bribe, or has been offered a bribe. I consulted with Judge Sturtevant[393] about the matter on the 1st of September. I stated to him the facts in the case and he advised me that whenever the time became ripe for the juror to be called into the box that it was my duty to present it to this court. Now, the juror's name is John Martin Kelly, and I was informed indirectly that Mr. Kelly solicited $1000 for his vote in this case, and the matter is of so much importance, your Honor, that I think an investigation should be had by this court before this case proceeds further, and if necessary the Grand Jury should look into this matter and give it a thorough and exhaustive examination. Now, if your Honor please, I don't want to do Mr. Kelly an injustice. I would hesitate, if the Court please, to make a charge of that kind, but my informant is a man whom I have known but a very short time, and after a thorough examination by me of him, after eliciting from him every fact I could in connection with the case, I am induced to believe that he came with authority from Mr. Kelly to make this proposition to myself and one of the attorneys who was connected with one of the other cases. Now, if the Court please, under the advice of Judge Sturtevant, whom I consulted on the subject twice, I deem it my duty to call that to the attention of your Honor and if it is necessary to file any affidavit to set the machinery of this court in motion I am willing and ready to procure an affidavit to file so that a complete investigation may be had of this matter."

Murphy's statement created a sensation, which was more than duplicated by the statement made by Heney the moment after.

"If the Court please," said Heney, "before Mr. Murphy takes the stand I have a statement to make. Mr. Murphy says that he discussed this subject on the 1st. I have in my pocket a statement dictated by Mr. Kelly--this is one of the most audacious pieces of business I have yet met with--I have a statement made by this juror on August 28, 1908, that is before Mr. Murphy bethought him to go and see Judge Sturtevant, in which this juror sets forth fully the fact that a man was sent to him to bribe him in this case, and this juror not only made that statement on August 28th, but this juror went to the District Attorney's office, to Mr. Langdon, the other day, on July 31st, the day it was made, it is a long time now and he has been acting under the District Attorney's advice ever since, and Mr. Murphy never saw fit to call your Honor's attention to it until he saw Mr. Kelly come in the door there and anticipated from the fact that Mr. Blake was traced to Mr. Ach's office yesterday that Mr. Kelly was about to state to your Honor that he wanted this matter investigated, and that an attempt had been made to bribe him, and that under the District Attorney's advice he was going on to permit them to pay the money, if necessary, so that we might catch them in this act, and it is only because they have had occasion to suspect we knew it, that Mr. Murphy has the audacity to come in here and ask for an investigation. Now, we ask that Mr. Kelly take the stand and make the statement to your Honor that he came here for the purpose of making, and that Mr. Murphy didn't say anything about until he saw him standing there ready to make it to your Honor. He jumped up as soon as he saw Mr. Kelly walk in here."

After Heney had made his statement, Murphy took the stand and swore that Kelly, through Blake, had solicited a bribe of $1000 from Murphy to vote for Ruef's acquittal. Nevertheless, Mr. Murphy, as well as Mr. A. S. Newburgh, another of Ruef's attorneys, admitted under oath that they had suggested to Blake that he interview Kelly.[394]

Kelly took the stand and testified in a straightforward manner that he had been approached by Blake, that he had consulted with the District Attorney, and that a trap had been set to catch the alleged jury-fixer.

Detectives were sent out to notify Blake that he was wanted in court. But Blake could not be found. Later he was arrested as he was about to board an outgoing train.

Blake was found to be a poor man on the brink of bankruptcy. He had neither money, nor property. Nevertheless, attorneys[395] came forward to defend him; bonds were furnished him. The most powerful and wealthy defendant in the graft cases was not better served. But the best of legal service could not save Blake from indictment. Later, both Newburgh and Murphy,[396] Mr. Ruef's attorneys, were indicted also, charged with corruptly attempting to influence a juror.[397]

Kelly, at Blake's trial, told the same straightforward story which he had given at the original investigation. He was corroborated by his employer, and others. His testimony was most sensational. He stated, for example, that Blake had told him that it would be easy for him to qualify as a juror; that Ruef's attorneys would try to make it appear that they did not want him, and that their examination would be so thorough that the prosecution would not ask a question. Blake had also told him, Kelly testified, that he need not worry; that some jurors had taken money for their votes in the former Ruef trial and had not been caught.

Blake was convicted. He was later sentenced to serve four years in the penitentiary. After Blake's conviction, but before sentence was passed upon him, he sought out Attorney Matt I. Sullivan, one of the few prominent San Francisco attorneys who had kept free from entangling alliances with the graft defense. To Sullivan, Blake made confession[398] of his participation in the jury-fixing transaction. In his confession he involved Attorneys Murphy and Newburgh. Later, in open court, he made public statement of his participation.[399]

Blake in his statement in court set forth that he had become acquainted with Newburgh through having offices in the same building with him. He had, he said, met Murphy in Newburgh's office. Newburgh had introduced them. Murphy, he stated, had shown him a list of prospective jurors, and had asked him if he knew any of them. He had told the lawyers that he knew John Martin Kelly. They had, Blake stated, got him to make an offer to Kelly, which he did. He had offered Kelly $500 and finally $1000. Kelly (acting under instructions from District Attorney Langdon and Burns) had finally agreed to take $1000. Blake testified that he had reported back to Murphy that Kelly would accept the money.

Following his arrest, Blake testified, his lawyers had come to him without his solicitation,[400] with the statement in explanation that they had come from a mutual friend. Blake stated that he had heard afterward that the "mutual friend" was Murphy and Newburgh. His bonds had been furnished without his stir, through his attorneys. Murphy and Newburgh, he claimed, had assured him they would do everything they could for him; that he need not worry; that they would provide for him and provide for his wife in case he were convicted.[401]

Continuing, Blake stated that after his conviction he had had a talk with Murphy. The general nature of the interview was that he had good ground for a new trial. "They said," Blake testified, "'when we get up to the higher court, it will be thrown out,' or something of that kind."

According to Blake's statement, a fund of $10,000 was promised him and an agreement was made that his wife should be paid $100 a month during his imprisonment. Murphy, he said, showed him what purported to be promissory notes[402] aggregating $7500. The notes, he alleged, were made to Murphy and signed with Ruef's name with the endorsement of Ruef's sister and father. Blake was requested to select a representative to hold the notes. It was alleged that Blake named Martin Stevens, an attorney, as such representative.[403]

After Blake's confession came the trials of Murphy and Newburgh. They did not differ to any great extent from the principal graft trials. There were the delaying tactics that had been characteristic of the graft cases; failure of jurors to agree; acquittals.

Murphy's trial came first. There was against him the testimony of Blake and Kelly, corroborated at many points by other witnesses. Murphy made denial. In his defense, too, many witnesses took the stand to testify to his good character.[404] Murphy was acquitted.

Newburgh's trial followed. The first jury failed to agree. It was stated at the time that the jury stood six for conviction and six for acquittal. At his second trial, Newburgh was acquitted.

But Blake was in jail under a four years' sentence to the penitentiary. Astonishing as the revelations in the Blake jury-fixing case had been, they were to be overshadowed by the events of Ruef's trial. Even as the city stood aghast at the evidence of jury tampering, Assistant District Attorney Heney was, during the progress of the trial, shot down in open court.

FOOTNOTES:

[389] Of the "fixing of juries," The Chronicle in its issue of
September 19, 1908, said: "Every move made in the Ruef trials
gives moral evidence that systematic bribery of juries is
being practiced which is as convincing to the public as were
the signs of corruption during the entire Schmitz regime, but
before the explosion. Nobody doubted then that the Mayor, the
Supervisors and all officials appointed by Schmitz were
thieves. Nobody doubts now that all through these graft trials
there has been systematic corruption of juries. In private
conversation it is treated as a matter of course. Nobody, of
course, could 'prove' it. Nobody needs legal proof to be
convinced."

Of the incident, The Call said in its issue of September 19,
1908: "For a long time there has been every reason to believe
that veniremen summoned to try Ruef were being bribed or
promised bribes to vote for acquittal. The dubious character
of Ruef's attorneys, or some of them, and their known
affiliations were wholly consistent with this theory.
Circumstances not amounting to absolute proof, but giving
cause for strong suspicion, came to the surface from time to
time. The jury fixers grew bolder with impunity, and, in fine,
the pitcher went to the well once too often."

[390] The trial had been delayed by Ruef's preliminary hearing. The
hearing was held in order that Gallagher's testimony might
become of record in a way that would permit of its being used
at Ruef's trial, in the event of Gallagher's assassination.

Ruef's attorneys by lengthy cross-examinations and other
delaying tactics, succeeded in dragging the case along for
sixty-nine days. Further delays were caused by the usual
efforts made to disqualify Judge Lawlor as trial judge. In
this way, the defense managed to keep the attorneys for the
State engaged until late in August. Then Ruef was made to face
another jury.

[391] Kelly claimed to have telephoned Langdon within a few minutes
after Blake had left him. In this he was borne out by his
employer, Samuel M. Snyder. Snyder testified that on his
return to his office on the afternoon of July 31, he met Blake
leaving. Kelly had followed him into his private office. Of
the interview which followed Snyder testified at the hearing
of the case as follows:

"I said (to Kelly) 'Well, what is the matter now?' And he said
that Mr. Blake was just in and wanted to give him $500. I
said, 'What for?' 'Well,' he said, 'to do the right thing on
the jury.' He had been called on a jury case, the Ruef case.
He said, 'I had a notion to punch his head.' That is just the
remark Mr. Kelly used. I said, 'Oh, I would not get excited
like that; that is foolishness.' He said, 'What do you advise
doing? If I go out and do anything rash I am liable to get
into trouble, ain't I?' I said, 'Yes, you better not do that.'
I said, 'If I were you'--this is the language I used to Mr.
Kelly, I said, 'I would telephone to Mr. Langdon and tell
him.' He said, 'Well, that might hurt your business.' I said,
'Well, I don't believe that would hurt my business any. I
firmly believe that jurors should not be tampered with by
anyone to try any case, no matter what it is.' And from there
he did telephone to Mr. Langdon."

The Court: "When was this, Mr. Snyder?"

"A. That was on the 31st of July, pretty close to 5 o'clock in
the afternoon.

"Q. Did Mr. Kelly call up a telephone number from the office at
that time?

"A. He called up Mr. Langdon from the office at that time. I
was sitting right by the side of him."

[392] Of Blake's negotiations Kelly testified: "Mr. Blake began
about this way: He said, 'Now, John, I have got a proposition
to make to you, and I don't know how you will take it. If you
like it, all right, if you don't, just keep it quiet.' He
says, 'There is a chance for you to make a little money.' He
said, 'You are drawn to serve on the Ruef jury.' I was
surprised to hear that. I told him, 'I know I am on some panel
in Judge Lawlor's Court, but didn't know it was the Ruef
jury.' I said, 'How did you find out?' 'Oh,' he said--I think
he said a friend of his told him, or something like that; but
anyhow he said, 'Now, it is this way; there is $500 in it for
you if you will get on that jury and vote to acquit Mr. Ruef.'
I says, 'Well, Mr. Blake, I have never done anything like
that, and it is a pretty big chance to take. I don't want
anything like that'; and he began to urge it on me. I said,
'Now, give me a chance to think it over.'"

Kelly testified that his first impulse was to denounce Blake.
But instantly he reflected that the denunciation would do no
good. Besides, he reflected, it was possible that Blake might
be trapped.

As soon as Blake left the office, Kelly told what had occurred
to his employer, Snyder, and within an hour was in consultation
with District Attorney Langdon and Burns.

[393] Judge Sturtevant, at the investigation which followed, showed
himself not at all clear as to details. Finally Murphy asked
him:

"Q. Judge, do you remember that I said to you that I had
information that one of the jurors was willing to sell his
vote for $1,000 and someone had come to me with that?

"A. I remember, Mr. Murphy, you mentioned the amount of $1,000
regarding one of his statements, but I would not go further
than that; I don't remember what this man had agreed to do for
the thousand dollars. That is my general recollection that
that is about the substance of the statement you made to me."

[394] Murphy's testimony on this point was as follows: "On a day
between the 20th of July and the 1st day of August, I went to
the office of Mr. Newburgh. Mr. Newburgh was then engaged in
defending Mr. Ruef on a preliminary examination had in one of
the Parkside cases. We were discussing generally the Ruef
cases and the graft prosecution, and a man came into the
office who was introduced to me by Mr. Newburgh as E. A. S.
Blake. This present jury panel had been drawn, and we were
discussing the Ruef cases generally, and finally I made a
remark that the trial of Mr. Ruef in one of these
cases--referring to 1436, 1437 and 1438, would proceed as soon
as the Police Court examination was finished, and I stated
that a jury had been impaneled, or a jury had been drawn, I
had a list of the jury in my pocket, and I pulled it out and
said to both Mr. Newburgh and to Mr. Blake: 'Perhaps you might
know some of these people.' Mr. Blake glanced at the list, and
he came down to the name of Mr. Kelly, and he said, 'I know
Mr. Kelly; I have known him for a number of years; I used to
work at Shreve's jewelry store with him; and he is an intimate
acquaintance of mine.' Then I said, having in mind the
decision of your Honor in the contempt case of W. J. Burns and
others--"

The Court: (interruption): "Did this occur after that
decision?"

"A. Yes--no, your Honor--I don't know--no, no. But having in
mind--I will state what I had in mind--a statement your Honor
had made at some previous time, that either side had the right
to find out how the jury stood; that is, if they used
legitimate means. I said to Mr. Blake, I said, 'How do you
think Mr. Kelly stands on the graft prosecution?' 'Well,' he
said, 'Mr. Kelly is a very liberal-minded fellow and I think he
would give Ruef a square deal.' So I then said, 'Well, I would
like to find out whether any of Mr. Burns' gumshoe men have
interviewed him, or whether he belongs to the Good Government
League or the League of Justice or any kindred organizations.'
He said he would find out the next time he met Mr. Kelly."

See printed transcript on appeal The People vs. Abraham Ruef,