Chapter XXVII: Part II: , Vol. II, p. 878. For Newburgh's statement see same

transcript, part and volume, pages 943 and 944.

[395] In this there was remarkable similarity to the legal
assistance given thugs who were from time to time arrested for
interfering with the work of the Prosecution.

[396] Murphy had figured in the Ruef trials, somewhat sensationally,
from the beginning. When, for instance, Ruef, early in March,
1907, was a fugitive from justice, Murphy was acting as one of
his attorneys. He was placed on the stand in Judge Dunne's
court. The Chronicle, in its issue of March 7, 1907, contained
the following account of his testimony:

"Frank J. Murphy, one of Ruef's lawyers, testified that he had
last seen Ruef just outside Hebbard's courtroom on Monday.

"Have you been doing any business with him since?"

"Murphy declined to answer this under his privilege as an
attorney. 'We are looking for an absconding and hostile
defendant, and the witness should not be allowed to draw
conclusions as to whether the business he is doing for him is
privileged,' declared Hiram Johnson.

"Heney suggested that it was the request to do this business
rather than the business itself, that was sought by the
Prosecution.

"A compromise was effected on an answer by the witness that he
had not communicated directly or indirectly with Ruef during
the past forty-eight hours."

[397] About the same time, Captain John J. West became involved in a
charge of being connected with an alleged attempt to corruptly
influence a talesman named John R. Foley to vote to acquit
Ruef. But the West case was so overshadowed in importance by
the Blake-Murphy-Newburgh proceedings that the public paid
comparatively little attention to it.

[398] "Confessing his crimes," said The Call in its issue of October
30, 1908, "Blake, the jury briber, lays bare the ulcer that
eats away the vitals of popular government. He explains why
the San Francisco Graft Prosecution has not yet put anybody in
the penitentiary. He makes it clear why Ruef is not in
stripes. He shows why it is next to impossible to convict a
rich man. He answers the familiar question, 'What's the matter
with San Francisco?'

"On his way to prison Blake pauses for a moment and gives the
people of San Francisco the most convincing argument in favor
of the Graft Prosecution that they have had since the boodled
Supervisors told their story of shame, and Ruef, in tears,
delivered his confession, since recanted. Blake's revelation
is of inestimable value to the cause of decency. Opportunely
he tears away curtain and scenery and lets the people see what
goes on behind the showy pretense of the graft defense. In the
nick of time he exposes some of the actors in that satirical
comedy which might very well be called 'To Hell with the
Law--Money is Above It.'"

[399] Members of the faculty of Stanford University sent the
following communication to Rudolph Spreckels, William H.
Langdon, Francis J. Heney, William J. Burns and their
associates:

"We, the undersigned citizens of the State of California,
realizing the far reaching significance of the sworn
confession, as a jury briber, of E. A. S. Blake, extend to you
our earnest and sincere congratulations on having successfully
demonstrated the nature of some of the obstacles blocking the
way of the conviction of powerful criminals in our
commonwealth.

"Believing that no stability of social relations, including
normal business conditions, can be established on a less firm
basis than incorruptible courts and honest juries, leading to
the prompt and sure administration of justice, we wish to
assure you of our continued confidence and moral support in
the great work upon which you are engaged."

The letter was signed by President David Starr Jordan and
practically all the members of the faculty.

[400] Similar testimony was given at Murphy's trial.

[401] It developed later that the Blakes had been living together
under a contract marriage. Later they went through the
marriage ceremony. This phase of the case was made much of by
the defense. Mrs. Blake, however, stood devotedly by her
husband through all the trying events that followed his arrest
and imprisonment.

[402] Of these promissory notes Blake, in his statement to the court
as published at the time, testified as follows:

"Q. How much money were you to get? A. I was to get $10,000.

"Q. For what? What were you to get that $10,000 for? A. Well,
I was to say nothing about this matter, and that my wife
would--

"Q. In other words--. A. She was to be provided for. She was to
get $100 a month. The Court. How? A. To be taken care of when I
was convicted, you know.

"Q. During your incarceration? A. Yes, and I was to have the
$10,000."

Mr. Langdon: "Q. Who told you he would give you $10,000? A. Mr.
Murphy.

"Q. What did he say? Just tell us what he said about that. A.
The money was to be placed in the hands of a third party, who I
would select, provided the one I selected would be satisfactory
to them and they felt they could always have confidence in, or
something of that kind. That $10,000 was to be turned over to
me immediately upon my sentence--just as soon as my sentence
was passed the money was to be turned over.

"Q. As soon as the court sentenced you you would receive the
$10,000 that Murphy put into the hands of this third person? A.
Yes.

"Q. Did he tell you what kind of money it was, or what
representative value it was. Did he show you any of that? Did
Murphy show you anything? A. Yes, he showed me $7,500, but he
did not show me the $10,000 that was put into the hands of the
party that I selected. He told me that he had it.

"Q. What was this $7,500 that Murphy showed you? In what form
or shape? A. In notes.

"Q. Promissory notes? A. Yes.

"Q. Signed by who? A. Signed by Mr. Ruef.

"Q. Abraham Ruef? A. Yes.

"Q. Who else signed them, if any one? A. They were indorsed by
his father and sister.

"Q. His father?

"The Court--promissory notes to you from Abraham Ruef, and
indorsed? A. The promissory notes, your honor, were made out to
Mr. Murphy, and he was to turn these over to the third party,
indorsed, I presume, to the third party, who I might select.
The notes read, 'One year after date I promise to pay to Frank
J. Murphy,' that is the way the notes read.

"Q. And signed? A. And signed by Mr. Ruef, and then they were
countersigned or indorsed by his father and sister."

[403] Stevens denied this. Stevens was called before the Grand Jury
and questioned. He declined to answer on the ground that the
relations of attorney toward client cannot be violated. Blake
exonerated Stevens from this obligation. But Stevens held that
he acted for Murphy as well as Blake. The court held, however,
that the communications were not privileged. Stevens in his
testimony which followed, denied everything that tended to
implicate himself and Murphy in any way with the attempted
jury fixing, or with the alleged $10,000 fund.

[404] Among those who testified to Murphy's good character was Rev.
H. H. Wyman, at that time the head of the Paulist Order at San
Francisco. Another Paulist priest, Rev. Stark, showed great
interest in Murphy's welfare.

After Murphy's acquittal a story was current in San Francisco
to the effect that at a dinner given soon after Murphy's
acquittal, Murphy had promised a present to the Paulist
Church, St. Mary's, and that Father Stark had announced that a
plate bearing Murphy's name and the date of his acquittal
should be placed upon the gift.

However unjustified the story may have been, Murphy did give
St. Mary's a present--a pulpit. On the pulpit was put a plate
bearing Murphy's name and a date. The incident so incensed
priests of the Paulist order who were not in sympathy with the
course of Fathers Wyman and Stark at Murphy's trial, that they
entered the church with a screw-driver, removed the plate, and
threw it into San Francisco bay. Later a second plate was put
upon the pulpit. So far as the writer knows, the second plate
is still in its place.