Chapter XXV: The Shooting of Heney

In spite of the sensational events following the trapping of Blake, the work of impaneling a jury to try Ruef went steadily on. After months of effort,[405] a jury was finally sworn to try the case.

Again the telling of the sordid story of the city's betrayal commenced.

Gallagher, the pivotal witness, had begun his sorry recital. In the midst of it occurred what those who had followed the methods of the graft defense had long predicted.

Assistant District Attorney Heney was shot down.[406] The shooting occurred in open court during a brief recess.

Heney was seated at his place at the attorneys' table talking with an assistant. The jury had left the courtroom. Gallagher had for the moment left the witness box and was standing a few feet from Heney waiting opportunity to speak with him. A few feet further away was Heney's body guard. In the room were something more than 200 citizens waiting for the trial to be resumed. There was the usual confusion which attends a five-minute court recess. Court attaches, officials, attorneys, citizens were passing to and fro without hindrance.

The man who shot Heney had no difficulty in gaining access to the courtroom. He walked deliberately to the attorneys' table, and before he was even noticed, had fired deliberately at the Assistant Prosecutor. The gun was held not more than six inches from Heney's head. In an instant, Heney's bodyguard was upon the assassin. But the bodyguard's efforts came late. Heney, apparently mortally wounded, was lying unconscious on the floor, the blood gushing from a ragged hole in front of the right ear, just under the temple.[407]

Heney's assailant was found to be one Morris Haas, an ex-convict, who had succeeded in securing a place on the jury at the former Ruef trial. Heney had exposed him.[408] When it was demanded of him why he had attempted to kill Heney, he murmured incoherently, that it was "for humanity's sake." Although closely questioned Haas would tell little of value to those who were seeking to get at the real motive behind the assault. He was thoroughly searched both by Detective Burns and Captain of Police Thomas Duke, and then taken to the county jail where he was closely guarded.

A short time before the shooting of Heney, Judge Lawlor had had attorneys of both sides before him to state that in his judgment, he should remand Ruef, who was out of jail under heavy bonds, to the custody of the Sheriff for the remainder of the trial. Shortly after this conference Heney had been shot down.

When the court had re-convened, and the jury had been dismissed for the day, Judge Lawlor carried out his intention and ordered the Sheriff to take charge of Ruef. The shooting had occurred on Friday afternoon, November 13. The court adjourned until the following Monday.[409]

Heney in the meantime had been taken to a hospital. There it was found that the wound was not necessarily fatal. The rumors current that Heney had been killed were denied. This tended to calm the excitement.

Nevertheless, San Francisco and all California were aroused as never before in the State's history. In a twinkling, the results of months of misrepresentation, ridicule and abuse of the Prosecution were swept away. Haas' bullet had not killed Heney,[410] but it had awakened the community to tardy realization of its responsibility.[411] Men who had laughed at the Examiner's "Mutt cartoons" ridiculing the Prosecution, now threatened to mob The Examiner office. Patrons of the defense-supporting Chronicle now voiced their utter condemnation of that paper. Thousands withdrew their subscriptions from the two publications. The time was ripe for the demagogue. An unpolitic word from the defense just then, an incendiary speech from some unwise partisan of the Prosecution, would have been sufficient to have sent a mob marching upon the jail in which Haas and Ruef were confined, or upon the residences of the indicted bribe-givers, or against the newspaper offices which for months had labored to make the Graft Prosecution unpopular.

There was a feeling that the criminal element was too powerfully intrenched to be reached through the ordinary legal channels. The feeling, which had subsided when the Graft Prosecution opened,[412] that the graft evil could not be corrected except by extra-legal means, was to some degree revived.

In this emergency, the leaders of the Graft Prosecution, by counseling moderation and observance of the law, did yeoman service in the keeping of good order in San Francisco.

The Citizens' League of Justice[413] called a mass meeting for the Saturday evening following the shooting. Even in the call, the League urged there be no breach of the peace.

"Francis J. Heney," the League's call read, "has fallen by the hand of an assassin, shot from behind while fighting at his post in the cause of justice for the people of this city. He would be the first man to appeal to the calm reason of the citizens to preserve order and proceed only by the processes of law; to look not for vengeance, but to demand swift justice through the courts. We make the same appeal."

Mayor Taylor presided at the meeting. Long before the hour set for the opening, the auditorium was packed to the doors, with thousands on the outside clamoring for entrance. Those in charge of the meeting were compelled to call it to order several minutes before they had intended.

Professor George H. Boke of the University of California Law School, and manager of the Citizens' League of Justice, was to introduce Mayor Taylor. Several minutes before the time set for the meeting, the crowd started a cheer for Heney. The demonstration lasted for fully five minutes. Then some one started the cry, "Throw the Examiner out." Hundreds half rose from their seats, their eyes bent upon the press table where representatives of The Examiner were seated.

Professor Boke at once grasped the significance of the movement, and acted on the instant. Stepping to the fore, he made a brief address introducing Mayor Taylor, thereby checking the threatened demonstration.

Mayor Taylor was quick to sound the keynote of the meeting. "Let us," he said in introducing the first speaker, "see to it that no matter who else breaks the law, that we shall not break it."[414]

Every speaker who followed the Mayor emphasized this. "Let us," said the Rev. William Rader, "have heads which are cool and minds which are rational."

"We stand in this fight," said District Attorney Langdon, "for law and order. And I want to say to you and ask you to pass it on to your neighbors, that, as crimes have been committed, those crimes must be punished, but punished within the law. And I want to say further, that as the law officers of this city and county, we shall consider any man who expresses an opinion or sentiment that we ought to resort to measures extra-judicial, as an enemy of good government."

"Why," demanded James D. Phelan, "should we take violent steps? Is not San Francisco a great, civilized community? Are not our American institutions still intact? They are. And although in the early days of San Francisco the Vigilance Committee, an extra-legal tribunal, was resorted to for the purpose of correcting such abuses, we must remember that at that time we were a border State, at that time we were a mining camp. Only such a strenuous method would then have succeeded, because judges who were on the bench were elected by ballot-box stuffers, a council was elected in the same way. Crime was rampant, nobody was punished. Then the men of San Francisco organized a tribunal and gave an orderly trial to every offender whom they apprehended, and as a result this city was cleansed of crime and remained a model community for twenty years.

"But conditions now are different. It is true that within the last year there has been a feeling in this community that the criminal law had broken down, and that we could not, under the law, punish the offenders; and that the courts, the highest courts, abetted and aided criminals by the rankest interpretations, technical interpretations of the statutes. They refused to lean on the side of order and justice, and they have brought disgrace upon the judiciary of California, all over the world.

"But our civilization and our institutions are safe. That vote the other day, and the election of Judge Dunne, the election two years ago of Judge Coffey and Judge Lawlor, give us courage and confidence to believe that, under the constitution and the laws, we can win our battle if you only give us time, without any resort to violence; and we are willing, though one hundred days have passed, to pursue that work, because that is the only way we can do it under the constitution and the laws."

When Rudolph Spreckels entered the building he was greeted with demonstration. He, too, while expressing great sympathy for his friend who had been stricken down, joined in counseling that nothing be done outside the law.

With the urging that no exhibition of mob-violence be added to the burden of the afflicted community, was given assurance that the Graft Prosecution should go on; that the laws should be upheld; that those responsible for the conditions which had been forced upon San Francisco should be brought to justice. Whatever danger there was of violence to members of the graft defense, vanished at that Citizens' League of Justice mass meeting. At its conclusion, resolutions were adopted condemning the methods of the defense, declaring unwavering allegiance of those present to law, and pledging support in the cleansing of the city of grafters and boodlers.[415]

Another crisis had passed in San Francisco. The situation was not unlike that of two years before, when the clamor that drastic means be taken to free the city of Ruef's domination, was silenced by announcement that Rudolph Spreckels had guaranteed a fund for the investigation of municipal conditions, and to prosecute those found to be guilty of corruption.[416]

But even as the citizens met in mass meeting another tragedy of the Graft Prosecution was enacted. Haas, under the eyes of policemen specially detailed to watch him, killed himself or was killed. With him died all hope of discovering who had urged him to avenge himself upon Heney.

Haas' suicide, if it were suicide; or his murder, if it were murder; is one of the mysteries of the graft cases. He was shot with a derringer. The weapon was an inch through at the butt and 5-8 wide at the muzzle--certainly an easily discovered weapon by officers practiced in searching men. And yet, Haas had, before he was put in his cell, been thoroughly searched both by Captain Duke[417] of the police force and Detective Burns. The two officers are certain that Haas had no weapon upon him. And yet, one theory advanced by his keepers is that Haas had the derringer all the time concealed in his shoe. Another theory is that the derringer was smuggled in to him. But, with Haas under watchful eyes of special guards, by whom? Another theory, popular at the time, was that Haas had been murdered in his cell. But if murdered--or even if the derringer were smuggled in to him--what was the motive behind it? These are questions which, short of some death-bed confession, perhaps, are not likely to be answered.

Those who hurried to his cell at the report of the derringer found Haas dead. Whether he had shot himself or whether he had been shot, his lips were sealed forever.

On the Sunday following the shooting of Heney, most of the Protestant pastors of San Francisco made the attempted assassination the subject of their sermons. The same course was taken throughout the State generally. In the afternoon mass meetings were held in all parts of the State, at which resolutions were adopted condemning the methods of the defense,[418] and pledging support to the prosecution.

Telegrams[419] of condolence and of encouragement poured in from all parts of the country.

But in spite of this popular expression of sympathy, there were astonishing exhibitions on the part of the associates of those who had been indicted or nearly indicted because of the graft revelations, of feeling against Heney. For example, Rev. David J. Evans, of Grace Episcopal Church, on the Sunday following the attempted assassination, offered prayer for the recovery of the stricken prosecutor. Instantly there was commotion in the pews. Members of the congregation, by frown and toss of head, indicated their profound disapproval of their pastor's petition.[420] But frown and head-toss and open disapproval of the pews neither stopped the prayer, nor prevented its answer. The prayer was offered; Heney did not die.

Within an hour after Heney had been shot down, three of the foremost lawyers at the California bar, Hiram W. Johnson, Matt I. Sullivan and Joseph J. Dwyer, volunteered their services to take up the struggle for civic righteousness at the point to which Heney had carried it.

But the attorneys for Ruef, having exhausted every other delaying move, saw in the shooting of Heney opportunity for further delay. They accordingly moved for change of venue. Failing here, a motion was made for thirty days' delay. This being denied, Ruef's attorneys moved that the jury be dismissed. This move failing, an attempt was made to examine the twelve men in the jury box to determine whether the shooting had prejudiced them and unfitted them for jury service. These many motions were backed up with affidavits containing all that had been said at the public meetings, and all that had been printed in San Francisco newspapers, since Heney had been shot. The reading of the voluminous affidavits consumed hours. The prosecution filed answering affidavits which also consumed time. But Judge Lawlor finally denied all the contentions of the defense and ordered the trial to proceed.

During these proceedings, the jury had been locked up in charge of the regular court officials. The jury had not been in the courtroom when Heney was shot, and from the moment of the shooting had been shut away from the public. But lest the jury had learned something of the shooting, and to account for Heney's absence, Judge Lawlor deemed it incumbent upon him to notify them that Heney had been shot, and to admonish them that the transaction so far as the court, the jury, the defendant, the People of the State, the counsel, and all other interests interested or involved in the trial were concerned was to stand as though it had not occurred. This Judge Lawlor did.[421]

The trial itself was not unlike the other graft trials. The Supervisors told the story of their bribery. Gallagher told how Ruef had given him the money, and how he had given it to Supervisor Furey. Furey testified that he had received the money from Gallagher because of his vote to grant the overhead trolley permit to the United Railroads. The story had by this time become sadly familiar to the people of San Francisco.

The trouble experienced with witnesses at former trials characterized this trial as well.

Alex. Lathem, for example, at one time Ruef's chauffeur, disappeared from the State about the time the trial was to begin. He was brought back from Oregon under extradition, charged with having accepted a bribe to leave the jurisdiction of the court. On the stand,[422] Lathem repudiated important evidence which he had given before the Grand Jury, and to which he had made affidavit. As a minor incident of the graft trials, Lathem, because of this incident, was indicted for perjury.

But in spite of the backwardness of certain of its witnesses, the prosecution succeeded in getting its case before the jury. The jury found Ruef guilty as charged. He was sentenced to fourteen years' penal servitude at San Quentin prison.

FOOTNOTES:

[405] Seventy-two days were required to impanel the jury before
which Ruef was tried, fifty days being devoted to actual court
work. There were summoned 1,450 talesmen, of whom 446 were
examined. Six jurors were denied their freedom for forty-two
days before the jury was completed. Blake, arrested for
jury-fixing, was trapped, tried and convicted before the jury
was completed. Two of Ruef's attorneys were, during the
impaneling of the jury, indicted for alleged connection with
Blake's attempt to influence the jury in Ruef's favor.

[406] There is, so far as the writer can find, no evidence that the
Graft Defense or its agents employed Haas to kill Heney any
more than there is evidence that the Graft Defense or its
agents employed Pauduveris to murder the pivotal witness,
Gallagher. But that Haas was urged to kill Heney because of
the exposure of Haas's previous record at the first Ruef trial
is well established.

"I was urged frequently," said Haas in a confession made to
Langdon and Burns, "to kill Heney by certain persons whose
names I will not tell you, and I also talked to other people
about killing Heney and was advised by them not to do it. In
addition to that, certain persons approached me several times
and referred to the time I was thrown off the Ruef jury,
saying: 'I'd never stand that sort of a roast,' and 'I'd kill
a man who did that to me,' and similar things."

Who urged Haas to do this thing, and what was their motive?
Haas alone could have answered the first question. But the
bullet that ended his life sealed his lips forever.

Of Haas's purpose in getting on the first Ruef jury we have
some testimony. Joseph Brachman, a close associate of Ruef,
who had known Haas for nearly a quarter of a century, said in
an interview published in the San Francisco Call, November 15,
1908:

"When Ruef was on trial in the Parkside case, on the bribery
charge, I heard that Haas had been called on the jury panel.
At that time I was frequently in consultation with Ruef, every
day, in fact. But I was afraid to go to Ruef with what I knew
of Haas, so I went to one of his lawyers--I won't say which
one--and told him of the record of Haas. I told him that Haas
was a bad man and an ex-convict. I said that Ruef should
challenge him.

"I was in court the day that Haas qualified and passed into
the jury. Again I told his attorney that Haas was a bad man,
to get rid of him, but nothing was done. When Heney produced
the evidence showing that Haas was an ex-convict I was in
court, also. I met Haas after he had been disqualified. Haas
told me the reason why he stayed on the jury and why his
record was not made public by the defense of Ruef. He told me
that he expected $4,000 from Ruef for his services on the
Parkside case jury. He said that he was hard up, that he was
in debt, that he owed money on his saloon and that if he had
been permitted to stay on the jury he would have been able,
with the $4,000 to be paid him by Ruef, to clear himself of
debt.

"He also told me, Haas did, on the day that he was
disqualified, that he was going to 'kill one of the
prosecutors.' He did not say which one, but he frequently
repeated to me, that he was 'going to get one of the
prosecutors.' I met him many times and often, frequently he
told me that he was 'going to get one of the prosecutors.'"

[407] Physicians state that Heney's escape from death was by a
hair's breadth. Had the bullet, striking as it did, taken any
other course death would have been inevitable.

[408] See Chapter XXIII.

[409] "Will they," demanded The Call the morning after Heney had
been shot down, "stop at nothing? Are not stealing, perjury,
bribery, dynamiting, murder, enough? Must the course of
justice in this community run the gamut of violence, as well
as of slander and pettifogging obstruction?

"Apparently it must. But there is at least no longer any
reason to doubt where the responsibility lies. A bare chance,
the momentary tremor of an assassin's hand, may have saved the
life of Francis J. Heney to this community. There will be no
tremor in the finger of scorn that points past the miserable
wretch that did the shooting to the men that inspired it. A
worthless crank, of course. It always is. Dirty hands for
dirty work. But softer hands and keener brains plan it. And
the community will waste no wrath on the miserable tool, now
cowering in jail. It was not he who has dogged the steps of
Francis J. Heney these two years with hired thugs. It was not
he who has filled the courtrooms with professional ruffians.
It was not he who dynamited Gallagher--or hired it done. Least
of all was it he who made a joke of that crime and sought to
make a joke and a byword of the heroic Heney--'poor Beany.'"

[410] While Heney lay wounded at San Francisco, and Haas lay dead,
another tragedy growing out of the Graft Prosecution was being
enacted on the other side of the globe. John Krause, who had
been T. V. Halsey's assistant at the time of the Pacific
States Telephone briberies, killed himself on the steamer
Adriatic as it plied from Cherbourg, France, to Queenstown,
Ireland. Krause had disappeared from San Francisco in
December, 1907. It was never charged that Krause was a
principal to the bribery transactions, or that he had even
guilty knowledge of them. His only possible connection with
the graft cases was as a witness against the Pacific States
Telephone and Telegraph Company officials.

[411] "A great work," said Hiram W. Johnson, in an interview printed
in the San Francisco Call, November 14, 1908, "undertaken and
accomplished, though not yet wholly completed, has been
retarded for a day by an assassin's bullet. When Frank Heney
fell today while in the performance of his duty, decency and
the right were stricken. For two years this one man has
persevered in the right, for right's sake alone. Without
compensation, sacrificing a great legal practice, giving
without complaint the best years of his life, Francis J.
Heney, facing all the combined forces of evil in this
community and State, has stood unflinchingly at his post,
making the fight that is the fight of all of us. Daily abuse
and vilification have been his portion and reward. In spite of
it, where a weaker man would have faltered, Heney has
persevered. He has done in seeking to make equality before the
law an assurance in this State, all that a strong and a brave
man could do. Were he to pass away tonight he'd need no other
monument than the work he has done. For generations his expose
of rottenness in San Francisco, his prosecutions of the
criminal rich will live and make this city and State better.
He has been shot simply because he was fighting for the right.
Not alone has he been wounded; but the community and the
commonwealth have suffered the injury.

"We who were with him in the early days of the struggle, and
knew his every mood; who saw him at his work day and night,
and loved the qualities that made it possible for him to
accomplish what he has, can not express our horror and
indignation and anger at his attempted assassination. May God
speed his recovery."

[412] See Chapter IV.

[413] The Citizens' League of Justice was organized immediately
after the attempted assassination of Witness Gallagher by
means of dynamite. Those immediately connected with the
prosecution, it had been amply demonstrated, were risking
their lives. In the Citizens' League of Justice was proposed
an organization, entirely separate and apart from the graft
prosecution, to back the prosecution. The idea originated with
Bruce Porter, the artist. Rev. Charles N. Lathrop, of the
Church of the Advent, became interested. The initial meeting
was held at Father Lathrop's house. While the League had no
connection with the prosecution, it became most effective in
support of the prosecution group. Professor George H. Boke, of
the University of California Law School, accepted the
hazardous position of the League's executive officer. In spite
of the fact that he was jeopardizing his position at the State
University by his course, Professor Boke did much effective
work in bringing the conditions which confronted San Francisco
squarely before the public. Matt I. Sullivan, who afterwards
became Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court, served as the
League's president.

[414] Dr. Taylor's observations on this point were as follows: "Let
us see to it that no matter who else breaks the law, that we
shall not break it. In this crisis, we must, above all things,
keep our heads. We must, above all things, while resolute and
determined, be self-restrained.

"San Francisco has had many afflictions. She now has this
additional affliction of the assassination of one who stood
for the people's rights; of one who was fearlessly engaged in
the important and priceless business of civic regeneration,
and who, while in the act of performing the greatest of all
duties as a citizen, was laid low by the bullets of an
assassin.

"But let us not add to the affliction the affliction of
breaking the peace. Let us, above all things, as I have said,
keep ourselves restrained. Let us not add to the afflictions
that are upon us the affliction of mob law. Let us go about
our business, whatever we may do in this matter, in a peaceful
way, but in a resolute way, in a determined way. I am
satisfied that the officers of the law will do their duty. I
am satisfied that the judges will do their duty, and that our
juries will do their duty. And if they, each one of them,
perform faithfully the functions upon his part, we have
nothing to fear, and we shall see that those who are guilty
are punished and are rightfully punished."

[415] The following resolutions were adopted at the meeting:

"Whereas, following unparalleled disaster from the elements
our unfortunate city fell upon times of unprecedented civic
corruption, necessitating the tearing down of the wreckage of
government, and the rebuilding of our civic structure on
foundations of law and justice; and

"Whereas, the first labor necessary was the prosecution of
criminals, bribe givers, bribe takers and brokers in
corruption; and

"Whereas, the prosecution, beset with many difficulties,
obtained its evidence in the only way that such evidence could
be obtained; and

"Whereas, in the subsequent attempt to convict the guilty
there was developed a vast conspiracy to thwart the ends of
justice, which conspiracy has involved social boycott and
unjust and coercive business pressure, has openly employed
thugs to terrorize the officers of the law, has employed
lawyers to browbeat and insult witnesses, prosecutors and the
judges on the bench, and to waste the time and money and to
exhaust the patience of the people by useless and technical
delays, and which conspiracy has moreover involved so large a
part of our public press that many of our people have been
deprived of the truth and have been fed upon poisoned lies;
and

"Whereas, up to the present time the law as administered has
proved inadequate to secure that prompt and certain
application of justice, which must be the basis of social
order; and

"Whereas, out of this conspiracy grew plots to kidnap, and
actual kidnapping; plots to bribe juries, and actual jury
bribing; plots to assassinate witnesses and an attempt to
assassinate a witness by dynamite; and out of it also grew
plots to assassinate the prosecutors, and the attempted
assassination of the bravest friend that San Francisco has
known, Francis J. Heney;

"Therefore be it resolved, that here and now we declare our
unwavering allegiance to law, and that if the criminal law be
found to be so framed as to permit the escape of civic
malefactors we shall see to it that the law be amended; that
if the lax administration of the criminal law be due to
misinterpretation by judges, we shall see to it that men be
placed upon the bench capable of construing the law.

"Be it further resolved, that we call upon the Supervisors to
provide adequate funds for the District Attorney's office to
secure the detection, prosecution and conviction of criminals,
high or low, and the full protection of officers in the
discharge of their duties;

"Be it further resolved, that we demand the truth from our
public press, and shall see to it that our people are informed
of the facts that they may judge of those who by lying and
misrepresentation are perverting public opinion.

"Be it further resolved, that we solemnly assert our utmost
confidence in the law-abiding character of our people; that we
here declare our gratitude for the inestimable service
rendered us by the office of the District Attorney in the
restoration of reputable and responsible government; and that
we stand firm in our determination to indorse and to aid that
office to the end that all persons accused of crime shall be
fairly tried and their guilt or innocence be finally
established in accordance with the provisions of law.

"To these ends we pledge ourselves, that our beloved city may
be purged of boodlers and grafters and be a better home for
ourselves and our children.

"Be it further resolved, that we send word to our wounded
champion, that his labors for us are appreciated and that his
sufferings for our sake are not in vain."

[416] See Chapter IV.

[417] Captain Duke, at an investigation which followed, testified:
"At Mr. Burns's suggestion, we took Haas into the room off the
courtroom occupied by the stenographers. First we made a
slight search, and then I said to Mr. Burns: 'Are you sure we
searched him thoroughly?' and we went over him again. I felt
down to his shoes. I always search a man that way, for when I
first went on the police force I had an experience with a
Chinaman, whom Policeman Helms, who was recently killed, and
myself had arrested. We found a dagger in his shoe, and since
then I have always examined a man's feet. I will state that I
felt the man's shoes the other day after they had been put on
the corpse and the derringer placed in them, and from the
bulge I noticed then I am sure that I would have felt the
weapon had it been in his shoe at the time of the arrest. We
were looking for anything that we could find. From something
the man said--that he didn't care if he lived or not--I
thought that he might make an attempt to commit suicide.

"It would have been an utter impossibility for the derringer
to have been anywhere else than in the man's shoe," Duke
continued. "If it was in his shoe it would have been under the
stocking and the man would have had it there 29 hours before
he killed himself. It would have made a mark on the flesh or
interfered with his walking, and he did not even limp. If the
cartridges had been in the shoe they could have got under the
foot and the man could not have walked."

[418] Neither press nor defending lawyers were spared in the
criticism. "We have," said Rev. Bradford Leavitt of the First
Unitarian Church at San Francisco, "dreamed that we were
living under the government of laws, whereas we were living
under the government of newspapers hired by corrupt
corporations, and the enemies of civic decency."

"The lawyers who are paid to thwart this Graft Prosecution,"
said Charles S. Wheeler, "have proceeded with deliberate plan
to destroy the effectiveness of the prosecution by withdrawing
the support of the people. In this way they have reached the
home of every individual. They have brought cunningly into the
home their hireling periodicals, and a press misguided or
worse, has been largely instrumental in aiding their desire."

[419] President Roosevelt's telegram to Mr. Spreckels was as follows:

"White House, Nov. 19, 1908.

"To Rudolph Spreckels, San Francisco.

"Am inexpressibly shocked at the attempted assassination of
Heney and most earnestly hope he will recover. The infamous
character of the would-be assassin no less than the infamous
character of the deed call attention in a striking way to the
true character of the forces against which Heney and you and
your associates have been struggling. Every decent American who
has the honor and interest of the country at heart should join
not only in putting a stop to the cause of violent crime of
which this man's act is but one of the symptoms, but also in
stamping out the hideous corruption in which men like this
would-be assassin are bred and flourish, and that can only be
done by warring as Heney has warred relentlessly against every
man who is guilty of corrupt practices without any regard to
his social standing and his prominence in the world of politics
or the world of business. I earnestly hope that Heney will
recover, and I give utterance to what I know would be Heney's
wish when I say that I earnestly hope that whether he recovers
or not there be no faltering in the work in which Heney has
been so gallant and efficient a leader.

"9:10 A. M.
"THEODORE ROOSEVELT."

President Roosevelt telegraphed Mrs. Heney as follows:

"White House, Nov. 14, 1908.

"Mrs. Francis J. Heney:--Am inexpressibly shocked at news of
the attempted assassination of Mr. Heney and am greatly
relieved at the news this morning that he is doing well and
will probably recover. I hope you will accept my deepest
sympathy. Like all good American citizens, I hold your husband
in peculiar regard for the absolutely fearless way in which he
has attacked and exposed corruption without any regard to the
political or social prominence of the offenders or to the
dangerous character of the work. Your husband has taken his
life in his hands in doing this great task for our people and
is entitled to the credit and esteem, and above all, to the
heartiest support of all good citizens. The infamous character
of the man who has assassinated him should add not only to the
horror and detestation felt for the deed, but also to the
determination of all decent citizens to stamp out the power of
all men of his kind.

"THEODORE ROOSEVELT."

[420] Grace Episcopal Church is attended by many of the most
prominent citizens of San Francisco. At the time of the
shooting of Heney, several prominent Episcopalians were under
indictment. In spite of the intense feeling in his
congregation, against the prosecution, Rev. Mr. Evans
continued to give the work of the District Attorney's office
his approval. An era of petty persecutions for Mr. Evans
followed. He was finally brought to resign his pastorate and
accept a less important charge at Palo Alto.

In this connection it is interesting to note that in spite of
powerful opposition to the prosecution of prominent
Episcopalian laymen, the Convocation of the Church held at San
Francisco in August, 1907, adopted the following resolutions
unanimously:
"Whereas, Our government is imperiled by the criminal use of
wealth to influence legislation; and

"Whereas, Existing conditions in San Francisco present a moral
issue; therefore be it

"Resolved, That, in the judgment of this convocation, bribery
is always a crime deserving punishment, and, furthermore, that
duty commands every Christian man to exert himself to foster a
public recognition of the quality of the crime."

[421] Judge Lawlor's statement to the jury was as follows:
"Gentlemen of the Jury: I have a few words to say to you
before this trial is resumed at this time. Since you have been
sworn as jurors the Court has on many occasions, with
elaborateness and repetition, sought to convey to your minds
an understanding of your duties as jurors in this case. It has
been pointed out to you that to the charge which is on trial
here, the defendant, Abraham Ruef, has interposed a plea of
not guilty. That charge, considered in connection with that
plea, puts in issue, for the determination of this Court and
jury, the allegations of that charge. You have been sworn as
jurors to pass upon the facts in the case and to apply those
facts, when resolved from the evidence, to the rules of law
which the Court shall finally state to you to govern you in
the rendition of your verdict. These many admonitions, as it
has also been pointed out to you from time to time, are
founded upon a provision of the law which makes it the duty of
the Court to administer those admonitions.

"The purpose of the law requiring those admonitions to be
given is that when a jury is sworn to try an action it shall
divest itself of all matters which theretofore might have
found lodgment in the minds of the members and to proceed to
render a verdict solely upon the matters which shall be
brought to the attention of the jury in the due course of
judicial proceedings. These constant reminders of that duty
are calculated to keep the sense of jurors alive to a full
compliance therewith.

"I doubt if anything I could say at this time would tend to
amplify what has already been declared from time to time in
that behalf, but in view of a transaction that occurred in the
courtroom on the afternoon of Friday, November 13, 1908, the
Court deems it proper to re-emphasize with all the power that
it may command the duty of the jury to proceed to the further
discharge of its duty at this time in utter disregard of that
transaction. The Court realizes that the jurors may have heard
or seen a part of that transaction, or that phases of that
transaction may have been communicated to the jury. Now,
without regard to what extent that assumption may be
justified, the Court desires the jurors to in every manner
relieve their minds of any impression or anything that they
have heard, or anything that has been said, or anything that
has been communicated, or that shall hereafter he communicated
concerning that transaction; in other words, we are to resume
this trial at this time at precisely the point that had been
reached when the recess, during which the transaction
occurred, was declared.

"I may state to you generally, that on that occasion Mr.
Francis J. Heney, the Assistant District Attorney, was shot by
a man bearing the name of Morris Haas; that Mr. Heney was
wounded as a result of that assault. Happily the injury was
not a serious one, and at this time there is every indication
that Mr. Heney will recover from that injury.

"Now, that transaction, so far as this Court and the jury, the
defendant at the bar, the People of the State of California,
the counsel and all other interests interested or involved in
this trial are concerned, is to stand as though it had not
occurred; no person is to be charged with any responsibility
for that transaction; this is not the place for the
consideration of that transaction.

"It may be stated also to you that the assailant afterward
took his own life while he was confined in the County Jail
upon his arrest in connection with that transaction.

"And neither matter, I repeat, should find any place in your
minds. It should not in any manner form anything in the nature
of bias or prejudice concerning anyone.

"This Court would despair of having the law administered upon
the charge at bar if the jurors did not in every manner comply
with the admonition of the Court to exclude that transaction
entirely from their minds."

[422] Lathem testified before the Grand Jury that about the time the
bribe money had been passed he had driven Ruef to the Hirsch
Bros. store, where Ruef had obtained a shirt box. He had then
driven Ruef to the offices of the United Railroads. Ruef had
entered the offices with the box. He had come out later with
the box and a package. With box and package he had gone to his
own office, and from there, taking the box and package with
him, he had been driven to the safe deposit vaults of the
Western National Bank.

Lathem did not testify before the Grand Jury until after Ruef
had confessed, and then Lathem testified with Ruef's consent.
It is a significant fact that Lathem was sent out of the State
the first time not in the interest of Ruef but of Tirey L.
Ford, head of the United Railroads law department. Lathem went
to Colorado on an automobile trip with the father-in-law of
Luther Brown, one of the United Railroad detectives. Lathem's
wife was permitted to accompany them in the automobile. They
stopped at the best hotels. Lathem was paid $150 a month.

The importance of Lathem's testimony lies in the fact that at
the time he took Ruef with the shirt-box to Ford's office,
Ford had just received from the Relief corporation officials
$50,000 in small currency, which made two large bundles, which
were carried to Ford's office by Abbott and himself and placed
in Ford's desk. This was at the noon hour. A little after one
o'clock Ruef went to the Western Pacific Safety Deposit vaults
where he then had a deposit box. The cubic contents of this
box was not sufficient to accommodate those two bundles. Ruef
at that time secured two additional boxes. The cubic contents
of all three boxes together was just sufficient to nicely
accommodate said two bundles.

The theory of the prosecution was that Ruef carried bribe
money in box and package.

At the trial, Lathem stated that the story which he had told
before the Grand Jury was not true.