Chapter I: The Union Labor Party Movement

Eugene E. Schmitz[1] was elected Mayor of San Francisco in November, 1901. He had been nominated by the Union-Labor party. This party was organized after labor disturbances which had divided San Francisco into militant factions, with organized labor on the one side and organized capital on the other.[2]

The convention which had nominated Schmitz was made up in the main of delegates who had affiliations with labor unions and were in close sympathy with the labor-union movement.

But this did not mean that the new party had the unanimous approval of the labor unions, or of the rank and file of organized labor. A considerable faction, with P. H. McCarthy, president of the State Building Trades Council, even then a dominating figure in San Francisco labor circles, at its head, advised against the movement, and opposed the new party candidates not only in 1901, but in 1903 when Schmitz was a candidate for re-election.

On the other hand, the new party had in the beginning the support of the Coast Seamen's Journal, published at San Francisco, and one of the most influential labor publications on the Pacific Coast. It had, too, the advocacy of several earnest Labor leaders.

Very frankly, such leaders questioned the ultimate consequences of the movement, expressing fears which time was to justify. But to them the situation offered no alternative. Their support and influence went to the new party as an expedient of the times, not as the beginning of a permanent political organization.

But the movement, once started, got beyond their control. During the first five years of Union-Labor party activities in San Francisco many of these original supporters were forced, first into silence and finally into open repudiation of the methods of the Union-Labor party administration.

In the meantime, members of the McCarthy faction, which had resisted the organization of the party, and had opposed it at the 1901 and 1903 elections, became its strong partisans. This element supported the party ticket at the 1905 election; and in 1907, and again in 1909, when McCarthy was himself the Union-Labor party candidate for Mayor.

But the Union-Labor party ticket which McCarthy headed did not have the united support of labor leaders who had organized the movement. Indeed, labor leaders whom the McCarthy faction in 1901 called "scabs" for organizing the Union-Labor party, were, by the same men who had condemned them in 1901, denounced as "scabs" during the 1909 campaign for not supporting the Union-Labor party candidates.

From the beginning, the Union-Labor party had the support of elements outside the labor-union movement. Much of this support came from citizens who, regardless of their attitude on trade-unionism, were dissatisfied with the old parties. The situation offered exceptional opportunity for the political manipulator. But the one man with the political vision to see the possibilities of the third-party movement, was not a member of a labor union. He was a lawyer who had already attained some prominence in San Francisco politics--Abraham Ruef.[3]

Ruef was quick to see the potentialities of the political Frankenstein which groping labor leaders had brought into being. He knew that _they_ could not control their creation; he knew that _he_ could. He did not overestimate his powers. He managed the new party's 1901 campaign.[4] Under his direction, success was won for a cause that had been deemed hopeless. The genius of Abraham Ruef made Eugene E. Schmitz Mayor of San Francisco.[5]

In practical acknowledgment of Ruef's services, Schmitz issued an open letter, in which he stated himself privileged to consider Ruef his friendly counsellor.[6] The issuance of that letter made Ruef the recognized political representative of the Union-Labor party administration, a position which he held until the estrangement of himself and Schmitz under the strain of the graft prosecution.[7]

But the government of San Francisco did not pass entirely under control of the Union-Labor party until four years after Schmitz's elevation to the Mayoralty.

During the era of Union-Labor party power in San Francisco, the Mayor and the eighteen members of the Board of Supervisors were elected every two years.[8] Schmitz, under Ruef's management, was re-elected in 1903. But the Union-Labor party failed at that election, as it had in 1901, to elect a majority of the Board of Supervisors. Many of the commissions, on the other hand, through appointments by the mayor, had, by 1903, passed completely under Union-Labor party control.

Gradually, the opinion grew in San Francisco that the management of the departments was unsatisfactory, if not corrupt. This opinion, in 1905, when Schmitz was for a third time the Union-Labor party candidate for Mayor, found expression in fusion of the Republican and Democratic parties to bring about the defeat of the Union-Labor party nominees.

This fusion was in the name of municipal reform. The organizers of the movement were in the main opposed to machine political methods. When, however, the movement gave evidence of vitality and strength, the political agents of public service corporations became identified with its leadership.[9] The new leaders were soon in practical control. Public-service corporations were largely instrumental in financing the movement. Testimony was brought out before the Grand Jury which conducted the graft investigations, that nearly every public-service corporation in San Francisco contributed to the fusion fund, the average of the contributions being $2,500 for each corporation.[10]

On the other hand, the public-service corporations contributed liberally toward the election of the Ruef-backed, Union-Labor party candidates.[11] Ruef was already on the pay-roll of the law departments of many of them. Thus, generally speaking, it made little difference to the corporations whether the "reform" fusion candidates or the Ruef Union-Labor party candidates were elected. The corporations had captained each side, and in a large measure had financed each side.

The inevitable difficulties of a campaign, financed and officered by public-service corporations, to correct municipal ills for which the corporations were in large measure responsible, were encountered from the beginning. For the head of the reform or fusion ticket, men who had been prominent in the organization of the anti-Ruef crusade were suggested, only to be rejected by the corporation allies who had after the reform group's preliminary successes become identified with the movement.

Finally, after several names had been canvassed, John S. Partridge, an attorney of good ability, and repute, but scarcely known outside the immediate circle in which he moved, was agreed upon as Mr. Schmitz's opponent. Both the Democrat and the Republican party nominated Mr. Partridge, and with him a complete fusion ticket, including supervisors.

Partridge had a clear field against Schmitz, but his candidacy failed to carry the confidence, or to awake the enthusiasm which brings success at the polls.

The Union-Labor administration was openly denounced as corrupt. Francis J. Heney,[12] fresh from his success in prosecuting the Oregon land fraud cases, went so far as to declare in a speech before one of the largest political gatherings ever assembled in San Francisco that he knew Ruef to be corrupt,[13] and, given opportunity, could prove it.

The public generally believed Heney's charges to be justified. But of approximately 98,000 registered voters only 68,878 voted for Mayor, and of these, 40,191 voted for Schmitz. Partridge received only 28,687[14] votes, being defeated by a majority of 11,504.

Not only was Schmitz re-elected by overwhelming majority, but the entire Ruef-selected Union-Labor party ticket was elected with him.

Ruef, as Mayor Schmitz's recognized political adviser, and political agent for the Union-Labor party, found himself in control of every branch and department of the San Francisco municipal government.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Schmitz, previous to his election, was employed as a musician in
a San Francisco theater. His connection with organized labor
came through membership in the Musicians' Union. He had no
intention of aspiring to the Mayor's chair until Ruef suggested
it to him.

[2] The San Francisco labor strike of 1901 arose out of the refusal
of the organized teamsters to deliver goods to a non-union
express agency. The Employers' Association refused to treat with
the men collectively. Other organizations went out in sympathy.

James D. Phelan, who was then Mayor, was the intermediary
between the teamsters and their employees. He advocated
recognition. The negotiations failed. During the progress of the
strike there were constant disturbances. A steamship company,
for example, employed prizefighters in the guise of workingmen
to seek positions as strikebreakers, and when interfered with to
belabor the pickets. Assaults were made upon non-union teamsters
carrying supplies to and from railway stations. The Chief of
Police, in order to preserve peaceful traffic, placed two
policemen upon each truck. Labor leaders asked not only that the
police be withdrawn from the trucks, but from the waterfront.
This action the Mayor refused to take, on the ground that it was
his duty to preserve public order, and that it was in the
interest of all to avert rather than suppress trouble. A meeting
of representatives of the several factions was held at the
Mayor's office, September 23, 1901. The story was circulated
that the Mayor had said at the meeting that if the workmen did
not want to be clubbed let them go to work. Both sides now admit
the statement was not made. Joseph S. Tobin, Henry U.
Brandenstein, Lawrence J. Dwyer and Peter J. Curtis, who were
present, have set forth in affidavit that "Mayor Phelan did not
say at said conference, as has been alleged, referring to the
workingmen's strike, that 'if they don't want to be clubbed let
them go to work,' nor did he make any statement of like import."
At the time, however, feeling was running so high at San
Francisco that the most extravagant stories were believed.
Opponents of the administration--those representing capital as
well as those advocating recognition of the unions--seized upon
every opportunity to discredit. Crafty adventurers of the type
of Abe Ruef lost no chance to work distrust and confusion. Out
of the turmoil came the Union Labor party.

[3] Ruef graduated from the University of California and from the
University of California law school with exceptional honors. He
was at twenty-one a practicing attorney. With Franklin K. Lane,
the present Secretary of the Interior, Dean John H. Wigmore of
the Northwestern University, and others, he organized a club for
civic reform. His first political convention, he tells us in his
Confessions, showed him that representative government was a
farce. He resolved to devote himself to his law practice. But
almost immediately we find him an "errand boy" for Martin Kelly
and Phil Crimmins, powerful "bosses" in their day, but now
practically forgotten. Ruef continued with Kelly and Crimmins
for ten years. He drifted with the machine, securing excellent
training for his future career. His opportunity came in 1901,
when, in its effort to throw off the yoke of the bosses, the
State secured the enactment of a new primary law. Under this law
Ruef took his first step to secure control of the State
political machine. He seized upon the new law as a vehicle to
organize a "reform" movement. His organization took the name
Republican Primary League. He secured a large following. He was
becoming powerful. He tells us in his Confessions that during
this period he was invited to dine at the homes of men of
political and social importance, among them William F. Herrin,
chief counsel of the Southern Pacific Company, and Patrick
Calhoun, president of the United Railroads. But as yet, Ruef had
little real influence in the "organization." Then came the labor
unrest, and the Union Labor party movement. Ruef managed to
combine the Republican Primary League with the Union Labor party
movement. This combination was the basis of his campaign for the
election of Schmitz.

[4] Ruef also provided much of the funds employed in the first
Schmitz campaign. In a statement published May 16, 1907, Ruef
said: "When Schmitz first ran for Mayor I made his campaign for
him, and put up $16,000. My friends told me I was a fool. I
guess I was."

[5] Out of the 52,168 votes cast for Mayor, at the 1901 election,
Schmitz received 21,776. His opponents--Wells (Republican) and
Tobin (Democrat)--divided 30,392 between them, Wells receiving
17,718 and Tobin 12,674. Up to the present time (1914) the
Union-Labor party has four times been successful in San
Francisco mayoralty elections. But only once, in 1905, has its
candidate been elected by majority vote. Changes in the San
Francisco Charter, ratified at the 1911 session of the State
Legislature, place the election of municipal officials on a
non-partisan basis, and prevent election by plurality vote.
Henceforth all officials must be elected by majority vote.

[6] Schmitz's letter announcing his obligation to Ruef was as
follows:

"My Dear Ruef: Now that the election is over and I am to be
the Mayor of our native city, I wish to express to you and
through you to all your loyal friends and the faithful
Republicans who supported my cause, my profound appreciation
of the generous, whole-souled, substantial and effective
support accorded me in the exciting campaign which has just
closed. Viewed from your prominent position in the Republican
party, I know the seriousness of the step which you took when
you voluntarily and unconditionally offered me your valuable
aid, and I cannot in words properly give utterance to my deep
feeling in this regard. I can only say that your action is
worthy of yourself, and that no higher praise can be accorded
you.

"I have now for some fifteen years enjoyed your acquaintance
and friendship and your services as my attorney in many
capacities, and I say without hesitation or flattery that I
have yet to find a more honorable, a more loyal, a more able
attorney, or a truer friend.

"I feel that I owe a great deal of my success in this
campaign to you and your friends, and I shall not permit
myself at any time to forget it.

"Though you have never asked or even suggested it, I shall,
with the utmost confidence and with a sentiment of absolute
security, feel myself privileged at all times to consider you
as my friendly counsellor and to call upon you whenever I may
require assistance in the solution of any of the perplexing
and complicated questions which must necessarily arise in the
conduct of so vast and important an office.

"I trust that you will not hesitate to say that I may do so.
Again and again thanking you and your friends, I am,

"Very sincerely yours,
"E. E. SCHMITZ."

[7] Ruef at once availed himself of the opportunities which his
position offered. He accepted regular "retainers" from
public-service corporations. He testified before the Grand Jury
that he was employed by the United Railroads through Tirey L.
Ford, just after the first election of Schmitz, at $500 per
month, and that he gave receipts to Ford for this money, during
Schmitz's first term of office, but received the money always in
Ford's office in currency; but that after the second election of
Schmitz, he (Ruef) refused to give any more receipts for this
money, although he continued to receive it from Ford the same as
before with receipts, and that after the third election his
salary was increased to $1,000 per month, which was paid in the
same way by Ford without any receipts.

Ruef further testified that he was employed by the Pacific
States Telephone and Telegraph Company, immediately after
Schmitz's first election, through T. V. Halsey, and that Halsey
paid him $1,200 per month in currency without any receipt.

E. S. Pillsbury, general counsel of the Pacific States Telephone
and Telegraph Company, testified that he never heard of Ruef's
employment until after the indictments were returned against
Halsey, and that he, Pillsbury, attended to all of the legal
business of the company during the entire time Ruef was under
employment. Pillsbury received only $1,000 per month for his own
services, and testified that he would have objected to the
payment to Ruef of a larger salary than he was getting.

Pillsbury was a stockholder to the amount of $500,000 in his own
right, and was a member of the executive committee of the board
of directors of the company.

At the trial of The People vs. Tirey L. Ford, No. 817, I. W.
Hellman, one of the most prominent of California bankers and at
one time a director of the United Railroads, testified: "Some
five years ago (the Ford trial was in 1907, which would make the
date about 1902) Mr. Holland, who was then the president of the
United Railways, came to me to ask my advice whether Mr. Ruef
should be employed as an attorney for the United Railways,
stating that by employing him peace could be secured with the
labor unions, that he had great influence with them, and there
would be general peace, and it was to the benefit of the
railways company to have such peace. Mr. Ruef then was an
attorney of high repute, recognized as a good lawyer, and I said
if that could be accomplished it would be for the benefit of the
railway company as well as for the public, and I advised yes.
Whether he has been employed or not I do not know, because I
afterward sold my interest in the company and I never have
inquired whether he had been employed or not."

In this connection, it is interesting to note that Ruef in his
latest confession, the publication of which was begun in the San
Francisco Bulletin in May, 1912, states that his employment by
corporations as attorney did not begin until after the second
Schmitz election--that is to say, in 1903. Hellman's testimony
would indicate that his employment by the United Railroads dates
from 1902. Compare with footnote 77, page 74.

[8] Under amendments to the San Francisco Charter, ratified by the
Legislature of 1911, the Mayor and Supervisors are now elected
to four-year terms.

[9] George F. Hatton, Southern Pacific lobbyist and politician, and
political manager for United States Senator George C. Perkins,
was one of the principal leaders of the 1905 "reform" movement.
He was at one time retained as an attorney by the Empire
Construction Company, affiliated with the Home Telephone
Company, which was seeking a franchise to establish a telephone
system in San Francisco in competition with the Pacific States
Telephone and Telegraph Company. The Home Telephone Company
contributed to the "reform" campaign fund. Through the "reform"
Board of Supervisors, who were to be elected, and whose campaign
was thus financed, the Home Company was to get its franchise.
But the "reform" candidates were defeated, the Schmitz-Ruef
Union-Labor party candidates were elected. The Home Telephone
Company thereupon proceeded to secure its franchise by employing
Ruef.

[10] William Thomas, of the law firm of Thomas, Gerstle & Frick,
attorneys for the Home Telephone Company, testified before the
Grand Jury that his company had contributed $8,000 to the
"reform" campaign fund. The testimony indicated that this money
was used at the primaries. Louis Sloss, one of the leaders of
the "reform" movement, testified that after the primaries,
Detweiler, who was at the head of the Home Telephone Company
enterprise, sent his personal check for $800 additional.
Fairfax H. Wheelan, one of the leaders of the "reform"
movement, testified before the Grand Jury that the Pacific
States Telephone and Telegraph Company, in the name of T. V.
Halsey, subscribed $2,000 to the fund; and the United
Railroads, concealing its identity under the name "Cash,"
$2,000 more.

[11] Dr. Charles Boxton was one of the Union-Labor party Supervisors
elected in 1905. At the second trial of Louis Glass,
vice-president of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph
Company, for bribery, Boxton testified that during the
campaign, T. V. Halsey, political agent for the company, met
him on the street and gave him a sealed envelope, saying: "If
that will be of any use to you use it."

Boxton found the envelope to contain $1,000 in United States
currency.

[12] Francis J. Heney when five years old went to San Francisco with
his parents. He was educated at the public schools of that
city, the University of California, and Hastings Law School.
After being admitted to practice he lived for a time in
Arizona, where he served as Attorney-General. On his return to
San Francisco in 1895, he confined himself to civil practice
until, at the solicitation of United States Attorney-General
Knox, he undertook the prosecution of the Oregon Land Fraud
cases. He was at the close of successful prosecution of these
cases, when invited by Rudolph Spreckels, Phelan and others, to
participate in the prosecution of the San Francisco graft
cases.

[13] Heney's statement was prophetic. The published account of his
speech (see Chronicle, November 6, 1905) was as follows:

"If I had control of the District Attorney's office, I would
indict Abe Ruef for felony and send him to the penitentiary,
where he belongs, for I have personal knowledge that he is
corrupt.

"If you elect these people, the graft of this city will become
so great that the citizens of San Francisco will ask me to come
back and prosecute him. When the time comes I will do as the
people request as a matter of civic duty."

Heney's charge brought caustic reply from Ruef. In an open
letter to Heney, published November 7, 1905, Ruef said:

"Francis J. Heney:--In the published reports of your speech at
Mechanics Pavilion last Saturday night you are represented as
saying: 'I say to you, moreover, that I personally know that
Abraham Ruef is corrupt, and I say to you that whenever he
wants me to prove it in court I will do so.'

"I am not a candidate for office, but as a man I do not propose
to leave your false statement undenied.

"In the past I have paid little attention to anything said by
hostile papers concerning myself, feeling that the public fully
understood the despicable motives underlying the utterances of
their proprietors. In your case a different situation presents
itself. You have recently acquired considerable repute as a
prosecuting attorney for the United States Government. Your
statements, if unchallenged, may be given some credence by
those not familiar with the true condition of affairs.

"In making the statement that you personally know that I am
corrupt you lied. You cannot personally know that which does
not exist.

"In making the statement at a time and place which allowed no
opportunity for a legal showing before the date of the election
which you seek to influence, you showed the same courage which
put a bullet into the body of Dr. J. C. Handy of Tucson, Ariz.,
in 1891, for whose killing you were indicted for murder, and
upon trial were acquitted because you were the only witness to
the deed.

"You say whenever I want you to prove it in court you will do
so.

"I want you to try to prove it, and at once. I demand that you
begin at once. I know you cannot prove what does not exist. Why
you should wait upon my desire, why you should depend upon my
wish to proceed with the performance of what must be to every
good citizen a public duty, I do not know.

"But as you declare that you will proceed only with my consent,
I give you here and now full consent and authority to proceed,
and I go further and ask that you do so.

"I regret that your recent identification with the Citizens'
Alliance and with the corporations anxious to encompass the
defeat of a candidate in a political campaign should have made
you so far forget the regard for truth, justice and decency
which should characterize men in our profession, as to have
induced you to take the chance of ruining for life the
reputation and standing of one who is not rightfully amenable
to your charge, and who has not otherwise heretofore given you
the slightest private or personal provocation for your savage
and mendacious attack.

"A. RUEF.
"San Francisco, November 6th."

[14] To hold that only 28,687 electors of San Francisco wished a
change in the administration of San Francisco would be unjust.
Many who were opposed to Ruef's domination remained away from
the polls, through dissatisfaction with the management of the
fusion movement. Of the more than 40,000 who voted for the
Union Labor ticket, were thousands of union men who were
opposed to the Schmitz-Ruef element. But Ruef cleverly injected
the Citizens' Alliance issue, and the organized labor element
was, because of this, made to vote practically solidly for the
Ruef-selected candidates. The fact that voting machines were
used in every precinct in San Francisco for the first time
contributed to this. Members of labor unions did not understand
the working of the machines, and were afraid to attempt to vote
anything but the straight ticket. This dissatisfied organized
labor element, two years later, contributed in no small degree
to the election of Mayor E. R. Taylor and the re-election of
District Attorney William H. Langdon, thereby making possible
continuation until 1910 of the graft prosecution.