Chapter XXVII: The San Francisco Election of 1909

Scarcely had the disagreeing jury in the Calhoun case been discharged than the Graft Prosecution was again called upon to meet the graft defense at the polls. Langdon's second term was to expire the following January. His successor was to be elected in November.

Mr. Langdon refused positively to be a candidate to succeed himself. The supporters of the prosecution turned to Heney as the most available candidate to oppose the elements united against them.

Heney did not want to be a candidate. The grueling contest of the Calhoun trial, coupled with the nerve-shattering effects of the wound in his head, had brought him to the point of physical and nervous breakdown. But it was demonstrated to him that he had the largest personal following in San Francisco; that the public had confidence in him; that he must make the fight.

And Heney, doubtful of his physical ability to continue to the end of the primary and final campaigns, consented to become a candidate.

There followed the most astonishing campaign for municipal office ever held in San Francisco, or probably in any other American city.

California was at the time groping her way from the clutch of the Southern Pacific "machine." The California Legislature of 1909 had adjourned after a session which had ended largely in disappointing failure for the anti-machine element. The anti-machine element had been in slight majority, but it had blunderingly permitted the machine minority to organize both houses. As a result, the "machine" had been able to defeat the passage of many anti-machine--now known as progressive--measures. In other instances progressive measures were before their passage,[443] in the face of the earnest but unavailable protest of the well-intentioned but unorganized anti-machine majority, loaded with hampering amendments.

Two of these measures bore directly upon the San Francisco situation. The first measure provided for the Direct Primary. The second provided for the elimination of the "party circle" from the election ballot.

This last named measure, known as "the Party Circle bill," passed the Senate, but was defeated by one vote in the Assembly. The defeated measure was intended to restore the Australian ballot to its original simplicity and effectiveness.[444]

Under the machine's tinkering of the State's election laws, the Australian ballot had become a device for encouraging partisan voting. The "party circle" was placed at the head of the column of party candidates. A cross placed in the circle registered a vote for every candidate nominated by the party designated by the circle. The question of "distinguishing marks" invalidating entire ballots was ruled upon so closely by the State courts, that many voters voted by means of the one cross in the party circle to avoid the risk of having their entire ballot denied counting because of technical defects that might creep in if a divided ticket were voted. Had the "Party Circle bill" become a law it would have eliminated the "party circle" from the ballot, leaving the voter to select individual candidates of his choice. The one Assembly vote that defeated this measure after it had passed the Senate, went far toward bringing the San Francisco Graft Prosecution to an end.

The Direct Primary measure was not defeated, nor did the machine element succeed in amending it into complete ineffectiveness. The anti-machine Republicans and Democrats, by joining in non-partisan caucus on this measure, succeeded in forcing the passage of the Direct Primary bill, but they were not able to keep it free of defects. Harassed by the machine at every turn, the anti-machine Senators and Assemblymen were compelled to accept many undesirable provisions.[445]

One of these provisions bore directly upon the San Francisco election of 1909, and contributed to a large extent to the outcome.

This clause required a primary candidate to make affidavit giving "the name of his party and that of the office for which he desires to be a candidate; that he affiliated with said party at the last preceding general election, and either that he did not vote thereat or voted for a majority of the candidates of said party at said next preceding general election, and intends to so vote at the ensuing election."

At the time this section was under consideration, anti-machine legislators and the unhampered press pointed out that under it, District Attorney Langdon could not, in all probability, have been nominated nor re-elected in 1907; that Mayor Taylor's election of that year would have been impracticable, if not impossible; that Judge Dunne would have been hampered to the point of defeat in 1908; that under it, both in 1907 and 1908, the so-called "higher-up" element in the field of corruption would have been given an advantage which the better citizenship of the community would have had difficulty in overcoming.[446]

But the machine element denounced these not unreasonable objectors as "enemies of the Direct Primary bill," and under cover of the denunciation, and the fight for practical expression of popular choice for United States Senators, the objectionable clause was permitted to remain in the bill.

No sooner had the Legislature adjourned than judicial interpretation of the partisan clause of the Direct Primary Act became necessary. The San Francisco primary election was at hand, and the partisan provisions of the new law proved the first snag which the various candidates encountered.

Although the members of the Legislature, machine as well as anti-machine, voted for the bill, believing that the partisan clause restricted primary nominations to members of the party of the candidates' affiliation, the San Francisco Election Commissioners held there was nothing in the law to prevent the name of a Republican appearing on the Democratic ticket, or of a Democrat on the Republican ticket, provided the candidate made affidavit of the party of his affiliation.

Under this ruling it appeared that, in spite of the objectionable partisan provision of the Direct Primary law, the San Francisco election could be held on the non-partisan basis which had resulted in the election of Taylor and Langdon two years before. The one issue before the San Francisco electors was continuance of the Graft Prosecution. The supporters of the prosecution, Republicans as well as Democrats, desired to vote for Heney. McCarthy was the avowed Labor Union party candidate for Mayor. The Union Labor party was considering the nomination for District Attorney of Charles M. Fickert. The prospects were good that Heney would receive the Republican and Democratic nominations, as Langdon had two years before. He was supported by the better element of both parties, and opposed by the anti-prosecution element of both. This opposition found expression in the Republican party in a committee of twenty-five, at the head of which was I. W. Hellman, Jr., of the Union Trust Company.[447] The better element of the party planned the nomination of Heney, as did the better element of Democrats.

On a non-partisan basis, such as had prevailed in 1907, the Union Labor party would have nominated McCarthy for Mayor, and Fickert for District Attorney, while the anti-machine, pro-prosecution Democrats and Republicans would have nominated a strong candidate for Mayor, and Heney for District Attorney.

Conditions were thus shaping themselves admirably for continuance of the non-partisan administration of municipal affairs, which had at least blocked corruption, even though it had not beaten down the barriers of technicality, which stood between the corruptors of the municipal government and law-provided penalties.

But this developing non-partisan arrangement was suddenly overturned in an opinion rendered by the Supreme Court, reversing the ruling of the Election Commissioners.

The court held that the partisan provisions of the Direct Primary law prohibited the name of a primary candidate appearing upon any primary ticket except that of the party of the candidate's affiliations.

Under this ruling, Fickert's name could not go on the Union Labor party primary ticket, for Fickert had affiliated with the Republican party. The Hellman committee of twenty-five (Republican) immediately took up the Union Labor party candidate for District Attorney, whose name could not go on the Union Labor party primary ticket, Mr. Fickert being apparently quite as satisfactory to Mr. Hellman and his associates as he was to Mr. McCarthy.

Heney, under the Supreme Court's ruling, found himself in a more difficult position. With other California Progressives, Heney had in 1908 supported Taft for the Presidency. His political affiliations were therefore, under the provisions of the Direct Primary law, Republican. His name could be placed on the Republican primary ticket, but not on the Democratic. But it soon became evident that if his name went on the Republican ticket he would be defeated at the primaries.

The registration of voters under their party designation to enable them to vote at the partisan primaries showed an astonishing condition. The machine, anti-prosecution element was discovered to be massing its strength in the Republican party. Two years before, Daniel A. Ryan, the Republican candidate for Mayor, had received only 9255 votes in San Francisco, while Taylor, the Democratic candidate, had received 28,766, and McCarthy, Union Labor, 17,583. But for the 1909 primaries, no less than 47,945 registered as Republicans, a gain of 38,609 over Ryan's vote,[448] while the Democratic registration was 17,632 only, 11,134 less than Taylor's vote, and the Union Labor registration, 10,546, or 7037 less than McCarthy's vote in 1907. Heney's name could not go on the Democratic ballot. If he permitted it to go on the Republican ballot, the tremendous Republican registration indicated that the anti-machine Republicans would be outvoted by "machine" members of all parties who had registered as Republicans.

By another provision of the election laws, Heney, should he be defeated at the primaries, could not become an independent candidate; defeat at the primaries barred him from running at the final election.

Heney was effectively shut out from participating as a primary candidate. And this, in face of the fact that the anti-machine Republicans and the anti-machine Democrats were striving to make him their candidate.

Had the 1909 primary law prevailed in 1907, Langdon's re-election could have been, and almost to a certainty would have been blocked, and the Graft Prosecution brought to an end two years before it was.

At the 1909 Primary election, Heney's name, although he was the choice of the anti-machine element of all parties, did not appear on any of the primary ballots.[449] Nevertheless, 4594 Republicans wrote Heney's name on their primary ballots. But this was not sufficient to give him the nomination. Fickert, whose name appeared on the Republican ballot, as a regular candidate, received 12,480 votes, which gave him the Republican nomination.

On neither the Democratic nor Union Labor primary tickets did the name of any candidate for District Attorney appear. The McCarthy element urged that Fickert's name be written in by Union Labor party voters. They carried their point, Fickert being nominated by the Union Labor party by 3308 votes. But even here there was registered protest at what was going on. Union Labor party voters to the number of 617 wrote Heney's name on their ballots.

In the same way, a determined effort was made to give Fickert the Democratic nomination also. He received 2298 votes. But the pro-prosecution Democrats rallied to Heney's support, and nominated him by a vote of 2386. Thus out of a total of 28,967 who voted for nomination of District Attorney, no less than 7597, or more than 25 per cent., wrote Heney's name on their ballots, in protest against the partisan conditions which made his regular nomination impractical.

The law was new; the election, the first held in the State under the Direct Primary. It was difficult to make the electors understand they could vote to nominate Heney by writing his name on the ballot. Of the 38,385 who voted at the primaries only 28,967 voted for District Attorney. Unquestionably, a large percentage of those who did not vote at all, would have written Heney's name on the ballot had they known that such a course was permissible. But they did not know, and more than 25 per cent. of those voting did not vote for District Attorney. As the Rev. Charles N. Lathrop put it: "They have Heney sewed up in a bag, and the bag is the partisan features of the Direct Primary."[450]

Out of this confusing primary election, Fickert came with two party nominations, the Union Labor and the Republican, while Heney had one nomination, the Democratic. This meant that Fickert's name would be printed twice on the final ballot under partisan designation, while Heney's would be printed but once. Thus, for every chance Heney had for a "party circle" vote Fickert had two.

The prosecution forces had supported Byron Mauzy for Republican nomination for Mayor, but Mr. Mauzy[451] was defeated by William Crocker, who received the Republican nomination. The Democrats nominated Thomas B. W. Leland for the mayoralty office, while the Union Labor party named P. H. McCarthy. The mayoralty-district attorney tickets were, therefore: Republican, Crocker and Fickert; Union Labor, McCarthy and Fickert; Democratic, Leland and Heney. But the issue before San Francisco, continuance of the Graft Prosecution, had no partisan significance at all. It was supported and it was opposed by members of both parties. The whole fight was over the election of Heney. But never had candidate for office opposition which had more at stake.[452]

Men with apparently unlimited means at their disposal, realized that Heney's election would in all probability mean for them a term in the State prison. They were fighting for their liberty. The commercial interests were warned that, in the words of I. W. Hellman, Sr., the banker, the Graft Prosecution was hurting business.[453] The anti-Graft Prosecution press insisted day after day that bribery of public officials, while bad, is the most common of crimes and the most difficult to prove; that San Francisco had tried to convict, had failed and might as well give up. So-called "improvement clubs" went so far as to adopt resolutions not only protesting against further prosecution, but demanding that the Supervisors withdraw support given the District Attorney's office in its efforts to land bribe-givers behind the bars.[454] And finally, the large business interests opposed to the prosecution, threw strength to McCarthy; not that they liked McCarthy--they united against him two years later--but because the election of McCarthy would go far toward the defeat of Heney. Members of the labor unions were, to a large extent, supporters of the prosecution. Their votes had made Langdon's election sure in 1907. During the 1909 campaign, and down to the very day of election, the sentiment among laboring men was to vote for McCarthy and Heney. But Heney's name did not appear on the Union Labor ticket.

Labor's support of Heney was vigorously opposed. Appeal was made to workingmen to stay by their class; to vote for the labor candidates, McCarthy and Fickert. On the Monday night before the election, the writer, with Professor George H. Boke of the University of California Law School, joined a group of working men who were discussing the merits of the several candidates. Apparently all but one of them were for McCarthy and Heney. The exception was for Leland and Heney. He was defending himself, when the writer joined the group, against the charge that in voting for Leland he was "voting outside his class."

This Leland advocate was a most noticeable young man. He declared himself to be a member of the electricians' union. Well under thirty, clear-eyed and forceful, he was prepared to stand his ground. When his immediate opponent became personal, the electrical worker, without raising his voice, without excitement, or boast, or display, remarked quietly: "Do not resort to personalities, for if it comes to personalities, what chance have you against me?"

There were no more personalities.

Incidentally his argument was fast bringing out the fact that every worker in the crowd was going to vote for Heney. The effect of it was important. Suddenly from somewhere there appeared a new man to do his part in molding public opinion.

The new-comer went through that crowd with the assurance of a practiced football player through an aggregation of amateurs. In less than five minutes he had addressed every man of the group. But he had none of the marks of a worker, and nobody thought to ask for his "card." His was the pasty face and the pudgy neck and the soft, unclean hand of the cadet. His argument was curious and even ridiculous, but it was most effective. It at least scattered the crowd.

"Of course Calhoun is a grafter," he said in effect. "They are all grafters. Spreckels is a grafter. Of course, Fickert is Calhoun's man, just as Heney is Spreckels's man. They are all out for graft. But if we are to have grafting, let's keep the graft in our own class. Why should you vote to let Spreckels's men do the grafting? You have a candidate of your own. Vote for him. It is only a fight between millionaires anyhow, and a toss-up which is right. Let us vote for the man of our class."

The effect of this running fire of words was immediate. The electrician lost the attention of his associates. The discussion came to an end with murmurs of approval of the newcomer's position. That he should have changed a vote with such argument seems incredible. But that he had created a doubt in the minds of those workingmen was apparent to all who saw. He left them well prepared for the anti-prosecution workers who would meet them at the polls the next morning.

But the laboring element was not the only "class" forced into opposition to Heney. At the exclusive clubs, fashionable hotels, social functions, support of Heney was denounced as treason to the exclusive, fashionable, social class. It was quite amusing to hear first generation descendants of honest steerage immigrants decrying the prosecution of rich men trapped in bribe-giving on the theory that to do otherwise "would be treason to our class."

Thus, Mr. Heney was called upon to meet the "class" opposition of the laborer and the magnate. On the other hand, the unafraid, intelligent people of San Francisco, who recognized no "class" issue, rallied to Heney's support. But they were without the concerted plan of action which the other side had perfected. The San Francisco press, with the exception of The Bulletin and Daily News, gave Heney no editorial support, but the country press, which had no circulation in San Francisco, earnestly urged his election.[455]

Good citizens throughout the country wrote urging Heney's election. "To rout the forces of the prosecution at this juncture in San Francisco," wrote Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of New York, "is to hoist the red flag of anarchy, to proclaim that law and order are not always enforceable, or that such enforcement is not always profitable."

But Rabbi Wise was in New York. His influence did not, unfortunately, extend, in any important degree, to San Francisco.

On the day of election, the writer visited many voting places in the districts in which the labor vote was strong. Working men by the scores were taking less than a minute to mark their ballots. It was evident that they were voting by means of the party circle. Every Labor Union party vote of this kind was a vote against Heney. The last hope that Heney would get this support was gone. One did not need wait for the counting of the ballots. It was plain that Heney was defeated.

The election returns spoke eloquently of the means that had been employed to defeat Heney. For the primary election 47,945 had registered as Republicans, but Crocker, the Republican candidate for Mayor, received only 13,766 votes at the final election. Although but 10,546 had registered for the primaries as members of the Union Labor party, P. H. McCarthy received 29,455 votes, which, wherever voting was done by means of the party circle, carried a vote for Fickert.

Fickert, with the two nominations, received 36,192. Heney, running on the Democratic ticket, received 26,075 votes, 6481 more than Leland, the candidate for Mayor. But the combination against Heney was too great for him or any man to overcome. Fickert was elected.[456]

The Graft Prosecution had been defeated at the polls.

FOOTNOTES:

[443] See "Story of the California Legislature of 1909," Chapters
VIII, IX, X, XI.

[444] This reform was accomplished at the Legislative session of
1911. The undesirable provisions were also stricken by
amendment from the Direct Primary law. See "Story of the
California Legislature of 1911."

[445] "Before voting on this matter," (the Direct Primary
provisions) said Senator Stetson, an anti-machine leader in
explaining his vote, "lest any one in the future may think
that I have been passed something and didn't know it, I wish
to explain my vote, and wish to say that this permission
accorded a candidate to go on record to support that candidate
for United States Senate, who shall have the endorsement of
the greatest number of districts, comes from nobody and goes
to nobody. It means nothing--mere words--idle words. The only
way in which a candidate could have been pledged would have
been to provide a pledge or instructions to the Legislature.
The words 'shall be permitted' mean nothing and get nowhere. I
shall vote for this report, not because I want to, but because
I have to if we are at this session to have any Direct Primary
law at all."

Senator Stetson was referring particularly to the section
which denied the people by state-wide vote the right to
indicate their preference for United States Senator, but his
words would have applied as directly and as truly to other
sections of the measure.

Other good government Senators did, as a matter of fact,
denounce the very partisan clause which later contributed so
largely to Heney's defeat. Senators Campbell, Holohan and
Miller, for example, while voting for the bill, sent to the
clerk's desk the following explanation of their vote:

"We voted for the Direct Primary bill because it seems to be
the best law that can be obtained under existing political
conditions. We are opposed to many of the features of this
bill, and believe that the people at the first opportunity will
instruct their representatives in the Legislature to radically
amend the same in many particulars, notably in regard to the
election of United States Senators, and the provisions that
prevent the endorsement of a candidate by a political party or
organization other than the one that first nominated such
candidate."

[446] See files of Sacramento Bee for February and March, 1909, and
Senate Journal for March 22, 1909, page 1976.

[447] The Union Trust Company loaned $175,000 to the Calkins'
Syndicate, which published papers in opposition to the
prosecution. For the curious circumstances under which the
loan was made, see footnote 275, page 257. The Union Trust
Company officials were among the most effective opponents of
the prosecution, and most persistent in circulating the story
that the prosecution hurt business. The head of the
institution, I. W. Hellman, Sr., returning early in August
from a trip to Europe, when the 1909 campaign was opening,
said in an interview, published in the Chronicle, August 4,
1909: "In New York I found that there is still a great
difficulty in securing capital for San Francisco on account of
the Graft Prosecution, or the 'graft persecution,' as they
call it there. Of course, I do not know what changes have
occurred in the situation here since I left six months ago,
but I had an interview with certain people In New York and I
found that they were unwilling to send capital here as long as
this 'graft persecution' was continued."

[448] Ryan did not receive his full party vote (see chapter XXI)
while Taylor received the anti-machine vote of all parties.
Nevertheless, this does not account for the extent of the
astonishing changes in registration.

[449] It is interesting to note that the politicians responsible for
this condition, and who regarded Heney's position at the 1909
primaries with no attempt to conceal their amusement, were in
1912, loudest in their insistence that they had been
disfranchised because the names of Taft electors did not
appear on the California election ballot at the 1912 election.
It is also to be noted that their representations were based
on misrepresentation. They could, under the 1911 election
laws, had they had any intention of giving Taft genuine
support in California, have placed the names on the ballot by
petition, as was done in the case of the Roosevelt electors,
who, lest their regular nomination be questioned, were also
nominated by petition.

[450] The California Legislature of 1911 corrected the features of
the election laws which blocked free expression of the will of
the electors. San Francisco, by amendment of its charter, has
since placed all municipal elections on a strictly
non-partisan basis, with provisions under which no candidate
can be elected by a plurality vote. It is interesting to note
that although opposed by Mayor McCarthy and the group of
politicians about him, these amendments correcting the
weaknesses of the election laws, were adopted overwhelmingly.
McCarthy's vote in 1911 was practically the same as the vote
by which he was elected in 1909. Had the election been held
under the same conditions in 1911, as in 1909, McCarthy would
almost to a certainty have been re-elected.

[451] Mr. Mauzy had the active opposition of the anti-prosecution
element, which proposed that old sores be forgotten, and the
city be kept free of graft in the future.

"If you think," said The Chronicle, on August 17, 1909, "San
Francisco is suffering injury from the fruitless effort to
obtain convictions in cases in which evidence is lacking, vote
the Byron Mauzy ticket. If you believe that the sane thing to
do is to cease wasting money over the attempt to accomplish
the impossible, vote for candidates who can be depended upon
to give the city an administration from which graft will be
eliminated in future."

[452] The platform expressions on the Graft Prosecution issue are
interesting. The Republican platform made no reference to it
at all. There was some talk of providing that "the District
Attorney should do his duty," but not even this was provided.
The Union Labor party plank on this question read as follows:

"We believe in the principle of the equality of all men before
the law; that every guilty person should be prosecuted with
vigor, in accordance with the law of the land, and that the
administration of the law should be free from any and all
suspicion of private control. We condemn favoritism or
leniency in behalf of any offender before the law, or any
compromise with criminals. We demand that any and all
offenders be dealt with alike, and to such end we pledge our
nominees."

The Democratic plank alone pledged support to the Graft
Prosecution. It read:

"We pledge the Democratic party absolutely and unequivocally to
the support of the Graft Prosecution which for three years has
valiantly battled for the principle of the equality of all men
before the law, which has secured convictions against
disheartening odds and has paved the way for the clean
administration of public affairs which we now enjoy.

"The people must declare at this critical election for or
against municipal corruption; for the enforcement of the law,
or for its abandonment; for or against not only a greater but a
better San Francisco.

"Francis J. Heney, our candidate for District Attorney,
embodies these issues, and we pledge him the vigorous and loyal
support of the Democratic party."

[453] The "hurt business" argument was ably combated by businessmen
who were free of the graft mire.

"From all the available information at hand," said Colonel
Harris Weinstock, of the firm of Weinstock-Lubin & Co., in
replying to this argument, "I find that on the whole the
volume of business is greater in San Francisco than it ever
was before. I am, therefore, unable to see how business has
been hurt by the Graft Prosecution.

"The burden of proof on this point properly rests with those
making the charge. They should present facts and figures
verifying their statement that business has been hurt by the
graft prosecution before they can hope to have it accepted as
fact.

"So far as I have been able to find out, the Graft Prosecution
has not hurt business, but even if it had seriously crippled
business it would still be your duty and my duty and the duty
of every lover and well-wisher of our free institutions to hold
up the hands of those who are fighting your battle and my
battle in an effort to bring public wrongdoers to justice, and
thus prevent harm from coming to the republic. Let the work go
on."

The American National Bank of San Francisco, in a financial
letter issued August 25, 1909, gave figures which disproved the
Hellman idea.

"It is significant of San Francisco's credit standing in the
world at large," the letter read, "that the bonds of this city
command prices that compare favorably with the issues of other
large municipalities, as measured by the low interest return
which investors are willing to accept. To illustrate: For every
$1,000 put into municipal bonds at present figures, the
purchaser would receive per annum:

"From San Francisco bonds $39.00
"From Philadelphia bonds 37.00
"From Cincinnati bonds 37.50
"From Cleveland bonds 37.50
"From St. Louis bonds 38.80
"From Pittsburg bonds 37.00
"From Chicago bonds 38.50
"From Minneapolis bonds 38.50
"From Milwaukee bonds 39.00
"From New York bonds 39.50

"Considering these facts, and the readiness with which the San
Francisco bonds are being taken, it does not appear that this
city is suffering in reputation, as some people affect to
believe, by reason of certain trials which have engaged the
attention of the criminal courts for two years past."

"I have no patience," said Heney, in discussing the Hellman
argument, "with this talk that we hear from merchants and
bankers that the Prosecution is hurting business. They heard
the same talk in Boston when our Revolutionary sires threw tea
overboard. It would hurt business, they said, to have a war
with England. I can see the picture, when Thomas Jefferson was
signing the Declaration of Independence, of a large man, who
looked like the cartoonist's representation of a corporation
official, coming through the door behind him and shouting,
'Hold on, Tom, you'll hurt business.' And when Washington was
spending that terrible winter with his army at Valley Forge,
the same class of men who are now crying at us in San
Francisco were shouting for the war to stop. 'Damn principle,'
they were crying. 'It's hurting business. This war must
stop.'"

[454] "It is," said the Chronicle, commenting upon the adoption of
such resolutions, "a matter of common knowledge that there is
a widespread feeling among those whose good citizenship cannot
be disputed that the city, having done its best for three
years, without success, to find legal proof which would
connect officials of the corporations which profited by the
corruption of the Schmitz administration with the crime of
bribery, it is necessary to discontinue the effort. Hitherto
no one has been willing to formally approach the authorities
in the matter lest he should appear to show sympathy with
evildoers. The Richmond Club, however, has formally
memorialized the Supervisors to withdraw further support by
appropriations on the ground that it has become apparent that
success is impossible, and that further effort would be not
only a waste of money and energy but serve to keep before the
world the memory of a most disgraceful epoch in our history.

"Bribery of public officials is the most dangerous of crimes.
It undermines the very foundation of government by the people.
And yet it has been in this and all other large American
cities the most common of crimes. In the public mind, and in
common speech, any person or firm which has habitually done
business with our city government has been held to have on
himself the burden of proof that he was innocent of bribery.
And then came the riot of debauchery under the Schmitz
administration, with corruption in all forms permeating every
department of the city government. We have had nothing like
that before, and yet until the election of the present Board
of Supervisors this city has almost never had a Board on which
some members were not believed to be corrupt and constantly on
the watch for opportunities to 'hold up' those seeking to do
business with the city. It is not believed that any franchise
now in existence has been obtained without bribery or operated
without continuous bribery. It has been generally assumed that
whoever undertook to do business with the city must buy his
way in by some form of corruption.

"Bribery is a crime for which conviction is almost impossible.
Occasionally proof can be got through a decoy, as in the case
of the Schmitz Supervisors. What was exposed in that way,
however, was no legal proof against the higher officials of the
beneficiary corporations. For that other proof must be had, and
thus far, except in one case, no conviction has been had. And
unless the courts reverse themselves that conviction will not
stand. The question then arises as to the duty of the city.
Shall we continue to expend energy in striving to accomplish
what we all see to be impossible, or shall the city, having
done its best, turn its energies into more hopeful channels? As
to that there will be differences of opinion, nor is it
possible for anyone to know to what extent those differences
are founded in reason, and how much on personal hatreds and a
desire for notoriety.

"There is doubtless a feeling that the continuance of these
prosecutions is now doing great harm, which could only be
counterbalanced by conviction based on clear legal proof, for
which it is impossible to hope. In the first place, it is
enormously costly and has introduced a universal system of
spying which is exciting animosity against both sides of these
cases. Decent citizens are coming to resent secret efforts to
induce them to compromise themselves on the one side or the
other. Secondly, the awful exhibitions of perjury in order to
escape jury duty are shocking the moral sense of the community
as severely as it was shocked by the exposure of the bribery.
And the examination of the jurors are resulting in expressions
of opinion by prospective jurors which do not do the city any
good. Finally, the conduct of these trials is turning into a
farce processes which should be the most solemn exhibitions of
the authority of the law. We must all recognize that it is
common talk that society ought not to seek to imprison one
possible criminal at the cost of the imprisonment for months at
a time of innocent citizens dragged from their homes and
compelled to listen to the interminable quarrels of counsel
over matters having no legitimate bearing on the case and
injected solely for the purpose of confusing jurymen. Everybody
sees that it will be impossible in the case now on trial to get
a jury fit to be intrusted with the fate of a dog. Every
intelligent citizen has been 'disqualified' by reading the
testimony before the Grand Jury.

"It is a most difficult situation. No reputable citizen is
willing to seem to impede the course of justice. But, now that
an organized body has formally raised before the Supervisors a
question which has long been a daily subject of discussion
whenever two men have met, it will be necessary to frankly face
the situation and decide where duty lies."

[455] The following from the Fresno Republican is very good example
of this excellent but unavailing newspaper support:

"Good people of San Francisco, give heed and take notice, the
way it looks in the clearer perspective of an outside view.

"Francis J. Heney is a candidate for District Attorney, and he
is the issue. It is stop the Graft Prosecutions, or go on with
them. Your votes will determine it.

"You are 'tired of the Graft Prosecutions.' How long did it
take you to get tired of the graft? Can you not be patient as
long with militant honesty as you were with sneaking crime?

"You may stop these Prosecutions, if you so vote. But remember
the whole civilized world is looking on, and will judge you by
that vote. It is the good name of San Francisco that you are
voting up or down.

"Banker Hellman says not. He has been to New York and he says
'New York' wants the Prosecutions stopped, and 'New York' will
not lend any more money until they are stopped.

"What is Banker Hellman's 'New York?' It is certain banks and
certain syndicates in New York. And it is the San Francisco
officials of precisely these syndicates that you are now
prosecuting. Of course, Patrick Calhoun, of New York, wants the
prosecution of Patrick Calhoun of San Francisco stopped. It is
Banker Hellman's privilege to have a mere pendulum which swings
from his San Francisco office to his New York office and thinks
it is in New York. But it is not incumbent on you to share that
mental deficiency. If Banker Hellman should announce in New
York that he was going to discuss the San Francisco situation,
his audience would consist of the New York partners of the San
Francisco grafters. He thinks that is 'New York.' The real New
York would neither know nor care. It never heard of Banker
Hellman. But if Francis J. Heney should be announced to discuss
the San Francisco situation in New York, there is not a place
of assemblage in the city big enough to hold the people who
would want to hear and see him. The whole nation knows Heney
and it has made up its mind about him. It is waiting to see
what you do, before it makes up its mind about you, too.

"'The prosecutions must stop, some time,' to be sure. But who
has earned from San Francisco the right to say when? When
Francis J. Heney says it is time to quit, then it is time; not
before. He has given his time, his strength, and almost his
life for you. He has purified your politics and regulated your
government. He has redeemed your city's name in the esteem of
the world. He is making for you a fight which no one ever had
the courage, the persistence or the ability to make before. He
is not tired yet and he has not surrendered yet. Suppose you
leave it to him, when it is time to quit.

"People of San Francisco, the world is looking on. It cannot
determine your decision. Neither can you determine what it will
think of that decision, when it is made."

[456] Heney on the day after the election issued the following
statement:

"The first battle for equality before the law has been fought
and lost, but the war against graft will continue to be waged
by all true soldiers who have been fighting with me in the
great cause of common honesty, common decency, and civic
righteousness.

"The fight between the forces of evil and the forces of good
is and must be a perpetual one. The first battle of Bull Run
cast gloom over the entire earth, but that disaster only
inspired the immortal Lincoln and his followers with stern
resolution and fresh courage.

"San Francisco has received a sad blow and the cause of
equality before the law a great setback, but be of good cheer
and take fresh courage, you many thousands of good men and
women who have joined in this fight for the maintenance of the
purity and protection of our homes and the uplifting of the
moral standards of our city!

"We have been defeated in this election, but the sober moral
sense of the community will again reassert itself and San
Francisco will vindicate herself before the world.

"I retract nothing that I have said during the recent campaign.
On the contrary, I reassert the truth of all that I have stated
from the public platforms. I have no regrets except that for
poor San Francisco and the many thousands of people who fought
shoulder to shoulder with me in the good fight.

"Let us all to-night firmly resolve that we will continue the
battle for equality before the law with unabated vigor until
success has crowned our efforts."

* * * * *

The following statement was issued by Rudolph Spreckels:

"While the defeat at yesterday's election of the principles for
which I have fought is regretted by me, it will speedily bring
about a truer estimate of my real motives.

"One of the compensations of this defeat is that I have so
quickly been given an opportunity to disprove the charges so
frequently made that I have been actuated by sordid or
vindictive motives. The individuals against whom it is alleged
that I have entertained malicious and selfish designs are
entirely removed from the possibility of harm at the hands of
the so-called Prosecution.

"Attempting to punish was an unpleasant and incidental portion
of the public work which I set out to do. I am glad that the
people have taken that task off my hands and left me free to do
the more important part of my undertaking.

"Feeling that the people will fully realize this, I desire to
say that I shall continue the work of civic regeneration with
undiminished hope and earnestness."