Chapter II: The Ruef Board of Supervisors

No observer of San Francisco politics, not even Ruef himself, had expected the entire Union-Labor party ticket to be elected. The election of the Supervisors was the greatest surprise of all. Ruef, with his political intimates, had selected the Supervisorial candidates, but more with a view to hold the organized labor vote for Schmitz than with idea of the fitness of the candidates for the duties involved in managing the affairs of a municipality of 500,000 population.[15] Not one of the eighteen elected was a man of strong character.[16] Several were of fair, but by no means exceptional ability. Of this type were Gallagher, an attorney of some prominence who acted as go-between between Ruef and the Supervisors; Wilson, who was a sort of second man to Gallagher, and Boxton, a dentist.

But for the most part they were men who had led uneventful lives as drivers of delivery wagons, bartenders and clerks. Without an exception, they saw in their unexpected elevation to the Board of Supervisors opportunity to better their condition. Some of them would not, perhaps, have sought bribes; few of them knew just how they could employ their office to their best advantage; but from the hour of their election the idea of personal advancement was uppermost in the minds of the majority of the members of the Schmitz-Ruef Board of Supervisors.[17] Their ignorance of the requirements of their office, their failure to appreciate their large responsibilities, and above all their ill-defined ambitions made them promise of easy prey for the agents of the public-service corporations, who were playing for special privileges worth millions.

None realized this better than Ruef. From the beginning, he recognized that the likelihood of individual members of the board yielding to temptation to petty gain[18] threatened his own larger purposes. He let it be known that he would himself personally prosecute any one of them whom he discovered to be "grafting." Ruef was emphatic in his position that the Supervisors should have no financial dealings with those seeking special-privilege advantages. He even defined regular procedure for dealing with persons and corporations that might elect to catch the easiest way to accomplish their purposes by the use of bribe money. To this end he arranged:

(1) That Supervisor James L. Gallagher[19] should represent him on the board. The Supervisors at once accepted Gallagher, and dealt with him as Ruef's recognized agent.

(2) Finally Ruef arranged for a regular weekly caucus[20] to be held each Sunday night, on the eve of the regular meeting day of the board, Monday.

The public was not admitted to these caucuses. Those who were admitted were Ruef, Mayor Schmitz, George B. Keane,[21] clerk of the Board of Supervisors, who also acted as secretary of the caucus, and the eighteen Supervisors.

At these meetings, which were held every Sunday evening, Ruef was the dominating figure. Supervisor Wilson, testifying at the graft trials, stated that Ruef took the position of "chief counsel and adviser for the board in matters that were to come before the board."

Keane, as secretary of the caucus, took full notes[22] of the proceedings and sent written notices[23] of the meetings to each of those who were admitted.

The first of these caucuses was held shortly before the Schmitz-Ruef board took office. The organization of the board was provided by the Supervisors authorizing Ruef and Schmitz to make up the committees. Ruef undertook the task. He prepared the committee lists, and submitted his selections to Schmitz and Gallagher. Schmitz and Gallagher suggested unimportant changes. The committees were then announced to the Supervisors at the next caucus. There were objections raised, but these objections, with one exception, were denied in all important particulars. The organization of the Schmitz-Ruef Board of Supervisors was thus perfected.

Ruef's way seemed clear. The committee organization of the Board of Supervisors was his own. The Supervisors were to hold no open meeting until they had met with him in secret caucus to ascertain his wishes. The official clerk of the board, who was also secretary of the caucus, was his tried henchman. Gallagher, the ablest of the Supervisors, flattered at being made his representative, and further bound by mercenary ties, was ready to do his slightest bidding. And never had entrenched boss more fruitful field for exploitation.

But scarcely had the new administration been installed, than a weak point developed in Ruef's position. District Attorney William H. Langdon, who had been elected on the Ruef ticket, gave evidence that he proposed to enforce the law, regardless of the effect upon the administration of which he was a part, or upon Ruef's plans and interests.

The first intimation the public had of Langdon's independent attitude came when gambling games in which Ruef was popularly supposed to be interested were raided under the personal direction of the District Attorney. Langdon had first attempted to close the places through the police department. Failing, he had attended to the matter himself.[24] The gamblers appealed to Ruef, but Ruef was helpless. Langdon would not be turned from his purpose. The gamblers and capitalists interested in gambling establishments charged Langdon with political ingratitude.

But those who were laboring for the development, and were opposing the exploitation of San Francisco, saw in Langdon's course the first sign that Abraham Ruef was not to have undisputed sway in San Francisco.[25] With Langdon in the District Attorney's office it was still possible that the laws could be enforced--even against Abraham Ruef. The raiding of the gambling dens marked the beginning of the division in San Francisco, with those who approached the Ruef administration with bribe money on the one side, and those who resisted with the check of law enforcement on the other.

FOOTNOTES:

[15] At Ruef's trial for offering a bribe to Supervisor Furey,
Supervisor James L. Gallagher testified that conferences for
selecting the Union Labor party ticket, from Sheriff down, were
held at Ruef's office. Gallagher testified of one of these
conferences:

"The matter of the nominees for Supervisors was mentioned, and all
that I recollect about it is that it was stated that there
should be a good representation of prominent Union-Labor men on
the ticket, and Mr. Ruef stated that he had that in mind, and
that that would be done, and it was also stated that the members
on the Board of Supervisors that were Union-Labor adherents
should be nominated." See The People vs. Abraham Ruef, No.
1437--Transcript on Appeal, Part 3, Vol. 3, page 1278.

[16] The eighteen members of the Ruef-Schmitz Board of Supervisors
were James L. Gallagher, attorney at law; Cornelius J.
Harrigan, grocer; James T. Kelly, piano polisher; Thomas F.
Lonergan, driver of a bakery delivery wagon; Max Mamlock,
electrician; P. M. McGushin, saloonkeeper; F. P. Nicholas,
carpenter; Jennings J. Phillips, employed in newspaper
circulation department; L. A. Rea, painter; W. W. Sanderson,
employed in grocery store; E. I. Walsh, shoemaker; Andrew M.
Wilson, employing drayman; George Duffey, contracting plumber;
Charles Boxton, dentist; M. W. Coffey, hackman; Daniel G.
Coleman, clerk; Sam Davis, orchestra musician; John J. Furey,
blacksmith and saloonkeeper.

At the time the graft prosecution opened, Wilson had resigned
his position as Supervisor to take up his work as State
Railroad Commissioner, an office to which he was elected in
1906; and Duffey to be president of the Municipal Commission of
Public Works, to which office he was appointed by Mayor
Schmitz.

[17] Supervisor E. I. Walsh in a sworn statement made to Heney,
March 8, 1907, testified:

"Q. And what was agreed upon there (in caucus) as to programme?
A. I couldn't say what was agreed upon with them.

"Q. Wasn't it arranged that every man should be treated alike
as to money? A. It wasn't openly suggested that way; it might
have been said among the members that way.

"Q. That was the understanding you had. A. Yes, sir.

"Q. That you would be all treated equally and fairly? A. I
presume that was the way it was understood."

Supervisor Lonergan had been promised by Supervisor Wilson
$8000 for voting to give the United Railroads a permit to
operate its lines under the trolley system. At a second meeting
Wilson stated the amount would be $1000 only. Of the scene on
this occasion, Lonergan testified at the trial in the case of
the People vs. Ford. No. 817:

"Q. What did he (Wilson) say on that occasion? A. There was
only $4000 in it for me.

"Q. What did you say. A. I asked him what the hell kind of work
that was and what did he mean by it. And he shook his head and
said that if I didn't like it, all right; something to that
effect."

[18] Evidence of Ruef's distrust of his Supervisors was brought out
at many points in the graft trials. When he discovered that
individual Supervisors were, without his knowledge, taking
bribes from the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company,
he stated to Dr. Joseph S. Poheim:

"I see they have been trying to take my Supervisors away from
me, but I have fixed them; I would like to see one of them
throw me down." (See Transcript, People vs. Ruef, 1437, Part 3,
Vol. 9, p. 4018.) In the midst of the troubles brought upon him
by the graft prosecution, Ruef complained that "These fellows
(the Supervisors) would eat the paint off a house, and in order
to hold them together I had to descend to their level and take
them in with me."

Ruef was also jealous of Schmitz's activity. When he learned
that Schmitz had promised franchises independent of him, he
directed Supervisor Wilson to oppose them. "Butt in on this
Parkside business," he said to Wilson. "Mr. Schmitz has
promised the Ocean Shore and the Parkside; he is destroying my
political influence; these people ought to be made to come and
see me."

[19] Gallagher was by far the ablest member of the Ruef-Schmitz
Board of Supervisors. He was by profession an attorney at law.
In that capacity he had served first as Assistant City
Attorney, and finally as City Attorney. For a time he was law
partner with Hon. James G. Maguire, whose opposition, as member
of Congress from California, to the Pacific railroads refunding
measures, won him a national reputation. Maguire was candidate
for Governor on the Democratic ticket in 1898, but was
defeated. Gallagher had served as Supervisor previous to his
election in 1905, and was one of the most experienced members
of the Schmitz-Ruef board.

At Ruef's trial on the charge of offering a bribe to Supervisor
Furey, Gallagher testified that soon after his election in
1905, Ruef told him there would be a number of matters coming
before the Board of Supervisors in which the corporations and
other large concerns would be interested; that there would be a
number of large deals coming before the board in which he
wanted him (Gallagher) to represent him on the board. Gallagher
accepted the agency.

[20] Gallagher testified before the Oliver Grand Jury of the nature
of these caucuses. From his testimony the following is taken:

"Q. They (the Supervisors) voted in the caucus and you knew how
the vote would be. A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And they would be bound by the caucus vote. A. That was
understood that a man would vote at the caucus in the way he
would vote at the meeting.

"Q. You were understood to represent Mr. Ruef and Mr. Ruef's
views. A. That was generally understood by members of the
board.

"Q. And whatever way you went meant programme. A. I believe Mr.
Ruef told a number of them so, and that circulated among the
others; it was generally understood by them."

[21] Keane's lasting loyalty to Ruef makes him one of the most
interesting characters of the graft cases. He entered Ruef's
employ in 1898 as a law clerk. He remained in Ruef's office
until January, 1902, when Mayor Schmitz took office. Keane was
then made secretary to the Mayor. He served in that capacity
until January, 1906, when Ruef gained control of the Board of
Supervisors. Ruef then made him clerk of the board. At Ruef's
trial for offering a bribe to Supervisor Furey, Gallagher
testified that Ruef told him that Keane should be clerk.
Gallagher notified the other members of Ruef's decision, and
that closed the incident. Keane was, however, much more than a
mere clerk. Supervisor Wilson testified at the Ruef trial for
offering a bribe to Furey, that he (Wilson) owed his nomination
to Keane. Keane was elected to the State Senate where his
loyalty to Ruef in foul as well as fair weather made him a
conspicuous and somewhat notorious character. At present
writing, Keane is foremost in the movement to bring about
Ruef's release from State prison.

[22] At Ruef's trial on the charge of offering a bribe to Supervisor
Furey, Keane testified that these notes had been destroyed in
the great fire of April 18-19-20, 1906. Keane testified further
that Ruef was a constant attendant at the caucuses; that
Schmitz was an occasional visitor; that Supervisor Gallagher
presided.

[23] Notices of the caucus meetings were sent to Ruef precisely as
though he had been a member of the Board of Supervisors. At
Ruef's trial for offering a bribe to Supervisor Furey, the
following letter of notification was introduced as evidence:

"San Francisco, June 21st, 1906.

"Hon. A. Ruef, San Francisco--Dear Sir: I respectfully beg
leave to notify you that the Board of Supervisors will meet in
caucus on Sunday evening, June 24th, at 8 o'clock p. m., at
Hamilton Hall, Steiner street, near Geary. Your attendance is
respectfully requested.

"Yours truly, GEORGE B. KEANE, Clerk."

[24] The San Francisco Chronicle in its issue of March 8, 1906, said
of the District Attorney's raids on the gamblers:

"The political push and the underworld generally are astonished
at District Attorney Langdon's unexpected outbreak. He has
descended upon them like a thunderbolt out of a clear sky. For
the moment even wrath is less in evidence than surprise. It was
not expected. It is not what was paid for. It is like being
murdered by one's dearest friend. There is a complete reversal
of the usual experience of mankind. In most cities the lid is
on and weighed down before election but lifted and thrown away
as soon as the votes are counted. To be allowed to run wide
open before election and to be closed down and nailed up as
soon as the new official is fairly seated is outside of all
precedent. And all that after the most liberal contributions.
There is a feeling in criminal circles that somebody is guilty
of obtaining money under false pretenses. The District Attorney
is the one official for whose friendship the lawbreakers have
the most earnest longings, and behind their closed doors the
idle gamblers are trying to figure out what 'lay' this dreadful
Langdon is really on, and by what trade he has been induced to
ignore all the promises expressed or implied, which those
assumed to be able to speak for him dispersed so freely when
votes were in demand.

"As for the public, it was for none of these things. Among the
decent portion of society the 'motives' of the District
Attorney do not arouse even passing curiosity. What does
interest them is the present vigor of his work, and the
probability of his keeping it up."

[25] Ruef had consented to Langdon's nomination for District
Attorney, because he considered that Langdon's intimate
acquaintance with the teachers and pupils of the San Francisco
public schools would help the ticket. For the three years
preceding the campaign Langdon had been Superintendent of
Schools at San Francisco. Ruef told Langdon after the election
that he had no idea that any one other than Schmitz could be
elected on the Union-Labor party ticket that year. When during
the campaign Langdon began to develop strength in the contest
for District Attorney, Ruef sent him a check for $200 for
"campaign expenses," saying that the money had been contributed
by Tirey L. Ford of the United Railroads. Langdon returned the
check to Ruef with the statement that he preferred to pay his
own campaign expenses. During the campaign at every meeting he
addressed, Langdon made the statement: "The laws are on the
statute books; all may know them. I pledge myself to the
enforcement of these laws." To be sure, few if any paid much
attention to what Langdon meant, but that was no fault of
Langdon's. Everybody was to learn from the hour that he assumed
the duties of his office that he meant just what he said.
Rudolph Spreckels testified at the Calhoun trial that when
Langdon's raids on the gambling dens were made public he felt
that "we had a District Attorney who was desirous of doing his
duty." The raids were made in February, 1906. Spreckels, Heney,
Phelan, Older and others were already considering plans for the
exposure and check of the reign of Ruef.