Chapter V: Graft Prosecution Opens

Three days after the announcement of his plans, District Attorney Langdon appointed Heney to a regular deputyship. But even before Langdon had taken office, as early as December, 1905, Fremont Older, editor of the San Francisco Bulletin, had suggested to Heney that he undertake the prosecution of those responsible for conditions in San Francisco.

The Bulletin had been the most fearless and consistent of the opponents of the Schmitz-Ruef regime.[75] After Ruef's complete triumph at the November election in 1905, he boasted that he would break the Bulletin with libel suits. With every department of government in his control, Ruef appeared to be in a position where, even though he might not be able to make good his threat, he could cause the Bulletin much annoyance if not great financial loss.

Older went on to Washington to engage Heney to defend the paper, should Ruef attempt to make his boast good. Heney gave Ruef's threats little credence. "I would be very glad to defend you," he told Older, "but I am afraid I'll never get a chance to earn that fee."[76]

Incidentally Older stated that he believed a fund could be raised to prosecute the corrupters of the San Francisco municipal government, and asked Heney if he would undertake the prosecution, if such a fund could be secured.

Heney replied that he would be glad to undertake it, but stated that at least $100,000 would be required. And even with this amount, Heney pointed out to Older, all efforts would be futile, unless the District Attorney were genuinely in sympathy with the movement to better conditions.

On Heney's return to California early in 1906, Older brought him and Rudolph Spreckels[77] and James D. Phelan together. Heney and Spreckels met for the first time. Phelan vouched for Langdon's[78] integrity and honesty of purpose. Indeed, Langdon was already giving evidence of his independence of the Ruef organization. Up to that time no attempt had been made to raise the funds necessary to conduct a practical investigation. Phelan stated that he would subscribe $10,000 and Spreckels agreed to give a like amount. Spreckels undertook to look the field over and expressed confidence that he could get twenty men who would subscribe $5000 each, making the $100,000 which Heney had declared to be necessary for the undertaking. The question of Heney's fee was then raised.[79]

"If there be anything left out of the $100,000 we will talk about fee," Heney replied. "But I don't think there will be anything left and I will put up my time against your money."

It was practically settled at this meeting that Heney should devote himself to the prosecution of corruptionists against whom evidence might be secured. He returned to Washington early in March to wind up his affairs there. Before he could return to San Francisco, came the earthquake and fire.

Heney got back to San Francisco April 25, one week after the disaster. He had another conference with Spreckels.[80] Spreckels told him that he wanted the investigation begun at the earliest possible moment, and that he (Spreckels) would himself guarantee the expenses which might be incurred.[81] Heney notified Burns, and as early as June[82] Burns had begun the investigation that was to result in the downfall of Ruef, and the scattering of his forces.

By the middle of the following October, Heney had so arranged his affairs as to be free to devote himself to the San Francisco investigation. His appointment as Deputy District Attorney followed.

In view of one of the principal defenses advanced by Ruef and his allies, namely, that the graft prosecution was undertaken to injure the United Railroads, these dates are important. The services for which the bribe money which got the United Railroads into difficulties was paid, were not rendered until May 21, 1906, long after final arrangements had been made for Burns to conduct the investigation and Heney to assist in the prosecution. The actual passing of the United Railroads bribe money was not completed until late in August[83] of that year. Burns was at work, and had received pay for his services before the bribe-giving for which United Railroad officials were prosecuted had taken place.[84]

Langdon's announcement that he would appoint Heney as a Deputy District Attorney, to assist in investigating into charges of official corruption, brought upon him the condemnation of the municipal administration and of the leaders of the Union-Labor party. P. H. McCarthy and O. A. Tveitmoe, who, from opposing the Union-Labor party movement in 1901-3 had, by the time the Graft Prosecution opened, become prominent in its councils, were particularly bitter in their denunciations. At a Ruef-planned mass meeting held at the largest auditorium in the city October 31, 1906, for the purpose of organizing a league for the protection of the administration, Langdon was dubbed "traitor to his party," a man "who has gone back on his friends," "the Benedict Arnold of San Francisco."

Heney was denounced as "the man from Arizona." On the other hand Mayor Schmitz was called "the peerless champion of the people's rights," and Ruef, "the Mayor's loyal, able and intrepid friend."

Thomas Egan, one of the organizers of the Union-Labor party, stated of the graft prosecution: "This movement, led by Rudolph Spreckels and engineered by James D. Phelan, conceived in iniquity and born in shame, is for the purpose of destroying the labor organizations and again to gain control of the government of our fair city."

Ruef, in an earnest address, insisted upon his innocence of wrongdoing. "As sure as there is a God in heaven," he announced solemnly, "they have no proof as they claim."[85]

Acting Mayor Gallagher issued a statement in which he took the same ground as had Egan at the Dreamland Rink mass meeting, that the prosecution was a movement on the part of the Citizens' Alliance to disrupt the labor unions.[86]

From another angle, officials of public service corporations charged those identified with the investigation with being in league with the labor unions. In one of his statements to the public, Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads, set forth that, "I confidently expect to defeat alike the machinations of Rudolph Spreckels, his private prosecutor, with his corps of hired detectives, and Mr. Cornelius, president of the Carmen's Union, the leader of anarchy and lawlessness, and to see fairly established in this community the principles of American liberty, and the triumphs of truth and justice."[87]

Then, too, there were points at which the two supposed extremes, corporation magnates and Labor-Union politicians, touched in their opposition to the prosecution. At a meeting held on November 2, 1906, less than two weeks after Heney's appointment, John E. Bennett, representing the Bay Cities Water Company, read a paper in which Heney and Langdon were denounced as the agents of the Spring Valley Water Company. The Chronicle, in its issue of November 3, charged that the paper read by Mr. Bennett was type proof of a pamphlet that was to be widely distributed, and that the proof sheets had been taken to the meeting by George B. Keane, secretary of the Board of Supervisors.[88]

On the other hand, practically the entire press of the city,[89] the general public and many of the labor unions gave the prosecution unqualified endorsement, welcoming it as opportunity, in an orderly way, either to establish beyond question, or to disprove, the charges against the administration of incompetency and corruption.[90] Rudolph Spreckels's statement, that "this is no question of capital and labor, but of dishonesty and justice,"[91] was generally accepted as true expression of the situation.

Those directly connected with allegations or suggestion of irregular practices, issued statements disclaiming any knowledge of irregularity or corruption. General Tirey L. Ford, chief counsel of the United Railroads, in a published interview,[92] stated that no political boss nor any person connected with the municipal administration had benefited financially to the extent of one dollar in the trolley permit transaction, and that had any one profited thereby, he (Ford) in his official capacity would have known of it. Those connected with the administration were as vigorous in their denials.[93] Many of them expressed satisfaction at the prospect of an investigation. Supervisor Kelly went so far as to suggest that the municipality give $5000 to assist in the inquiry. "Let us," said Supervisor Lonergan, "get to the bottom of this thing. These cracks about graft have been made right along, and we should have them proved or disproved at once."

But in spite of this brave front, the developments of the years of resistance of the graft prosecution show the few days following Heney's appointment as Assistant District Attorney to have been a period of intense anxiety to Ruef and his immediate advisers. Ruef held daily consultations with Acting Mayor Gallagher, Clerk Keane, and his attorney, Henry Ach. The public knew little of these consultations, but a rumor became current that Mayor Gallagher would suspend District Attorney Langdon from office. Little credence was given this, however. Nevertheless, on the night of October 25 Acting Mayor Gallagher suspended Langdon from office, and appointed Abraham Ruef to be District Attorney to conduct the graft investigations.[94]

The following morning the San Francisco Call, under a large picture of Ruef, printed the words: "THIS MAN'S HAND GRIPS THE THROAT OF SAN FRANCISCO."

FOOTNOTES:

[75] The persecution of the Bulletin during this period was
characteristic of Ruef's methods and reflected the state of
lawlessness which prevailed in San Francisco. R. A. Crothers,
proprietor of the paper, was assaulted and badly beaten. The
newsboys organized into a union. The boys were sincere enough,
but the movement was in reality engineered from the tenderloin.
Soon a strike of newsboys against the Bulletin was inaugurated.
Copies of the paper were snatched from the hands of citizens
who purchased it. Bulletin carriers and agents were assaulted.
Tugs of its delivery wagons were cut. When the paper was
delivered to stores, sticks and stones were thrown in after it.
The police did not interfere. The manifestations of lawlessness
went unchecked. Libel suits were brought against the Bulletin.
Business boycotts were attempted against it.

[76] See address made by Heney before Citizens' League of Justice in
October, 1908.

[77] Rudolph Spreckels, although connected with large enterprises,
had steadfastly refused to employ Ruef as an attorney, or to
join with him in any way. Given control of the San Francisco
Gas Company, for example, although he was importuned to do so,
Spreckels refused to employ Ruef as attorney for that company.
Spreckels testified at the trial of The People vs. Patrick
Calhoun, that he had first realized the necessity of proceeding
against Ruef and the Ruef-Schmitz administration when Ruef
proposed to him to organize a syndicate to purchase San
Francisco municipal bonds. Spreckels testified that Ruef set
forth his plan as follows:

"He (Ruef) asked me if I would get together a syndicate for the
purpose of bidding on these bonds; that he would guarantee that
if I did get up such a syndicate, our bid would be a successful
bid; that we would not be obliged to bid above par, and that he
would guarantee that we would be the successful bidders. My
reply to Mr. Ruef was that I could not understand how anybody
could make such an agreement or promise, and how did he propose
to make such a statement--to carry out what he had stated. He
said: 'Why, that is a simple matter. You know my connection
with the Labor Unions and the Labor Union party. Just at the
time that the bids are about to come in, I will arrange to tie
up this town; we will have the biggest strike that the
community has ever known, and I would like to see any of your
bankers or your capitalistic friends bid on the bonds under
those circumstances, excepting yourself, those that are in the
know'--words to that effect, was his expression. I said to Mr.
Ruef: 'Do you mean to say, Mr. Ruef, that for the purpose of
making money you would bring about a strike which might entail
even bloodshed, for the mere sake of making money?' And Mr.
Ruef flushed up and said: 'Oh, no; I was only joking.' And he
soon withdrew from my office."

It is interesting to compare Spreckels' attitude toward Ruef
with that of I. W. Hellman, as shown by Hellman's testimony at
the trial of Tirey L. Ford. See footnote 7, page 15.

[78] Heney, in his address on the work of the Graft Prosecution,
October, 1908, paid Langdon the following high tribute:

"Mr. Langdon, as soon as we laid the matter before him and
convinced him it was in good faith and not to serve private
interests, said: 'Yes, I will appoint Mr. Heney assistant in my
office and give him full sway to make a thorough investigation,
on one condition, and that is that I am kept personally in
touch with everything going on at all times. I am District
Attorney and I propose to be District Attorney and to act upon
my own judgment.' And there never has been a time that Mr.
Langdon didn't have absolute sway over all matters, and did not
wholly consent to what was done, and he has had the final say
in everything, and I wish to say that there is more credit due
to him than to any of us. He had a greater personal sacrifice
to make.

"The first thing he had to take into consideration was that he
had gone into office as the candidate of the Labor party, and
he knew he would be called a traitor and denounced if it
appeared that any man who had been on the same ticket as he had
been elected upon had been grafting. He had to possess more
moral than physical courage, and a higher kind of moral
courage, and that courage was exercised to the credit of San
Francisco as well as to the credit of Mr. Langdon."

[79] The Graft Defense labored without success to make it appear
that Heney was compensated for his service. Out of the
Prosecution fund, the expenses--rental, clerical hire,
etc.--of offices, so far as they were maintained especially
for the work of the Graft Prosecution, were paid. These were
known as "Heney's offices." When Rudolph Spreckels was on the
stand at the Calhoun trial, he testified under Heney's
announcement that the Defense could ask him any question it
chose and no objection would be made. Earl Rogers, for
Calhoun, endeavored to make it appear that Heney was getting
pay.

"Mr. Spreckels," Rogers asked, "in addition to paying Mr.
Heney's office expenses, amounting to five or six hundred
dollars a month, have you paid other expenses for Mr. Heney?"

"No, sir," Spreckels replied.

Heney, the testimony all through shows, received not a dollar
to compensate him for his services to the city; moreover, it
shows that he had given up business which would have brought
him large fees, that he might be free to conduct the Graft
Prosecution. See transcript Calhoun trial, pages 3837 and on,
3746, 3743, etc.

The efforts of well-compensated attorneys for the Defense to
make it appear that Heney was paid for his work, furnish one of
the amusing features of the graft trials.

[80] The conference was held on May 10 or 11. This was four days
before the Supervisors took the preliminary steps toward
granting the United Railroads its overhead trolley permit, and
several months before the bribe money was paid.

[81] See testimony of Rudolph Spreckels at trial of The People vs.
Patrick Calhoun, No. 1436.

[82] Al McKinley was the first detective put to work for the Graft
Prosecution. On May 25, 1906, Chief Burns detailed him to
watch Ruef. Later, June 19, 1906, Burns directed Robert Perry
to shadow Ruef. Perry did so until nearly a year later, when
Ruef was placed in the custody of an elisor.

[83] That prosecution of officials of the United Railroads was not
thought of when the graft prosecution was begun, was brought
out at the trial of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, No. 1436.
The following, for example, is taken from Rudolph Spreckels'
testimony:

"Mr. Heney--Q. At the time that Mr. Phelan agreed to contribute
the $10,000, Mr. Spreckels, what did you say, if anything,
about contributing yourself? A. That was in the first meeting,
I think, Mr. Heney, and I told him that I was ready and willing
to contribute a similar amount: that I believed it would be
possible to get others to join and contribute.

"Q. At that time was anything said by any person about
prosecuting Mr. Calhoun? A. Absolutely no.

"Q. Or any person connected with the United Railroads Company?
A. The discussion was entirely confined to the administration,
the corrupt

"Q. At that time did you have any purpose or intention of
prosecuting Mr. Calhoun? A. I had not.

"Q. Did you have any reason to believe that Mr. Calhoun at that
time had committed any crime? A. I had no indication of such a
crime.

"Mr. Moore--Was that time fixed, Mr. Heney?

"Mr. Heney--Yes, it was fixed; the first conversation, and he
has fixed it as nearly as he could.

"The Court--Have you in mind the testimony on that point, Mr.
Moore? There was some reference to it in an earlier part of the
examination.

"Mr. Heney--Q. When you had the talk with Mr. Heney in April,
1906, did you say anything about prosecuting Mr. Calhoun, or
anybody connected with the United Railroads? A. I did not.

"Q. Did you at any time tell Mr. Heney that you desired to have
him prosecute Mr. Patrick Calhoun? A. I did not, at any time.

"Q. Did you tell him at any time that you desired to have him
prosecute any person connected with the United Railroads
Company? A. I did not." See transcript The People vs. Patrick
Calhoun, No. 1436, page 3730.

[84] Rudolph Spreckels testified at the trial of The People vs.
Patrick Calhoun, No. 1436:

"Mr. Perry was employed to get information in regard to Mr.
Abraham Ruef and the city administration as early as June,
1906, and his efforts and of one other man employed at that
time were directed toward that and that only."

[85] See San Francisco newspapers, November 1, 1906.

[86] Gallagher's statement was in full as follows:

It seems to me that these assaults that are being made upon
Mayor Schmitz are exceedingly reprehensible. It is strange that
the gentlemen who are making the attacks did not see fit to
make them while Mayor Schmitz was here. Especially does this
apply to Langdon, who, by reason of past association with Mayor
Schmitz, and favors received by him from the Mayor, should have
been the last man to attempt to besmirch the Mayor in his
absence. I am satisfied that all these attacks upon the
administration officials have their origin in the
long-continued attempt on behalf of the Citizens' Alliance to
disrupt the labor organizations of the city. An administration
that is friendly to organized labor is an impassable obstacle
in the way of such a purpose. The enormous amount of labor of
all kinds that will have to be performed in this city during
the next few years has undoubtedly prompted the organizers of
the old Citizens' Alliance to renew their assaults upon the
officials elected by the Union Labor party in the hope that
they may thereby themselves secure control of the municipal
administration and thus work out their own will in the matter
of the conditions under which labor shall perform the task of
rebuilding this city.

"So far as I am concerned personally, I consider that the
disruption of the labor organization would be a great sacrifice
of the interests of all of the people. The city must be built
up; but the Citizens' Alliance and all organizations and
individuals in sympathy with it may as well understand, first
as last, that the work will only be done through organized
labor, and not by the employment of pauper labor in competition
with the mechanics and artisans of the labor unions.

"That this view of the situation is well recognized by the
labor organizations of the city is shown by the action of the
Building Trades Council last night in approving and indorsing
my action in removing Mr. Langdon."

[87] Contained in a statement published May 18, 1907. See San
Francisco papers of that date.

[88] The nature of the attacks upon the supporters of the
Prosecution is shown by the proceedings in the libel suit
brought by the San Francisco First National Bank against the
Oakland Tribune. Rudolph Spreckels was president of the bank;
the Tribune was one of the stanchest of the opponents of the
prosecution. The Tribune charged that the Graft Prosecution
had for one of its objects the unloading of the Spring Valley
Water Company's plant upon San Francisco, and that the First
National Bank was burdened with Spring Valley securities.
Among other things the article set forth:

"The recent disclosures of the methods by which it was sought
to unload Spring Valley's old junk, called a distributing
system, together with its inadequate supply of inferior water,
on the city at an outrageous figure by the swinging of the 'big
stick' has not enhanced the value of the securities of the
corporation in the view of the national examiners. Even the
efforts to cloud the real purposes of the promoters of the
Spring Valley job by calling it a civic uprising to stamp out
municipal graft is said to have failed to mislead the Federal
experts. The suggestion that the 'big stick' would force the
city to purchase the plant of the decrepit corporation for
$28,000,000 after its real estimate was appraised by an expert
at $5,000,000 and held by the bondholders to be worth, as
realty speculation, $15,000,000, has not enthused the Federal
bank examiners in relation to the value of Spring Valley bonds
as security for a national bank."

The First National Bank did not hold Spring Valley Company
securities. As the Tribune's charges were calculated to injure
the bank, action for libel followed. At the hearings, it
developed that the articles had been furnished the Tribune by
the political editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, who
testified that he was paid fifty dollars a week for his Tribune
articles. This was more than his salary as political editor of
the Chronicle. He admitted on the stand that he had heard what
he stated in his article, "only as a matter of gossip."

[89] The San Francisco Call, in an editorial article, printed
October 22, expressed the general sentiment in San Francisco.
The Call said:

"San Francisco will welcome the undertaking by Mr. Francis J.
Heney of the duty to search out and bring to justice the
official boodlers and their brokers that afflict the body
politic. Public opinion is unanimous in the belief that
Supervisors have been bribed and that administrative functions
such as those of the Board of Works and the Health Board have
been peddled in secret market. Even the Board of Education is
not exempted from suspicion.

"These convictions, prevailing in the public mind, call for
verification or refutation. The sudden affluence of certain
members of the Board of Supervisors, the current and generally
credited reports that the United Railroads paid upward of
$500,000 in bribes to grease the way of its overhead trolley
franchise, the appearance of public officials in the guise of
capitalists making large investments in skating rinks and other
considerable enterprises--these and other lines of
investigation demand the probe. If there has been no dishonesty
in office the officials should be the first to insist on a
thorough inquiry.

"If it is true, as we believe, that official boodling has been
the practice, a systematic inquiry will surely uncover the
crimes. It is impossible to commit such offenses where so many
are concerned without leaving some trace that can be followed
and run to earth. The crimes of the gaspipe thugs seemed for
the moment hidden in impenetrable mystery, but patient search
discovers the trail that leads to conviction. Criminals are
rarely men of high intelligence. They betray themselves at one
or other turn of their windings. We are convinced that some of
our Supervisors and not a few of the executive officials
appointed by Schmitz are in no degree superior in point of
intelligence and moral sense to the gaspipe robbers.

"Mr. Heney's record as a remorseless and indefatigable
prosecutor of official rascals is known. He will have the
assistance in his new work of Mr. William J. Burns, who did so
much to bring to light the Oregon land frauds. Those crimes
were surrounded and protected by fortifications of political
influence that were deemed impregnable. When the inquiry was
first undertaken nobody believed it would ever come to
anything. It was a slow business, even as the mills of the gods
grind slowly, but if fine the grist of the criminal courts of
Oregon is large and satisfying.

"The people of San Francisco have been sorely tried. Fire and
earthquake we cannot help, but the unhappy city has been made
the prey of a set of conscienceless thieves who have done
nothing since our great calamity beyond promoting schemes to
fill their own pockets. Our streets, our sewers, our schools
and our public buildings have been neglected, but the sale of
permits and franchises, the working of real estate jobs and the
market for privileges of every variety have been brisk and
incessant. Officials have grown rich: Some of them are spending
money like a drunken sailor. It is time for housecleaning and a
day of reckoning. Heney and Burns will put the question: 'Where
did they get it?'"

[90] Bishop Montgomery, of the Roman Catholic Church, in an
interview in the San Francisco Call, October 20, 1906, said in
reference to the San Francisco graft prosecution:

"Mere accusations have been so long and so persistently made
that the public has a right to know the truth; and, above all,
those who are innocently so charged have a right to a public
and complete vindication. Nothing now but a thorough and honest
investigation can clear the atmosphere and set us right before
the world and with ourselves.

"I have such confidence in the courts of California that I
believe no innocent man needs to fear that he will suffer from
them, and no guilty man has any just right to complain.

"I believe the investigation has been undertaken in good faith
for the best interests of the city, and that it will be
conducted thoroughly and honestly."

[91] Mr. Spreckels' statement was contained in an interview printed
in the San Francisco Call, October 28, 1906. It was as
follows:

"This is no question of capital and labor," he said, "but of
dishonesty and justice. There is no association of men,
capitalists or others, behind what we have undertaken, and it
cannot be made a class question. No one knows that better than
Ruef. And it will be impossible for him to fool the workingman
by these insinuations.

"I want the workingmen of this city to recall that meeting
which was recently held in Union Square. I was asked to attend
that meeting and be its chairman. I refused to preside, to
speak or go there unless I could be assured that it was not to
be a movement of the capitalistic class on the one hand against
the workingmen on the other. And because I did not receive that
assurance I did not attend. Mr. Heney stayed away for the same
reason.

"Now, who was it that originated that meeting? Sam Shortridge.
Who was it who drew the resolutions; who was it who prompted
the speakers and the chairman? It was Sam Shortridge.

"Mr. Ruef says that meeting was dominated and arranged by the
Citizens' Alliance. Very well. Then let Mr. Ruef explain to the
workingmen why it was that a few days afterward he hired Sam
Shortridge as his attorney.

"I believe that it is impossible to fool the laboring men of
this city now. Absolutely and definitely I want to say to them
that there is nothing behind this movement but the desire for a
clean city. It is absolutely regardless of class. Every man who
owns a home, who has a family, is as much interested in what we
have undertaken as is the wealthiest citizen."

[92] See San Francisco Examiner, October 28, 1906, from which the
following is taken: "=Of course there was no bribery= (said
General Ford), =nor offer to bribe, nor was there anything done
except upon clean and legitimate lines=."

"Q. General, if any bribe, or offer to bribe, had been made by
your company to any person connected with the San Francisco
municipal administration, or to any political boss having
control of the same, or if any member of the Board of
Supervisors, or of the municipal government had benefited to
the extent of one dollar financially by the agreement to grant
to the United Railroads the privilege desired, you, in your
official capacity, would undoubtedly be aware of it, would you
not? A. I am certain that I would; I am, therefore, equally
certain that no such thing was ever done or contemplated."

[93] The following are excerpts from interviews published in the San
Francisco Examiner, October 23, 1906:

Abraham Ruef: "I am satisfied that if Mayor Schmitz had known
that this investigation was afoot he would have postponed his
trip abroad and would have remained here to disprove all
allegations of graft."

Supervisor Andrew Wilson: "I shall be glad to welcome any
investigation as to my official acts or as to my official
conduct. I never took a dishonest dollar in my life."

Supervisor Patrick McGushin: "The more they investigate, the
better I shall like it. I do not believe Mr. Heney has any
evidence of graft. Speaking for myself, he can investigate me
or my bank account if he likes."

Acting Mayor James L. Gallagher: "So far as the administration
is concerned from the statements I have received, everything is
straight. So far as the Police Department is concerned no one
can tell. I can not tell."

Supervisor Jennings Phillips: "This investigation will be a
good thing. There has been so much talk of graft and so many
accusations that it all will be settled once and for all. If
Mr. Heney has any evidence I know nothing of its nature nor
against what part of the administration it is directed."

Supervisor Edward Walsh: "As a Supervisor I have tried to do my
best. I court an investigation. I do not pay much attention to
Mr. Heney's statements. I have been here thirty-seven years and
I can hold up my head, as can every other member of this
Board."

Supervisor Michael Coffey: "Nothing would afford me more
pleasure than to have them investigate my integrity and my
official acts. I hope they'll make a full and thorough
investigation and clear us all of the slurs that have been cast
upon us."

Supervisor S. Davis: "I think there is nothing to this whole
thing. If Mr. Heney can find out anything let him do it. It is
hard to have insinuations cast at you. My personal connection
with the administration has been straight."

Supervisor F. P. Nicholas: "There has been so much noise about
graft that it will be a good thing to go thoroughly into the
matter. Personally I court an investigation of my official
acts. If Mr. Heney has any evidence of corruption I know
nothing of it."

Supervisor Daniel Coleman: "These loud cries of graft that have
been current of late will be silenced through this
investigation. It should be thoroughly gone into so that the
purity of the administration cannot hereafter be questioned."

Supervisor Max Mamlock: "I do not think it is worth my while to
think about this investigation. I do not see where Mr. Burns or
Mr. Heney could get any evidence of graft."

[94] Acting-Mayor Gallagher's order removing Langdon is printed in
full in the appendix. One of the charges alleged against
Langdon was that he had appointed Francis J. Heney to be his
deputy for ulterior purposes. Of Heney it was alleged that he
had "in a public speech in said city and county (San
Francisco), aspersed the character and good name of a
prominent citizen of this community (Abe Ruef), and stated
that he knew him to be corrupt, etc."

Acting-Mayor Gallagher's order of removal was made in persuance
of Sections 18 and 19 of Article XVI of the San Francisco
Charter, which read as follows:

"Sec. 18. Any elected officer, except Supervisor, may be
suspended by the Mayor and removed by the Supervisors for
cause; and any appointed officer may be removed by the Mayor
for cause. The Mayor shall appoint some person to discharge the
duties of the office during the period of such suspension.

"Sec. 19. When the Mayor shall suspend any elected officer he
shall immediately notify the Supervisors of such suspension and
the cause therefor. If the Board is not in session, he shall
immediately call a session of the same in such manner as shall
be provided by ordinance. The Mayor shall present written
charges against such suspended officer to the Board and furnish
a copy of the same to said officer, who shall have the right to
appear with counsel before the Board in his defense. If by an
affirmative vote of not less than fourteen members of the Board
of Supervisors, taken by ayes and noes and entered on its
record, the action of the Mayor is approved, then the suspended
officer shall thereby be removed from office; but if the action
of the Mayor is not so approved such suspended officer shall be
immediately reinstated."