Chapter VI

RUEF'S FIGHT TO TAKE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

The impaneling of the Grand Jury was to have been completed on October 26. Heney was appointed Assistant District Attorney on October 24. Ruef, to secure control of the District Attorney's office before the Grand Jury could be sworn, had little time to act. But he was equal to the emergency. Gallagher removed Langdon and named Ruef as District Attorney the day after Heney's appointment and the day before the impaneling of the Grand Jury was to have been completed.

Ruef had, however, considered Langdon's suspension from the day of the District Attorney's announcement of his plans for investigating graft charges. Gallagher testified at the graft trials that Ruef had, several days before Langdon's suspension, notified him it might be necessary to remove Langdon from office[95]. The Acting Mayor expressed himself as ready to carry out whatever Ruef might want done.

Gallagher testified that the names of several attorneys, including that of Henry Ach, Ruef's attorney and close associate, were canvassed as eligible for appointment as Langdon's successor. Nothing definite was decided upon, however, until the day that Langdon's position was declared vacant. On that day, Gallagher received word from Ruef to call at his office. There, according to Gallagher's statement, he found Thomas V. Cator, a member of the municipal Board of Election Commissioners. Henry Ach came in later.

Ruef told Gallagher that he had decided it was necessary to remove Langdon, and that he had decided to take the place himself. Gallagher assured Ruef that whatever Ruef decided in the matter he, the Acting Mayor, would stand by. The papers removing Langdon had already been prepared. Gallagher read them over, for typographical errors, he states in his testimony, and signed them.

The Board of Supervisors was to have met that day at 2:30 P. M. in regular weekly session. Gallagher, as Acting Mayor, was to preside. But it was well after 6 P. M. when Gallagher arrived, from Ruef's office, at the council chamber.

He appeared worried and disturbed. The Supervisors, who had been waiting for him for nearly four hours, were called to order. The communication removing Langdon was read and adopted without debate or opposition.[96] Gallagher then announced that he had appointed Ruef to be Langdon's successor.

How completely Ruef dominated the municipal departments was shown by the fact that he filed his bond, his oath of office, and his certificate of appointment at the various municipal offices without hint of what was going on reaching the public. Ruef had commanded secrecy, and secrecy was observed. After Gallagher had announced Ruef's appointment in open meeting of the Supervisors, the filing of the papers was made public.

Although the Supervisors, in open board meeting, endorsed Gallagher's action without apparent hesitation, nevertheless the abler among them did so with misgivings. Supervisor Wilson went straight from the meeting of the board to Ruef's office. He told Ruef that in his judgment a mistake had been made; that the papers would call the removal of Langdon confession of guilt.[97] But Ruef laughed at his fears, and to cheer him up, took him to a popular restaurant for dinner.

But before leaving his office, Ruef performed his first act as District Attorney. He wrote a curt note to Heney, dismissing him from the position of assistant.[98] Later in the evening he appointed as Heney's successor Marshall B. Woodworth.

The order of dismissal was delivered to Heney within ten minutes. Heney's answer reached Ruef as he sat at dinner with Supervisor Wilson and Henry Ach, who had joined the group. Heney's reply was quite as pointed as Ruef's letter of dismissal. Heney stated he did not recognize Ruef as District Attorney.

The battle between the two forces was fairly on. Ruef and his associates, as they sat at dinner, discussed the advisability of taking possession of the District Attorney's office that night, but concluded to wait until morning. In this Ruef suffered the fate of many a general who has consented to delay. When morning came, District Attorney Langdon had his office under guard, and San Francisco was aroused as it had not been in a generation.

Supervisor Wilson had not misjudged the interpretation that would be placed upon Langdon's suspension. The Call the following morning denounced Ruef as "District Attorney by usurpation; a prosecuting officer to save himself from prosecution." The Chronicle set forth, in a biting editorial article, that "as long as they (the Ruef-Schmitz combine) felt safe from prosecution, they jauntily declared that they would like to see the accusations fully justified, but the instant they began to realize the possibility of being sent to San Quentin, they turned tail and resorted to a trick which every man in the community with gumption enough to form a judgment in such matters will recognize as a confession of guilt."

The Examiner called the removal of Langdon and the appointment of Ruef, "the last stand of criminals hunted and driven to bay."

"They have," said the Examiner, "come to a point where they will stop at nothing.... William H. Langdon, the fearless District Attorney, and Francis J. Heney, the great prosecutor, have driven the bribe-seekers and the bribe-takers to a condition of political madness. In hysterical fear they last night attempted their anarchistic method of defense."

The Bulletin devoted its entire editorial page to Ruef's new move, heading the article, "Ruef's Illegal Action is Confession of Guilt."

"Nothing," said the Bulletin, "in the history of anarchy parallels in cool, deliberate usurpation of authority this latest exhibition of lawlessness in San Francisco.... Government is seized to overthrow government. Authority is exercised in defiance of authority. The office of the District Attorney is seized deliberately, with malice aforethought, with strategy and cunning and used as a fort for thieves to battle down the forces of citizenship. The criminals, accused of felony, after inviting investigation and pretending to assist, have shown their hypocrisy by committing an act of anarchy which, while it might be tolerated for the time being in San Francisco, would result in the execution of these men in any government of Europe."

Gallagher's action, while upheld by the Union-Labor party leaders, and by the unions which these leaders dominated, was condemned by independent labor organizations.

The Building Trades Council, with which all the building trades unions were affiliated, dominated by P. H. McCarthy, promptly endorsed Gallagher's action in removing Langdon. But many of the affiliated unions not only withheld endorsement, but some of them repudiated the action of the central body.

The Bricklayers and Masons' Union, for example, with 800 members present, and without a dissenting vote, adopted resolutions declaring that "the President and Secretary[99] of the Building Trades Council are not fit persons to be at the head of the Union movement in San Francisco," and denouncing the course of the municipal administration, which the Building Trades Council had approved, as "high-handed defiance of the law."[100]

In spite of this repudiation by the unions, Ruef issued a statement in which he denounced the prosecution as a movement "to destroy the Union Labor organization and to control the situation in San Francisco in the interest of those who are opposed to the success of the wage-earning classes." He announced further, "I have accepted this office, the first political position I ever held in my life, because I believe it to be my duty to the public to bring to an end this constant defamation and to stop the publication of matter detrimental to the city's growth and material interest."

"I do not intend," he said, "to make any changes in the personnel of the District Attorney's office until it is determined what fate Mr. Langdon shall meet, with the exception that Mr. Heney will not be retained. I will not have Mr. Heney in my office because I do not believe that his moral standing is equal to the position."[101]

District Attorney Langdon was out of the city when Acting Mayor Gallagher announced his suspension from office. Langdon hurried back prepared to resist the executive's action.[102] Even while Ruef and his associates were debating the advisability of taking possession of the District Attorney's office that night, attorneys for the prosecution were at work on papers in injunction proceedings to restrain Acting Mayor Gallagher, the Supervisors and Ruef from interfering with the District Attorney in the discharge of his duties. The papers were not ready before 5 o'clock of the morning of the 26th. At that hour, Superior Judge Seawell signed an order temporarily restraining Ruef from installing himself as District Attorney, and from interfering with Langdon in the discharge of his duties as District Attorney. By eight o'clock that morning, Presiding Judge Graham of the Superior Court had assigned the case to Judge Seawell's department; a police officer and two deputy sheriffs had been installed in the District Attorney's office with instructions to enforce the restraining order. For the time, at least, District Attorney Langdon was secure in his office.

Ruef appeared two hours later. He was that morning to have represented the defendant in a murder trial, The People vs. Denike, but began the day by formally withdrawing from the case on the ground that as District Attorney he could not appear for the defense. He appeared in the police courts ready to prosecute a libel suit which he had brought against the proprietor of the San Francisco Bulletin, but the justice had been served with Judge Seawell's restraining order and the libel-case hearing was postponed. In Judge Dunne's department of the Superior Court, Ruef received something of a setback. The Court made a special order permitting one of Langdon's deputies to prosecute in a criminal action then pending, regardless of who might be District Attorney. The restraining order kept Ruef and Woodworth out of the District Attorney's office. By noon it was evident that at the big event of that eventful day, the impaneling of the Grand Jury, Langdon, and not Ruef, would, as District Attorney, represent The People.

FOOTNOTES:

[95] Gallagher testified at the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No.
1437, to the conversation at Ruef's law offices when Ruef first
broached the matter of Langdon's removal, as follows: "The
substance of the conversation was that Mr. Ruef stated that it
might become necessary to remove Mr. Langdon from the office of
District Attorney, and to appoint somebody else. I replied that
that was a matter for him to make up his mind on; if he
determined it had to be done. I would do it; words to that
effect. I cannot give the exact language."

[96] The San Francisco Chronicle, in its issue of October 26, thus
describes the proceedings attending Langdon's removal:

"Gallagher took the chair at 6:30 p. m. and there was ten minutes'
perfunctory business.

"His honor seemed uneasy, but at the careful prompting of
Secretary Keane, he called for 'communications from executive
officers.'

"Keane then announced, 'From his honor, the Mayor,' and read
Gallagher's letter suspending District Attorney Langdon 'for
neglect of duty' and sundry other charges.

"During the reading of the long document there was no sound In the
hall save the hoarse voice of Secretary Keane, and on its
completion Supervisor Sanderson arose.

"Gallagher explained that Langdon would 'be given an opportunity
next Thursday afternoon at 2:30 o'clock to appear before the board
and defend himself against the charges.'

"He then recognized Sanderson, who offered a motion accepting the
communication from the Mayor and directing that Langdon be
directed to appear to answer.

"Supervisor Wilson seconded the motion.

"Upon the call for the 'ayes,' although the Supervisors usually
let silence Indicate their consent, there was a chorus of
approval, and upon the call for the 'noes' there was dead silence.

"Supervisors L. A. Rea and J. J. Furey were not present."

[97] At the trial of The People vs. Ruef, No. 1437, page of
Transcript 2654, Wilson testified: "I told him (Ruef) that I
thought it was a bad move at this time and that the papers in
the morning would state it was simply a confession of guilt;
and I said that I had stood there and taken my program on the
matter, but I felt it would ruin my chances in the face of an
election, running for Railroad Commissioner, and he said I
would feel better after I had something to eat, and we went
over to Tait's and had supper. On the way over he (Ruef) sent
Charlie Hagerty in to notify Mr. Heney of his removal."

[98] Ruef's order dismissing Heney was as follows:

"Mr. Francis J. Heney: You are hereby removed from the position
of Assistant District Attorney of the City and County of San
Francisco.

"Dated. October 25, 1906.
"(Signed) A. RUEF,
"Acting District Attorney."

[99] P. H. McCarthy and O. A. Tveitmoe, respectively president and
secretary of the Building Trades Council.

[100] The resolutions adopted by Bricklayers' and Masons'
International Union No. 7, were as follows:

"Whereas, The office of District Attorney of San Francisco
County has been declared vacant by the Acting Mayor and
Supervisors at a time when the said District Attorney was
preparing an investigation into the official acts of the said
Supervisors and others; and

"Whereas, One of the persons accused by the said District
Attorney of being guilty of criminal acts, has been appointed by
the Acting Mayor and Supervisors to fill the office thus vacated;
and

"Whereas, The Building Trades Council of San Francisco has
indorsed the action of the administration, and the president and
secretary of said Council has aided and abetted said usurpation
of power to the utmost of their ability; therefore, be it

"Resolved, That this Union condemn the action of the Council in
this matter, and that we condemn the president and secretary of
the Council for lending or selling their aid to help to prevent
the investigation of the public acts of officials who have thrown
themselves open to suspicion, and thereby placing the honest
union men of San Francisco in the false light of indorsing such
high-handed defiance of the law; and be it

"Resolved, That we deny that the proposed prosecution of the
present administration is an attack on organized labor; and
further, be it

"Resolved, That it is the sense of this Union that the president
and secretary of the Building Trades Council are not fit persons
to be at the head of the Union movement in San Francisco, and
that the delegates representing this Union in the Council are
hereby instructed to use every honorable means to carry out the
spirit of this resolution; and further, be it

"Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be furnished by the
corresponding secretary to each and every Union affiliated with
the Council, so that they will consider this an invitation from
this Union to assist in ridding the central body of officers whom
we believe have done all in their power to bring unionism into
disrepute."

Similar resolutions were adopted by Journeymen Plumbers, Gas and
Steam Fitters' Local, No. 442.

[101] See Ruef's statement as published in the San Francisco
Chronicle, October 26, 1906.

[102] Mr. Langdon, on arriving in San Francisco, issued the
following statement:

"No person in California believes that my alleged suspension
is due to neglect or inefficiency. No dissent is necessary
before the people. It is plain that my removal is deemed
necessary by Ruef and Gallagher to prevent an honest,
searching investigation of conditions that prevail in
municipal affairs in San Francisco. Their plan will come to
naught, however.

"As District Attorney I shall pursue this investigation to the
end. I deny the legal right of the Mayor or the Board of
Supervisors to suspend or dismiss me. The provision of the
Charter purporting to give that authority is clearly
unconstitutional. The citizens must determine whether or not
they will countenance this high-handed proceeding in a
community which is supposed to be governed by the law, and not
by the will of a boss and his puppet."