"The System," As Uncovered by the San Francisco Graft Prosecution

by Franklin Hichborn

APPENDIX

JUDGE LAWLOR’S RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS GRAFT CASES, AUGUST 3, 1910.

On April 25th, 1910, an application was made by Patrick Calhoun, Tirey L. Ford, Thornwell Mullally and William M. Abbott to dismiss the indictments against them. The application is before the Court at this time for consideration.

When the defendants pleaded not guilty they exercised their statutory right and each demanded severance from each other and from their co-defendants, Abraham Ruef and Eugene E. Schmitz. (Sec. 1098 Penal Code.) There have been five trials—three of Tirey L. Ford and one each of Abraham Ruef and Patrick Calhoun.

The second trial of Patrick Calhoun was commenced on July 19th, 1909 (case No. 1437). Owing to the illness of one of his counsel the trial was suspended on August 16th, 1909, and resumed on September 30th, 1909. On the following day the trial was ordered continued until November 15th, 1909, on motion of the defendant, upon the ground of the pendency of a municipal campaign.

On January 8th, 1910, Mr. Charles M. Fickert assumed the office of District Attorney.

On February 7th, 1910, the District Attorney moved the Court to dismiss the remaining charges against these defendants (Sec. 1385 Penal Code), which motion was by the Court ordered denied. (Sec. 7, Art. I, and Sec. 19, Art. VI of the Constitution; Secs. 1041, 1042, 1126, 1385, 1386 and 1387 Penal Code.) On February 14th, 1910, the parties announced that they were ready to resume the trial in case No. 1437 against Patrick Calhoun, but the Court continued the case for trial until February 17th, 1910. On the last named day the cause was ordered continued for trial until April 25th, 1910.

On April 25th, 1910, the four defendants interposed a motion to dismiss the remaining indictments against them. The further hearing of the motion was continued until July 29th, 1910. On the latter day the causes were continued until this time.

Two things are chiefly responsible for the Court’s action in respect to the remaining indictments since the District Attorney moved to dismiss them on February 7th, 1910—first, the Court’s apprehensions based on the declared attitude of the said District Attorney toward the remaining indictments, and, second, the absence from the State of James L. Gallagher, a material and indispensable witness in the said causes. The second reason will now be considered.

It was the theory of the People in the five trials referred to that Abraham Ruef represented the defendants in the alleged bribery of the members of the Board of Supervisors, and that James L. Gallagher, one of its members, in turn represented Abraham Ruef in the transactions. In this way the Court is able to determine that the testimony of this witness is material, and now holds, as a matter of law, that unless additional testimony is produced, it is indispensable to the establishment of the res gestae.

In the early part of December, 1909, it became known that the witness had departed from the State. Up to the present time it has not been shown whether he had been formally subpoenaed or was otherwise under the authority of the Court to appear as a witness in the trials of the remaining indictments. If he is subject to the authority of the Court in any of these cases his absence would constitute a criminal contempt, and he could be extradited from any other State having provisions of law similar to those of this State. (Sub. 4, Sec. 166, and Sec. 1548 Penal Code.) In this connection it may be proper to point out that practically ever since issue was joined on these indictments they have been on the calendar for trial, and that during the trials referred to the cases not actually on trial were from time to time called and the witnesses admonished by the Court to appear on the deferred date. But it has not been ascertained whether on this manner the missing witness has been so admonished to appear so far as the remaining indictments are concerned.

In the month of January, 1910, the Court directed that all persons who could give testimony concerning the absence of the witness be subpoenaed. On January 24th, 1910, the first hearing was had, and on several occasions thereafter witnesses have been orally examined on the subject. From this oral testimony it is difficult to determine the intentions of the witness concerning his departure from and his return to the State. It seems that in the latter part of November, 1909, he left for Europe, accompanied by his wife. Robert F. Gallagher, a brother of the witness, testified in effect that the witness never stated he intended to absent himself as a witness in the graft cases and made no suggestion of that nature; that he, Robert F. Gallagher, gained no such impression from anything he did say, except that it was a disagreeable situation for him to be a witness; and that their talk proceeded along the line that there was not going to be any future trial in the graft prosecution. This brother testified further:

“He did state on one occasion something to the effect that Burns had disappeared and that Heney had disappeared and that there wasn’t any prosecution; that the incoming District Attorney would not certainly be in earnest in the prosecution.”

Other witnesses testified to a variety of facts touching the departure of the witness from San Francisco and his declarations on the general subject. Dr. Alexander Warner gave testimony to the effect that he went to Europe on an Atlantic steamer with the witness and his wife. Thomas J. Gallagher, another brother, among other things quoted the witness to the effect that he was going to Europe, that he might settle in an eastern State, that he made no secret of his purpose, and that William J. Burns, special agent of the former administration in the District Attorney’s office, knew of his intention to leave. Nothing definite appears in the oral showing concerning his intentions on the subject of his return, and so far as that showing is concerned the point is more or less involved in conjecture. But on July 29th, 1910, Frederick L. Berry, the Assistant District Attorney, assigned to this department of the Court, filed an affidavit embodying clippings from the local newspapers of the previous month, which state that the witness was, at the time the articles were written, in Vancouver, B. C. From these clippings it appears that the witness intended to permanently locate in Vancouver. The only tangible evidence from the witness himself, however, is found in his letter to Thomas J. Gallagher under date of June 29th, 1910, in which this excerpt appears:

“In reply to your inquiry I cannot state when I shall return to San Francisco, if at all. I may remain here.”

In my judgment a review of the showing up to this time leads to the inference that the witness left this jurisdiction and is remaining away because of some form of understanding or agreement. The circumstances under which he left California clearly show that he was acting guardedly, notwithstanding the testimony, which there is no reason to doubt, that he informed several persons of his intention to take a trip. When the quoted statement of Robert F. Gallagher was first made I was disposed to assume that the witness left the State principally because he believed the prosecution was at an end, and that he made his plans quietly so that the step would not occasion comment. In other words, that he did not believe there would be any further attempt to prosecute the so-called graft cases. But from a study of the entire showing I cannot adhere to that theory. I repeat that up to the time his presence was discovered in Vancouver, the showing was uncertain as to whether he really intended to return to California, and if so, when he would return. It was to be seen that the action of the Court would be influenced by this uncertainty, so when the exigencies of the situation called for a definite showing as to the witness’ intentions, he seems to suddenly appear in Vancouver, where, under the treaty conditions, he would be safe from extradition, and is promptly discovered by the reporter of a New York paper. In the clippings his quoted statements on the subject of his intentions are unequivocal. He is to make his home in Vancouver. But his personal communication to Thomas J. Gallagher, already referred to, which he probably realized would be produced in Court, is significant in tenor and he is apparently less certain of his intentions. This would tend to make his future action consistent should he hereafter return to California. From the entire showing I do not entertain any serious doubt as to what his real purpose is. I am inclined to believe that when the necessity for his presence as a witness has passed he will return. To entertain any other view, or be in serious doubt on the point, is to ignore the inherent probabilities of the showing and to deny a fair consideration to the known history of this litigation.

Now, it must follow that if the witness has left and is remaining away from the State because of an arrangement of some nature affecting these cases, the responsibility for his absence should be placed where it belongs. On April 25th, 1910, the District Attorney stated to the Court:

“... and it appearing also that James L. Gallagher left with the consent and connivance of those who had preceded me in office, I at this time do not wish to assume any responsibility for his disappearance. Whether he shall return or not I cannot say. Some of the witnesses who were called here testified that he went away with the intent and with the purpose of embarrassing my administration and that he was supposed to keep away until such time as certain persons would request his return....”

The foregoing fairly states the position of the District Attorney on this point, as repeatedly expressed in Court since he first moved the dismissal of these indictments. If the charge that the former administration entered into a bargain with the witness to default be true, there would be no alternative but to dismiss the indictments without delay. But I have found no evidence in the showing tending to support so grave a charge, and upon sound reasoning it would seem to be opposed to every reasonable probability. According to the showing, William J. Burns left the State about three weeks in advance of the witness, and, so far as the Court is advised, he has not since been in the State. That the former administration may have distrusted the official intentions of the District Attorney toward these indictments might be assumed from all the surrounding circumstances. But it does not seem probable that the former administration would induce a material and indispensable witness to leave the State and thereby make it easy for the District Attorney to secure a result which otherwise might entail serious embarrassment. So far as the showing is concerned there is no tangible proof tending to support the charge of the District Attorney, nor is there any proof which would justify such an inference.

Nor, on the other hand, do I find any formal evidence in the showing which tends to bring the responsibility for the disappearance of the witness home to these defendants. In the absence of tangible proof neither side should be charged with so grave an act. But if there has been complicity on the part of either of the parties, every effort should be made before disposing of these cases finally to establish the facts. It has been pointed out that if the former administration entered into a bargain with the witness looking to his absence, the application should be granted without delay. And clearly, if the defendants are responsible for the absence of the witness, under a familiar maxim of the law, the application should be promptly denied. (Sec. 3517 Civil Code.) There being no tangible proof, therefore, before the Court, of the complicity of the parties, should the pending application be granted at this time?

A person accused of crime is entitled to a speedy trial. (Sec. 13, Art. I, Const.) This fundamental right has been made the subject of statutory provision. The second subdivision of Section 1382 of the Penal Code provides that:

“Unless good cause to the contrary is shown, the court must order the prosecution to be dismissed if the indictment is not brought to trial within sixty days after the filing thereof.”

More than sixty days have run in favor of this application, and the question presented at this time is whether the showing touching the absence of James L. Gallagher shall constitute “good cause” within the meaning of the law. This term must be construed and applied according to the peculiar circumstances of each case. It should be interpreted so that the rights of both parties shall be equally recognized. The absence of a material and indispensable witness for the People would, under proper circumstances, constitute good cause, provided that good faith and diligence are shown in the effort to produce the witness. In re Bergerow (133 Cal., 349) is a leading authority on this question and is almost invariably cited in support of applications of this character. It is proper to point out that in the prevailing opinion the Court studiously eliminates from the pertinency of the authority the absence or illness of a witness for the prosecution.

The conclusion I have reached is that under the law, and the surrounding circumstances, including the recent action of the witness, that another reasonable continuance should be directed in order, if possible, that the duty of the Court in the premises shall be rendered more clear. At this time the Court is not satisfied that the relief sought should be granted. On the other hand it is realized that a final decision should not much longer be delayed. In the determination of this matter the Court, while fully recognizing the rights of the defendants, is mindful of the rights of the People and its own sense of responsibility, and is anxious to avoid a decision which will serve as a mischievous precedent.

It is idle to attempt to ignore the inherent probabilities of the situation presented. A material and indispensable witness is absent from the State, and the Court is called upon to intervene because the District Attorney has at practically every turn followed the lead of these defendants. Through the influence of unusual agencies the law has broken down, so far as these cases are concerned. The crimes charged are of the most serious nature, because such criminal activity tends to sap the very foundations of government. The statute of limitations has run against these charges and if the application is granted, therefore, there can be no further prosecution, no matter what developments may follow. (Sec. 800 Penal Code.) In the trial of Patrick Calhoun the Court admitted evidence of a most extraordinary character on the theory of the People that it tended to show guilty consciousness on the part of the accused. This evidence was not contraverted. It included the dynamiting of the home of the witness under circumstances which threatened not only his life, but also the lives of several other persons. A certain other building, the property of the witness, was subsequently blown up by the use of dynamite. If the apparent design on the life of the witness had been successful, the Court would be less perplexed in deciding a question of this character. It is possible that these experiences and not the suggested arrangement with the witness are responsible for his absence. The evidence also included an effort to suppress testimony by an attempt to induce a witness to leave the jurisdiction of the Court, and other matters of a serious nature.

And, finally, while the Court is clear that it should not base any action at this time upon the assumption that either side is responsible for the absence of the witness, yet reason and the exercise of a sound discretion dictate that the Court should act with prudence. Before the indictments should be finally disposed of, every reasonable effort should be made to get at the truth of the situation. The disposition of grave charges other than on their merits is not to be encouraged and should not be allowed, except in the face of a strict legal necessity. Let the cases be continued until 10 a. m., Monday, August 29th, 1910. So ordered.

HOW THE SUPERVISORS WERE BRIBED.

Thomas F. Lonergan, when elected to the Schmitz-Ruef Board of Supervisors, was a driver of a bakery wagon. He recited at the trial of The People vs. Louis Glass, the manner in which he had been bribed by agents of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company. Lonergan’s testimony was as follows:

“I reside in Sanchez street, San Francisco. I have lived in San Francisco since March, 1879. I have a family composed of a wife and three children. I was in the bakery business. I was in that business quite a number of years. I worked latterly for Mr. Foley. I worked in a bake shop quite a while and also drove a wagon for him. I do not hold any official position now. I did hold the position of Supervisor of the City and County of San Francisco. I was elected Supervisor in November, 1905, and took office on January 7th or 8th, 1906. I know John Kraus. I first met him some time after my election at my home. I did not invite him to come there.

“One morning, some time after my election, the doorbell rang, a gentleman was at the door and wanted to see me. I went downstairs. He asked me if I was Mr. Lonergan. I said yes. He says, ‘The recently elected Supervisor?’ or words to that effect. I said yes. He says, ‘I don’t think you are the man I wanted. I came out here from the East a few years back with a Mr. Lonergan, and I thought he was the one that might have been elected.’ I said, ‘No, you are mistaken, it is the other one,’ or something like that. He then incidentally told me he was connected with the Pacific States Telephone Company, and would be pleased to take me around their works at any time that I would find it convenient. I answered him as well as I recall now, that I possibly would take it in some time. I subsequently went to the telephone company’s office. To the best of my recollection I saw Mr. Kraus in the meantime before going there, and made an appointment with him. I don’t well remember meeting him at the telephone company’s office. I think where I met him was on the corner of Mason and Market or Powell and Market, one or the other, around there. That was by appointment. Then I went with him to the telephone company’s plant on Bush street, I think, out in the Western Addition at that time. He took me through the works, showing me the works and the arrangements in connection with it, and how they treated their help, and stated to me they were installing another new plant, I forget now whether it was one or two or more. After we left there I had lunch with Mr. Kraus. I don’t well remember where. He spoke about an opposition company in that talk. The opposition company was spoken of, considering the appliances they had, and the amount of work they were then doing, and the new switchboards they would put in, that it didn’t appear necessary to have an opposition company here. Mr. Kraus paid for the lunch, I believe.

“I am acquainted with Mr. T. V. Halsey. I first met him, I think, either on Pine or Bush street, to the best of my recollection. I. N. Copus introduced me to him. To the best of my recollection it was some time after meeting Kraus and before I took office as Supervisor. That meeting was by appointment. Mr. Copus made the appointment I believe. To the best of my recollection that was my first meeting with Mr. Halsey. I think I was introduced to him by Mr. Copus at the time and place of the meeting. We adjourned to lunch at a restaurant that we were standing in front of. We went upstairs in the restaurant, had some lunch. Nothing particular was spoken of there outside of the current topics. The room we lunched in was not a public dining room. It was a private room. Copus went up to lunch with us. I believe Mr. Halsey paid for the lunch. We were there possibly an hour or an hour and a half. We had Sauterne wine to drink, as well as I remember. The next time I saw Halsey to the best of my recollection was at his office on Bush street, in the telephone building there. It was some time between the 12th and 14th and the 20th of February, 1906, I should judge. I think I went there on that occasion on the invitation of Mr. Kraus, as well as I remember, that Mr. Halsey would like to see me. I found Halsey when I got there. I am not conversant with the building; I suppose the part of the building I met him in was his office. I don’t remember whether there was any one else in the room. I had a talk with him in there. No one else was present while I was talking with him that I am aware of. Mr. Halsey, as well as I remember, spoke to me about the foolishness of having a second telephone system in San Francisco. He told me the same as Mr. Kraus had told me—all they had accomplished, and that they were going to accomplish, and that it would cost merchants twofold for the other telephone, and they wanted to know if I would not be friendly toward them. I told him I was deeply impressed with the workings as I had seen them, and that I felt that I could be friendly to them. I cannot remember the exact words he then said at the time. The substance of it was that it would be to my interest to be friendly, or rather, that they would make it to my interest to be friendly to them, and I was told—I think it was at that meeting—that there would be five thousand dollars in it for my friendship down, and $2,500 the following year, provided I did not accept a commission, or any such thing as that while I remained a member of the Board of Supervisors. To the best of my recollection at that time I received from him one thousand dollars in currency. I put it in my pocket and took it home. The next time I saw Mr. Halsey was some few days later. It was the Saturday previous to the passing to print of the ordinance relative to the Home Telephone Company. That meeting was held in a room in the Mills Building. I cannot well recollect whether I was telephoned for or not; I possibly must have been. The meeting was up in the building some few stories. To the best of my recollection it was on the side of the building that looked out on Bush street, and not very far from the corner of Montgomery street. I found Mr. Kraus there when I went in. There was no one else in the room where Kraus was. That room was furnished with a table and a couple of chairs. Well, he asked me if he could depend upon me as to my friendship in regard to the Pacific States Telephone Company, and I told him I saw no reason why he could not. I don’t remember whether anything was said about the Home Telephone Company franchise. There may have been. I can’t recollect just at this moment. He told me that he had a sufficiency of the members of the Board of Supervisors, to the best of my recollection, who were friendly towards the Pacific States, and that they did not particularly need Mr. Coffey, except that I had spoken well of him, and depending on my friendship, he gave me the four thousand dollars in currency. During our conversation I had mentioned Mr. Coffey as a friend of mine that I thought was particularly friendly towards them. I don’t well remember whether he then said he would see Mr. Coffey, or not, or whether he made answer. I do remember that he said at the latter meeting that they did not particularly need him, that he had a sufficiency of the members. I took it home and gave it to my wife.

“To the best of my recollection I next saw Mr. Halsey at my home the latter end of the following week after I got the money. No one else was present when he talked with me. It was in the front room of my house.”

Supervisor Michael W. Coffey was a hack driver. At the Glass trial he told the manner in which the bribe-givers approached him. He said:

“I have lived in San Francisco about forty years. I have been in the carriage business driving a hack. I own a hack of my own. My stand was on Fifth street, right opposite the Mint. I was elected a member of the Board of Supervisors in November, 1905, and took office early in January, 1906. I am a married man. My family consists of four girls and one boy. I am acquainted with T. V. Halsey. I first met him some time in the month of December at my hackstand. I am acquainted with John Kraus. I first met him about the same time. At the time that I met Halsey at the hackstand, Kraus was with him. I am not sure whether it was the first time, but probably the second time. I think Mr. Kraus came to see me first, and Mr. Halsey came with him afterwards. Well, he, Kraus, just came up merely to introduce himself to me, and asked me how business was. There was nothing said at the time that he brought Halsey to me. There was nothing said pertaining to telephone matters at that time, neither; it was simply merely to give me an introduction and ask me up to have a drink on the corner of Jessie and Fifth streets. Nothing was said about the telephone service at that time. I next met Halsey a few days afterwards. Both Halsey and Kraus were there together at that time, and we spoke—they spoke to me about my telephone service, both home and in the drugstore in front of which I had my hackstand, and asked me if the telephone service was satisfactory. I told them it certainly was, that I couldn’t find any fault with either one. The drugstore ’phone I had nothing at all to do with, any more than I had the privilege of placing the number of the telephone upon my business cards so that my friends could know where to find me in case they wanted to telephone me. I paid for no service on that ’phone at all. My hackstand was right in front of the drugstore. I should judge Halsey and Kraus came around there to see me between three times and a half-a-dozen. I received telephone messages from Mr. Halsey several times. He called me by ’phone, he telephoned to the house, and to the stand, and wanted me to come down to see him. I went down to see him one time. He after that invited me around to the telephone company’s offices, to view the system, but I never accepted his offer, I never went with him. The first occasion that I went down to the telephone company’s office to see him he extended me an invitation to come around amongst the different branch offices there to see the system, how it was working, and show me the advantages of a one-system telephone. Kraus was there on one occasion. Somewhere around in the neighborhood of noon time, Mr. Kraus was there, and Mr. Halsey asked me if I had lunch. I told him no, not at that time, so he asked Mr. Kraus to take me out to lunch, excusing himself on the ground of a previous engagement, that he couldn’t go to lunch, but he asked Mr. Kraus to take me out to lunch and Mr. Kraus did so.

“I had a talk with Halsey in the Mills Building. I can’t exactly tell the date, but it was on a Saturday, in and around noon time. I can’t exactly fix the date. It was some time, I think, in the month of February. We caucused on the Sunday night, and it was Saturday, either the week prior to the caucus or the day before the caucus. This caucus was the Sunday prior to the passing of the ordinance to print which was on a Monday. I went to the Mills Building by telephone invitation of Mr. Halsey. When I got down there I took the elevator and went up on, I think, the seventh floor at the extreme end of the building, on one of the rooms facing on Bush street, and the other on Montgomery street. I found Mr. Halsey there and no one else with him. To the best of my recollection there was either a box or a chair and a table, and a telephone in there, and no other furniture at all in the room. Mr. Halsey when I went in, said, ‘Good day, Mr. Coffey.’ Said I, ‘How do you do, Mr. Halsey?’ I says, ‘Did you telephone for me?’ He says, ‘Yes, I want you to be friendly with the company,’ and stepped into another room, the door leading into the Montgomery street entrance, and then came out with a parcel, a bundle, and handed it to me, and says, ‘I would like to have your friendship for the company.’ I did not open the package at that time. Nothing was said then about the Home Telephone Company’s application for the franchise. I took this package that he handed me home and put it in a box in the room. I did not open it when I got home, not at that time. Subsequently I did. When I opened it I found in it five thousand dollars in United States currency. That was very shortly after I had been in the Mills Building on that occasion. I think it was a few days after that. After putting this money in the box I kept it there.”

GALLAGHER’S ORDER REMOVING LANGDON FROM OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

(October 25, 1906.)

“To the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco:

“Gentlemen—Pursuant to the provisions of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, and especially in pursuance of Sections 18 and 19 of Article XVI thereof, I, James L. Gallagher, Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, do hereby suspend William H. Langdon, District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, and an elected officer thereof, for cause, as hereinafter assigned and specified, and I hereby notify you of such suspension and the causes therefor, which are as hereinafter assigned and specified.

“Said cause is contained in the following specifications, which specifications I hereby also present to you as the written charges against said William H. Langdon, District Attorney as aforesaid, and I hereby present said specifications of causes of such suspension as written charges against said William H. Langdon, District Attorney, suspended by me as aforesaid.

“Specification 1:

“Neglect of Duty.

“In this, that for a period of about 30 days prior to the presentation of these charges the said William H. Langdon, District Attorney as aforesaid, has absented himself from the City and County of San Francisco, without leave, and has neglected his official duties, being during that time engaged in the canvass and campaign for the office of Governor of the State of California.

“That during said time, owing to the recent disaster, a large number of acts of violence have occurred at the hands of criminals congregated in said city, resulting in an excessive and unusual number of murders, maimings, assassinations, assaults and other crimes of violence, tending to render the city unsafe and to injure its reputation, yet the said District Attorney wilfully, without permission from any of the public authorities of said city and county, did absent himself a greater portion of said time from said city and county, and so negligently conducted and performed the duties of his said office as District Attorney as to render no active or efficient assistance to said city and county in the proper prosecution, detection or preventing of any of said crimes, and during the main portion of said period did leave his said office without the aid of his superintendence, direction or service, thereby being guilty of inefficiency in such public office and being negligent and inattentive in the performance of his public duties at a time when the unusual activity of those engaged in crimes of violence demanded and required his personal presence and greatest personal activity to aid in preventing or attempting to prevent, detecting or attempting to detect or punish the said crimes or the persons guilty thereof.

“Specification 2:

“Neglect and Dereliction of Duty.

“In this, that during the period of about 30 days last past, the newspapers of the City and County of San Francisco have published and proclaimed that the said William H. Langdon, as District Attorney, and others co-operating with him, were, and for months past had been, in the possession of evidence sufficient to convict certain officials of the city and county of serious crimes. These charges have been repeated daily and within the knowledge and cognizance of said District Attorney, and yet notwithstanding said knowledge and said purposes, the said District Attorney has failed to cause the arrest of any of said officials, and if the charges so publicly made are and were not true, the said District Attorney had knowledge of said falsity and untruth, and yet notwithstanding said knowledge has failed to cause the arrest of the publishers or editors of the newspapers for publishing said statements for criminal libel.

“Specification 3:

“Neglect and Violation of Duty.

“That under the provisions of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, it is part of the duty of the District Attorney, when required, to advise the Board of Police Commissioners, the Chief of Police, the Board of Health, or the Coroner as to the matters relating to the duties of their respective offices, yet notwithstanding said official duty, the said William H. Langdon, as such District Attorney, has entered into a combination and conspiracy for political purposes and effect to bring unmerited discredit upon said officials or some of them, and has failed to advise them relative to their duties, and has assumed a position and attitude inconsistent with his duty to the Police Commissioners and the Chief of Police, thereby tending to impair and demoralize the Police Department of said city at a serious and critical time.

“Specification 4:

“Neglect and Violation of Duty.

“That the said William H. Langdon, being the District Attorney of said City and County of San Francisco, as aforesaid, during period above mentioned, in addition to neglecting his public duties, as above set forth, instead of aiding the authorities of said city and county, did on the contrary engage in and assist in a combination in the interest of certain insurance corporations and other persons to injure and defame the character of the Chief Executive of this city, Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz, in substance as follows:

“A large number of German insurance companies, having lost many millions of dollars by the conflagration of April 18, 1906, having denied their liability, Eugene E. Schmitz, Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, deemed it advisable in the interest of the upbuilding and rehabilitating of the city, to visit the German Empire in his official capacity for the purpose of stating the true facts concerning said conflagration to the home officials of said companies and to use his personal influence wherever the same would be available in the German Empire, with a view to cause the said insurance companies to pay the said losses; and deeming said matter one of great public interest, the said Mayor did obtain from the Board of Supervisors a leave of absence from the City and County of San Francisco for a period of 60 days from October 1, 1906; and after he left on said mission, a combination, plot and plan was formed for the purpose of defaming and injuring and weakening the standing and reputation of said Eugene E. Schmitz, in order that his said attempts might be discredited and to destroy whatever influence the Chief Executive of this city might have in dealing with the said insurance companies at their home offices and in obtaining influence abroad to compel said companies to properly recognize their obligations; and that as a part of said scheme, it was determined to print and publish in the newspapers of San Francisco charges against the said Mayor which were false, malicious and slanderous and known so to be by the parties engaged in said scheme, and among other things said persons so engaged did cause it to be published that the Chief Executive of this city was a fugitive from justice and had absconded from the City and County of San Francisco; and that the said William H. Langdon, as District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, and acting in his capacity as such, did aid, assist and abet and further the said scheme as aforesaid, and has become and is an active party thereto to the end that said Mayor should be induced to return to San Francisco to defend himself against such charges before he could have time to accomplish the said purpose for which he went to said German Empire.

“Specification 5:

“Violation of Duty and Use of Office for Ulterior Purposes.

“That during the fall of 1905, one Francis J. Heney, in a public speech in said city and county, aspersed the character and good name of a prominent citizen of this community, and stated that he knew him to be corrupt, and said citizen having instantly demanded that said Heney be compelled to make proof of said assertions and said Heney having been compelled to appear before the Grand Jury of said City and County of San Francisco with reference thereto, there admitted that he had made such statements without any personal knowledge regarding the same, which facts were widely published at the time, and brought said Heney into obloquy and contempt, from which time said Heney had been possessed of a purpose to effect a personal revenge both against the object of his false charges and against Eugene E. Schmitz, Mayor of San Francisco, and all of these facts were and are well known to said William H. Langdon, as District Attorney as aforesaid; yet notwithstanding said knowledge and within the month of October, 1906, the said William H. Langdon, in order to enable said Heney to use public office, position and power to gratify his spirit of revenge and malice, did appoint said Heney Assistant District Attorney of said city and county, and did turn over to him the powers of office of said District Attorney in order that he might gratify his private revenge and malice.

“Specification 6:

“That prior to such appointment as such Assistant District Attorney, said Francis J. Heney had publicly assailed the Judges of the Superior Court of the city and county as corrupt and crooked, and had denounced all or nearly all of them as dishonest and corrupt, and yet has failed at any time to make proof of such charges, which facts were all well known to said William H. Langdon, District Attorney as aforesaid, from the time of the utterance, which was long anterior to the time of said Heney’s appointment by said Langdon, and said Langdon also knew that said Heney frequently, while intoxicated, made grave and serious charges involving the personal character of citizens of this city, yet notwithstanding such knowledge said William H. Langdon did appoint said Heney to such office, knowing that the said Heney in such office would be required to appear before the Judges whose character he had thus aspersed, and to practice in their courts, did appoint said Heney to said office, which appointment is not conducive to the proper co-operation which should exist between the Judges of the Superior Court and the office of District Attorney.

“Specification 7:

“That said Francis J. Heney at and prior to the time of his appointment as Assistant District Attorney was the representative of the corporation controlling the street car system of said city and county in a certain dispute between said corporation and its employes, That the appointment of said Heney to said office will, in regard to the enforcement of law against said corporation, be prejudicial and detrimental to the interests of said city and county.

“Specification 8:

“That prior to the turning over of said District Attorney’s office and its powers to said Francis J. Heney, as hereinabove specified, the City and County of San Francisco had intended to procure its own water supply and thereby to prevent the exorbitant charges for water now exacted by the private corporation controlling the city’s water supply, and that it was about to take proceedings to provide a safe and secure supply of water for said City and County of San Francisco for domestic use, extinction of conflagrations, etc., and that such purpose was greatly to the interest of said City and County of San Francisco, That said corporation now supplying water to said city and county is bitterly opposed to the acquiring of a water supply to the City and County of San Francisco on account of its present monopoly.

“Said Francis J. Heney has been and is attorney employed by said Water Company, and his attorneyship for such company is inconsistent with the holding of a place as Assistant District Attorney, and against the best interests of the people of San Francisco.

“Specification 9:

“That in the interest of the corporations and persons before mentioned, or some or all of them, together with persons unknown, large sums of money have been and are being raised for the purpose of slandering, defaming and injuring the reputation of said Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz, and of suborning perjury against him, thereby injuring the interests of said city and county and its residents and inhabitants; and said William H. Langdon as such District Attorney, knowing said facts, by the appointment of said Heney, is knowingly aiding and abetting the said plot and scheme.

“Specification 10:

“Violation of Duty and Ulterior Use of Office.

“That since the appointment of said F. J. Heney as an Assistant District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco by said William H. Langdon, the said Langdon and the said Heney have caused to be published or have been parties to the publication of open and covert threats against the Superior Judges of the City and County of San Francisco for the purpose of influencing the judicial action of said Judges.

“Specification 11:

“That the appointment of said Heney as such Assistant District Attorney was made by said Langdon in furtherance of the combination aforesaid, and at the dictation of certain newspaper influences and individuals, who have contributed many thousands of dollars to further the political ambitions and aspirations of said William H. Langdon and other persons, and to secure through the appointment of said Heney the consummation of a political plan and the wreaking of their private revenges against Eugene E. Schmitz, Mayor of San Francisco, and the Board of Supervisors and the Police Department of the City and County of San Francisco and their political supporters, and to generally disrupt the business and proper government of this city, and also for the purpose of attempting to influence the ensuing election. And said combination is also in pursuance of a well-defined and organized plan for the purpose of controlling and subjugating the labor market and the wage-earners.

“And the said William H. Langdon turned over said office of District Attorney as aforesaid to said Francis J. Heney with the intent and purpose and with the understanding that said Francis J. Heney would and should abuse such position, and use his said position as a deputy in a substantial control of said office of District Attorney to gratify his own private and personal revenge, and also with the intent that said Francis J. Heney, through said office, should produce before the Grand Jury of said city and county illegal and hearsay evidence which by law said Grand Jury is forbidden to act upon, and procure such Grand Jury to return indictments against innocent citizens of said city and county upon such illegal and hearsay evidence for the purpose of gratifying the private revenge of said Francis J. Heney and the political ambitions of said William H. Langdon. And said William H. Langdon also further turned over said office and power to said Francis J. Heney with the intent and purpose that said Francis J. Heney in such position should advise such Grand Jury that matters and acts not constituting an offense at law were indictable offenses, and thus and thereby falsely and unlawfully procure indictments against innocent citizens of said city and county.

“Specification 12:

“That in addition to the purposes hereinabove specified as a foundation and reason for the acts set forth, that all the acts hereinabove charged and set forth as having been done, aided, abetted, procured or assisted by said William H. Langdon as said District Attorney, were so done and performed by said William H. Langdon as such District Attorney to promote his own political ambitions and upon and at the eve of an election about to occur in the State of California, at which said William H. Langdon is a candidate for Governor, all with intent to deceive and mislead electors and voters and to procure an increased vote for himself as such candidate for Governor.

“Inefficiency in the office of District Attorney, and neglect on the part of the District Attorney and his office to perform the duties of his office.

“Dated, San Francisco, October 25, 1906.

“JAMES L. GALLAGHER,
“Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco.”

THE RUEF “IMMUNITY CONTRACT.”

The “immunity contract” given Ruef was as follows:

“Whereas, Abraham Ruef of the City and County of San Francisco has agreed to impart to the District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, a full and fair statement and disclosure, so far as known to him, of all crimes and offenses involved in the so-called ‘graft’ prosecutions or investigations now and heretofore conducted by said District Attorney by whomsoever such offenses or crimes may have been committed, and has agreed in making such disclosure and statement to state fully and wholly all the facts and circumstances known to him in, about, and surrounding the same, and in making such statement and disclosure to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth;

“Now, Therefore, In consideration of the premises it is agreed by the undersigned that if said A. Ruef shall do said things and immediately make such full and fair disclosure of all such crimes and offenses involved in the so-called ‘graft’ prosecutions and investigations above referred to, and known to him, and shall state and disclose to the undersigned the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and shall make full and fair disclosure of all said crimes and offenses known to him, and of all the facts and circumstances in, about and surrounding the same and known to him, and shall at all times whenever called upon, before any court, testify in regard thereto and to the whole thereof fully and fairly, together with all the facts and circumstances surrounding the same, so far as the same are known to him, and shall state, tell and testify on oath the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth therein, then and in that event the undersigned, deeming it to be in the interests of public justice, and believing that said A. Ruef will thereby be equitably entitled to such consideration in accordance with the time-honored custom and practice of prosecuting officers in both State and Federal jurisdictions throughout this country, and in line with common law precedents.

“1. Will grant and obtain for said A. Ruef full and complete immunity from prosecution or punishment for all and any of said offenses and crimes involved in said so-called ‘graft’ prosecutions or investigations, and will not prosecute him for any thereof.

“2. Will cause said A. Ruef to be jointly and not otherwise indicted with all and any others against whom indictments have heretofore been or may hereafter be returned or found for or upon any crimes or offenses in which said Ruef has participated or is alleged to have participated to this date; provided, however, that the undersigned shall not be bound to include any of the present members of the Board of Supervisors in any such indictments.

“3. Will, as any one of said joint indictments relating to a specific subject matter shall be taken up for trial, after the jury has been impaneled and sworn to try the same, dismiss the same and all other indictments and charges on the same general subject matter as against the said Ruef, under the provisions of section 1099 of the Penal Code of the State of California, and will at the same time dismiss all indictments relating to the same general subject matter, which are now pending against said Ruef singly.

“Any and all indictments or charges upon any general subject matter of which one shall not have been brought to trial before December 31st, 1907, shall be dismissed as to said Ruef and said Ruef discharged on or before December 31st, 1907, under the provisions of section 1099 of the Penal Code where applicable, or under provisions of other sections of said code in cases where said section 1099 shall not be applicable.

“It is however expressly agreed that in any event all indictments and charges now pending or hereafter to be brought against said Ruef (except action No. 305 which is herein otherwise provided for) shall be dismissed as against said Ruef under the provisions of section 1099 of the Penal Code where the same may be applicable and when said section is not applicable shall be dismissed under other provisions of the Code, all prior to December 31st, 1907; provided, the undersigned District Attorney shall not be re-elected as such District Attorney in November, 1907, and, in any event, prior to said District Attorney resigning or otherwise surrendering or giving up his office or terminating his tenure thereof, it being the understanding and agreement that each and every indictment and charge now pending or hereafter to be brought against said Ruef shall be absolutely dismissed.

“Provided, that said Ruef shall have fully performed so far as may have been in his power the spirit and letter of his agreement herein.

“4. All and any indictments or charges which are to be found or returned against said Ruef jointly or otherwise, shall be returned and found not later than October 1st, 1907, unless hereafter otherwise mutually agreed.

“5. In the event of the prosecution of said Ruef by any other officer or person on account of any of such crimes or offenses committed or participated in or alleged to have been committed or participated in by said Ruef to this date, the undersigned will employ every legitimate influence and power to secure a dismissal thereof, and in the event that a conviction shall be had in any thereof, the undersigned hereby agree to apply to the Governor of the State of California for the pardon of said Ruef therefor or therein and to use all legitimate influence and power to secure such pardon.

“6. It is understood and agreed that, notwithstanding the scope and effect of the language used throughout this agreement, it does not and shall not be construed to apply in any respect or particular to that certain indictment No. 305, or the offense charged therein, which is now pending against said Abraham Ruef jointly with Eugene E. Schmitz, in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, in Department No. 6 thereof.

“Dated, May 8th, 1907.

“WM. H. LANGDON,
“District Attorney of the City
and County of San Francisco.
“FRANCIS J. HENEY,
“Assistant District Attorney of the
City and County of San Francisco.

“Agreed to:
“A. RUEF.”

“IMMUNITY CONTRACT” GIVEN SUPERVISORS.

“San Francisco, Cal., July 30, 1907.

“Whereas, James L. Gallagher, E. J. Walsh, F. P. Nicholas, C. J. Harrigan, Max Mamlock, J. J. Furey, Jennings Phillips, Thomas F. Lonergan, James F. Kelly, L. A. Rea, W. W. Sanderson, Daniel C. Coleman, Sam Davis, A. M. Wilson, M. F. Coffey, all of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, have each made to me a disclosure of certain crimes and offenses committed by himself, and by himself jointly with others and by others, which he claims to be a full and fair disclosure thereof, so far as known to him.

“Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises, deeming it to be in the interest of public justice, and believing that each of the above-named parties will thereby become equitably entitled to such consideration, in accordance with the time-honored custom and practice of prosecuting officers, in both State and Federal jurisdictions throughout this country, and in line with common law precedence, it is agreed by me that if he has made a full and fair disclosure of all of such crimes and offenses and has stated to me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and if he shall whenever called upon to do so by me, or by any other officer on behalf of the People of the State of California, to again make a full and fair disclosure of such crimes and offenses, together with the facts and circumstances surrounding the same and the persons therein involved, in any cause, action or proceeding whatever in regard thereto, fully and fairly, together with the facts and circumstances surrounding said crimes and offenses and the persons involved, and tell and testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then, and in that event, each one of them who so does shall not be prosecuted, complained against or indicted for any of said crimes or offenses, or his connection therewith.

“It is understood that the making or verifying of any affidavit or answer in the case of ‘Langdon vs. Ruef, et al.,’ heretofore brought in the Superior Court of this city and county, is included in this agreement; and it is further understood that Fred P. Nicholas shall not be further prosecuted in the case now pending against him in which he is under indictment in this city and county, upon the charge of accepting and agreeing to accept a bribe from one Holmes.

“Signed: W. H. Langdon, District Attorney: Francis J. Heney, Asst. Dist. Atty. Witness: James L. Gallagher.”

The People vs. Ruef, page 1382.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY LANGDON’S PLAN FOR REORGANIZING THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.

(See [Chapter XVII].)

“San Francisco, July 9, 1907.—To the San Francisco Labor Council, the Merchants’ Association, the Building Trades Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade, the Real Estate Board and the Merchants’ Exchange: Gentlemen—We respectfully submit to your consideration and ask your co-operation in the carrying out of the following proposed plan for the selection of a Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco for the unexpired term of Eugene E. Schmitz, who, having been elected Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco in November, 1905, was on the 13th day of June, 1907, convicted of a felony; to wit, of the crime of extortion, by a jury in Department No. 6 of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. Thereafter, upon the 8th day of July, 1907, judgment upon the conviction was duly pronounced and entered, by which a sentence was imposed of five years’ imprisonment in the State Prison at San Quentin.

“The Political Code of this State, and the charter of the City and County of San Francisco, both provide that the office becomes vacant when the incumbent is convicted of a felony, and in several decisions our Supreme Court has held that the words ‘convicted of a felony,’ signify the verdict of a jury. That court has also held that this provision of the code and charter is self-acting, and that the vacancy is created ‘eo instanti,’ upon the happening of the event, and that all that is necessary is for the appointing power to fill the vacancy thus created. By virtue of the conviction of Eugene E. Schmitz, the office of Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco became vacant. Upon the 9th day of July, 1907, the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to the charter, elected as Mayor to fill the vacancy thus created Dr. Charles Boxton. This action was taken to avoid legal complications in the interim, before a permanent selection of Mayor could be made, and it is thoroughly well understood that the selection of Dr. Charles Boxton is merely temporary.

“The conditions surrounding the present Board of Supervisors have been so completely explained, through the public press, that it is unnecessary to go into further detail in that regard than to say that Dr. Boxton has offered to resign his office as Mayor, as soon as a suitable successor has been found. In the present unprecedented condition of the municipal government, circumstances have made it the duty of the District Attorney, in the interest of the public welfare, to take the initiative, in the endeavor to find such a successor.

“It is the desire of the District Attorney as speedily as possible to confine the operations of his office entirely to those duties ordinarily incumbent upon it. The next election for city officers takes place in November of this year, but the situation of the city government, and the material conditions obtaining in the city with regard to necessary public improvements, render it absolutely indispensable that we proceed with the utmost energy to obtain for the office of Mayor a man of unblemished integrity and great executive ability.

“The District Attorney and his associates, realizing that the selection of a Mayor to fill the unexpired term in question should be made by as representative a body of the people as possible, have deemed it wise to call together a convention that will be, as nearly as circumstances and the time at our disposal permit, fairly representative of the community at large. For that purpose they have decided to call together a convention composed of thirty delegates, fifteen of whom shall represent labor, and the remaining fifteen shall represent employers generally.

“It is, of course, impossible on account of the limited time at our disposal to accord representation to all the organized bodies in the city entitled to the same. All that we can reasonably be expected to do is to make a sincere and earnest effort to have the convention composed of delegates from such well-known organized bodies, large and varied in membership, that the people generally will be satisfied that the plan of selection is fair, reasonable and democratic.

“The prosecution in the graft cases feels that it is highly desirable to keep politics out of the organization of the city government as much as possible until the people, in the manner ordained by law, have an opportunity at the ballot-box again to express their will directly.

“We address this communication and invitation to the following bodies, to wit: The San Francisco Labor Council, the Merchants’ Association, the Building Trades Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade, the Real Estate Board and the Merchants’ Exchange. We respectfully request the foregoing associations to send delegates to the proposed convention on the following basis of apportionment, that is to say, that the two bodies representing labor shall select fifteen delegates, eight of whom shall be selected by the San Francisco Labor Council and seven by the Building Trades Council, and the remaining fifteen members of the convention shall be selected, three each, by the remaining five bodies above mentioned.

“It will be appreciated that it is necessary to impose a time limit within which the selection of delegates shall be made, and the subsequent nomination of a Mayor by the convention shall be accomplished. In that view we ask that a response to this invitation, containing the names of the delegates selected, be delivered to the District Attorney’s office, 2181 Fillmore street, on or before Saturday, July 13, 1907, and that the Mayor be nominated within five days thereafter. The success of this plan, in our judgment, depends absolutely upon the harmonious co-operation of all sections of our people, who, we believe, are fairly represented by one or more of the foregoing associations. Consequently we deem it essential to prescribe as a condition for the assembling of the proposed convention that this invitation shall be accepted by all of these bodies.

“This plan for the selection of a Mayor is the result of most patient, thorough and anxious deliberation on the part of those associated in the graft prosecution, and its single purpose is to satisfy, so far as in our power, the desire of all good citizens to sink factional and political differences and choose for Mayor a man who will be generally recognized and accepted as representative of the whole people, who will bring to all industrial disputes a spirit of conciliation and harmony, and who will be possessed of the capacity, energy and honesty needed in the great work of rehabilitating our city and restoring it to normal conditions. We desire that perfect freedom and independence of action shall govern the convention from its inception to its close, and accordingly the District Attorney and his associates will wholly refrain from any participation after the convention has assembled. I have the honor to be,

ldquo;Yours very truly,
“W. H. LANGDON, District Attorney.”

ROOSEVELT’S LETTER TO SPRECKELS ON THE GRAFT SITUATION.

“The White House, Washington, June 8, 1908.

“My Dear Mr. Spreckels—Now and then you and Mr. Heney and the others who are associated with you must feel down-hearted when you see men guilty of atrocious crimes who from some cause or other succeed in escaping punishment, and especially when you see men of wealth, of high business and, in a sense, of high social standing, banded together against you.

“My dear sir, I want you to feel that your experience is simply the experience of all of us who are engaged in this fight. There is no form of slander and wicked falsehood which will not as a matter of course be employed against all men engaged in such a struggle, and this not only on the part of men and papers representing the lowest type of demagogy, but, I am sorry to say, also on the part of men and papers representing the interests that call themselves pre-eminently conservative, pre-eminently cultured.

“In such a struggle it is too often true that the feeling against those engaged in it becomes peculiarly bitter, not merely in the business houses of the great financiers who directly profit by the wrongdoing, but also in the clubs, in certain newspaper offices where business interests exercise an unhealthy control and, I regret to add, in other newspaper offices which like to be considered as to a marked degree the representatives of the cultivation and high social standing of the country.

“Now, I do hope that you and your colleagues will treat all this bitterness with entire disregard. It is of small consequence to you, or to any of us who are engaged in this work, whether men think well or ill of us personally; but it is of very great consequence that we should do the work without flinching, on the one hand, and on the other hand, without losing our good-humored common sense, without becoming angered and irritated to a degree that will in any way cause us to lose our heads.

“Therefore, I hope that you and Heney and your associates will keep reasonably good-natured; but that above all things you will not lose heart. You must battle on valiantly, no matter what the biggest business men may say, no matter what the mob may say, no matter what may be said by that element which may be regarded as socially the highest element. You must steadfastly oppose those foolish or wicked men who would substitute class consciousness and loyalty to class interest, for loyalty to American citizenship as a whole, for loyalty to the immutable laws of righteousness, of just and fair dealing as between man and man.

“It is just as bad to be ruled by a plutocracy as by a mob. It is profoundly un-American and, in a social sense, profoundly immoral, to stand for or against a given man, not because he is or is not a brave, upright and able man, but because he does or does not belong to a labor union or does or does not represent the big business interests. In their essence, down at the foundation of things, the ties that are all-important are those that knit honest men, brave men, square-dealing men, together, and it is a mighty poor substitute if we replace these ties by those that bind men together, whether they are good or bad, simply because they follow a particular business, have a given social standing or belong to a particular organization. It is an evil and a dreadful thing for laboring men to endeavor to secure the political dominance of labor unions by conniving at crookedness or violence, by being ‘loyal’ to crooked labor leaders, for to be ‘loyal’ to the fancied interests of the unions when they are against the laws of morality and the interests of the whole people means ultimately the destruction of the unions themselves, as an incident to the destruction of all good citizenship.

“But it is, if anything, an even more evil and dreadful thing to have the merchants, the business men, the captains of industry accessories to crime and shielders and supporters of criminals; it is an even more dreadful thing to see the power of men high in State politics, high in finance, high in the social life of the rich and fashionable, united to stifle the prosecution of offenders against civic integrity if these offenders happen to be their friends and associates; and most evil of all is it when we see crooks of a labor party in offensive and defensive alliance with the crooks of a corporation party. Labor unions and corporations alike should be heartily supported when they do good work, and fearlessly opposed when they stand for what is evil. The best kind of wage worker, the best kind of laboring man, must stand shoulder to shoulder with the best kind of professional man, with the best kind of business man, in putting a stop to the undermining of civic decency, and this without any regard to whether it is a labor union or a corporation which is undermining it, without any regard to whether the offender is a rich man or a poor man.

“Indeed, if there can be any degrees in the contemptuous abhorrence with which right thinking citizens should regard corruption, it must be felt in its most extreme form for the so-called ‘best citizens,’ the men high in business and social life, who by backing up or by preventing the punishment of wealthy criminals set the seal of their approval on crime and give honor to rich felons. The most powerful ally of lawlessness and mob violence is the man, whoever he may be, politician or business man, judge or lawyer, capitalist or editor, who in any way or shape works so as to shield wealthy and powerful wrongdoers from the consequences of their misconduct.

“You have heart-breaking difficulties with which to contend. You have to fight not only the banded powers of evil, but, alas, that it should be said, the supineness and indifference of many good men upon whose zealous support you had a right to feel that you could rely. Do not be discouraged; do not flinch. You are in a fight for plain decency, for the plain democracy of the plain people, who believe in honesty and in fair dealing as between man and man. Do not become disheartened. Keep up the fight.

“Very sincerely yours,
“THEODORE ROOSEVELT.

“Rudolph Spreckels, Esq.,
“San Francisco, Cal.”

GOVERNOR JOHNSON’S STATEMENT REGARDING RUEF’S IMPRISONMENT.

(See [Chapter XXIX], [page 453].)

Ever since Abraham Ruef was taken to San Quentin an organized and systematic agitation has been carried on to effect his release, and all that power, influence and money and favorable publicity could do to manufacture public sentiment for him has been done. His case has ever been before the people, and never since his confinement at San Quentin has he been permitted to be in the category of the ordinary prisoner.

Purposely have I heretofore refrained from any public utterance upon the subject, and this for reasons that may be obvious. Ruef’s partisans now charge his failure to obtain his release to me.

In so far as I have expressed my views to certain members of the Prison Directors, and their views accord with mine, I accept the responsibility.

I do not believe that Ruef should be paroled at this time. I insist that he shall be treated just like any ordinary prisoner, neither more harshly nor more leniently.

As vigorously as I am able, I demand that there shall be no special privilege in the prisons of the State of California, and that when special privilege has been banished from every department of government, it shall not be permitted, no matter what the power or threats, to creep into our penitentiary.

The grossest injustice that could be committed against the other 3,300 men confined in our State prisons would be to single out the one rich, powerful and conspicuous offender and, because of his riches and his influence, grant him what is denied to the humble and friendless prisoner. If prisons are to be maintained, and the system in vogue continued, all prisoners most be treated exactly alike.

Since the parole law went into effect, the Prison Directors have continuously acted under a rule which required, save in exceptional cases, the service of half of the net sentence before an application can be heard. In the Roberts case, recently decided, the Supreme Court held this rule to be illegal, but also held that paroles rested in the absolute discretion of the Prison Directors, and that in determining whether or not parole shall be granted, it was the right and duty of the Board to take into account the length of sentence, the time served, etc.

As I understand the attitude of the Directors, they insist that in the matter of granting paroles, although applications may be made after one year, it is neither unjust nor unfair nor illegal that prisoners be required, save in exceptional cases, to serve half the net sentence.

This rule is applicable to 3,300 prisoners, most of them unknown and unheard of. It is demanded that another rule be made for Ruef.

Ruef’s sentence was fourteen years. His net sentence will be eight years and ten months. Half of the net sentence will be four years and five months. He was received in San Quentin about March, 1911. If required to serve half his net sentence, presumably he will be paroled about August, 1915. Purposely, apparently, misapprehension has been created about the recent parole of Dalton. Dalton desired to be liberated before half his net sentence had been served, and was not. He was granted a parole at the last meeting of the Prison Directors, which takes effect some months after the completion of half of his net sentence.

The Recent Action of the Prison Board.

In behalf of the parole of Ruef it is insisted that any man is entitled as a matter of right to a parole after one year’s imprisonment. I will not subscribe to this doctrine. It has been asserted that the Supreme Court has so decided. This is not true. The Supreme Court simply determined that after one year the prisoner had the right to make his application, but that his parole rested absolutely thereafter in the discretion of the Prison Board.

At the last meeting of the Prison Directors 78 men applied for parole, Ruef among them. None of these had served half his net time and this fact was known to all the members of the Prison Board. To four members of the Prison Board before that time every application had been presented with the history of the case, and with all the facts that had been filed concerning it. Every man, prison director or other, knows the facts of the Ruef case. The 78 were all denied parole. When the Ruef people assert he had no hearing, they mean he had no such hearing as Ruef desired. When they shout that his case was not considered, they mean not considered as Ruef demanded. If the hearing had been as Ruef and his partisans had staged it; if Ruef had delivered an oration, taken down by the shorthand reporter, brought for the purpose; if Ruef had dominated the entire situation, and the Directors had yielded to his power and his influence; if Ruef had been paroled, what a virtuous and glorious Prison Board it would have been! But the hearing being otherwise than had been staged, the determination being other than what the power of Ruef demanded, the Prison Board is abused and denounced; not denounced or abused because 77 other men were not paroled (they are unknown, poor, helpless, without friends), but abused and denounced because one man, Ruef, was not paroled; because one man, Ruef, was treated exactly as all others were treated.

The Charge of Bitterness and Vengeance.

I resent any imputation of bitterness or revenge on my part toward Ruef. I have neither. More than two years ago I expressed what I write to-day—that for the sake of society and the unfortunates confined in prison, Ruef must be treated like all others similarly situated. To yield because of fear to the persuasion, cajolery or the threats of a powerful prisoner, is to cause the iron to enter the soul of every obscure and friendless prisoner, and to make every other one of the 3,300 men in our jails know that even in prisons class distinctions prevail, and to add to the bitterness and the hopelessness of men confined.

The bitterness and revenge are on the other side of this controversy. It has become necessary to make this statement because of the unmerited abuse of the Prison Board, and because some individuals, while begging mercy for Ruef, have without mercy sought Ruef’s release by threats of annihilation and destruction of all opposed.

The Plea That the Past Be Forgotten.

Often we hear that Ruef is the only one who has been punished of those guilty of the particular crimes of which he was a part, and that for this reason should be liberated.

If three men committed a murder, two escape and are never found, and the third is convicted, ought he to be released because he is the only one punished?

It is unnecessary, however, to discuss this phase of the case. After conviction and imprisonment, if clemency be asked, ordinarily the only question that can be considered is whether the prisoner is guilty or innocent. Does any person claim Ruef to be innocent? If guilty, then to him must apply the usual prison discipline and rules.

There is to-day in the same prison with Ruef a poor, uneducated, friendless Greek, the product of the graft prosecution just as Ruef is. Claudianes is serving a life sentence for dynamiting Gallagher’s residence and almost murdering seven people. Claudianes was paid to do the dynamiting that Gallagher might be put out of the way. He was the ignorant, sodden instrument of men who would not stop even at murder; but he was only the miserable tool after all. No appeal has been made to me for Claudianes. No petitions have been presented in his behalf, no organized effort for his release, no threats of political annihilation unless clemency be extended to him. Why? Is it because Claudianes is unknown, ignorant, friendless, moneyless?

The Unjust Charge of Racial Prejudice.

Every cheap politician has been quick to seize upon the Ruef case and endeavor to make political capital for himself or create hostility to me out of it. Among the baseless and outrageous things that have been published is that Ruef is not granted special privileges and immunities because of racial prejudice. When Ruef was denied parole, denied with him were men of many races. No one has claimed that these were denied parole because of race prejudice.

In San Quentin to-day are thirty-one Jews. Thirteen of these, for one reason or another, have at times lost their privileges. Is it possible that Ruef is the only man to be considered? No complaint is made for the thirty-one, or for the thirteen. Since February 1, 1912, twenty-seven Jews have been paroled from San Quentin. Six of these have been returned for violations of parole. In relation to the twenty-seven or the six there has been neither outcry nor protest nor publicity nor effort of any sort. Why the astounding, organized effort and publicity campaign for Ruef alone?

The appointments that have been made by this administration include Rabbi Meyer, H. Weinstock, Paul Sinsheimer, Simon Lubin, Miss Steinhart, Julius Jacobs, E. Franklin, Louis Frankenheimer, A. Sapiro, Jacob Alexander, A. Bonnheim, Miss Peixotto, Judge Cerf and many others. No list of more able and patriotic men and women in the service of any State could be furnished than this.

Is Ruef the sole test of every question?

To two young men of Jewish faith lately have been granted pardons. No tremendous petitions loaded down with the names of politicians, no extraordinary publicity was presented in their behalf.

Is there no man in the list of appointees to whom in pride we may all yield our praise? Is there no man among the 3,300 prisoners in San Quentin and Folsom who justly can arouse efforts in his behalf? Or is the sole test of official action by the Prison Directors of California or the Chief Executive of the State to be the disregard of every other man’s rights and the granting to Ruef alone of a privilege that none other enjoys?

California Prisons To-day.

In the discussion that has ensued from the Ruef case and because of the Ruef case, the prisons have been said to be the one part of the present administration that is not progressive, and that they are yet a relic of the Herrin machine. Nothing could be further from the fact. I challenge contradiction of the following statements:

California is in the forefront of all the States in the management of her prisons. In matters of food, shelter, clothing, employment, recreation, medical attention, opportunities for education, general freedom consistent with discipline, encouragement of decent tendencies, and in the number of paroles (although these have been granted under the half term rule), no State has gone further.

Within the past three years the strait-jacket, the water-cure and the hooks, once so freely used, have not been tolerated. Every form of corporal punishment has been abolished. When prisoners are received the effort is made to get the history of the crime and possible cause of it, and then to apply corrective measures intelligently. As soon as received, every newcomer is given a thorough physical examination and his teeth are looked after by a dentist. It not infrequently happens that the first place a man is quartered in is the hospital. Special attention is given to tuberculars, alcoholics and dope fiends. Wassermann tests are made for the slightest indication of blood taint, and the best treatment afforded. After the physician and dentist conclude their examinations, the newcomer is turned over to the Director of Education, who endeavors to take the man’s mental measurement and get at his moral status. There are now 200 pupils in the day school at San Quentin, and three rooms of thirty each in the night school. The educational facilities are being constantly increased. Two hundred and twenty-six are enrolled in the academic courses with the University of California and by correspondence are receiving their training from our great institutions of learning. The State Use system, which was enacted in 1911, furnishes work in industries for the State. In the matter of food the State purchases the best and the rations issued are abundant. Sanitary conditions are a model in the newly constructed portions of the prison and the best possible in the old construction.

In the last three years 1372 paroles have been granted by this harsh, cruel and outrageous Prison Board, as against 1132 granted in all the years from 1893 to 1910 inclusive. The paroles have been granted, however, justly. Because one was not granted unjustly and unfairly, the record of the Prison Board counts for naught.

I have purposely refrained from discussing the character of Ruef’s crimes or any matters extraneous to the one issue presented. I have tried to make clear that I believe Ruef should be treated just as the least known prisoner is treated. That his advocates wish him to be treated otherwise because he is Ruef will be clear to any who will reflect that had Ruef been paroled and the other 77 denied parole there would have been no agitation; if Ruef were granted what others were denied, there would be no fulminations against the Prison Board and petty politicians would not have seized upon recent events to bow and scrape and bend and crawl to the organized power of Ruef.

SCHMITZ’S ATTEMPT TO CONTROL SAN FRANCISCO RELIEF FUNDS.

In the early part of June, 1906, it was agreed that a committee consisting of Benjamin Ide Wheeler, Judge W. W. Morrow and James D. Phelan should go to Washington, in order to interest Congress in some project for financing the rebuilding of San Francisco.

Before their departure, Mayor Schmitz invited them and other members of the Committee of Fifty to his residence, where a luncheon was served. During the luncheon he stated that the Board of Supervisors were about to resume their public functions for which they were elected by the people, and the private persons who were administering the affairs of the city doubtless would employ their abilities for the rehabilitation of their own business, and he suggested that the relief fund be turned over to the Board of Supervisors for distribution. Judge Morrow, Mr. Phelan and others protested that it was not the function of the Supervisors to distribute relief, and that there was a trust relationship existing between the donors and the finance committee of the Relief and Red Cross Funds. After the luncheon, the Mayor handed Mr. Phelan his transportation, but later in the afternoon Mr. Phelan, suspicious of his purpose, sent word to the Mayor that he had decided to remain in the city. He remained behind to protect the funds.

As subsequently developed in the graft investigations, the Supervisors had accused the Mayor of abandoning the city government to his enemies, and insisted upon the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of their office, and that the work of distributing relief at that time was the principal business of the city.

RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS OF PROSECUTION FROM JUNE, 1906, TO MAY 17, 1909

(As shown by testimony taken at trial of Patrick Calhoun.)

RECEIPTS.

Subscription account	$ 73,384.75
Subscription account R. Spreckels	138,478.05
Cash received by W. J. Burns	1,278.70
Refunded by the Bulletin account Older case	250.00
	$213,391.50

DISBURSEMENTS.

W. J. BURNS ACCOUNT: W. J. Burns account, personal, $12,357.45; office expenses, $1,911.43; office furniture, $671.50; carriage hire, $27.25; auto hire, $2,700.75; auto expense, $4,162.36; traveling expense, $1,302.15; telegrams, $797.79; The Bulletin, $309.55; incidentals, $158.50; paid for account City and County of San Francisco, $223.52; detective services, $70,572.65; detective expenses, $27,277.35; extra salaries, $778.55. Total, $123,250.80.

F. J. HENEY ACCOUNT: Rent, $3,186.25; office expense, $1,522.02; private exchange and operator, $1,949.22; telegrams, $316.82; postage and messenger expense, $280.26; traveling expense, $118.45; office salaries, $8,684.67; office furniture, $433.50; auto and carriage hire, $957.05; stenographic and legal expense, $2,147.37; detective expense, $4,232.61. Total, $23,828.22.

SUNDRY DISBURSEMENTS: P. Dolman, $5,087.65; Hiram W. Johnson, $11,000.00; J. J. Dwyer, $13,400.00; C. W. Cobb, $10,000.00; legal expense, official count for judges, $191.50; George J. Cleary, $70.00; L. Kavanaugh, $506.20; D. M. Duffy, $1,878.85; W. J. Burns, $17,195.00; Jas. Foley, $1,010.00; Miler & Co., $40.00; automobiles, $5,100.00; auto expense, $815.98. Total, $66,295.18.

Total disbursements	$213,374.20
Balance, cash	17.30
	$213,391.50

ITEMS, W. J. BURNS ACCOUNT.

Personal: Salary, $8,548.80; subsistence, $2,081.75; rent, $1,726.90. Total, $12,357.45.

Office Expenses: Rent (R. L. Radke Co.), $935.00; telephone, P. S. T. & T. Co., $398.93; light and heat—E. D. Feil, $25.00; W. G. Stafford, $8.00; mantels, $0.95—$33.95; towels (Star Towel Sup. Co.), $15.80; newspapers, $46.40; P. O. Box, U. S. A., $12.00; stamps, U. S. A., $20.40; Purity Water Co., $12.00; advertising—Call, $1.60; Examiner, $3.40—$5.00; car fare, $3.20; stationery—Library Bureau, $7.40; Mysell-Rollins, $3.00; Barry Co., $9.75; Brown & Power, $59.90; E. H. Wobber and others, $76.70—$156.75; typewriter expense-Vaughn, $56.30; Revalk, $77.10; Underwood, $5.50—$138.90; stenographic, $43.80 (L. F. Hurlburt, et al.); incidentals—pans, $0.40; opening Marchand’s safe, $10.00; safe dep. Crocker, $6.00; painting floor, $1.00; N. Y. Exchange, $0.95; express charges, $8.40; keys, $3.25; paint, $1.00; tel. directory, $1.50; stars (spec.), $5.25; city directories, $9.00; elect. buzzer, $1.35; show cards (A. Unsworth), $18.50; show card frames (Young & Rhodes), $2.00; whetstone, $0.70; hauling, $5.00; moving safe (Gorham & Thomas), $15.00—$89.30. Total office expenses, $1,911.43.

Office Furniture: Lamp, $3.55; two desk lamps, $7.80; J. Breuner Co., $68.00; water heater, $19.20; Library Bureau, $78.00; Ladd’s Gun Store, $55.50; safe (Freeman, Brewster, McCabe), $165.00; 2 gas heaters, $13.10; Spencer Desk Co., $37.50; Geo. Walcom (curtains) $3.35; E. Emerson (desk), $10.00; Olympic Arms Co., $28.55; Library Bureau, $40.50; L. & E. Emanuel, $12.00; Acme Furn. Co., $96.75; Hale’s, $23.20; C. P. Stanton, $9.50. Total, $671.50.

Carriage Hire: Kelly, $2.50, $4.00, $5.00, $3.00, $12.75. Total, $27.25.

Auto Hire: Scott, $15.00, $5.00, $50.00, $65.00, $10.00; H. M. Owens, $20.00; W. J. Burns, $90.00; March 30th, $207.50; Ruef’s arrest, $10.00; F. J. Heney, $10.00; W. J. Burns, $5.00; April 27th, $32.50; L. Heidinger, $25.00; Auto Livery Co., $73.50, $92.50; Kelly, $32.50; Otis Patkhill, $45.00; Auto L. Co., $538.00; A. S. Lathaw, $105.00; Auto Livery Co., $296.50, $60.00, $20.00; M. Mamlock, $17.50; Auto Livery, $78.00; Cal. & Coulter, $25.00; F. Coulter, $42.50; Auto Livery Co., $25.00; Auto Livery Co., $288.00; Zimmerline Bros., $5.75; Auto Livery Co., $132.50, $22.50, $190.50, $35.00, $22.50; Broadway Garage, $8.00. Total, $2,700.75.

Auto Expense: Goggles, $3.50; sundries, $9.35; Harris Rubber Co., $120.98; Harris Rubber Co., $70.10; Geo. P. Moore Co., $12.30; Geo. P. Moore Co., $9.35; Harris Rubber Co., $48.58; Chanslor Lyon, $30.88; Harris Rubber Co., $24.39; Bauer Lamp, $1.50; Bauer Lamp, $4.50; Auto Livery, $132.00; Auto Livery, $2.00; Chans. & Lyon, $12.75; Chans. & Lyon, $14.05; G. P. Moore, $26.90; G. P. Moore, $6.12; Arcade Garage, $51.20; towing auto, $5.00; Irvine Mch. Wks., $114.60; Harris Rubber Co., $6.00; Franklin Car, $59.12; Gillig & Son, $9.00; Gillig & Son, $5.00; Arcade Garage, $149.45; Arcade Garage, $134.25; G. P. Moore Co., $3.00; H. W. Bogen, $103.50; H. W. Bogen, $127.00; Pioneer Auto Co., $0.75; Pioneer Auto Co., $5.40; Gorham Rubber Co., $35.00; Berg Auto Supply Co., $1.50; Pioneer Garage, $6.00; Keenan Bros., $51.80; Keenan Bros., $23.05; Pioneer Garage, $186.70; Diamond Rubber Co., $222.50; Pioneer Auto Co., $2.50; Pioneer Auto Co., $24.00; Auto Livery Co., $166.00; G. P. Moore, $2.50; G. P. Moore, $4.50; Harris Rubber Co., $2.25; Arcade, $151.60; Arcade, $151.50; Bogan, $9.75; Bogan, $39.00; Pioneer, $3.00; Pioneer, $1.00; tire repair, $0.75; Pacific Gar., $12.85; Pacific Gar., $97.40; Arcade, $123.35; Keenan, $11.00; Keenan, $13.95; Chans. & L., $3.25; Chans. & L., $2.50; Bogen, $9.85; Bogen, $7.00; Osen & Hunter, $109.45; Pacific Gar., $5.25; Pacific Gar., $70.00; Irvington Garage, $71.50; Pioneer, $8.50; Pioneer, $6.00; J. E. Elkington & Sons, $55.50; Continental R. Co., $88.88; Schwartz & Gotlieb, $8.00; C. & L., $12.45; Pacific, $9.75; Pacific, $11.25; Spreckels Garage, $384.85; Sunset Garage, $14.50; Spreckels Garage, $82.65; Pioneer, $7.00; Letcher, S. Jose, $4.00; Keenan, $104.05; Pioneer Auto Co., $10.50; Pacific, $29.10; Halls Auto Rep., $32.30; Studebaker, $17.91; Arcade, $159.15; Spreckels Garage, $185.25; Jerome Garage, $2.25; Miller Bros., $8.75; Goodyear, $5.00; Cr. H. W. Bogen, $10.00. Net total, $4,162.36.

Traveling Expense: Kendall to Portland, $20.00; Ferry, $1.05; Halsey, $493.40; Geo. Burns, round trip home, $130.00; baggage transfer, $1.50; trip to Oakland, auto, etc., $7.10; trip to Oakland, auto, etc., $6.60; B. T. Block to San Jose, $2.15; ferryage auto, etc., $15.35; ferryage auto, etc., $6.60; F. A. Leach, $230.00; B. A. Libby, $100.00; ferryage, auto. etc., $1.90; ferryage auto, etc., $1.90; ferryage auto, etc., $1.00; W. J. Burns to Los Angeles, $57.40; W. J. Burns, $2.10; Slater witness Ford case, $168.90; trips Okd. Gallagher case, $13.20; Marie Ware McK. Port. S. F. Ret., $50.00; Cr. F. H. Leach, witness Ford case, $8.00. Net total, $1,302.15.

Telegrams: $797.79.

The Bulletin: 30,000 papers (10-31, 1908) $309.55.

Incidentals: Christmas turkeys, $37.85; 5 glove orders, $10.00; theater party, $6.00; C. P. Stanton (burglar alarm), $57.25; S. F. Call 1400 Jones, $2.25; expense account Blake case, $3.50; lunches, W. J. Burns et al., $41.65. Total, $158.50.

Paid for account City and County of San Francisco: Exchange on Washington, D. C., sent to F. A. Leach, witness, to cover expenses to S. F., $250.00; less amount refunded by City and County of San Francisco, $26.48—$223.52.

Detective Services and Expenses: D. F. Cecil, services $2,396.00, expenses $942.50; H. J. Woolman, services $476.00, expenses $328.00; R. J. Bergen, services $708.00, expenses $510.50; R. H. Perry, $3,095.00, expenses $1,318.05; I. H. Henderson, services $350.00, expenses $188.85; E. S. Spaulding, services $2,820.00, expenses $550.70; W. W. Farrell, services $704.00, expenses $196.50; L. G. Carpenter, services $225.00; expenses, $170.20; R. S. Spaulding, services $2,042.00, expenses $378.25; J. G. Lawlor, services $2,837.50, expenses $1,221.63; I. J. Scott, expenses $30.00; E. G. Borden, services $78.00; P. Hendirard, services $202.00, expenses $200.55; R. J. Burns, $2,810.00, expenses $2,076.47; S. S. Simon, services $206.00; B. Kohlman, services $248.00, expenses $18.75; G. E. Burns, services $2,510.00, expenses $4,369.62; C. F. Oliver, services $2,920.00, expenses $833.85; C. P. Fox, services $472.50, expenses $265.35; S. G. R. Ollsen, $40.00; G. W. Hess, $1,595.00, expenses $1,250.22; J. McCarthy, services $1,313.00, expenses $227.35; J. C. Saulman, services $110.00, expenses $1.20; L. Pring, services $44.00; L. Cullen, services $60.00; M. C. Doyle, services $52.00; D. M. Duffy, services $150.00; Chas. Wyman, services $20.00; A. Steffens, $45.00; A. Greggains, services $780.00, expenses $665.85; J. H. Shiner, services $480.00, expenses $310.80; P. F. Roller, $290.00, expenses $349,20; P. E. Sowers, services $410.00, expenses $284.10; T. R. Sullivan, services $320.00, expenses $328.55; D. McCarthy, services $948.00, expenses $114.21; J. Compton, services $1,880.00, expenses $81.40; R. Ellis, services $246.00, expenses $6.00; P. Bergin, services $20.00, expenses $17.00; C. P. Stanton, services $2,645.00, expenses $4.20; H. Sullivan, services $95.00, expenses $1.70; J. S. Hensley, services $140.00; James Foley, services $2,335.00, expenses $134.10; J. F. Severney, services $285.00, expenses $15.55; A. Hornberg, services $44.00; E. W. Stow, services $342.00, expenses $216.60; G. M. Insley, $1,417.00, expenses $414.45; B. F. Daman, services $1,148.00, expenses $529.80; L. C. Caldwell, $896.00, expenses $360.25; R. N. Hamlin, services $1,902.00, expenses $50.00; F. Kingsberg, services $90.00; W. Bettiee, services $1,068.00, expenses $164.25; W. J. Dewer, services $160.00; J. F. Clark, services $1,072.00, expenses $501.29; W. J. Biggy, Jr., services $260.00, expenses $35.40; M. C. Perry, services $144.00, expenses $109.00; C. A. Spaulding, services $336.00, expenses $109.70; E. T. Newsome, services $364.00, expenses $58.85; F. J. Barry, services $32.00; J. H. Hamilton, services $26.00; R. C. Schindler, services $1,483.00, expenses $706.85; W. S. Schindler, services, $1,161.00, expenses $224.15; O. G. Schleicher, services $340.00, expenses $122.66; E. A. Platt, services $1,205.00, expenses $315.20; W. H. Russell, services $1,305.00, expenses $298.30; S. B. Priest, services $210.00, expenses $1.40; E. J. Whiskatchies, services $1,200.00, expenses $484.85; E. W. Madden, services $255.00, expenses $33.35; J. M. Creighton, services $1,494.00, expenses $667.60; G. E. Madden, services $30.00, expenses $1.70; J. Crawford, services $35.00; E. Graf, services $20.00; expenses $7.00; W. Duchion, services $100.00; J. V. Thompson, services $72.00, expenses $13.00; F. C. Boden, expenses $62.35; F. F. McGee, services $50.00; M. L. Doyle, services $286.00; E. M. Burgoyne, services $84.00, expenses $53.95; C. Bernstein, services $64.00; E. Goldstein, services $92.00, expenses $15.25; H. C. Willer, services $216.00; J. W. F. Jackson, services $384.00, expenses $178.50; D. L. Chiles, services $20.00; Mrs. May Schindler, services $154.50, expenses $3.50; L. Gold, services $805.00, expenses $58.65; J. M. Ullmache, services $40.00, expenses $93.20; C. P. Snell, services $12.00, expenses $0.65; W. C. Heney, services $1,939.00, expenses $20.05; E. C. Lange, services $42.00; expenses $2.60; E. Emerson, services $365.00, expenses $79.15; J. McKenzie, services $47.00; O. Hooper, services $85.00, expenses $12.45; Geo. Mane, services $15.00; Chas. Cook, services $40.00, expenses $0.80; C. T. Oliver, Jr., services $236.00, expenses $25.80; D. W. Armstrong, services $5.00; F. A. Neary, services $280.00, expenses $42.50; P. D. Code, services $280.00, expenses $35.65; Martin Judge, services $40.00; J. D. Silverthew, services $14.00, expenses $1.71; G. Hague, services $68.00; W. J. Kelly, services $199.00, expenses $3.75; S. G. Whitney, services $52.00, expenses $6.65; C. F. Schneider, services $148.00, expenses $9.30; L. R. Mower, services $34.00, expenses $26.50; G. L. Doolittle, services $26.00, expenses $7.10; W. A. Conneau, services $25.00, expenses $2.20; E. S. Newsome, services $125.00; J. M. Creighton, services $615.00, expenses $200.00; H. Beasly, services $175.00; L. J. Cass, services $155.00; L. Murphy, services $230.00; Ed. Hornback, services $71.00; E. M. —--, services $435.00, expenses $44.80; P. Berr, services $36.00; S. J. Rohan, services $70.00; Geo. Yearaner, services $237.50, expenses $11.60; E. Vetisarator, services $63.00; F. C. Boden, services $150.00; T. C. McGiff, services $12.00; H. J. Loventzen, services $680.00, expenses $471.25; A. H. Barr, services $748.00, expenses $2.00; P. M. McGee, expenses $100.50; N. Komgold, services $525.00, expenses $37.35; E. Gensler, services $15.00, W. J. Otts, services $510.00, expenses $423.85; J. H. Dewey, services $30.00, expenses $6.75; W. C. Knox, services $180.00; M. F. —--, services $1,162.50, expenses $363.00; J. M. Kelly, services $35.00; R. H. Schouatt, services $161.00, expenses $2.25; D. S. Hutchins, services $80.00, expenses $40.45; Chas. Goff, services $127.15; C. P. Morey, Jr., services $10.00; S. F. —--, services $95; Jesse A. Gahans, services $30.00; A. Setrakian, services $12.00, expenses $14.50; E. E. Kam, services $10.00; J. Walsh, services $25.00. Total services, $70,572.65; expenses, $27,277.35.

Extra Salaries: O. F. Holmes, $25.00; S. S. Simon, $5.00; O. F. Holmes, $48.25; W. J. Flynn and 2 assts., $73.00; Wyman, $20.00; Steffen, $20.00; T. Lonergan, $50.00; T. Lonergan, $50.00; T. Lonergan, $50.00; Cullen-Watchman, $28.00; A. Fromberg, $8.00; G. H. Knox, $5.00; A. B. Lycaw, $48.80; W. J. Flynn, $50.00; securing information at Roys, $5.50; D. M. Duffy, $104.50; C. A. Sage, $30.20; B. Bergen, $20.80; P. Callender, $25.00; P. Callender, $2.00; J. C. Brown, $30.00; D. W. Armstrong, $10.00; D. W. Armstrong, $25.00; D. E. Scales, $5.00; Bob Ellis, $15.00; D. W. Armstrong, $1.00; S. Hitchcock, $1.00; D. Wilkie, $25.00. Total, $778.55.

ITEMS FRANCIS J. HENEY ACCOUNT.

Rent of Office: $3,186.25.

Office Expenses: Water, light, heat (repairs gas fixtures, $4.88; purity water, $22.75; Stafford & Co., $297.93; S. F. G. & E. Co., $209.59; gas regulator, $4.76; Gas Appliance Co., $18.00; gas mantels, $3.00; Bush & Lind, $17.00); stationery (E. H. Wobber & Co., et al., $314.90; numbering machine, $5.00; I. Upham Co., $97.23; Brown & Power, $1.00; Schmidt L. & L. Co., $6.00; Badescu Prtg. Co., $2.50); typewriter, rental and supplies (Remington T. W. Co., $139.80; Smith Premier, T. W., $8.00; Typewritorium, $7.50); newspapers, $126.15; janitor supplies (scavenger, $16.59; towels, $26.44; C. Brown & Sons, $19.80; J. H. Reardon, $2.40; W. E. Johnson, $3.35; Greenblatt & Co., $1.80; Newman & Levinson, $2.55; Brittain & Co., $19.00; O’Connor, Moffatt, $3.00; W. T. Wiley, $3.00; H. G. Root, $14.33; S. P. Co., $1.33; carpet-cleaning, $7.55; Hill & Co., $18.50); sundries, C. P. Stanton et al., $85.14; glazing, $11.25. Total, $1,522.02.

Private Exchange, Telephone and Operator: $1,949.22.

Telegrams: $316.82.

Postage and Messenger Service: $280.26.

Traveling Expenses: $118.45.

Office Salaries: J. H. Reardon, $1,050.00; W. E. Johnson, $1,650.00; Miss O. O. McShane, $1,934.66; Mrs. Smith, $806.25; Mrs. L. E. Russell, $2,085.00; C. H. Stanton, $377.51; janitress, $156.25; voucher No. 1, Jany. 31, 1907; no detail, $625.00. Total, $8,684.67.

Office Furniture: J. Behrn & Co., $15.75; Fuller Desk Co., $27.00; Rucker Desk Co., $142.25; J. Breuner Co., $28.50; O’Connor, Moffatt, $91.65; Goodyear Rubber Co., $3.50; Sloane & Co., $52.37; G. Lipman, $7.50; Bush & Lind, $27.89; C. Brown & Sons, $6.05; shelving $10.00; Jewel Gas Appliance Co., $21.04. Total, $433.50.

Auto and Carriage Hire: United Carriage Co., $100.25; Pacific Garage, $100.00; Auto Livery, $70.00; Kelly’s, $8.50; Arcade Garage, $5.00; Tom Sawyer, $17.50; J. W. Burke, $3.00; Max Mamlock, $15.00; T. White, $5.00; L. D. Crane, $632.80. Total, $957.05.

Stenographic and Legal Expense: L. Kavanaugh, $1,031.00; T. B. Elderkin; $83.40; G. W. Smith, $28.00; State of California, $3.50; H. Hernon, $18.10; County Clerk, $6.00; citation for Codes, $0.37; express on briefs, $2.65; F. L. Gauhey, $2.00; F. M. Handy, $1.50; R. B. Treat, $1.75; D. W. Burchard, $200.00; S. Potter, $15.00; notary fees, $2.00; H. Harper, $96.15; C. Bennett, $5.00; A. W. Reynolds, $13.20; W. C. Bristol, $77.15; H. C. Finkler, $6.40; Richards & Carrier, $258.20; Mrs. M. Moore, $10.00; Mr. Webb, $3.00; Mrs. C. Jellison, $5.80; D. Young, expert, $25.00; C. D. Stewart, expert, $189.00; G. W. Reynolds, expert, $63.00. Total, $2,147.37.

Detective Expense: W. J. Burns, $2,416.95; I. Rittenhouse et al., $1,815.66. Total, $4,232.61.