first payment, "If I recollect rightly the size of
the bills were small denominations, ones, twos,
fives, twenties." At subsequent trials he in-
troduced the "tens" thus bearing out Mr. Heney
to the letter. Supervisor Harrigan testified be-
fore the grand jury thus: "The size of the bills
in the first payment were mostly five, fifty, twenty,
and ten, fifty and one hundred. They ran that
way in all those payments." Alark the change
at the first Ford trial when speaking of the first
payment : "I think they v/ere from one to twenty
dollars ; think there were two, and fives and tens
in first payments." Supervisor Kelly on the wit-
ness stand in the first Ford trial testified that
the bills in the first payment ranged from $10
to $100 and added, "There were no ones and
GRAFTERS AND PROSECUTORS 99
twos." He more nearly approximated the Hcney
version at subsequent trials, introducing fives and
keeping the maximum at twenty. Supervisor
Lonergan had the most difficult task of all the
supervisors in trying to approximate the Heney
version. Before the grand jury when he didn't
know what Heney wanted to prove he swore that
both payments were in bills of denominations
ranging from $20 to $500. At the first Ford
trial he said the first payment was in bills of
small denominations, chiefly twenties, tens and
fives, and that there were some one dollar bills.
Supervisor Mamlock testified at the first Ford
trial that the first payment was in five, twenty and
one hundred dollar bills. He repeated this testi-
mony at the second Ford trial, but at the third he
professed not to remember the denominations in
either payment. According to Supervisor Nich-
olas at the first Ford trial, the first payment was
in five and ten dollar bills. He was positive there
were no twos. At the third Ford trial he re-
called that there were some two dollar bills and
also that there was exactly one one dollar bill.
At the Calhoun trial he remembered that (just as
Heney said) there were also some twenty dol-
lar bills in the first payment. Supervisor Walsh
remembered at the first Ford trial that the bills
in the first payment were "mostly large." But
at the second trial he remembered they were
small. Unfortunately he remembered at this
trial that the bills of the second payment were
100 THE REGENERATORS
also of small denominations. At the next trial
he made no effort to improve his testimony, but
of the second payment he said, "It was in an
envelope and I could not say what denominations
as I didn't count them." Supervisor Wilson's
testimony at the Gladstone apartments was that
both payments were in small bills, but in court
he made his testimony accord exactly with what
Mr. Heney declared that he would prove.
From the foregoing" excerpts it certainly ap-
pears that some pretty tall swearing was done
in the interest of civic purity under the auspices
of men possessed of a superfetation of civic virtue
VI
RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY
Experience of the Former Boss in the Hands of the
Regenerators ; He Bargains for Immunity,
hut Refuses to Give the Right Kind of
Testimony and Is Forsworn
If we except the ridding of public ofifice tem-
porarily of grafters, the one triumph of the
Graft Prosecution was the putting of Abraham
Ruef behind the bars of a penitentiary. But
as grafters have come and gone from all time,
and will continue to come and go while we
wait the halcyon Millennium, and as the main
object of the regenerators was to teach bribe-
givers the salutary lesson that it is more hazard-
ous to set the snare than to take the bait, the
conviction of Ruef was an achievement that
afforded his prosecutors much less glory than
might ordinarily have been expected. As a mat-
ter of fact the conviction of Ruef afforded the
regenerators nothing but humiliation. There
are triumphs that mortify the victor, and this
was one of them. A time there was when all
California cherished the hope that San Quentin
was Ruef's destination ; but by the time he
reached the penitentiary there had been wrought
a great change in public sentiment. For the
102 THE REGENERATORS
kind of justice administered to Abraham Ruef
was a sorry simulacrum of the Anglo-Saxon
justice guaranteed to every American citizen.
If beyond the borders of Russia, in the history
of modern times subsequent to the days of re-
ligious persecution, there is to be found an in-
stance of the perversion of civic authority ap-
proximating that which Abraham Ruef ex-
perienced in San Francisco, it is recorded in
annals that have escaped my attention.
Ruef's experience in the hands of the regen-
erators was marked by a series of ugly scandals
for which the most ingenious would find it diffi-
cult to devise palliation. His treatment from
the beginning was unusual. When arrested in
the Spring of 1907 he was not ordered into the
custody of the sheriff or the chief of police, but
into the custody of Elisor W. J. Biggy, who
converted a private residence into a jail for the
accommodation of his prisoner. Here Ruef was
guarded by men who never permitted him the
enjoyment of solitude for a moment ; nor, for
a time, did they permit him to have any visitors.
Day and night, for many weeks, his guards sub-
jected him to the torture of the "third degree."
At brief intervals they roused him out of his
sleep, and told him of things which they pre-
tended to have heard him say while dreaming.
Nearly every day he was visited by Detective
Burns, who, to obtain a confession, cajoled and
threatened, but in vain. In the course of time
RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 103
Ruef's health was undermined, and then he was
put on trial before Judge F. H. Dunne under
an indictment charging him with the extortion
of money from the proprietors of what are
known as the French restaurants.
These restaurants, it should be explained, are
peculiar to San Francisco. They are spoken of
as restaurants euphemistically. They cater chiefly
to persons who chafe at the conventional re-
straints of polite society, for whom are provided
special accommodations and facilities. Puritan-
ical persons regarded these restaurants as evi-
dence of the looseness of the city's morals. One
day the police commissioners threatened to
cancel the license by virtue of which the
restaurants were conducted. The proprietors
employed Ruef as their attorney. And Ruef
dissuaded the commissioners from their avowed
purpose. Now it was believed that Ruef in-
spired the threat which induced his employment;
in other words that he had blackmailed the res-
taurant keepers. This was the belief of the re-
generators even at the time that Rudolph Spreck-
els told James Gallagher that the public service
corporations were his objective point and that
he was willing to give Ruef immunity. The
public were told that the evidence of Ruef's
guilt was as plain as a pikestafif. There was no
escape for him, according to the regenerators,
and this opinion they promulgated for public con-
sumption. Still, as w?? learned in the course
104 THE REGENERATORS
of events, they would be delighted to have him
plead guilty.
While the jury was being impaneled for Ruef's
trial the defendant was prevailed upon to co-
operate with the prosecution. And one day,
much to the astonishment of everybody, appar-
ently even to the astonishment of the prosecu-
tion, he rose in court and pleaded guilty to the
charge. The prisoner made a pathetic speech,
saying among other things, which was the most
curious of all of them, that whilst he pleaded
guilty he w^as innocent of the crime charged.
Strong men shed tears, special counsel for the
Graft Prosecution shook the prisoner's hand with
impressive earnestness and warmth, sympathiz-
ing with him in what they professed to regard
as his repentant mood. The Bulletin, voicing
the sentiments of the regenerators and sugges-
tionizing the public as usual, felicitated Ruef on
his fine exhibition of Christian manliness. At
the same time the people were reminded of the
purifying power of repentance, and were told
that the prisoner had been persuaded by his con-
science to make reparation for his misdeeds by
assisting the prosecution in their glorious work
of civic reform. What all the while was going
on behind the scenes a few were able to con-
jecture, but the public were kept in ignorance
for many months. That they had accepted as
an emotional drama what was in reality a well-
rehearsed farce the general had not the slightest
RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 105
suspicion. Ruef's performance on that occasion
had been prearranged by the regenerators for
theatric effect. For that occasion the temple of
justice was converted into a playhouse. Even
the solemn judge on the bench was not uncon-
scious of the precise nature of the part he was
playing. Incredible to be sure, but none the less
true. The regenerators were really proud of that
coup. Read the American Magazine for April,
1908, and you will find Detective Burns boasting
of the consummate artistry of it all, and his Bos-
well, (the panegyrist of all the regenerators) Mr.
Lincoln Steffens, paying him the tribute of his
admiration. You will not learn from Mr. Stef-
fens, however, the why and wherefore of the
humbuggery. He does not expound the pur-
poses of the regenerators, though he does go so
far as to divulge the fact that Ruef had a con-
tract for immunity and was to be given im-
munity "if he would tell the truth." All of
which should be borne in mind, for Steffens was
the official mouthpiece of the prosecution.
When Ruef pleaded guilty there was no rea-
son, so far as anybody could see, why he should
not be sentenced on the spot. Ordinarily the man
that pleads guilty is in a hurry to be sentenced.
The sooner he is sentenced, the sooner he serves
his term and gains his liberty. But Ruef, it is
important we should note, was not sentenced.
The plea of guilty was entered in May,- 1907.
The summer waxed and waned, and Ruef's fate
106 THE REGENERATORS
was still a matter of conjecture. At brief in-
tervals he appeared in court for no other pur-
pose than to hear Judge Dunne postpone his
sentence, and for a long time he acquiesced in
these postponements as though he quite under-
stood the situation and was satisfied. Mean-
time he appeared before the grand jury, and
gave much testimony with which the regenerators
seemed to be much pleased. He and the regen-
erators were now on the most amicable terms.
Presently he appeared as a witness for the prose-
cution on the trial of his old friend Eugene
Schmitz. And of course the man who had
shortly before made the whole town weep was
an impressive witness ; especially so as the im-
munity contract was under lock and key. On
Ruef's testimony Schmitz was convicted. He
was sentenced, too, but he took an appeal.
And still the suspending of Ruef's sentence
went on from week to week. And people won-
dered why. It was surmised of course that Ruef
had exacted some measure of leniency from the
prosecution, but not for a moment did that un-
sophisticated and credulous person, the average
citizen, entertain the notion that Ruef was not
to be punished at all. Yet what more natural
than the question, H he is to be punished why
not punish him? Certainly if he was to be
punished it would be advantageous to the prose-
cution to inflict the punishment, since, then, his
testimony would not be weakened by the sus-
picion that it had been purchased with immunity.
RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 107
Presently the truth was unlocked and per-
mitted to flutter into the light of day. The key
was supplied by the appellate court, which ren-
dered a decision in the Schmitz case to the effect
that the indictment was fatally defective. This
decision, which will be discussed in another
chapter, had the effect of lightning. It clarified
the atmosphere. The Schmitz indictment was
the same as the Ruef indictment, the one to
which Ruef had pleaded guilty. His plea of
guilty was therefore of no avail to the prosecu-
tion, since the indictment was fatally defective.
The sentence that had been postpone^, for seven
months need be postponed no longer. Presently
out came the story of all that occurred before
the plea of guilty. It came out in a series of
aflidavits bristling with ugly accusations against
the regenerators. The principal affidavit was
Ruef's. It was corroborated by the affidavits of
two clergymen, rabbis of the synagogue, the
Rev. J. Nieto and the Rev. B. M. Kaplan. And
what these gentlemen were unable to corroborate
there was much circumstantial evidence to sup-
port.
From these affidavits it appears that after sub-
jecting Ruef to the "third degree" for a period
of six or seven weeks, the regenerators solicited
the aid of the two clergymen. Failing to break
the prisoner down by any of the expedients com-
monly practiced by the police, they appealed to
the rabbis to urgfe him in behalf of his mother
108 THE REGENERATORS
and sisters, who, Ruef well knew, were suffer-
ing great mental anguish. According to these
clergymen it was represented to them that Ruef
could render a great public service by, making
certain disclosures ; that if he would do so he
would be set free, whereas if he refused he would
be sent to the penitentiary for life. The clergy-
men knowing the great distress of Ruef's aged
parents, for their sake agreed to urge Ruef to
confess. "It was evident to me," says Dr. Kap-
lan in his affidavit, "that every member of his
family was deeply attached to the defendant,
and that they were all on the verge of collapse.
I considered that it would be an act of divine
mercy to them if the defendant even at a sac-
rifice to himself brought them some peace of
mind and comfort. I told this to the defendant,
and I also assured him that we would all assist
in re-establishing him in public estimation should
he assist in the moral regeneration of the city
by making the disclosures as requested."
In the first interview with Ruef the clergymen
failed to move him. Ruef was adamant. They
reported that it was useless to urge him fur-
ther. Then, Dr. Kaplan tells us, he was asked
to try again. Rudolph Spreckels and Francis J.
Heney begged him in the interest of the com-
munity to plead for a confession. "We were
authorized," says Rabbi Kaplan, "to say to Mr.
Ruef that Mr. Schmitz, the mayor of San Fran-
cisco, had offered to tell all he knew of these
RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 109
matters and to 'throw down' Mr. Ruef, but the
offer had been rejected, and that all the public
service corporations were also ready to make a
scape-goat of him.* but that they preferred to
prosecute the men connected with the public
service corporations, as they considered them the
fountain heads of municipal corruption, rather
than Mr. Ruef to whom they were willing- to
grant complete immunity ; that Ruef was a man
of great ability, had many friends and would
soon and easily restore himself to public con-
fidence, and they said that neither they nor any
one connected with the prosecution had any
animosity or hard feeling against Mr. Ruef, and
at that time as well as on many other occasions
Mr. Heney stated in my presence that he per-
sonally liked and admired Mr. Ruef."
Finally, when told that his mother was sick
unto death, Ruef agreed to accept immunity.
The first demand made upon him was that he
should plead guilty in the French restaurant case
which was then on trial. It was explained that
he would be permitted at some future time to
withdraw the plea, and that the case would then
be dismissed. The plan as outlined was to give
him a written contract of immunity on all
charges save the one upon which he was being
tried, and as to that charge to give him a verbal
guarantee that it would be dismissed. This is
what is sworn to by Ruef and the two clergy-
* Neither Schmitz nor the officials of the public service
corporations ever asked for immunity.
no THE REGENERATORS
men, and to their testimony there are circum-
stances that give verisimiHtucle.
This was a curious plan, by no means intel-
ligible at first blush. What reason was there
for two separate agreements ? From the lucid ex-
planation given by Ruef and his friends it ap-
pears there was a cogent reason. And the ex-
planation considered in connection with facts,
about which there is no dispute, is not at all im-
plausible. The explanation is that it was for-
seen that as a witness Ruef would be asked if he
was not testifying because he had been promised
immunity. Then would the immunity contract
be the best evidence, and the inference from it
would be that there was punishment in store for
Ruef. Besides Schmitz was to be tried for ex-
tortion, and if Ruef pleaded guilty the presump-
tion naturally would be that Schmitz was guilty
too ; for in the French restaurant cases they
were said to be co-conspirators.
But Ruef stoutly objected to pleading guilty.
He insisted that he was innocent of the charge ;
that the restaurant keepers had not been black-
mailed, and that he could prove his innocence.
He was told he must plead guilty and on no
other condition would he be granted immunity.
At length he wavered, expressing doubt, how-
ever, as to whether the district attorney would
be able to carry out the proposed agreement.
It was sought to dissipate his scepticism with as-
surances the soundness of which subsequent
RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 111
events vindicated. Ruef tells us of these as-
surances : "It was stated to me by said Burns,
by said Heney, and by said Langdon in tiie
presence of said Dr. Kaplan, and by said lUirns
to me in' the presence of Dr. Nieto that Jud^s^e
Dunne and Judge Lawlor were in sympathy and
agreement with .the prosecution and that they
would co-operate with the prosecution, and also
that the presiding' judge of the Superior Court
had agreed to assign all indictments in these
'graft cases,' including all indictments returned
or to be returned against myself, only to the two
departments of the Superior Court presided over
by said Judges Dunne and Lawlor."
Despite these assurances Ruef was sceptical.
He desired assurances from the judges them-
selves that the compact would be kept. Then
were arrangements made for what has since
been known as "the midnight meeting." The
story of this memorable meeting is told by the
clergymen. On the night of April 27 , 1907, they
accompanied Heney and Burns to the Temple
Israel where court was held temporarily after
the fire of 1906. First they entered Judge Law-
lor's chambers. The judge was on hand. What
occurred Dr. Kaplan relates : —
"Mr. Heney said to the judge in effect, 'We
may have to ask you in regard to certain cases
which will come up in your court to — ' And
about that time Judge Lawlor interrupted Mr.
Heney and said in effect, T do not wish to go
112 THE REGENERATORS
into particulars. I have confidence in tiie dis-
trict attorney's office, and so long as I have con-
fidence in the district attorney's office it has been
the practice of this court to act favorably on any
recommendations or requests made by the dis-
trict attorney's office in open court.' "
This was as far as Judge Lawlor would go.
His language as quoted is somewhat equivocal,
but Judge Lawlor is instinctively cautious on
all occasions. He spoke, and then he left the
room. The affiant goes on : "Thereupon Dr.
Nieto and myself, not being familiar with the
practice of courts and not being attorneys, asked
Mr. Heney whether we were to understand from
the statement of the judge just made that he
had given the assurances desired, namely, that
any case against Mr. Ruef which might be as-
signed to his department should upon motion of
the district attorney be dismissed. To which
Mr. Heney replied, 'Certainly.' "
Judge Dunne received the detective the rep-
resentative of the district attorney and the two
clergymen in his chambers between the midnight
hour and one o'clock in the morning. Judge
Dunne is not so discreet nor so prudent a man as
Judge Lawlor. He was not averse to commit-
ting himself outright in the presence of the
clergymen. He did not perceive the advisability
of interrupting Mr. Heney or leaving the door
open for equivocation. Says Dr. Kaplan :
"Mr. Heney said in effect to Judge Dunne, 'We
RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 113
are negotiating with Mr. Riief to 'come through'
and we want him to plead guihy to the charge
now on trial before you. We may ask you to
allow him to withdraw that plea and to substitute
the plea of 'Not Guilty' and dismiss the indict-
ment against him.' To which Judge Dunne sub-
stantially replied as follows : 'I have every con-
fidence in the district attorney's office and will
do what you ask.' Thereupon I asked Judge
Dunne whether I was to understand that if Mr.
Ruef pleaded 'Guilty' that he would permit and
consent to the plea being withdrawn and the
plea of 'Not Guilty' substituted and the indict-
ment dismissed, to which he answered, 'Yes, sir;
yes, sir; certainly.' After that, as the judge was
about to leave the room, I again asked him, in
effect : 'Your honor, do you mean to say you
would allow the plea to be withdrawm and dis-
miss the case?' To which the judge responded,
'Yes, yes ; certainly,' and took his departure."
The clergymen reported to Ruef all that had
occurred at the midnight meeting. The terms
of the prosecution were then accepted. On this
occasion District Attorney Langdon was present,
and this gentleman, we learn from Dr. Kaplan's
affidavit, said to Ruef: "It is understood that we
did not discuss with you the matter of the with-
drawal of the plea of guilty ; you can rely on
the reverend gentlemen." On the same occasion,
Dr. Kaplan tells us, Mr. Heney explained that
as a matter of policy Ruef would be expected "to
114 THE REGENERATORS
keep secret all arrangements," which he did, and
pleaded guilty after rehearsal.
On May 20, 1907, Ruef was summoned before
the grand jury, and he told the whole sordid
story of his relations with the supervisors and
with the public service corporations. At the
close of the session he was thanked by Heney
who appeared to be well satisfied with his testi-
mony. Months passed without anything occur-
ring to give indication of a breach between the
prosecution and the star witness. Yet perfect
harmony had not been maintained. When
Schmitz was on trial. Ruef, as he tells us in
his affidavit, informed the district attorney that
he would not make a good witness against the
defendant. "I told them," he says, "that as no
extortion had been committed I should be obliged
so to testify, and that if I made a truthful state-
ment of all the facts cross-examination would
demonstrate that no extortion whatever had been
committed by either Schmitz or myself."
He adds that the prosecution tried to persuade
him to change his testimony. Detective Burns
told him he was not keeping his contract, and
threatened him with prosecution. But the next
day Burns submitted to him a typewritten set of
questions which had been prepared by Heney,
and demanded that he should write his answers
thereto. Ruef did so. Subsequently he was
told by Burns in the presence of Dr. Kaplan that
his answers were satisfactory, and that he would
RUEF PLEADS GUILTY AND WHY 115
be called to the witness stand. "I told Burns,"
says Ruef, that I did not believe my answers and
proposed testimony, even as so written, would
do the prosecution any good, because while true,
it would open the doors for a full cross-examina-
tion by defendant's counsel, when all the facts
would come out, and that the larger part of the
same would be extremely favorable to Schmitz.
Burns said to me in the presence of Dr. Kaplan
that the prosecution would take its chances on
that and would take care of the cross-examina-
tion, and that Mr. Heney did guarantee that
nothing would be allowed to be brought out on
cross-examination unfavorable to the prosecu-
tion."
At this same interview Burns warned Ruef
against giving any testimony about the im-
munity contract. "I told Mr. Burns in the
presence of Dr. Kaplan," says Ruef, "that I
could not deny that agreement if properly ques-
tioned, but that the best thing to do in the mat-
ter would be to allow me to withdraw my plea
and have the case dismissed before I went upon
the stand as a witness in the case. This, Mr.
Burns said, the prosecution could not do as it
would affect the result in the Schmitz case. I
then asked Mr. Burns how, upon a proper cross-
examination, he or the prosecution could expect
to keep from the jury the facts relative to said