"The System," As Uncovered by the San Francisco Graft ProsecutionHichborn, Franklin
History
"The System," As Uncovered by the San Francisco Graft Prosecution
Hichborn, Franklin
Political corruption -- California -- San Francisco; San Francisco (Calif.) -- Politics and government
When Schmitz's trial opened, District Attorney Langdon, Hiram Johnson,
all the rest of Heney's associates, urged that Ruef be put on the stand,
insisting that the case would be greatly strengthened if it could be
proved by Ruef that Schmitz had received half the extortion money.
Heney conceded the strength of this contention, but held, on the other
hand, that Ruef would lie so much about other things that he would do
more harm than good to the case. Personally, Heney insisted, he wanted
nothing to do with him.
Thus, in making his opening statement to the jury in the Schmitz case,
Heney refrained from stating that he expected to prove Schmitz received
any part of the money which had been paid to Ruef.
But of the break between Heney and Ruef, the public knew nothing. San
Francisco looked to see Ruef put on the stand. When the Prosecution
rested without calling this supposedly star witness, even the Defense
was taken by surprise and had to ask continuance until the following day
before calling witnesses.
Schmitz took the stand in his own behalf. He denied the statements which
his former Police Commissioners had made against him. The Mayor's story
of denial was soon told. Heney, on cross-examination asked:
"Did Ruef pay you any part of the $5,000 that has been testified he
received from the French restaurants?" and Schmitz replied: "I didn't
know that Mr. Ruef got any $5,000, nor did I receive any part of
it."[232]
And then, in detail, Schmitz denied that he had received any money from
Ruef, or had had any conversation with him regarding a "fee" which Ruef
had received from the French-restaurant keepers.
In rebuttal, Ruef was called to the stand.[233] "Did you," questioned
Heney, "in January or February, 1905, in this City and County of San
Francisco, at the house of Eugene E. Schmitz, the defendant, at number
2849 Fillmore street, give to Eugene E. Schmitz any money, and if so how
much, and in what kind of money?"
"I did," answered Ruef, "$2500 in currency."
"Did you, then and there, tell him," pursued Heney, "that it was his
share of the money you had received from the five French-restaurant
keepers?" "I didn't say to him," replied Ruef, "that it was his share of
the money which I had received from the French restaurants. I did say to
him that I had received from the French restaurants the sum of $5,000,
and that if he would accept half of it I should be glad to give it to
him. Thereupon I gave it to him."
Ruef testified further to paying Schmitz $1500 early in 1906, half of
the second payment made to him by the French-restaurant keepers.
The jurors before whom Mayor Schmitz was tried took one ballot only.
They found the defendant guilty of extortion as charged in the
indictment.
Following the verdict, Schmitz, who eighteen months before had, for the
third time been elected Mayor of San Francisco, was, as a convicted
felon, confined in the county jail.[234]
FOOTNOTES:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account