tag="{http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml}a">269

XX. The Ford Trials and Acquittals 279 XXI. The San Francisco Election of 1907 300 XXII. Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef 320 XXIII. The Defense Becomes Arrogant 335 XXIV. Jury Fixing Uncovered 357 XXV. The Shooting of Heney 370 XXVI. The Calhoun Trial 388 XXVII. The San Francisco Election of 1909 405 XXVIII. Dismissal of the Graft Cases 425 XXIX. Ruef’s Last Refuge Fails 440 XXX. Conclusion 455

APPENDIX.

Judge Lawlor’s Ruling in Motion to Dismiss Graft Cases	i
How the Supervisors Were Bribed	vii
Gallagher’s Order Removing Langdon from Office of District Attorney	xii
The Ruef “Immunity Contract”	xix
“Immunity Contract” Given Supervisors	xxi
District Attorney Langdon’s Plan for Reorganizing the Municipal Government	xxii
Roosevelt’s Letter to Spreckels on the Graft Situation	xxv
Governor Johnson’s Statement Regarding Ruef’s Imprisonment	xxviii
Schmitz’s Attempt to Control San Francisco’s Relief Funds	xxxiii
Receipts and Disbursements of the Graft Prosecution	xxxiv

---

PREFACE.

A tethered bull does not know that he is tied until he attempts to go beyond the rope’s limits.

A community does not feel the grip of the “System” until it attempts resistance. Then it knows.

San Francisco during the Ruef-Schmitz regime was no more under the heel of the “System” than when other “bosses” dominated; no more so than to-day; no more so than other communities have been and are.

The political “boss” is merely the visible sign of the “System’” existence. However powerful he may appear, he is, after all, but agent for the “System.” The “boss” develops power, does the “System’s” work until he is repudiated by the people, when another “boss,” usually in the name of “reform,” takes his place.

But the second “boss” serves the same “System.” Ruef entered San Francisco politics as a “reformer.” He supplanted other “bosses.” But Ruef in his turn served the “System” they had served.

San Francisco, when Ruef had reached his point of greatest possible power, rose against him. The “System” was not immediately concerned. Ruef had lived his day; the hour for another “boss” to succeed him had come. But San Francisco proposed to get at those back of the “boss”; to get at the “System.” And then San Francisco found the “System” more powerful than herself; more powerful than the State of California.

And San Francisco was beaten down, humiliated, made to understand that within her borders the laws could not be enforced against those to whom the “System” granted immunity from punishment.

To secure evidence against bribe-givers, the State granted immunity to bribe-takers who confessed their crimes and joined with the State to bring larger criminals to justice. And the “System’s” agents cried outrage that bribe-takers should go free of punishment.

But the “System” granted immunity from punishment to those who had bribed. And the apologists for the “System” will tolerate no criticism of this sort of immunity.

Other communities have risen against the “System’s” agents, the “bosses,” and the “bosses” have given place to other agents. But few communities, if any, have attacked the “System” as did San Francisco. Had they done so, unquestionably they would have found themselves as ineffective against corruption as San Francisco has been shown to be.

The “System” is confined to no particular State or locality; it permeates our entire