43 chapters
8 hour read
Selected Chapters
43 chapters
“THE SYSTEM” AS UNCOVERED BY The San Francisco Graft Prosecution
“THE SYSTEM” AS UNCOVERED BY The San Francisco Graft Prosecution
BY FRANKLIN HICHBORN (Author of “The Story of the California Legislature of 1909”; “The Story of the California Legislature of 1911”; and “The Story of the California Legislature of 1913.”) “It is well enough, my fellow-citizens, to meet as we do to-night, and to applaud the sentiments of patriotism, and to echo the voice of indignation uttered upon this rostrum. But another and more imperative duty devolves upon every one of us individually, and that is to give his and her moral support to the
1 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
PREFACE.
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,
7 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER I. The Union Labor Party Movement.
CHAPTER I. The Union Labor Party Movement.
Eugene E. Schmitz [1] was elected Mayor of San Francisco in November, 1901. He had been nominated by the Union-Labor party. This party was organized after labor disturbances which had divided San Francisco into militant factions, with organized labor on the one side and organized capital on the other. [2] The convention which had nominated Schmitz was made up in the main of delegates who had affiliations with labor unions and were in close sympathy with the labor-union movement. But this did not
5 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER II. The Ruef Board of Supervisors.
CHAPTER II. The Ruef Board of Supervisors.
No observer of San Francisco politics, not even Ruef himself, had expected the entire Union-Labor party ticket to be elected. The election of the Supervisors was the greatest surprise of all. Ruef, with his political intimates, had selected the Supervisorial candidates, but more with a view to hold the organized labor vote for Schmitz than with idea of the fitness of the candidates for the duties involved in managing the affairs of a municipality of 500,000 population. [15] Not one of the eighte
4 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER III. The San Francisco Ruef Ruled.
CHAPTER III. The San Francisco Ruef Ruled.
The decade ending 1910 was for California an era of extraordinary enterprise and development. A third transcontinental railroad, the Western Pacific, was completed; vast land-holdings as large as 40,000 acres in a body were cut up into small tracts and sold to settlers; waters brought to the land by vast irrigation enterprises increased the land’s productiveness three and even ten fold; petroleum fields, enormously rich, were opened up and developed; the utilization of the falling waters of moun
9 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER IV. San Francisco After the Fire.
CHAPTER IV. San Francisco After the Fire.
The great San Francisco fire was brought under control Friday, April 20, 1906. The Sunday following, the first step was taken toward getting the scattered Board of Supervisors together. George B. Keane, clerk of the board, is authority for the statement that the meeting place was in a room back of Supervisor McGushin’s saloon. [48] The ashes of the burned city were still hot; the average citizen was thinking only of the next meal and shelter for the night for himself and dependents. But the publ
15 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER V. Graft Prosecution Opens.
CHAPTER V. Graft Prosecution Opens.
Three days after the announcement of his plans, District Attorney Langdon appointed Heney to a regular deputyship. But even before Langdon had taken office, as early as December, 1905, Fremont Older, editor of the San Francisco Bulletin, had suggested to Heney that he undertake the prosecution of those responsible for conditions in San Francisco. The Bulletin had been the most fearless and consistent of the opponents of the Schmitz-Ruef regime. [75] After Ruef’s complete triumph at the November
7 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER VI. Ruef’s Fight to Take the District Attorney’s Office.
CHAPTER VI. Ruef’s Fight to Take the District Attorney’s Office.
The impaneling of the Grand Jury was to have been completed on October 26. Heney was appointed Assistant District Attorney on October 24. Ruef, to secure control of the District Attorney’s office before the Grand Jury could be sworn, had little time to act. But he was equal to the emergency. Gallagher removed Langdon and named Ruef as District Attorney the day after Heney’s appointment and the day before the impaneling of the Grand Jury was to have been completed. Ruef had, however, considered L
7 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER VII. Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled.
CHAPTER VII. Oliver Grand Jury Impaneled.
The hard fight of the morning of October 26th to prevent Ruef taking possession of the District Attorney’s office had been carried on practically without the general public being aware of the proceedings. Langdon had been suspended early in the evening of the previous day. The temporary order restraining Ruef from interfering with the District Attorney had been signed at 5 o’clock in the morning. The general public found by the morning papers that Ruef had attempted to seize the office, but of t
8 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER VIII. Ruef Loses the District Attorney’s Office.
CHAPTER VIII. Ruef Loses the District Attorney’s Office.
While the impaneling of the Grand Jury was going on before Judge Graham, Ruef was disputing Langdon’s title to the office of District Attorney before Judge Seawell. In these proceedings Samuel M. Shortridge appeared with Ruef’s attorney, Ach, and Deputy City Attorney Baggett, not as amicus curiæ, but as Ach’s associate in the legal contest to force Langdon out of office. The principal feature of Ruef’s case was the introduction of affidavits, signed by sixteen members [113] of the Board of Super
1 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER IX. Ruef and Schmitz Indicted.
CHAPTER IX. Ruef and Schmitz Indicted.
Within twenty-four hours after organizing, the Grand Jury had begun investigation into graft charges. Tenderloin extortion, especially in connection with the so-called “French Restaurants,” was the first matter taken up. The inquiry involved both Schmitz and Ruef. The term “French Restaurant” in San Francisco is used in connection with a particular type of assignation house. These establishments contain a restaurant on the ground floor, and sometimes banquet hall and private rooms without assign
7 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER X. Fight to Evade Trial.
CHAPTER X. Fight to Evade Trial.
The indictments against Schmitz and Ruef were returned November 15. Schmitz reached San Francisco on his return from Europe on November 29. [133] He at once joined with Ruef in the fight to prevent the issue raised by his indictment being presented to a trial jury. The two defendants were to have been arraigned on December 3, but at their earnest solicitation arraignment [134] was continued until December 6. On that day the plans of the defendants became apparent. It was seen that they would div
5 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XI. Ruef a Fugitive.
CHAPTER XI. Ruef a Fugitive.
Three months [142] after his indictment in the “French Restaurant” extortion cases—three months of continuous fighting to evade the issue—Ruef found his last technical obstruction, as far as the State courts were concerned, swept away, and was forced to enter his plea to the charge contained in the indictment. He pleaded “not guilty.” His trial was set for March 5. Up to the day before the date fixed for the trial to begin, nothing had come up to indicate further delay. On March 4, however, Ruef
6 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XII. Trapping of the Supervisors.
CHAPTER XII. Trapping of the Supervisors.
Months before the Oliver Grand Jury was convened, it was common gossip in San Francisco that the members of the Board of Supervisors were taking money from the public service corporations. [154] Belief of this had got beyond the stage of mere newspaper accusation. It had become the firmly-settled conviction of the law-abiding element of the community. For this reason, as the months wore away in technical wrangling in the “French Restaurant” extortion cases, the public became impatient that time
13 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XIII. Confessions of the Supervisors.
CHAPTER XIII. Confessions of the Supervisors.
The resignation of Supervisor Duffey to take charge of the municipal department of public works, and of Supervisor Wilson [167] to take the office of State Railroad Commissioner, left sixteen members of the elected Schmitz-Ruef Board of Supervisors at the time of the exposures of the graft prosecution. The sixteen, after the surrender at their last secret caucus, made full confession of their participation in the gains of the organized betrayal of the city. Supervisor Wilson added his confession
11 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XIV. The Source of the Bribe Money.
CHAPTER XIV. The Source of the Bribe Money.
After the confessions of the Supervisors, the Grand Jurors had definite, detailed knowledge of the corruption of the Union-Labor party administration. The Grand Jurors knew: (1) That bribes aggregating over $200,000 had been paid the Supervisors. (2) That of this large amount, $169,350 passed from Ruef to Gallagher and by Gallagher had been divided among members of the board. The balance, the evidence showed, had been paid to the Supervisors direct by T. V. Halsey of the Pacific States Telephone
12 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XV. Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion.[207]
CHAPTER XV. Ruef Pleads Guilty to Extortion.[207]
While the Supervisors were making full confessions of their participation in the bribery transactions, and the Grand Jury was dragging from unwilling promoters, capitalists and corporation employees information as to the source of the corruption funds, Ruef’s days and nights were devoted to consideration of plans for his own safety. Ruef, after his arrest and confinement under Elisor Biggy, became one of the scramblers of his broken organization to save himself. But Ruef was more clever, more fa
18 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XVI. Schmitz Convicted of Extortion.
CHAPTER XVI. Schmitz Convicted of Extortion.
One week after Ruef had plead guilty to the charge of extortion, his co-defendant, Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz, indicted jointly with Ruef, was brought to trial, under indictment No. 305, to which Ruef had entered his plea of guilty. Hiram W. Johnson and J. J. Dwyer appeared with Heney and Langdon for the Prosecution. The defense was represented by the firm of Campbell, Metson & Drew, assisted by John J. Barrett and Charles Fairall, all prominent at the San Francisco bar. The preliminaries w
6 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XVII. Schmitz Ousted From Office.
CHAPTER XVII. Schmitz Ousted From Office.
The confession of the Supervisors to bribery had no sooner become known than angling for control of the municipal government under its prospective reorganization began. [235] The public-service corporation that had during the 1905 municipal campaign contributed to the campaign funds of both the Union Labor party and the opposing “Reform” fusion organization, had no care as to who reorganized, or in what name the reorganization was accomplished, so long as they continued in control. These corpora
16 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XVIII. The Real Fight Begins.
CHAPTER XVIII. The Real Fight Begins.
Nine months after Heney assumed his duties as Assistant District Attorney, Mayor Taylor named the successors of the Ruef-Schmitz Board of Supervisors. In those nine months much had been accomplished. Ruef had plead guilty to extortion and had made partial confession of his relations with the public-service corporations. The Schmitz-Ruef Supervisors had made full and free confession, and had been removed from office. Mayor Schmitz had been convicted of extortion, ousted from office, and pending h
19 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XIX. The Glass Trials and Conviction.
CHAPTER XIX. The Glass Trials and Conviction.
On the day that Mayor Schmitz was sentenced to serve five years in the penitentiary for extortion, six jurors were secured to try Louis Glass, for bribery. Mr. Glass had been indicted with T. V. Halsey for alleged bribery transactions growing out of the opposition of the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company to competition in the San Francisco field. Mr. Halsey’s business was to watch, and, so far as lay in his power, to block, such opposition telephone companies as might seek entrance
8 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XX. The Ford Trials and Acquittals.
CHAPTER XX. The Ford Trials and Acquittals.
The conviction of Glass, following immediately upon the overthrow of the Schmitz-Ruef municipal administration, and coupled with the pitiful position in which, all recognized, Halsey would find himself before a jury, stirred the graft defense to astonishing activity. Although it developed later that the defendants had had their agents at work even before the bringing of indictments, [294] little was suspected of the extent of their labors until after the Glass trials. During the trials of Genera
18 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XXI. The San Francisco Election of 1907.
CHAPTER XXI. The San Francisco Election of 1907.
Scarcely had the prosecution overcome the delaying tactics of the defense, and forced graft cases to trial, than District Attorney Langdon had to defend title to his office at the polls. Langdon had taken office in January, 1906. His term was to expire in January, 1908. The municipal election, at which Mr. Langdon’s successor was to be elected, was to be held in November. At that time was to be elected besides the District Attorney, the Mayor, Supervisors and practically all the other municipal
14 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XXII. Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef.
CHAPTER XXII. Higher Courts Free Schmitz and Ruef.
On January 8, 1908, the municipal officials elected with Mayor Taylor assumed the duties of their office. That day, Ruef was taken from the custody of the elisor and locked up in the county jail. In the jail with him were Schmitz, convicted of the extortion charge to which Ruef had pleaded guilty, and Glass, who had been convicted of bribery. The following day, January 9, the Appellate Court, for the First District, handed down a decision in the Schmitz extortion case, which, later sustained by
8 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XXIII. The Defense Becomes Arrogant.
CHAPTER XXIII. The Defense Becomes Arrogant.
The prosecution’s reverses in the Appellate and the Supreme Courts were followed by startling changes of policy on the part of the defendants. The officials of public service corporations, who by every technical device within the ingenuity of the best legal talent that could be purchased, had for months resisted trial, suddenly became clamorous for their trials to begin. Abe Ruef, who had been counted, by the public at least, as friendly to the prosecution, openly broke with the District Attorne
15 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XXIV. Jury-Fixing Uncovered.
CHAPTER XXIV. Jury-Fixing Uncovered.
From the beginning of the graft trials rumors of efforts to tamper with the trial jurors had been current. The failures of juries to agree in the face of what to the man on the street appeared to be conclusive evidence, lent more or less color to these reports. But it was not until Ruef’s trial [389] for offering a bribe in the over-head trolley transaction opened, that the jury-fixing scandal took definite shape. Then, came sensational exposures, involving indictments and trials for jury-fixing
9 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XXV. The Shooting of Heney.
CHAPTER XXV. The Shooting of Heney.
In spite of the sensational events following the trapping of Blake, the work of impaneling a jury to try Ruef went steadily on. After months of effort, [405] a jury was finally sworn to try the case. Again the telling of the sordid story of the city’s betrayal commenced. Gallagher, the pivotal witness, had begun his sorry recital. In the midst of it occurred what those who had followed the methods of the graft defense had long predicted. Assistant District Attorney Heney was shot down. [406] The
12 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XXVI. The Calhoun Trial.
CHAPTER XXVI. The Calhoun Trial.
The trial of Patrick Calhoun for offering a bribe to Supervisor Fred Nicholas began immediately after the holidays, following the Ruef trials. The trial brought into play all the machinery of the opposition at its worst to the prosecution. At all points the defense was carried on on a larger scale than at the former trials. There were more and better lawyers employed by the defendant; there were more thugs in evidence in the courtroom; there was greater activity on the part of the detectives, sp
12 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XXVII. The San Francisco Election of 1909.
CHAPTER XXVII. The San Francisco Election of 1909.
Scarcely had the disagreeing jury in the Calhoun case been discharged than the Graft Prosecution was again called upon to meet the graft defense at the polls. Langdon’s second term was to expire the following January. His successor was to be elected in November. Mr. Langdon refused positively to be a candidate to succeed himself. The supporters of the prosecution turned to Heney as the most available candidate to oppose the elements united against them. Heney did not want to be a candidate. The
15 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XXVIII. Dismissal of the Graft Cases.
CHAPTER XXVIII. Dismissal of the Graft Cases.
At the time of Mr. Fickert’s election to the District Attorney’s office, the second trial of Patrick Calhoun for offering a bribe was well under way. As at the other graft trials, there had been delays [457] so that after five months the jury was only half complete. That the trial could not be finished before Mr. Fickert assumed the duties of his office became evident. The case was, for that reason, on December 9, continued until January 10, in order that Mr. Fickert might participate in the sel
9 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XXIX. Ruef’s Last Refuge Fails.
CHAPTER XXIX. Ruef’s Last Refuge Fails.
That a jury of twelve men had found Ruef guilty of bribe-giving did not mean necessarily that the broken boss would be confined at San Quentin, the prison to which he had been sentenced to serve his fourteen-year term. Indeed, the probabilities were very much against his suffering any such indignity. Ruef had, at the test, continued “true to his class”; he had not assisted the State in bringing the bribe-givers to account. Men, powerful in financial, social and political circles were unquestiona
11 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
CHAPTER XXX. Conclusion.
CHAPTER XXX. Conclusion.
After the McCarthy-Fickert election there were rumors that the graft defense, flushed with its successes in the overthrow of the prosecution, would resort to reprisals, by singling out persons prominent in the movement to enforce the law, for trumped-up charges and possible indictment. But aside from an abortive attempt to make it appear that former Supervisor Gallagher had fled the State at the behest of William J. Burns, reprisals of this nature were not attempted. The reprisals came in more s
9 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
JUDGE LAWLOR’S RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS GRAFT CASES, AUGUST 3, 1910.
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 e
12 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
HOW THE SUPERVISORS WERE BRIBED.
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 busin
11 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
GALLAGHER’S ORDER REMOVING LANGDON FROM OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
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 spec
12 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
THE RUEF “IMMUNITY CONTRACT.”
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, an
5 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
“IMMUNITY CONTRACT” GIVEN SUPERVISORS.
“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
2 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
DISTRICT ATTORNEY LANGDON’S PLAN FOR REORGANIZING THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
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 be
5 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
ROOSEVELT’S LETTER TO SPRECKELS ON THE GRAFT SITUATION.
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
5 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
GOVERNOR JOHNSON’S STATEMENT REGARDING RUEF’S IMPRISONMENT.
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 publ
10 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
SCHMITZ’S ATTEMPT TO CONTROL SAN FRANCISCO RELIEF FUNDS.
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 functio
1 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS OF PROSECUTION FROM JUNE, 1906, TO MAY 17, 1909
RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS OF PROSECUTION FROM JUNE, 1906, TO MAY 17, 1909
(As shown by testimony taken at trial of Patrick Calhoun.) RECEIPTS. 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 sa
8 minute read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter
NOTES
NOTES
Schmitz, previous to his election, was employed as a musician in a San Francisco theater. His connection with organized labor came through membership in the Musicians’ Union. He had no intention of aspiring to the Mayor’s chair until Ruef suggested it to him. The San Francisco labor strike of 1901 arose out of the refusal of the organized teamsters to deliver goods to a non-union express agency. The Employers’ Association refused to treat with the men collectively. Other organizations went out i
2 hour read
Read Chapter
Read Chapter