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

(0 User reviews)   1570
In Category - Government
Hichborn, Franklin, 1869-1963 Project Gutenberg 2013 Not confirmed
Political corruption -- California -- San Francisco; San Francisco (Calif.) -- Politics and government Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words 190,457
Reading time 829 min
Text sections 25

This digital edition of "The System," As Uncovered by the San Francisco Graft Prosecution — Inside the Classic is described by source-level measurements including 190,457 words, 13 hr 49 min estimated reading time, and 25 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 19.6 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Political corruption -- California -- San Francisco,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Franklin Hichborn's 1915 exposé of San Francisco's graft prosecution uses a prosecutorial narrative voice, shifting from methodical documentation of political corruption to dramatic courtroom confrontations, with recurring emphasis on public duty and the mechanics of bribery.
Share
Editorial Edition Score 4.9/5

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated
  • Description quality20 pts
  • Title & short description10 pts
  • Source metadata20 pts
  • Text length15 pts
  • Chapters / structure15 pts
  • EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

Read the Text

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 mean that the new party had the unanimous approval of the labor unions, or of the rank and file of organized labor. A considerable faction, with P. H. McCarthy, president of the State Building Trades Council, even then a dominating figure in San Francisco labor circles, at its head, advised against the movement, and opposed the new party candidates not only in 1901, but in 1903 when Schmitz was a candidate for re-election.

On the other hand, the new party had in the beginning the support of the Coast Seamen's Journal, published at San Francisco, and one of the most influential labor publications on the Pacific Coast. It had, too, the advocacy of several earnest Labor leaders.

Very frankly, such leaders questioned the ultimate consequences of the movement, expressing fears which time was to justify. But to them the situation offered no alternative. Their support and influence went to the new party as an expedient of the times, not as the beginning of a permanent political organization.

But the movement, once started, got beyond their control. During the first five years of Union-Labor party activities in San Francisco many of these original supporters were forced, first into silence and finally into open repudiation of the methods of the Union-Labor party administration.

In the meantime, members of the McCarthy faction, which had resisted the organization of the party, and had opposed it at the 1901 and 1903 elections, became its strong partisans. This element supported the party ticket at the 1905 election; and in 1907, and again in 1909, when McCarthy was himself the Union-Labor party candidate for Mayor.

But the Union-Labor party ticket which McCarthy headed did not have the united support of labor leaders who had organized the movement. Indeed, labor leaders whom the McCarthy faction in 1901 called "scabs" for organizing the Union-Labor party, were, by the same men who had condemned them in 1901, denounced as "scabs" during the 1909 campaign for not supporting the Union-Labor party candidates.

From the beginning, the Union-Labor party had the support of elements outside the labor-union movement. Much of this support came from citizens who, regardless of their attitude on trade-unionism, were dissatisfied with the old parties. The situation offered exceptional opportunity for the political manipulator. But the one man with the political vision to see the possibilities of the third-party movement, was not a member of a labor union. He was a lawyer who had already attained some prominence in San Francisco politics--Abraham Ruef.[3]

Ruef was quick to see the potentialities of the political Frankenstein which groping labor leaders had brought into being. He knew that _they_ could not control their creation; he knew that _he_ could. He did not overestimate his powers. He managed the new party's 1901 campaign.[4] Under his direction, success was won for a cause that had been deemed hopeless. The genius of Abraham Ruef made Eugene E. Schmitz Mayor of San Francisco.[5]

In practical acknowledgment of Ruef's services, Schmitz issued an open letter, in which he stated himself privileged to consider Ruef his friendly counsellor.[6] The issuance of that letter made Ruef the recognized political representative of the Union-Labor party administration, a position which he held until the estrangement of himself and Schmitz under the strain of the graft prosecution.[7]

But the government of San Francisco did not pass entirely under control of the Union-Labor party until four years after Schmitz's elevation to the Mayoralty.

During the era of Union-Labor party power in San Francisco, the Mayor and the eighteen members of the Board of Supervisors were elected every two years.[8] Schmitz, under Ruef's management, was re-elected in 1903. But the Union-Labor party failed at that election, as it had in 1901, to elect a majority of the Board of Supervisors. Many of the commissions, on the other hand, through appointments by the mayor, had, by 1903, passed completely under Union-Labor party control.

Gradually, the opinion grew in San Francisco that the management of the departments was unsatisfactory, if not corrupt. This opinion, in 1905, when Schmitz was for a third time the Union-Labor party candidate for Mayor, found expression in fusion of the Republican and Democratic parties to bring about the defeat of the Union-Labor party nominees.

Franklin Hichborn opens his account of the San Francisco graft prosecution with a call to civic responsibility, quoting Walter Macarthur's demand that citizens give "moral support to the officers of the law." This epigraph sets the tone for a work that blends investigative reporting with legal drama. Hichborn's narrative voice is that of a meticulous chronicler, assembling evidence from grand jury testimony, letters, and engineering reports. He presents the struggle over the overhead trolley franchise as a central conflict, quoting Rudolph Spreckels' detailed objections to the system's unsightliness and danger. The prose is dense with factual exposition, yet punctuated by moments of direct quotation that bring the participants' voices to the fore.

A Documentary Style

Hichborn constructs his narrative largely from primary sources: grand jury testimony, letters to the press, and engineering reports. He reproduces Spreckels' statement that the overhead trolley was "unsightly" and increased "the risk of fire," and includes engineer Stutt's comparison of construction costs. This documentary approach gives the work an evidentiary weight, as if Hichborn is building a case rather than telling a story. The prose is plain and declarative, avoiding rhetorical flourishes. When he writes that Ruef "testified before the Grand Jury that the water deal would have been the most important," the reader is placed in the courtroom, hearing testimony secondhand. The effect is cumulative: each quoted document adds a brick to the wall of evidence.

Shifts in Pace: From Report to Drama

The pacing of the text varies markedly. Early chapters move slowly, detailing the formation of the Union Labor Party and the composition of the Board of Supervisors. Hichborn catalogs franchises and deals with a steady, almost bureaucratic rhythm. But as the narrative approaches the graft prosecution itself, the pace quickens. The chapter titles become more urgent: "Ruef a Fugitive," "The Trapping of the Supervisors." In these sections, Hichborn shifts from exposition to narration, describing raids and confessions. The language becomes more vivid: the supervisors are "trapped," Ruef is a "fugitive." This change in tempo mirrors the escalating stakes of the real-life events, drawing the reader from the tedium of municipal governance into the thrill of a criminal investigation.

Recurring Motifs: Public Duty and the Cost of Reform

Throughout the excerpts, a recurring theme is the tension between private profit and public good. Hichborn repeatedly emphasizes the financial stakes: Ruef told Gallagher there would be "as much as $1,000,000" in the water deal. The overhead trolley controversy is framed as a choice between corporate convenience and civic aesthetics. Spreckels' testimony that he felt it his duty "to protect the interests of this community" echoes Macarthur's opening call for individual responsibility. Hichborn does not editorialize, but his selection of material highlights the moral calculus of reform. The reader is left to weigh the cost of corruption against the price of prosecution, a balance that the book's structure keeps constantly in view.

Readers approaching this work should attend to the interplay between Hichborn's documentary method and his dramatic instincts. The book rewards those who read with an eye for the way evidence is marshaled and how shifts in narrative tempo signal turning points in the prosecution. It is less a history than a brief, and its power lies in the accumulation of detail rather than in sweeping conclusions.

The old prosecutorial voice in Hichborn’s book felt like watching someone slowly turn over rocks, patient and a little grim. There’s a similar, stranger patience in the nineteenth-century muckraking of Stephen H. Branch's Alligator, Vol. 1 no. 07, June 5, 1858 — Inside the Classic, though its temper runs hotter. I found myself missing that older, rougher outrage. Both leave a quiet ache for the kind of civic nerve we don’t quite see anymore.

There are no reviews for this eBook.

0
0 out of 5 (0 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
There are no comments for this eBook.

Reader reflection

How will you remember this book?

Save your reaction, strongest insight, and memorable passage.

Your progress 0 / 10
1

Which reading stage best describes you?

2

What was your overall reaction to the book?

3

Would you encourage someone else to read it?

4

Did the language feel accessible?

Related eBooks