Los Angeles herald., 1907-08-28
PHONE CoMPANYs DEAL WITH
RUFF EXPOSED
DELMAs DEFENDS WITNESS FROM
HENEYs ATTACK
Judge Reproves Prosecuting Attorney
for His Rough Manner-case
May Go to Jury With
In Week
BY Associated Press.


phone company, was the chief witness Of
the day In the Glass bribery trial. A
portion Of his testimony was admittedly
very damaging to Glass.
I'm November of 1906" said Mr.. pills
bury, Il called the attention of Mr.. Glass
to newspaper reports that the Pacific
Telephone company had employed or was
about to employ Ruef, ostensibly as a
lawyer, and 1 asked him what it meant.
He told me 1t was true that the company
had engaged Ruef.
Il told him il Ruef was to be a
part OF the legal department of the COM
pany that would eliminate me from its
further service. He said that Ruef was
not employed in connection with my de-
partment, and he did not think 1 had any
just cause of complaint"
Answering question, Pillsbury de-
clared ne did not know what salary the
company had paid Ruef. There were those
present In the court room who recalled
that when he was before the grand jury
some months ago Mr.. Pillsbury testified
that when he discovered that Ruef was
on the pay roll for sum much larger
than his own salary he became SO an
gered that he threatened to resign, and
that thereupon the company increased
his pay.
Answering questions by Heney Mr..
Pillsbury declared that though he was.
during all Of the alleged bribery period, a
member of the executive committee of the
board of directors of the telephone cor
poration, he knew nothing of the bribing
of supervisors until after the earthuuake.
when he learned Of 1t through the news
papers; that then he, in his office, asked
Vice President Glass about it, but Glass
| asserted ignorance.
Il have never spoken to Mr.. Glass since
ne was arrested" concluded Pillsbury.
except to bow to him." He said that at
no meeting of the executive committee
attended by him was any discussion had
of the opposition offered by the Home
Telephone company.
Eaton Testifies
| Secretary-Treasurer F. w. Eaton of the
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph company
was called to the stand this morning He
testified again to the drawing by him of
about $4,000 worth. of checks in February
| of 1906 for which no vouchers were
turned in.
He did not know who ordered the checks
drawn or who signed them. The records
thereof were destroyed in the fire.
I Cashier William j. Kennedy was called.
He testified to the drawing of $4,000 and
$4,000 checks in February, and told of the
subsequent return to the company of
$1,000 or $500, inferentia1ly comprising the
bribe moneys returns by several SUPER
granting of the Home Telephone COM
pany's franchise application, according to
! the claim of the prosecution.
| Mr.. Heney introduced memoranda from
five local banks showing the withdrawal
of approximately $4,000 in February cor
responding to the total amount alleged
J to have been paid to the supervisors at
| that time.
| Thomas e. Sherwin, formerly travel
| ing auditor of the telephone company,
| testified to a similar $4,000 entry in the
books of the corporation, which he
was auditing at the time of their de-
struction in the April fire.
| The examination by Mr.. Heney of
John w. Gilkyson, assistant to the gem
eral superintendent of the telephone
company, developed rough incident
in the morning session. Mr.. Gilkyson,
who formerly was manager Of the San
Jose district and had general super
vision of the company's Santa Bar
bara business, was called purely as an
| incidental witness to establish the fact
that Louis Glass as general manager
was in control of the operating af
| fairs of the corporation prior to the
alleged bribery of the supervisors. He
| took a long time to answer questions
and showed no excess of willingness
to testify. Finally Heney. exasperated
| by the GOODNESS and slow-going of the
witness, beloved a question at him
and wound it up with a sarcastic query
as to whether he understood It,.
Delmas protested. your honor" he
said, II submit that this witness ought
not to be bullyragged."
"And 1 submit" shouted Heney "that
he ought to be bullyragged-if this
| is bullyragging. 1t is perfectly evil
dent to your honor that he is trying
to evade the questions by dodging."
'T do not know this Witness" said
Delmas; ct never saw him before But
1 submit that he is entitled to decent
treatment at the hands of counsel and
! to the protection of the court when
he does not get it,"
'He is getting decent treatment
| just the sort of treatment he needs"
said Heney.
Court Reproves Heney
| Judge Lawlor said: Counsel will
control his manner in addressing the
witness, and if the responses are not
promptly Forthcoming, counsel will sub
NIT that fact to the court and the
court will deal with it. Proceed"
'T have tried to control my man
ner your honor But we have been here
three weeks, dragging out evidence that
ought to have been forthcoming long
ago." Heney protested.
''Now proceed was the courts an
swer.
Percy Morgan, president or the Califor-
mia Wine association and formerly a
director of the telephone companys board
of directors and of it's executive commit
tee, was called. He testified, in support
of the claim that Glass and not the exec
utive committee authorized the bribing
of the supervisors, that at no meeting Of
the executive committee attended by him
was the matter of Home Telephone op-
position broached. Mr.. Morgan was in
Washington, D. c.. throughout the period
of the alleged bribing.
DR.. Charles Boxton, the former super
visor, was recalled by the prosecution
and required to repeat and did reafflrm,
his prior testimony to the effect that w.
j. Burns, the right hand man OF the
graft prosecutors, commanded him to
deny to the public that he had made a
confession, and urged him to swear to
false affidavit to that purport, ''if the
newspaper reporters crowded him too
Closely