The San Francisco call., 1908-03-17
FAILS TO WEAKEN
BURNS EVIDENCE
Testimony of Detective in the
Tevis Libel Suit Not Shaken
by Heushall
Fremont Older Testifies That
Bulletin Publication Was
Without Malice


Bay Cities water company. who has
been associated with Assistant Dis I
trict Attorney Hoff Cook since the be- |
ginning of the Tevis- Bulletin libel /
suit. was given full reign yesterday |
afternoon, but failed absolutely to dis
credit the testimony of Detective !
William j. Burns, who was on the wit
ness stand.
Cook few minutes before had di-
rected a few brief questions to Burns
relative to Ruefs immunity contract,
and then announced he would not fur
ther cross examine the witness.
There are number of questions
that should be put to the witness at
this time. put in Attorney Henshall.
and | would like the Indulgence of the
court to that extent"
Judge Dooling asked the opinion of
Cook and the latter replied:
II can not further cross examine the
witness at this time. My instructions
from the district attorneys Office are
that must not continue to cross
examination.
We'll, if the district attorney objects
to the cross examination of the wit
ness, of course, / shall not continue
it, nor do | wish to do so,' said At
torney Henshall
THE instructions are exactly as I
have stated them," interjected Hoff
Cook.
JOHNSON QUESTIONS STATEMENT
THE district attorney or any one
connected with the other side in this
case are welcome to continue their
cross examination of the witness un-
til doomsday. il they cnoose, IL they
are of the opinion they can in any way
discredit the testimony Inat has been
given by him. Furthermore, we ques-
tion very much any such statement
as coming from the Office of the dis
trict attorney said Attorney Hiram
w. Johnson with much feeling.
Hon Cook was on his feet instantly.
Il don't propose to be insulted in
this manner. l have stated that I have
instructions from the district attorney
to cease cross examination of this wit
ness. / resent any such statements
from anybody connected with this case
as those made by Mr.. Johnson he
said.
Well see whether or not such in
structions have been issued by the
district attorney" replied Johnson
Permission was then granted Hen
shall to continue the cross examina-
tion of Burns, and in which he failed
to discredit any of the witness former
testimony.
by whom are you employed in this
graft prosecution?" asked Henshall,
carefully Ieelln& MS way
Rudolph Spreckels," answered Burns
Immediately
How much are you being paid?"
AFTER ALL GRAFTERs
Before Attorney Matt l. Sullivan had
time to object to the question Burns
/ replied:
Il decline to answer any such ques-
ton, Mr.. Henshall."
Asked If he (Burnsl were after any
one in particular in the graft prosecu-
tion the witness replied In the mega
J tive.
Against whom were you employed to
/ get evidence?" continued Henshall.
Every person connected in any way
with the municipal graft in San Fran
cisco. Every CRATER. crook and thief"
Were you employed on the basis of
being paid certain sum upon the com
pletion Of such work; that is when, as
you say, you have put every CRATER in
the penitentiarye"
Il am being paid by the year." an
| swered Burns.
rs 1T not fact that you are also
employed by the district attorney in
this connection?'' asked Henshall
loudly.
1T is not fact" replied Burns with
equally as much vim as Henshall had
employed to put the question. 'I often
confer with the district attorney, but
as for being paid by him in any man
ner there is nothing of the sort
PACKARD DRAWS UP AFFIDAVIT
i Burns was then asked if he had at
any time obtained an affidavit from
:. Ruef as to the truthfulness of Ruef's
confession made to Burns realtive to
the Bay Cities water company. Burns
replied he had and that Ruef had also
stated over the phone to him that all
assertions previously made by him
relative to the Bay Cities company
were true. At the time Ruef made that
admission over the phone Burns and
Older were at one end of the phone
and Eustace Cullinan, editorial writer
for the Bulletin, and Ruef were al
the other end.
Burns was then handed a copy OF
AN alleged affidavit made by Ruef and
asked to identify 1T as copy of the
) original presented to Ruef fol-
his signature. Burns answered that ir
certain features it differed from the
, one he thought had been presented tc
Ruef.
At that point HenshalI demanded the
original affidavit presented to Ruef be
, presented and asked the court to sc
order the attorneys for Crothers anc
Older Attorney Sullivan replied b.
, asking Henshall to state from what
, source the affidavit he presented hat
! come and Henshall, after a display OF
: discontinue admitted 1t had beer
drawn up by Tevis' personal attorney
H. l.. Packard.
] PUBLISHED WITHOUT MALICE
Fremont Older. managing editor O.
t the Bulletin and named as one of tn,
| defendants in the present suit, wa!
placed upon the stand toward tn,
close of the proceedings. He testified
as to his interest in the graft prose
Z cution since long before the exposure,
T came which resulted in the bringing
of Francis j. Heney and William J
Burns to this city.
n Older freely admitted responsibilit,
Z for the publication of the alleged libel
e ous article, the cause of the presen
0 suit, and said that it's publication wa
d in good faith and with justifable end
e in view and without malice. Olde
e also referred to his faith in James u
4 Phelan and his (Olders) paramount
Q belief in the Hetch Hetchy water sys
20 LTso xrfc s<.l