The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-05-21
WAR ON GRAFT
BEGUN BEFORE
TROLLEY DEAL
Heney Meets Accusation That
Prosecution Was Commenced
as Attack on Calhoun
SpreckeIs Testiies That Cruz
sade Annotated Alleged Crime
of Traction Magnate
BY PAUL SINSHEIMER

Francis J. Heney met the accusa-
ton that the prosecution was begun
at the instigation of Rudolph Spreck-
els for the purpose of fndicting Pat
rick Calhoun by eliciting the testimony
Yesterday afternoon that the investi-
cation into graft had been undertaken
before the United Railroads negotiated
the trolley permit from the super
visors. The testimony was given by
Spreckels. who occupied the stand for
"a few moments during the morning
and the entire afternoon.
rWhen did you first ask Mr.. Heney
TO undertake the prosecution" asked
Heney.
In February. 1906" replied the wit
nat did Mr. Heney say?" the
prosecutor then asked.
He told me- answered spreckels.
that he was occupied with government
cases and did not believe he could
DO it,"
When did you next take the matter
up with Mr.. Heney?"
I'm April. 1906" replied Spreckels.
q
committed any crime?" inquired Heney.
1T was" responded the witness.
Did YOU at that time have any
knowledge of crimes committed by Mr..
Calhoun or any other corporation Off
cials2"
II did not" answered Spreckels.
What was your object in beginning
the prosecution
1T was TO break up the corrupt ad-
ministration. 1t was my idea to prose-
cute Schmitz and Ruef
Did you at any time request Mr..
Henev TO prosecute Mr.. Calhoun"
II did not" came the answer.
STATEMENT OF EXPENSES
The statement of the expenditures
entailed in the investigation was veri-
ned by Robert .. BOlee, an accountant
10 Spreckels' employ. Earl Rogers
sought TO have only the first page Of
this record placed in evidence K con-
rained an item showing a payment of
s23.S2S.22 TO the "E J. Heney ac-
count Ieney insisted. however, that
the explanatory items be placed in evil
dence as Well These showed that the
expenditure had been for Heney's Of
nee expenses and for those who as
sisted him. Spreckels repeated his
statement that Heney had received no
compensation
Mr.. EIeney said S9reckeis testified.
'rhat il I was willing TO undertake
Tie investigation. he was just as loyal
a eitizen and would give his services
NJ lhout fee"
The record showed that the total ex-
penditure had been S213. 591.50, of which
sl3S .478-05 had been paid by Spreckels
and the balance by other persons whose
aaIpes were withheld.
what is this item Of sl7.500 charged
Is a separate account Of William ].
Burns2" inquired Earl Rogers.
That represents, responded Spreck-
els. $40, 900 paid TO Burns under the
original agreement Mr.. Burns stipu-
lated that he would not undertake the
work unless his family were provided
for in case be lost his life. He desired
$4,000 to pay of a mortgage on a
piece of property so that il could be
left free TO his family. The other
s. 500 was paid to Golden NJ Roy for
aiding in trapping supervisors"
PAYMENTS TO HENEY's PARTNER
Rogers inquired at some length into
the payments TO C. W. Cobb, Heney's
law partner. of $4,000.
1T was agreed that Mr.. Cobb should
receive sum equal to that which his
law practice had brought him." ex-
planned Spreckels, and it was stipu
lated that II was for Mr.. Cobb alone"
explained, was arranged by a board
Of arbitration. OF which James d. Phe-
ian and Charles S. Wheeler were mem
bers.
At this stage of the proceedings an
unwritten chapter of the early graft
investigation was revealed Rogers
asked about 2 series of $50 payments
TO Thomas LOnergan.
.'Lonergan was employed at a salary
Of $50 a week." said Spreckels. by the
Metropolitan electrical construction
company through Tim Sullivan and
Mr.. Cartwright"
This organization, it appears, was a
fake concern. formed merely for the
purpose of cultivating Supervisor Lon
ergan. It was dissolved when Loner-
gan was trapped in the skating rink
deal.
when the witness was again turned
os-er TO Heney the prosecutor inquired
n to the visits OF Abe Ruef to
spre ckels.
OFFER MADE BY RUFF
Mr.. Ruef came to me at one time"
replied the witness, evidently think
ing that I had control Of the San Fran
cisco gas and electric company, and
enered his services. He said that he
lad good legal ability and that he
could be Of use to US. 1 told him that
the corporation had made arrangements
for legal work and that IL did not
need him. This is one of the things
that has convinced me that a public
service corporation need not pay any
tribute to political boss unless it
wants to commit some wrong
Were YOU interested in the San
Francisco gas and electric company"
asked Heney.
At one time I was large stock
holder" answered the witness
How about the Independent gas and
electric company which Claus Spreck-
els organized?
I never had an interest in it
The witness testified further that
Ruef had endeavOred TO sell him a
niece Of real estate near Kearny and
california streets at an ezorbitant
orice. lie later made the purchase at
! much reduced figure from Shainwald
Buckbee & Co.
..Ruef called on me at another time"
continued Spreckefs. He said he had
some scheme to have conduits put un-
der the sidewalks and TO compel the
corporations to put wires under ground
he did not get very far / was not
interested and told him So
OIL ORDINANCE ~FAIIE''