The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-06-22
HOW WAS THAT
100000 PUT
ON THE BOOKS?
Looks as if United Railroads
Share Holders Had Been
Hit Hard by Calhoun
Secretary WiIIcutt's Little Slip
on Witness Stand Has Start
ed Interesting Questioning

Is s2,O0O.00O the approximate sum
that the stock holders of the United
Railroads have paid as their poftioh
of the fund for Patrick Calhoun de-
tense to the charges of bribery against
him? And do they know that they have
paid it?
Developments during the taking OIL
testimony in the Calhoun trial nave
suggested these questions and, perhaps
answered them. That the cornpahS
resources have been heavily ora" II
upon has never been doubted. mere
is now an evidential indication OF the
extent to which the drain may nave
been carried.
WILLCUTT MAKES SLIP
George B. Wilicutt, secretary OF the
company. is the authority from whose
significant testimony the inference re-
garGing the use of corporation funds In
Calhoun's defense is drawn. Willcutt
of course didn't do it Intentionally.
In fact, it was his slip of the tongue
or mind that opened the way for infer
ence and conjecture. This slip was no
ticed and sharply criticised by the de-
PENDANTS attorneys at the time II was
uttered, and haste was made TO cor
rect ii.
On his direct examination, May Il,
Willcutt was asked to state the amount
that had been expended by the United
Railroads in reconstruction since the
fire. He promptly replied that he
thought it was about $6,500,000.
Stanley Moore Interrupted the wit
ness with the declaration that the fig
ure was too low, and Judge Lawlor
asked Willcutt If his statement was
intended to be exact. The cue had evil
IDENTIFY been taken, however, for Will
cult responded that he was mot sure"
of the figures. When the witness re-
turned to the stand in the afternoon
of the same day the question was re-
peated. This time he answered that
reconstruction and equipment had cost
about SIS, 500, 900.
MISTAKE OF s2.0o0,o00
The discrepancy in this testimony
was not accounted for. A mistake of
50, 000, 900 was passed over without
comment, and between morning ana
afternoon the companys secretary
changed his views regarding eXpendt-
lures to this amount. 1t would be a
good heading under which to enter an
expenditure for graft defense, this "re-
construction and equipment
Nor is $4,000 900 an excessive sum to
contemplate as the probable cost of
CalhounsS defense to date. From
Garrett w. MeEnerney down through
all the elaborate array of counsel huge
fees have been the rule. One of the
attorneys actively connected with the
defense is known to have declared his
intention of retiring from practice upon
his share of the fund Just how many
attorneys have been connected in one
way or another with the case probably
only Calhoun and his closest advisers
know More than a score have figured
openly in one way or another with his
case since it's beginning.
The maintenance of an extensive de-
tective organization is also an item of
no small expense, and Calhoun has the
reputation among his tools of having
spent lavishly when a desired end was
to be obtained. Also there have been
other expenses, some of them possibly,
which should not be detailed
Altogether, $4,000 900 is a fair estf-
mate. Did the stock holders put up
that So, 100000?