The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-06-16

not 70 be tried on suspicion. but only
on substantial proof, and there is a
great reason for this An innocent man
IS not careful what he does. and he
does not think OF the false differences
: which may be drawn from appearances
or circumstances
And so l warn you at the outset
that you must disregard what the dis
trict attorney has put before you in
the way of suspicious, and you must
consider the way in which he has
treated the evidence in this case For
instance, he has raised q suspicion here
concerning the payment of money TO
Supervisor Rea by Ruefs sister, when
| the testimony shows that Rea received
nothing for his vote, and that this was
a mere business tTansaction.
Mr.. OGara has appealed in his
argument TO what might have been
supposed to be the prejudices of the
! jury Why did he dwell so constantly
upon the fact that Mr.. Calhoun came
out here from the east? Why did ne
lay emphasis upon the statement that
Mr.. Calhoun was rich MANI Why did
he refer to public corporations as
pirates2
SPEAKS OF RELIEF WORK
He made the statement that the
whole substance of this case was that
ne saw his opportunity to get it at the
time of the earthquake. that he made
a contract with Ruef. and that Ruef
made contract with the supervisors
But what would Mr.. O'Gara have
found If he had confined himself TO
the evidence in this record here before
u.s. He would have found this man
whom he now arrafgns giving his first
attention after the fire to relief for
visions here. And then. what did he
get first for his company? Did he get
a permit TO run a trolley line down
Suffer street between lines of fine
buildings? Did he get a permit to put
a trolley line down Market street,
busy thoroughfare with magnificent
rows of skyscrapers lining It'll No.
trolley lines down through desola<
tion OF ruin, where il was doubtful If
a city would ever rise again.
TALKS OF RIsKING WEALTH
He got a permit to run trolley lines
through those ruins 10 the end that the
city might be rebuilt and restored. He
asked q permit TO hazard fortune on
the future of this city, and by so doing
TO aid more than any other factor could
aid in its upbuilding. He risked his
wealth in such cause and now ne is
held UP TO you as unworthy.
CALLS EVIDENCE MANUFACTURES
King cited the testimony of Assist
ant Special Agent John G. Lawlor as
ty pieal of the alleged outrages prac-
tfced upon the defendant He referred
TO Lawlor's account OF the payment to
him of brides by Luther Brown as the
most remarkable and Iudicrous story
ever told" and later characterized il
as q deliberately framed up" account
of something that never happened and
a Justification by Lawlor for his self
glorihcation.
REFUSAL TO TRACE MONEY
scott's statement of his relations
with Claim Agent Handlon of the
United Railroads was also termed by
King deliberately manufactured
story.
There are two cardinal propositions
in this case which I intend TO insist
upon" declared King. First, the evil
dence in this case does not show that
Mr.. Calhoun ever made an offer OF
money to Nicholas, and. second the
evidence in this case does not show
that any money was ever paid TO
Abraham Ruef.
How was the money drawn from
the mint used? is asked There is no
proof as to how it was used, and fail
ing in this proof you can not go out
side the evidence and surmise and con-
lecture what became of IL.
Ford may have used that money in
many ways. He may have used it for
the interests of the company in ways
which we do not care TO divulge here.
for the company has powerful enemies
only too anxious to learn of its pri-
vate affairs So far as the testimony
in this case discloses. however. there
is nothing 10 show that this money
was not used in an absolutely legiti-
mate manner
Everything about the conduct of
Ruef. Ford and Calhoun. as developed
in the evidence here. is consistent with
the theory that the money may have
gone elsewhere than to the super
visors.
CALLS RUFF OMNIPOTENT BOSS
The statement that Gallagher and