The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-05-15
TELLS Of CONTEST
AGAINST CALHOUN
Attorney for Rudolph Spreckels
Is Chief Witness During
the Day.
REFUTlNG "INSINUATED"
CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY
Admission Made That Municipal
Company Never Laid a
Foot Of Track.

san FRANCISCO, May 14.-Charcs
s. Wheeler, attorney for Rudolph
Spreckels, was called to the stand bv
the prosecution in the trial of Patrick
Calhoun today. His testimony. like
that of former Mayor James d. PhcIan,
who spent day and half on the
stand during the week, was directed.
according to the statement of Assistant
District Attorney Francis J. Henev, to
the refutation of the "insinuated
charge of the defense that Mr.. Spreclz-
els, Mr.. Phelan and others bad en-.
gagged IN n conspiracy, - to oust the
United Railroads from the streets of
San Francisco with n view TO obtaining
the transportation franchises for them.
selves.
Under the interrogation of Mr..
Heney. Mr.. Wheeler told of his ap-
pearance before the street committee of
the board of supervisors in 1905 in re-
lation to the petition of the railroad
company for an overhead trolley fran.
chise on Sutter street. Mr. Wheeler's
legal argument against the petition was
related by Mr.. Phelan, when he was on
the stand, and was gone over again by
Mr.. Wheeler today The witness told
OF his drawing up of the incorporation
articles of the Municipal Street Rail
way companies and of his subscription
Of $4,000 to that project
Under Cross-Fire.
The cross examination was conducted
by Earl Rogers, Of counsel for Cal
houn, and was construed by Mr.. Heney
as challenge of the motives of the IN
corporators of the municipal company.
Mr.. Wheeler declared that he had taken
no part i'm any discussion of the project
snfto w, r,1b l,,.J ,,,t,.
his intention of trolleyiZing Market
street. and insisted that it was only
10 combat that plan that the opposi-
tion company was incorporated
Mr.. Wheeler, did the Municipal
company ever lay a foot of track or Il
single brick of powcr-house asked
Rogers.
''That is ALL said Roners
"Why did not the Municipal com
pany lay foot of track or d single
brick of a powerhouSe! Exnlain that
to the jury, Mr. Wheeler said Heney.
Under a running cross-fire of OBJ
jections and arguments, the witness told
the jury that the opposition had been
planned solely for the purpose he had
already stated: that it was specifically
stated IN the articles of incorporation
that the company should get the super
viSors TO offer such franchises as IL
sought at public auction and should seek
TO have inserted in those franchises a
provision that the city could buy up
the road at any time ii saw fit,
Was Move for the City.
eve fixed upon the cost of construc-
tion, the actual outlay, plus six per
cent interest, as the price at which the
city could secure the property Of the
corporation at any time said Mr..
Wheeler ''Thcn the fire came. The
United Railroads procured its franchise
and we did not see our way clear to
going ahead.
The examination earlier, in the day
of Robert II. Peery, one of the detcc-
tives under William j. Burns, whose
business it was III 1906 TO shadow
Abraham Ruef, bore more directly on
the case at bar, as Peery told of having
trailcd Ruef TO the United Railroads
office on August % Of that year, the
date on which. the prosecution alleges,
the money drawn from the mint by
TREY l.. Ford, general counsel Tor the
company, was paid over TO be divided
among the supervisors.