Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1909-05-21
HENEY'S PROBE
ENLIVENS ANEW
GRAFT INQUIRY
RUDOLPH SPRECKELS WIT
NESS IN NORTHERN COURT
OF LAWYERS BRINGS
RERUKE FROM JUDGE
Detective Reviews Many Of the
Charges He Preferred Against
President Calhoun of the
United Railways
Gnv AssocIated Press.l

~ AN FRANCISCO. May 2o'-Mahy
nhase and issue of the municipal
~ craft prosecution hitherto kept
secret. was made public during TO-DAY
session of the trial of Patrick Calhoun'
president of the United Rallroaos. n
cidents long since forgotten IN the
nress of. new sensations were incorpor-
eted IN fine matter presented to the
iurv Two witnesses of the hrst I'M
portance occupied the stand, and pc
tween interrogations the attorneys ar
gued with a degree of Vehemence thae
several times ELECTED causuc reprl-
mands from Judge William +. Lawior.
Rudolph Spreckels, whose testlInony
was interrupted yesterday, presented
TO the defense and the public state
ment purporting to cover his contrlou-
tions to the cause of the graft prose-
cution. In a summary offered In EVIL
dence it was declared the total SUD
scriptions received from all sources
amounted to $213,391, all OF whlcn na9
been expended. Mr.. Spreckels testified
that he personally had given $l5e'4io OIL
this amount, and from his declarations
II was inferred that he was still SELF
obligated for an indefinite amount.
John Helms, the detective, called TO
the stand yesterday as a Witness Ior
the prosecution, submitted to cross
examination early in the day, and re-
viewed many of the charges he had
preferred against Patrick Calhoun and
William M. Abbott, by whom ne IS
alleged to have been employed IN q
confidential capacity.
! He had closed his testimony yester-
day with a declaration that he resigned
from the service of the United Rail-
roads in August, 1908. Today he added
to the complications attending his ale
glance by affirming that he entered the
| employ of William j. Burns and the
| prosecution in November, 1908, and that
he drew pay from both sides from No
vember until the following February
/ by virtue of fresh employment given
him by Mr.. Abbott, who knew nothing
of his employment by Burns.
SpreckeIs' Finance Report
The final financial statement pre-
sented by Mr.. Spreckels was dived into
four accounts, entitled ''W. ]. Burns"
with total of $123250; IF. ]. Heney
with total of $23,S2S; &C. w. Cobb"
with total of $4,000, and "Sundry"
with total of $66295.
The allegations put in evidence are
as follows:
That the total expended on account
of Mr. Heney was for office expenses.
assistants and bodyguards. Rent
amounted to $S,1S6; telephone exchange,
| 81, 949 office salaries to $S,64S; stenog-
raphers to $2,147 and detective service
to $4,292.
That the salary paid w. ]. Burns
amounted to SS,54S; that he was paid
for subsistence $2,0S1, and for office
rent, SLIPS His bill for automobile
hire was $2,700 and for automobile ex-
penses, $4.162.
The services of the detectives and
agents associated with Burns amount
ed to $70,552 and their expenses to ST.
277.
Among the items credited to sun
dries are $11 900 paid to Hiram john
son, and $19, 400 to ]. j. Dwyer, attor-
neys who have aided the prosecution;
$507S to Percy Dolman, an attache of
the district attorneys office; $17.195 to
W. J. Burns, of which Spreckels made
special mention, and $500 for auto
mobiles.
In response to the questions ofsMr.
Rogers, Mr.. Spreckels denied that he
had ever paid out a dollar for the
prosecution apart from the money ac-
counted for.
On redirect examination, he ex-
plicitly stated that every dollar paid
out on account of Mr.. Heney was in
cluded in the statement, and that tho
money paid Mr. Cobb. who is Mr..
Heney's law partner, was for his per-
sonal services.
Mr.. Spreckels, replying to Mr..
Heney, testified that the latter had
volunteered to work without pay at
the outset of the prosecution, at which
time. he added, there was no intention
of attempting to bring to justice any
persons other than Mayor e. r.
Schmitz, Abraham Ruef and officials
of the administration.
Bitterness In Argument
Mr. Heney devoted the greater part
of the afternoon session to an at
tempted demonstration of the fact that
Mr. Spreckels had engaged him TO
prosecute the investigation prior to
the date on which the supervisors are
allegetd to have been bribed in the
overhead trolley deal. His efforts to
place before the jury Mr.. Spreckels'
statements to that effetct were vigor-
ously opposed by the attorneys for the
defense, and the argument was waged
with considerable bitterness.
Previously, Earl Rogers had COM
planned to the court that Mr.. Heney
had muttered, as the attorney for the
defense passed his chair, that Mr..
Rogers "would get what was coming
to him." and the prosecutor repeated
the threat in the hearing OF ALL de-
claring he was tired of enduring in
suits from counsel on the other side.
John Barrett of the defense argued
that no end would be accomplished by
showing any agreements that may have
existed betWeen MeSSrs SprecIxelS and