Los Angeles herald., 1909-04-16
CALHOUN'S JURY
COMP HIS
TRIAL IS BEGUN
ONE EXTRA MAN IS ADDED TO
REGULAR TRIBUNAL
PROSECUTOR HENEY MAKES
OPENING STATEMENT
Shows Former Member of Supervisors
Received His Supposed Share
of Money from Sister OF
Abraham Ruef
fnontinued from Paee onel

CONTINUED from Page one)
Rea. who refused to participate in
the deal. and who, it will be shown was
later taken care of by Ruef in another
1--WE EXPECT to show you that 1t was
the direct purpose of the Unlteo t1alIc
roads to allow the Suffer street me VI
the company to become 50 ollaPi 1919
as to endanger the life or It's patrons,
IN n,,rsuance of the plan to be outlined
hereafter"
Mr.. Heney referred to the fact that
number of protests had been hled
against the application Tor an over
head trolley on Suffer street by resi-
dents of the neighborhoods IlvolVGH ~
Phelan and the latter's sister, MIS-
Frank J. Sullivan.
Permit Is Refused
Mr.. Heney declared that as early as
December, 1905, three months before the
earfhuuake. the defendant had appeared
before the supervisors and been re-
fused a permit to change its system on
Sutter street from cable to trolley.
ave expect to prove" said Mr.. Heney,
ssthat the so-called boodllng poaro %
supervisors selected by Ruef and former
Mavor SchTlitz was placed in once,
and that in the following March Mar.
Calhoun renewed his determination to
secure a permit to electrify many OF
his lines. 1t will be shown tnat fNu-
dofph Spreckels, James ID. Phelan ana
Adolph Spreckels made proposltlon,
at one time, to prevent the united
Railroads to put in the overhead troll
Lev. and substitute the underground
conduit. that they should establish an
other system on streets not occupied
by the United Railroads, and which
should be operated by the Underground
system and thereafter sold to the city
at its original cost
after the fire Mayor Schmitz an
nounced that he would grant a permit
for an overhead trolley on Market
street, and that after that they re-
ceived permits to operate the overhead
trolley on other streets.
I'VE will show that the ordinance
granting a permanent franchise to the
railroad company was prepared by
William NJ Abbott and given to Abra-
ham Ruef, who had induced supervisor
Andrew M. Wilson to introduce II; ana
in the meantime we expect to prove
Ruef had promised $4Qo0 TO each Oh Inc
to receive $4,000 and Gallagher, who
was to get $4,000.
No One Blocked Franchise
s'There was not an instant during
"when any person attempted to OBJ
struct the passage of this ordinance
Mr.. Heney then proceeded to out
line the testimony whereby he charged
1t was shown that Mr.. Calhoun, then
In the east, authorized ThornWelI Null
Tally and William M. Abbott to draw
$780, 900. sent to this city through the
United States mint, during the period
when the banks had suspended pay
ment
I'VE will show" he said, that ev-
cry dollar of this money was taken TO
the offices of the United Railroads, but
that there is no record of this vast sum
ever having been placed in the safes
or offices of the company, or to the
credit of any official of the company.
We will show that it was drawn by
Mutually and Ford, and that on one oc-
casion Ford was accompanied in MS
visit to the mint for one of these in
stallments by Abe Ruef.
1--WE will show that when each of
these payments was withdrawn, Ruef
called at the office of Ford and Sc
cured the money promised him for
favorable vote of the supervisors"
Payments Made Differently
Mr.. Heney's statement accounted for
each installment of the alleged pay
ment of $500, 900. and he undertook to
show that, while the company's con-
tribution of $4,000 to the earthquake
relief fund was made subject to
check, drawn on a local bank, the
money intended for the supervisors
was withdrawn from the mint in cur
rency and Mr.. Heney promised to show
that the supervisors received bills OF
the same denomination that were paid
to Ford and Mutually on the occasion
of their visits to the mint.
Mr.. Heney had been speaking for
E0rna time when STANLEY Moore of the
defense interrupted with an objection,
declaring that the prosecutor was not
combining himself to a statement, but
was including argument
Mr.. Heney submitted the matter to
the court and was upheld as far as
the preceding address was concerned.
The assistant district attorney de-
clared that, after Mr.. Calhoun had
met a number of the supervisors, the
ordinance was submitted to the board
and passed without any debate what
ever.
In nearly every respect the opening
address provided for the presentation
of testimony that has already been in
troduced in the cases of TREY l.. Ford
and Abraham Ruef. 1t was admitted
that the prosecution had undertaken to
prove some matters not mentioned in
any of the previous trials but these
are conceded to be of minor import
ance.
If the prosecution is to introduce any
new evidence there was no intimation
of it's character conveyed in Mr.. He
neys address, which was confined to
strict relstion of the evidence pre-
scented in the former trials.
There was little more than the usual
stir in the courtroom when the taking
of testimony was commenced. When
the defendant returned for the after