The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-05-21

ored to show that a larger loan had
been made by the Hellman interests.
but this line Of examination was for
hidden by the court.
Spreckels denied that he had paid
any money to Z. P. z. Troy, and Heney
undertook to show that Troy and TREY
L. Ford had a social calling acquaint-
ance.
we object" interposed A a. Moore.
People can't build themselves up by
their own declarations or their social
relations"
Another sidelight was cast on super
visorial methods when Spreckels said
that he understood that former Super
visor Walsh had burned his bride
money after he had been trapped.
Toward the close Of the day Heney
directed the inquiry into the payments
made by Spreckels for bodyguards for
the prosecuting attorney and some of
the witnesses. The defense objected
violently TO this line of inquiry, and the
point was still at issue at adjourn
ment.
ROGERS OBJECTS TO TEASING
Frequent verbal tnrusts marked the
course of the days proceedings. Rog-
ers had taken a stand close to the jury,
and when Heney objected to his effort
to introduce merely one page of the
statement of expenditures. the Calhoun
lawyer wheeled toward the box and,
with arms extended in a gesture of
helpless rectitude, cast benevolent
smile upon the Is men before him. Re
turning TO his table he had occasion to
pass Heney.
Something passed between them that
had been inaudible TO those two feet
away. Rogers at once complained to
the court that Heney had been teasing
him.
"As I passed by Mr.. Heney," said
Rogers, he said to me, You'll get
what's coming to you Now, your
honor, / object. l have always tried
to obey the court, and ! object to Mr..
Heneys remark.
Then you don't want to carry on
your insinuations that Heney is getting
pay when you know it is not true, nor
that Heaey has placed papers on the
desk for the jury to see when you
know that is not true. or you will get
what's coming to you"
Stanley Moore said he thought this
remark +willful and vicious miscon-
duct"
Judge Lawlor told everybody to SIT
down.
CONCRETE FACTS WANTED
John J. Barrett, one of the Calhoun
lawyers, objected to the manner of
conducting the inquiry. He said
Spreckels should not be allowed to
testify as to his motives and inten-
tions. but that concrete facts should
be presented.
"All right" answered Heney. 1--WE
will take the concrete fact that Ford
went to the mint and got a package
of money; that Ruef was driven to
Fords office, and that the supervisors
received money for their votes. We
will leave these concrete facts to the
jury. But the examination by the de-
Tense has not been intended to dispute
these facts. but to impugn the motives
of the witness; not to say that Mr..
Calhoun is not guilty, but that he shall
not be convicted because Mr.. Spreckels
may have been guilty of something"
COMMUNITY ASKED TO JUDGE
my motives have been impugned,7
said Spreckels from the stand, land
I have told Mr.. Rogers that the bars
are down. am willing to abide by
the judgment of this community"
At the close of the inquiry Heney
reverted to the question Of immunity.
Did you ever offer a plan to give
Mr.. Ruef immunity to testify against
Mr.. Calhoun" asked Heney.
Never" replied the witness.
why did you engage in these pros
ecutions2" asked Heney fatty.
The idea grew out of my inter
views with Abraham Ruef," replied
Spreckels, eas / believed corruption
existed in this community and 1 be-
lieyed it necessary to weed it out to
maintain the government here
Earl Rogers announced that he had
at most only a question or two to ask
the witness. and requested a postpone
ment until today, which was granted.