Los Angeles herald., 1909-05-18
SPRECKELS ON
WITNESS STAND
IN GRAFT CASE
RUDOLPH REVIEWS HISTORY
OF TROLLEY TANGLES
HENEY DENoUNcES lNsiNOA-
TloNs OF DEFENSE
Pat CaIhoun's Case EnliVened by in-
teresting Testimony of Man VINO
Helped Finance Prosecution
In Bay City
tBy Associated Press.l

tASSbNleASN0
~ AN FRANCISCO. May 17.--Rudoiph
Spreckels, the San Francisco pahk-
~ er, who contributed. $lVo'oVo W
prosecute an inquiry into munlclpal
conditions in 1906, was called to the
witness stand in the trial oil Patrlch
Calhoun today, and added to the case
of the people detailed account ol ne
req asons for opposing MIR. calhoun
plans for railroad development, and OF
the manner in which he became IN
volved as a supporter of the proscu-
tion.
His examination had been in progress
but a few moments when Assistant
District Attorney Francis j. Heney'
replying to a statement by one OF tne
attorneys for the defense, declared that
he had thrown down the bars, had
summoned Mr. Spreckels as witness
for the first time in any of the trials
for bribery, and that he stood ready 10
meet any line of inquiry the defense
might choose to pursue when cross-eX-
animation was reached.
eve have been trying Mr.. Calhoun
and no other" said Mr.. Heney, but
from the time we began the selection
of the jury the defense has endeavored
to try Rudolph Spreckels and James
d. Phelan at the same time.
"You have insinuated times without
number that Mr.. Spreckels was back
of the prosecution for a malicious pur-
pose, for his personal gain and profit,
and in an effort to gain control of the
United Railroads. You made this issue.
Surely you are not afraid to meet 1t,
now that he is on the stand prepared to
answer your questions"
Mr.. Spreckels testified he first came
into conflict with the United Railroads
in 1905, when he learned of proposal
to substitute the overhead trolley for
the cable on the Sutter street system.
Opposed the Project
AS an owner of property on the lines
of this system, and as a member of the
Sutter Street Improvement club, Mr.,
Spreckels said, he actively opposed the
project among his influential acquaint-
ances, and he had consented three times
to meet Mr.. Calhoun to discuss the
project
In detailing the conferences to which
he referred, Mr.. Spreckels provided the
most interesting Feature of the days
proceedings. He said that he had
steadfastly refused to accept the street
railway presidents arguments In sup
port of the overhead trolley and had
rejected offers of compromise that he
believed to be to the city's disadvan-
tage.
"On the occasion of our third inter-
view" said the witness. "Mr. Calhoun
said he would be willing to withdraw
the cable line from Pacific avenue,
where my residence is located, and sub
stitute an overhead trolley line on
Broadway, in the same district.
HE called my attention to the fact
that, in common with many Of my
neighbors, I had carriages and automo-
biles and was not dependent on the
street cars
I'm reply, 1 said my fight was not a
selfish one, and that 1 was interested In
behalf of people not so fortunate as to
possess carriages and automobiles, and
that 1 would not entertain the PROPOSE
ton.
Mr.. Calhoun at this interview said
he was ready to construct a tunnel
through Powell street hill and make
the entrance one of the busiest transfer
points in the city.
He Appears Surprised
IT asked him if this was because 1
owned property at the corner of Powell
and Sutter, and he expressed surprise,
saying he did not know of it."
Subsequently, according to the testi-
mony, the Improvement club and Mr..
Calhoun had exchanged letters through
the newspapers, and the organization
announced determination to do all in
its power to defeat the overhead
trolley.
Mr.. Spreckels said he had telegraphed
to his attorney in the east urging his
immediate return, and that he had
directed the lawyer to prepare articles
of Incorporation of a rival transporta-
tion system Before the fire of 1906,
Mr. Spreckels said he had gone, in
company with his father to see Mayor
Schmitz and urge that he oppose the
overhead grant by the supervisors.
The witness told of meeting Mr..
Heney once or twice before the prose-
cutor's appointment as an assistant
district attorney, and was then called
upon to tell of his summons to the
home of Golden M. Lloyd on the night
that DIR. BoxtoT first of the supervis-
ors to be trapped made his statemnt
to the officers of the prosecution.
In compliance with promise he has
made many times since the trial be-
gan, Mr.. Heney then led the witness
to relate the circumstances under
which he arranged with James L. Gal
lagher for contract of immunity, abb
solving the supervisors from legal pen
atty.
He testified that William ]. Burns
had arranged for Gallagher to meet
him at the Preside, and that he had
gone there armed with authority by
the district attorney to offer immunity
to Gallagher for a full, confession of
the boodling schemes in which the
board had engaged.
Gallagher Was Silent
Gallagher, he said, refused to tell
anything until assured that all the
other supervisors would escape legal
punishment, and a second interview
was arranged after the district attor-
ney had declared that Gallagher's tes-
timony was essential.
At the second Preside conference
Gallagher was told that all the super
visors who confessed would be granted
immunity and the chairman of the
board departed to convey the informa-
tion to his colleagues
At this point the days session ended,
but 1t was indicated that the direct
examination of the witness will be
completed tomorrow.
Earlier in the day there was an ex-
haustive inquiry by Mr.. Heney into
the financial affairs of the United
Railroads, with Secretary w. ]. VIII
cutt of the corporation supplying the
information.
Mr.. Heney ascertained first that the