The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-05-19

fairs Ruef suggested TO me that
get I'D a syndicate to bid on the muni-
cipal bonds which were about TO be
issued and told me that if I did so the
syndicate's bid would be supported by
6. strike. The suggestion horrified me-
Naturally" CALCULATED Rogers.
The attorneys tone was objected 10
by Heney and the remark was stricken
out
Ruef's Offer Refused
Ruef assured me positively that the
bid Of the syndicate would be accepted.
Spreckels continued. He said he could
guarantee that the bid would not have
10 be above par, and when L asked him
how he could give any such guaran-
Tee he said that IL was a simple mat
ter because on account Of his connec-
ZION with the labor union people he
could have the biggest strike ordered
that had ever occurred in the city just
At the time the bids were 10 be sub
mitted III tie up everything includ-
ing the street railways Ruef told me
and then I'd like to see any of the
capitalists except those who are wise
Go anything with these bonds.
Il asked Ruef Il he would do such a
thing for the sake OF money when such
strike might bring about bloodshed.
lie turned very red and said he was
only joking. but then he left my Office
at once.
Did YOU participate in the granting
Of immunity 10 Ruef, knowing that he
was that kind OF A MANI" demanded
Rogers.
i discussed the matter with officials
Of the district attorneys Office. but ]
had no authority TO offer Ruef immun-
ity.' explained the witness. But /
VIII say" he added. that I believe
crimes Of the character Of those COM
mitted by Ruef are even more horrible
when committed by q man of wealth. I
would be willing 10 give immunity 10
anybody who would assist to bring TO
justice a man OF great wealth who had
debauched p city government and
tempted men without means for the
simple sake Of gaining more money
Tor himself"
Did you ever intend to bring about
tthe prosecution Of any man except
Patrick Calhoun cried Rogers.
Il did nothing against him person
ally" answered Spreckels.
Has any one been tried except TREY
/. Ford and this defendants" continued
Rogers.
Mr.. Glass was convicted, was he
uot2" returned the witness.
Was Ruef involved in those trials?''
OF the telephone company"
ROGERS SCHEME BLOCKED
Rogers inquired concerning certain
statements made by Charles S. Wheeler
regarding discussions with Spreckels
and attempted so to use them as TO
lead Spreckels 10 contradict himself
The latter replied that he was not re-
sponsible for any ones statements ex-
cept his own. He went on to explain
his various discussions with Wheeler
relating to the formation Of the COM
peting street railway in March before
the FIRE. He said that II was his talks
with President Holland and General
Mana ger Chapman OF the United Rail
roads and later with Calhoun himself
that had first Induced him TO take an
active interest IN the competing road.
THE arguments Of these men were
nor sincere. and no objections they ad
vanced seemed 10 me sound from a log
ical businessmans standpoint" eX-
planned the witness. They simply said
The conduit system was not feasible
and j knew il was feasible from my OBJ
servations in other cities"
AS matter OF fact you don't know
anything about it yourself do you?'
demanded Rogers.
Il was willing TO invest large sum
OF money IN it. think that is the best
answer I can give you"
Would you invest money in such an
enterprise now?"
Il would. and ] think. it would be ex-
sceedingly profitable
And you had no reasons for going
Snto that company, other than the ones
you have given us?"
Absolutely none whatever"
Spreckels denied the Inference drawn
from the examination of Wheeler that
10
plans for The proposed competing rail-
road several months before the inten-
lions Of its promoters were announced
The fat question was put to him and
he declared that no engineers had ever
been engaged 10 draw plans, and that
the only engineers he had anything ia
DO with at the time were those Ell
gagged in connection with the Santa
Rosa and Petaluma railroad and the
Marin terminal lie said that he knew
OF no engineering work in San Fran
cisco. and had nothing 10 do with the
Ocean Shore railroad.
Conversations With Calhoun
once more the inquiry turned to his
y conversations with Calhoun in the
spring Of 1906
Isn't It true that this conversation
about taking the car line off Pacific
avenue entirely occurred in 1907, after
the fire2" asked Rogers.
I'm telling you positively and under
oath that Mr.. Calhoun asked me IL
would be willing TO withdraw my Cd
position 10 the overhead trolley il ht
would DO this and other things. and thai
this conversation occurred, IN March
1906" responded the witness.
Wei, don't you know that il is q
physical impossibilitv to operate ar
..fr .srff fs,
the grades2~ PERSISTED Rogers.
Il don't know anything about IT,
and 7 don't see the bearing OF it,
was the retort- Il am just repeating
what Mr.. Calhoun said and he will
have to explain what he meant"
Jumping once more to an entirely
different subject, Rogers practically ac-
cused the witness OF having tricked the
United Railroads into paying him more
than he actually deserved for stock