The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-06-15


ment company.
FEARED SUSPICIOUS DATE
sThe letter, however, directed Will
cult to enter the money as having been
received on August %, instead of May
%. The latter date would have been
too suspicious and the false entry was
ordered. Willcutt testified, however,
that the 100000 referred to was the
money which was received at the mint"
1t was at this point that the after
noon recess was taken, and following
recess O'Gara launched into his refer
ences to TREY l.. Ford, demanding to
know why the latter did not take the
stand and hold up his right hand and
swear he was not guilty of paying the
bride money to Ruef Stanley Moore
interrupted with the first objection of
the day, and O'Gara cited authorities
to sustain his right to indulge in such
statements. A further interruption
caused Heney to take a hand in the
argument.
Your honor" he demanded, why
should there be any doubt as to the
right of the prosecution to ask the jury
to draw an inference from the fact that
Ford was not called to the stand? We
claim that we have the right to raise
this inference Just the same as we have
inference from the fact that the vouch-
srs have disappeared. If there ever
Were any; just as we expect to ask
the jury to draw an inference from the
fact that the one man who can tell
what was done with this 100000 was
not called to the stand"
WHY DID NOT FORD APPEARf
With the dispute settled, at length,
u
Why did not Ford appear here and
testify, since he has been three times
tried and acquitted? Why was he not
called rs a witness to clear his name
Because he knew he could not have
done it, Because he knew he would
have to steep himself in lies and fur
Their crime. Why. If he paid the money
to any one else than Abe Ruef. did not
that person come here and testify SO?
If any such person existed the defend
ants side alone would know 1t; we
could not We are not here to destroy
any man; we are not here to prosecute
any man whom we do not believe
to be guilty.
Mr.. King of Georgia may claim that
Mr.. Ford was the only guilty person In
this affair SO far as the United Rail-
roads was concerned. yet such a claim
would show the guilt of Patrick Cal
houn as palpably as though it were
admitted. No general counsel, no mat
ter how powerful, could pay out $780,
600 of Patrick Calhouns money with
out consulting him. Two hundred thou
sand dollarsl Think of it. You and
could labor lifetime and not earn so
much. The general counsel of that
corporation might get $1,000 month
$4,000 year. Yet could he pay to
amount of his own yearly salary with
out consulting his superior? Did Abe
Ruef get that money as counsel fee?
Did he get 10 times the amount of the
annual salary of the chief justice of
the supreme court of this state for
simply drawing an ordinance, the au-
thorship of which nobody will assume
and which afterward had to be whipped
into shape by the clerk of the board
of supervisors? Such argument is
mere sham and pretense"
In concluding his argument O'Gara
said:
Gentlemen, the very conduct of the
defendant in relation to the prosecution
of this case has been the conduct of a
guilty man. No innocent man would
attempt through his lawyers here to
try to smirch the characters of honest.
decent men connected with this prose-
cution. Infamy and filth have been
thrown upon these men, who have been
brave enough to undertake this prose
cution. Attack after attack has been
made upon innocent men. Gentlemen.
l submit to you on behalf of the people
that this defendant is guilty here of the
charge laid against him, and L ask you
to find him guilty as charged"
The opening argument for the de-
Tense. to be made by Attorney Alex
C. King. will begin at $3.50 o'clock this
morning.