The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-06-21
Calhoun Calls His Trial Unfair,
But Yet a Substantial Victory
By PATRICK CALHOUN

have liked my vindication by the
jury to haze been absolute And.
yet, when all the circumstances are
considered from the fact that 10
members of the jury were in favor
OF acquittaI IT must be recognized
that I have won a substantial vic
tory. The record of the case demon
strates that my trial was most I'M
fair-unparalleled in the annals of
American Jurisprudence. The judge
was hostile, the assistant district
attorney bribed, the administration
of the criminal law of this state dis
graced.
From the testimony of Messrs.
Rudolph Spreckels. James D. Phe-
Ian. Charles S. Wheeler and C. w.
Cobb. the following facts clearly
appear:
Messrs. Spreckels, Phelan and
Wheeler united in the Organization
of a street railway company just
prior to the fire for the purpose of
superimposing a system of roads
upon the existing tracks of the
United Railroads. Contemporary
eously with their railroad activities,
oIessrs. Phelan and Spreekels dis
cussed with Mr.. Francis ]. Heney
his employment in an attack upon
the then officials of San Francisco
CHENEY AND SPRECkELS MEET
Following the fire and sometime
in July, 1906, the firm of Heney
& Cobb, which included in its
membership Mr.. j. j. Dwyer, was
formed for the express purpose of
engaging in the so called graft
prosecutions, and at the same time
of carrying on the civil practice of
law in the city of San Francisco
Mr.. Dryers membership in the firm
was concealed from the public be-
cause he was the head of the in
dependence league and the manager
of Mr.. William II. Langdon's CAM
paign for governor of the state In
October. 1906. Mr. Langdon was
brought from Modesto to San Fran
cisco by Mr.. Francis j. Heney, and
Mr.. Spreckels met him at the house
Of his political manager, Mr.. j. j.
Dwyer. When Spreekels and Lang
don entered room alone. leaving
all of~the other people out of their
private conference, Mr.. Heney was
Mr.. Rudolph Spreckels' private at
torney. When he came out of the
room, Mr.. Spreckels' private attor-
ney, Mr.. Francis ]. Heney was ap-
pointed assistant district attorney
Of San Francisco.
price OF HIS INFAMY"
There lies in the courtroom 40
checks made by Mr.. Rudolph
spreckels to Mr. Francis ]. Heney
since his alleged appointment as
assistant district attorney. Those
checks were deposited in the Ameri-
can national bank to his private ae-
count They aggregate $23,s0o.
The first of them amounted to $4,000.
They are the price of his infamy
He can not escape the fact that he
is corrupt public official by the
contention that he has been engaged
in holy crusade. He can not de-
fend the acceptance of money from
a private citizen for the express
purpose of enabling him to devote
himself exclusively to the so called
graft prosecution without commit
ting the crime of accepting a bride.
l here make the formal and specific
charge that Francis ]. Heney stands
side by side with James l.. Gallagher
as corrupt public official. / charge
him with having accepted brides
and l also charge Rudolph Spreckels
and James d. Phelan with having
given him the brides; and If we can
get fair district attorney in the
city of San Francisco / propose at
the proper time and in the proper
way to submit formal charges
against Heney for having received
brides and SpreckeIs and Phelan for
having paid them.
"DUTY To THE, PUBLIC,
There is no branch of the admin
stration of public affairs that should
be so Tree from the faint of bribery
as the administrator of the law.
There is no branch of public ad-
ministration so dangerous, when
improperly administered, as the
criminal law. 1t should be absolute
ly free from the faint of corruption.
a district attorney owes not
merely a duty to the public in the
prosecution of crime. He owes a
duty to the individual citizen
charged with crime to see that the
law is administered with the ut
most fairness and impartiality.
AS prescribed by the rule of
ethics Of the American bar associa-
ton, The primary duty of a law
yer engaged in public prosecution is
not to convict, but to see that JUS
tice is capable of establishing the
innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible."
Does any sane man believe that
Messrs. Francis j. Heney, Rudolph
Spreekels and James D. Phelan did
not desire my conviction in the trial
just brought to conclusion? The
records show that corps of private
detectives was employed by Messrs.
Rudolph SpreckeIs and James d.
Phelan in this criminal conspiracy
upon which they entered for the
purpose of disqualifying jurors who
were favorable to the defense and of