Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1909-06-20
HAVE BEEN OUT MANY HOURS
Francis ]. Heney Closes with Savage
Attack on Defense.
AND WITNESS FIXING
He Wouldn't Be Surprised if He Was
Murdered.
ELOQUENT APPEAL TO JURORS
They Are Urged, for the Honor of San
Francisco, to Find Defendant
Guilty-HistOry of Famous
Doodle Case.

BOodle Case.
SAN FRANCISCO, June 19.-The case of
Patrick Calhoun, an issue that has divided
/ the people of San Francisco during the last
| two years, was submitted today to the jury
that tried the president of the United Rail
roads upon Indictment for bribery. Al
| late hour tonight no verdict had been
returned.
| In order to prevent the possibility of
demonstration in the vicinity of the room
where the Jurors were celebrating the
streets were cleared of spectators as soon
as Mr.. Heney concluded his address, which
was terminated at 1880 o'clock this morn
ing after the prosecutor had spoken for
over sixteen hours.
Lunch was served them in the jury room
and it is probable that this course will be
followed in the future until some decision
in the case has been reached.
Heney Makes Bitter Speech.
In his closing argument for the state,
Francis ]. Heney made direct charges of
witness fixing and perjury against several
officers or employees of the United Rail
roads. The speaker charged that James
L. Gallaghers home in Oakland had been
dynamted by agents of the lefense, and
at the end of this subject said:
Now that A. A. Moore of the defense has
assured me that the defendant and his as
sociates wish me long life 1 shall take
added precautions for my own protection.
and make certain l can that shall not
be shot In the back or dynamited in my
bed The evidence here shows that 1t is
often possible to prepare a defense in ad-
vance, and l don't overlook warnings of
this sort"
Final Appeal to Jurors.
Mr.. Heney brought his argument to a
close three minutes ahead of the allotted
time moment before he was engaged
in a review of a supervisors testimony
Judge Lawler reminded him that the re-
naming moments were few, and Mr.. Heney,
throwing aside a quantity of notes yet un-
referred to, said:
Gentlemen, l thank you for your atten-
tion. leave this case in your hands, con-
fident and expectant that San Francisco
will have no cause to question the good
faith Of your verdict whatever it may be,
and that the state of California will learn
from your conduct that you do not have
to bring before a jury the men who saw
briber pass the money to secure a con-
victioi. and that any amount of circum-
stantial evidence will not be treated as in
sufficient when a wealthy man is on trial
although a supervisor-Coffey, for in
stance-can be convicted in a few minutes. ."
The Judge began his instructions to the
jury.
, History of the Case.
, Mr.. Calhoun, together with Abraham
Ruef and three subordinate officials Of the
D United Railroads, was indicted on four
teen counts. 1t was charged that the cor
poration had secured from the supervisors,
on May 2l, 1906, a permit authorizing sub
stitution of the overhead trolley system for
the cable lines partially destroyed by the
earthquake and fire of April 49, 1906 Cal
Z houn and the other defendants were ac-
cused of having paid Ruef Schmitz and
! the supervisors 100000 for their services
5 in securing the permit for the company
! and each indictment was based upon the
4 money received by one OF the supervisors
E The prosecution, during the several
y trolley trials has attempted to prove that
r Calhoun, the day following the final pas
< sage of the permit, sent from New York
4 to the mint here $500 900, which he
$ previously authorized the mint officials ia
pay to TREY L. Ford. The money as Is
= admitted was withdrawn in three install
4 ments by Ford. who presented orders
4 signed py CalnOun. IL was alleged by
i prosecution that within a few days after
; each Of Ford's visits to the mint, he re-
e oeived a call from Ruef. Following this
e assertion James L. Gallagher chairman oi
the supervisors, testified that Ruef had
paid him over $4,000 in July and an equa
amount in the following month. Gallagher
said he had retained $3.50 for himself, had
paid $4,000 to Andrew NJ Wilson, one OF
his lieutenants, and had given 5000 tc
each of the other supervisors. II was af.
!, firmeC by the prosecution that Ruef and
: schmitz divided the balance of the fund
about $4,000
e The Specific Accusation.
= The specific indictment upon which Cal
T houn was tried was the offer of a bribt
d of $1,000 to Supervisor Fred P. Nicholas, C
= influence his action upon the trolley per
init Nicholas admitted acceptance Of IN,
money for that purpose.
witness called during the trial wal
Rudolph Spreckels, president of the Firs
National bank, who instituted the graf
: prosecution. 1t developed that s2S4 900 haC
been raised and expended and Mr.
Spreokels' accounts voluntarily produced il
. court, showed he had contributed ap
= proximatey Sl75, 600 of the total