The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-05-18
Leader of Graft Prosecution
Offers to Answer All Cues
lions Under Oath
Defense Resorts to Strenuous
Objection to Prevent Full
Retaliation of Charges
By w. RUSSELL COLE

fullest inquiry. Patrick Calhoun and
his attorneys were given the oppor-
tunity 10 search into every detail of
Spreckels' connections with the graft
cases, TO probe every motive by which
he was actuated and 10 prove the
charges and insinuations that have
been made against him. The invita-
tion was not accepted.
There was decided stir in the court
room when Francis J. Heney called
spreckeIs name. Heney had announced
that Spreckels would be called, as a
- ness before the conclusion of the
= al. but II had not been announced
when this would occur, and it came
unexpectedly. The news spread quick
~. and within a few minutes every
seat in the courtroom was taken ard
a crowd was clamoring outside the
doors. for il had been generally rum
ored that the real climax of the long
trial would center in Spreckels' exam
instiOn.
So bitter have been the attacks
gainst the man who inaugurated the
graft prosecution and so long have
charges and insinuations emanated
from the ranks of the allied graft
defense that il was generally believed
an exciting courtroom scene would fol-
low his introduction upon the witness
stand. But those who looked for any
such thing were disappointed The
direct examination. which is still in
progress. has proved to be an ordinary
proceeding. devoid OF clashes. and IN
interrupted except by determined OBJ
iections interposed by the defense to
prevent fun disclosure OF facts
DEFENSE FEARS FULL INQUIRY
only one thing of consequence
marked the direct examination of the
witness. The attorneys for the defense
made ii plain that after years of as
sault they were unwilling TO stand I'D
IN open court and permit a full inquiry
into the very things as to which thew
nave so long demanded explanation
You have been casting insinuations
here ever since this case began" chal-
lenged HeDey when he was stopped
by objections from Calhoun's counsel
table Certainly you are not afraid
10 meet the issue MOVE"
To begin with Spreckeis explained
that he never met Patrick Calhoun
personally until the spring Of 1906.
and that the ida Of fighting the efforts
Of the United Railroads 10 secure an
overhead trolley franchise for its en-
are san Francisco system, was first
suggested TO him by Attorney Charles
Page OF the firm OF Page, McCutchen
4 knight.
BEGINNING OF PROTESTS
y 1t was in February. 1905. said
Spreckels, that Page asked him to at
tend a. meeting Of Pacific avenue prop
erty owners called for the purpose Of
protesting against the proposed trolley
system. Spreckels attended this meet
ing. and also several before the board
OF supervisors, where he met Ford
Chapman and other United Railroads
officials Subsequently the witness
Joined the Suffer street Improvement
club. which had already taken up the
cudgel against the proposed overhead
trolley. He met officers of the United
Railroads by appointment and was
urged by President Holland and Gen
eral Manager Chapman to drop his Cd
position 10 the trolley system.
In March. 1906. SpreckeIs was in
vited TO a conference at the Bohemian
club with James d. Phelan, r. B. Hale
Rufus Jennings, Frank ]. Sullivan and
others, and IL was there he first met
Calhoun Calhoun urged the trolley
system as opposed to the underground
conduit system, which the conferees de-
manded, and Spreckels took issue with
him. Then Calhoun asked for a special
appointment and met SpreckeIs the
following day at the Canadian bank of
commerce and again the day following
that.
At one of these conferences" de-
clared the witness. Mr.. Calhoun said
that one OF his most serious objections
10 the conduit system was that the
conduits would I'll with water and
that il was not a feasible method. He
told me that there were at least six
teen places on the Suffer street line
where water would gather in the con-
duits.
DRAINAGE OF CONDUITS
Il told Mr. Calhoun that this same
OF 5ection had been made previously by
r Holland and Mr.. Chapman. who
said that this was the only reason for
not putting in a conduit. / also told
him that I had asked them then IL they
would agree to put in the conduit II
the property owners would agree TO
keep the conduit drained at their own
expense for twelve months to prove to
the company that 10 could be done.
saw Holland and Chapman look at each
other when ] made that suggestion,
and then they said No told them
II was a waste OF time TO talk further,
as they were not telling the truth
They asked me how I proposed to keep
the conduit drained and I answered
that I was not an engineer, but that
common sense told me the water could
be carried OF Through the ordinary
pipes from Suffer street into parallel
streets
AT one OF the meetings with Mr.
Calhoun ne proposed a conduit system
IN Market TO Valencia and in Suffer to
Powell. and asked il that would sat
isfy me- He suggested then that the
line be taken of Pacific avenue en-
tirely and a cable line put in Broad
way. He said that I used carriages
and automobiles anyhow. and II would
improve the street in front of my home
10 have the cars taken of and con-
vert II into a boulevard. 1 told him
my reasons were not selfish. but for
the good OF the city. and that although
used carriages and automobiles there
were many people living in Pacific
avenue not so fortunate as I. He suE-
gested then that tunnel be driven
through Powell street and that Suffer
and Powell streets be made the prin-
cipal transfer point in the city, l
asked him II that was because ] owned
pNperty there. and he said he was
SURPRISED and did not know il"
GnrecL<als went on 70 tell of further