The San Francisco call., 1909-05-12
United Railroads Vice President
and Engineer DisprOve
CaIhOun's Contention
Market Street Line Could Have
Been Restored Without Much
Trouble, Says Root
By w. RUSSELL COLE


sonabie time after the fire was made
the feature Of the Developments yes
ierday in the Calhoun bribery trial
Two witnesses. one OF them the vice
president Of the United Railroads, chal-
leneed the declaration so often made
by Calhoun and other officials of the
company that the Market street road
ped was d complete wreck after the
fire.
That The Market street cable system,
with several OF its most important
irihntary lines. could have been re-
stored and put into operation almost
Immediately was the gist OF the testi-
mony OF Henry Root, the engineer who
constructed the entire cable system Of
The United Railroads, as well as nearly
All The other cable lines
Former Mayor James ID. Phelan was
called 10 the witness stand and for
more than an hour on direct eNami-
nation told Of conferences with Calhoun
and other officers Of the company dur
ing 1905 and the first few months Of
1906. Phelan was still under direct
examination when adjournment was
taken.
HOLBROOK SHOWN PICTURES
Vice President Charles ). Holbrook
Of the United Railroads was recalled
10 the stand when court convened yes
terday morning and was shown photo
graphs OF the Valencia street power
house and its machinery as it stood
after the fire. The pictures, which
were contained in a special souvenir
report Of the Society of American En-
gineers. showed that while the build
ins itself was badly damaged the oper-
ating machinery was but little Injured
An effort was made 10 show that the
total insurance collected on boilers
and machinery in the Valencia power
house was an insignificant one. but
Holbrook could not answer the direct
questions concerning the amount re-
ceived. The witness said he. did not
know what use had been made of the
boilers after they were removed from
the power house.
WITNESS Quotes CALHOUN
on cross examination Holbrook told
Of investiga tions he made concerning
the relative merits of the overhead
trolley and underground conduit sys-
tens and said he favored the former
because Of difficulties in the operation
OF the latter and because Of the ad
ditiOnal cost of installation which its
adoption would incur. Calhoun, said
the witness. had declared he was in
favor Of submitting the question to
the people to determine which system
they preferred.
Did Mr.. Calhoun tell you the method
by which he proposed to leave this
10 the people2" asked Heney. sarcas
ticauy when he took the witness under
redirect examination. Did you see
newspaper interview with him in which
he said that he would submit the mat
ter TO the old board Of supervisors.
who had lately come from the people
and represented the peoples views2"
HolbroOk was not allowed to answer
the question, for an objection inter-
posed by the defense was sustained.
CONDUIT SYSTEM COSTLY
Heney showed the witness a report
Of a speech which he made before the
merchants association in March, 1905,
and the witness admitted that he was
correctly quoted in saying that he op-
posed the conduit system because its
installation in Sutter street would
cost $500. 000 more than the overhead
trolley system. The Chicago contro-
verey concerning the respective merits
OF underground and overhead con-
struction was brought up by Calhoun's s
lawyers, and Holbrook said he had
seen a report made by a Glasgow
engineer 70 the Chicago authorities to
the effect that the underground system
would be impracticable there.
And didn't that same engineer say
in his report that the American people
were unit for municipal ownership
and never would be tit for it2" queried
Heney.
HE did. answered the witness.
And then did you hear that the city
OF Chicago now receives - per cent
ef the proceeds from the railways of
the city," asked Heney.
Yes. 7 understand that there is some
sort Of an arrangement under which
the citN is really an active partner
with the railroad COMPANY, admitted
Holbrook
A partner without having to stand
for any losses" corrected Heney.
Yes, I believe so"
at ESTTON ABOUT BRIBERY
And did you read that this was al
the result Of the long battle with
Yerkes who had control of the road
and had been brjoing supervisors there
right aiong2"
The question caused an immediate
furore among Csllhoun's attorneys. and
defendant were about To jump to hi.
feet and make another speech in hi:
own behalf Stanley Moore took ar
exception, however. and Judge LawIol
told Heney his question was improper
why improper2" asked Heney "W,
didn't open up this Chicago matter
That was done by the defense"
Judge Lawlor asked Moore two o.
three times If he wanted the ouestio,
and answer stricken from the record
but instead of answering directly
Moore persisted in demanding that tn,
court instruct the jury to pay no at
tention To Heney's question. FINAL,
he said that he was not concerned 70
moment with the question asked b,
the court regarding the record, as i
was not the question at issue
JUDGE REBUI1ES MOORE
You win be concerned when tn
court asks you something. retorte.
Judge Lawlor sharply. I'm in contro
here and it is a question il / make
one"
Moore accepted the rebuke withou
comment and asked that the question
and answer be stricken out Hol
brook was finally excused from tn
-