The San Francisco call., 1909-04-30
REPEAT STORIES
OF GRAFT UNDER
SCHMITz REGIME
Five Witnesses Give COrrObO=
rative Testimony. in Trial
of Calhoun
Kelly, Davis, Phillips, Nc
GusE1in and Harrigan Are
Examined
By w. RUSSELL COLE

Five times was the story of munich
pal graft under the Schmitz regime re-
peated yesterday in Judge Lawlor's
court by witnesses in the Calhoun trial.
With former Supervisors Nicholas, Gal
lagher and Coleman disposed Of COM
.paratively brief examinations Of the
other members Of the boodling board
became the rule yesterday morning,
and five of them had been put through
their PAGES when adjournment was
taken last night.
After two days OF storm the calm
that settled over the proceedings yes
,terday was almost wearisome, and the
tedium was heightened by the fact
that the testimony brought out
amounted practically TO repetition
of that given by the three former
supervisors already examined. Even
under such conditions, however, there
was no abatement Of general interest
IN the case, and the courtroom was
crowded throughout the day. while
groups OF men waited about the en-
cess TO secure seats which might be-
come vacant
evidence Is CORRoBoRATED
The fact that five witnesses were
disposed Of in single day, where the
taking Of similar testimony in the
cases OF the first former supervisors
called occupied several days each, was
partly due TO the corroborative nature
of their statements. and TO the fact
that as individuals they did not occupy
80 important place in the building
up OF the evidence against Calhoun.
Another reason for the rapid progress
was that the great mass of objections
and arguments which occurred in the
former instances were disposed of by
stipulstions Of the defense and so not
repeated as the various points of orig
SnaI contest arose.
Much OF the day was given to the
revival of the argument between
Heney and Rogers concerning the re-
spective merits OF the overhead troll
ley and the underground conduit sys-
tens OF street railroad construction.
The debate was not carried on be-
tween them directly, but by them
through questions addressed to the
Witnesses Rogers also continued his
attack in each case against the cred
ibility Of the witness on the stand by
attempting to show discrepancies be-
tween the testimony given in this trial
former cases.
KELLY AND DAVIS HEARD
James f Kelly, who was on the
stand Wednesday, was disposed Of
within about an hour after court con-
vened- Rogers crOssexamined him and
secured his statement that since he
was first a witness before the Oliver
grand jury in 1906 he had carried
about in his pocket a verbatim tran
script Of his testimony on that occa-
sion for the purpose of refreshing his
memory when called upon in any graft
trial The witness said, however, that
he had not relied upon It's in prepar-
ing for his ordeal in the present case
Sam Davis followed Kelly on the
stand and his direct examination took
sly about a quarter Of an hour. as
did those Of the witnesses who fol-
lowed him. The argument concern
ing the trolley and underground sys-
TENS was brought UP again, and
Heney asked first il the witness had
studied the investigation OF the latter
in San Jose and then If he had read
the report of a commission on the
success OF the system in Budapest
Hungary Rogers based an objection
70 me question on the length of ".the
jump from San Jose to Budapest" but
was Overruled.
PHILLIPS NUT SCARED
Jennings J. Phillips was given a long
cross examination by Rogers. The lat
ter asked him IL 1t were not true that
William ]. Burns had spoken to him
concerning Michael w. Coffey at the
conclusion OF Coffey's testimony in the
second Ford trial, when Coffey terrnf-
mated his own immunity contract by
failure to give proper answers to the
questions put TO him. Phillips admit
ted that Burns had asked him who had
been talking to Coffey, and said that he
wondered how eCoffey would like TO be
indicted. Phillips himself was criticised
by Heney during the same trial for his
failure to remember important details
Of his former testimony before the
grand jury. but declared that Burns
remark TO him concerning Coffey did
not cause him to fear for his own
safety.
There was an argument between
Heney and Rogers over the introduc-
ton OF Phillips testimony given in his
confession at the Gladstone apartments.
Rogers announced that he wanted If
In the record for the purpose of finding
discrepancies If any existed, and asked
Heney for a copy of it Heney refused
10 have one made, suggesting that If
Rogers wanted IT he could procure it
from the stenographers who took down
the shorthand transcript of what was
said and still have the original notes.
Rogers asked the court for an order
commanding the district attorney to
provide him with a translation of the
stenographer's notes. but after argu-
ment the order was refused by Judge
Lawlor.
McGUSHIN EXPLAINS ACTS
Patrick McGushin's testimony on d.
rect and cross examination followed
generally the lines Of that given by
other supervisors, except that Nc
Gusnfn did not receive all the bribes
which went to the others. He said
that he always was believer in pub
lie ownership, but that he thought the
exigencies Of the time demanded a
trolley permit after the fire, and that
he consequently voted in favor OF IL.
Referring 10 the affidavit made by the
supervisors to the effect that they had
never committed a crime, Rogers asked
McGushin If he had signed it conscien-
tiously.
j did" answered the witness. be
cause never had any previous UNDER
standing in any matter. I wasn't pronn
ised a cent in the United Railroads
matter and didn't get it until after 7
had voted. My vote was never a uaer-
cenary one in anything that came up. >,
Cornelius J. Harrigan was called fo
- - NT~r~