The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-06-20
Contained from Page ~

the backing OF these rniIlfonatres ,vl,osa
money he had PAID out, he refused the
, oHer OF Immunity, which was limited
10 - hours purposely. He having re-
fused that immunity on Monday-the |
next day. March ls-every one OF those
supervisors, without any Intervening
TAX with anybody connected with tho
prosecution. We're called before the
grand jury; they were all rushed /
through in one day I believe the
testimony shows that the grand Jury /
sat until about midnight and that the
supervisors were rushed in there one
after another; and you know how long
II takes 10 examine 16 or Il men; they
were rushed in there and examined in
regard TO all of these matters, without
any preparation.
And there again Nicholas testified
positively that Gallagher had made him
the offer OF $4,000 before the trolley
matter came up for passage TO print.
Was that framed up2 Wasn't il an
honest answer What did he know
about what sort OF evidence the prose-
eution wanted? And. as 1 say. we
wouldn't have had an opportunity to
show you the exact facts if IL bad not
been for these vile imputations thatil
FtN-N A0-cC4 y. lll6 0Ln6E size 4ILGT lDel
asked him how he testified in the Glass
case and how he subsequently testi-
fed in the first Ford trial
WANTED ONLY THE TRUTH
Why. gentlemen, the conditions sur
rounding the taking OF the testimony
OF those supervisors. the way in which
they went up TO the Gladstone and
were examined. no one being present
and hearing what the other supervisor
said. was the very best guarantee that
the prosecutions officers in this case
did not want anything but the truth;
that they did not propose to take any
other testimony except testimony that
they had a right TO believe was true;
and when they had examined those
supervisors separately. one at a time.
AID In different rooms, and compared
cir testimony and found that IT was
practically all the same. as nearly the
same as honest men with memories
that viii fail at times could possibly
get 70 il, why wouldn't the prosecu-
ton believe that that was the truth?
II was evident they had not been
framed up by Gallagher or by any
body else II was absolutely evident
they were telling the truth And
then when they appeared before that
grand jury. with only one day inter
ve1ing, Sunday, and again testified.
each one separately. none OF the others
knowing what the other supervisor was
testify1ng TO. and they were taken over
the entire ground OF all these things
and testified as they did, there be
any question in your mind to what
an honest grand jury ought TO have
thought OF that testimony?
Now. gentlemen, can there be any
question IN your mind as TO whether
the offer was made in this case? The
only question is, Did Patrick Calhoun
have anything TO do in the way OF
advising or encouraging the offer?
The law Of conspiracy comes in here
and the court viii advice you that q
conspiracy may be proved by oircum-
stsntiaI evidence; that each and every
man who IS a member OF that conspiF-
scy is responsible for what the other
man did. And If Ford and Calhoun
and Abe Ruef entered into a con-
spiracy TO secure the passage Of this
ordinance and large amount OF money
was 20 be turned over 10 Ruef, and
Ruef went ahead and procured the pas
sage OF this ordinance and if a
matter OF fact, Calhoun was in q posi-
Ion " mere ne NEL Ad-llAe OAbAl 70 nave
known that a part OF that money was
going 70 so 20 that board OF super
visors. and intended and encouraged
Ruef 10 go ahead with the proposition.
and let that mohey 60 to that board
OF supervisors, then that is sufficient,
b and be is just as much liable as il he
agreed with Ruef as 70 the particular
amount OF the 100000 that Ruef was
- nav n the sr1nervfzors
TACIT UNDERSTANDING
The law does not require that an ex-
press agreement 10 that effect had
taken place. But as you viii see from
the instructions OF the court that viii
undoubtedly be read TO you a tacit
understanding is sufficient And il
there was a tacit understanding be-
tween Calhoun and TREY l. Ford and
Ruef. or between Calhoun and Ford.
and then between Ford and Ruef, thar
this $500, 600 was TO be paid over TO
Ruef after the ordinance had been
passed. and that Ruef was to secure
its passage through that board of SUI
pervisors without fail by the use or
as much OF this money as he found It
necessary to use, then I say that any
offer made in pursuance of that tacit
understan ding is a carrying out Of the
object OF that conspiracy, and each and
every one OF the parties to it is just
as responsible for the acts OF Gallagher
as II he himself had personally directed
Gallagher TO do it; and in turn is just
as responsible as if he had gone and
made the offer in person himself to
them.
Now, gentlemen, I thank you for your
patience and your attention IN this mat
ter and I leave this case in your hands
with the confident expectation that San
Francisco will have no reason TO ques-
ton the conscientiousness Of your YER
dict in the case, and that the people or
the state of California will not be dis
appointed by finding that conditions are
such that unless you can bring the
II. skewitness who saw the man and
heard the man make the agreement no
amount Of circumstantial evidence that
unerringly points to that conclusion
and no other. is going to be treated as
sufcient by a jury when a wealthy