The Ogden standard. [volume] (Ogden City, Utah) 1902-1910, 1909-05-18
S is
CALLED AS
WITNESS
IN THE TRIAL OF PATRICK CAL
HOUN.
Gives Reasons For Opposing Mr.. Cal.
houn's Plans For Railway
Development,

San Francisco, May 17.-Rudolph
Spreckels, the San Francisco banker,
who contributed 100000 to prosecute
AN inquiry into municipal conditions
in 1906, was called to the witness
stand In the trial of Patrick Calhoun
today and added to the case of the
epeople a detailed account OF his
reasons for opposing Mr.. Calhoun's
plans for railway development and OF
the manner in which he became In
yolved as a supporter OF the prose-
cution. His examination had been In
progress but few moments when
Assistant District Attorney francis j..
Heney, replying to statement by
one Of the attorneys for the defense,
declared that he had thrown down
the bars, had summoned Mr.. Spreckels
as a witness for the first time IN any
OF the trials for bribery. and ttat he
stood ready to meet any line Of in
quiry the defense might choose TO
pursue when cross examination was
reached.
1--WE have Eeen trying Mr. Calhoun
and no other" said Mr.. Heney, but
from the time we began the selection
of the jury the defense has endeav-
ored to try Rudolph SprecHels and
James D. Phelan at the same time.
You have insinuated times without
number that Mr. Spreckels was back
of the prosecution for malicious pur-
pose, for his personal gain and prof1t,
and In an effort to gain control OF the
United railroads. You made this issue.
Surely you are not AFRAID to meet It
now that he Is on the stand, prepared
to answer your questions"
Mr. Spreckels testified that he flrSt
came into conflict with the United
railroads in 1905, when he learned or
a proposal to substitute the overhead
trolley for the cable on the Sutter
street system. As an owner OF prop
erty on, the lines OF this system, and
as member of the Sutter street I'm
provement club, Mr., Spreckels said he
actively opposed the project among
his influential acquaintances and ne
had consented three times to meet
Mr. Calhoun TO discuss the project.
In detailing the conferences 10
which he referred. Mr.. SprecKeIs pro-
vided the most interesting feature or
the days proceedings. He said that
he had steadfastly refused to accept
the street railways presidents argu-
ments in support of the overhead
trolley and had rejected offers Of COM
promise that he believed to be to the
city's disadvantage.
"On the occasion Of our third In
terview." said the witness, "Mr, Cal
houn said he would be willing 10 with.
draw the cable line from Pacific ave
nue., where my residence is located,
and substitute an overhead trolley line
He called my attention to the fact
that, In common with many or my
| had carriages and auto
mobiles and vas not dependent upon
the street cars. In reply | said that
my fight was not a selfish one and
that | was interested In behalf or
people not so fortunate as to possess
carriages and automobiles and that
would not entertain the proposition,
"Mr. Calhoun at this interview said
he was ready TO construct a tunnel
through Powell street hill and make
the entrance one OF the busiest trans
'er points in the city l asked him II
his was because owned property at
the corner of Powell and Sutter and
ne expressed surprise, saying he did
not know Of it,"
Subsequently, according to the testi.
nony, the Improvement club and Mt
Calhoun had exchanged letters
through the newspapers and the or
saniation announced determination
10 do all in It's power TO defeat the
overhead trolley. Mr.. Spreckels said
he had telegraphed to his attorney in
the east, urging his immedIate return
and that he had directed the lawyer
% prepare articles OF incorporation OF
-ival transportation system. Before
he fire Of 1906, Mr.. Spreckels said,
lie had gone, in company with his ia
.her,-to see Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz,
md that he suggested that they oppose
he grant by the supervisor.
Mr.. Heney led the witness to re-
ate the circumstances under which |
lie arranged with James l.. Gallagher |
or a contract OF immunity, absolv. |
ng the supervisors from legal penalty. |
lie testified that William ]. Burns had |
arranged for Gallagher to meet him
II the Preside and that he had gone |
here armed with authority by the |
district attorney TO offer immunity to |
Gallagher for full confession of the |
,oodling schemes In which the board |
lad engaged, Gallagher, he said, re-
used to tell anything until assured |
hat all other supervisors would es-
;ape legal punishment and a second |
Interview was arranged. after the dis |
rica attorney had declared that Gal |
agher's testimony was essential At |
he second Preside conference Cal |
agher was told that all the supervis-
rs who confessed would be granted |
Charles s. Wheeler, who was attor-
ley for the Municipal Street Rail-
ways company of San Francisco, COM
'leted his testimony today. Mr.
was made the target OF over
/ hundred questions that were appar.
,ntly framed without hope of elicit.
ng any reply, but which were calcul.
lted to define more clearly the ar
of prosecution or defense.
Earl Rogers OF the counsel for Mr..
calhoun, sought to ascertain why the
Municipal company had never con-
'tructed the street railways 1t was
organized to build. The witness de-
,lared that the situation after the fire
vas such as to make the investment
from his standpoint,
as the United Railways
lad obtained the overhead permit
Mr. Rogers then sought to ascertain
what had become of the $i5O,0O0 sub.
,crbed by Rudolph Spreckels and
1ther incorporators Of the rival cor.