Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1909-05-15
HENEY TRIES TO
REFUTE CHARGES
WOULD PROVE SPREcKELS
NOT IN CONSPIRACY
MAeNATE's ATTORNEY WITNESS
IN cALHoUN's CASE
Rooers and Assistant Prosecutor Keep
Lawyer Under Steady Cross Fire
of Questions for Sew
eral Hours
LRx Associated Press.l

SAN FRANCISCO, May 14-Charles
S. Wheeler, attorney for Rudolph
Spreckels. was called to the stand oy
the prosecution in the trial OF Patrlch
Calhoun today. e.,
Mayor James D. Phelan, who spent
day and a half on the stand during the
week, was directed according 10 the
statement of Assistant District Attor-
new Francis J. Heney to the REPUTATION
of the implied and inslnuated chaIse
of the defense that Mr.. Spreckels' Nj
Phelan and others had engaged III d
conspiracy to GUST the United Ralroaus
from the streets of San Francisco with
a view to obtaining the transportation
franchises for themselves.
Under the interrogation of Mr. Heney'
Mr.. Wheeler told of his appearance ne
fore the street committee OF the ooaru
of supervisors in 1905 in relation TO the
petition of the railroad company Tor am
overhead trolley franchise on suffer
street. Mr. Wheelers legal argument
against the petition was related by Mr:
Phelan when he was on the stand anu
was gone over again by Mr.; Wheeier
today The witness also told OF the
drawing up of the Incorporation ar
ticles of the Municipal Street Railways
company and of his subscription OF S1O'-
900 to that project.
The cross examination was conducted
bv Earl Rogers of counsel Tor Calhouh
and was construed by Mr.. Heney as
challenge of the motives of the incor-
oorators of the Municipal company.
Mr.. Wheeler declared that he had
taken no part in any discussion OF the
1,roi.r4 "untH after Mr.. Calhoun had
infirnated his intention of trolleyizing
Market street" and insisted that it was
only to combat that plan that the op-
position company was incorporated.
n thn MnniHinAl COM
many ever lay a foot of track or a
single brick OF power house?' asked
s.ft did not" said the witness.
'oThat is ALL" said Rogers.
Why 1t Did Not
"'Whv did not the municipal company
Law a foot of track or a single brick OF
q mower house? Explain that to the
iury. Mr. Wheeler" said Heney.
The latter part of the question
brought an immediate objection IRON
the defense, but holding the MOVIES
of the witness had been questloned'
Judge Lawlor permitted it to be an
swered.
Under a running crossf1re of obJec-
lions and arguments the witness told
the iury that the opposition had been
planned solely for the purpose ne had
already stated that it was speclhcally
stated in the articles of incorporation
that the company should get the super
visors to offer such franchises as 1t
sought at public auction and should
seek to have inserted in those iran
chises a provision that the city could
buy up the road at any time it saw
fit.
I'VE fixed upon the cost of eonstruc-
ton. the actual outlay plus 6 per cent
interest, as the price at which the city
could secure the property of the cor
roration at any time" said Mr. Whee-
Ter. "Then the fire came. The United
Railroads procured it's franchises and
we did not see our way clear to gong
ahead"
Mr.. Rogers showed the witness clip
pings from local papers which pro-
fessed to tell of the opposition road,
bearing dates considerably in advance
of the time set by Mr.. Wheeler. The
witness declared that he had not en-
tered into any plan until the time he
had stated.
The examination had not been con-
Guided, Mr.. Rogers stating he had
many questions to ask, when court adj
journed.
The examination earlier in the day
of Robert H. Perry, one OF the detec-
tives under w. ]. Burns, whose bust
ness it was in 1906 to shadow Abra
ham Ruef bore more directly on the
case at bar, as Perry told of having
trailed Ruef to the United Railroads
office on August % of that year, the
date on which, the prosecution alleges,
the money drawn from the mint by
TREY L. Ford general counsel of the
company, was paid over to be divided
among the supervisors.