Los Angeles herald., 1909-06-12
CALHOUN'S TRIAL
NEAR ARGUMENT
LAWYERS TO DELIVER ONLY
BRIEF SPEECHES
CASE WILL BE GIVEN TO JURY
LATE NEXT WEEK
Attorney Heney Fails in Effort to Inc
troduce Testimony to Prove
Ruef Was Boss Under
Schmitz
(By Associated Press.>

SAN FRANCISCO, June 1.-THE
trial of Patrick Calhoun, president OF
the United Railroads, which opened on
January r. win reach the stage OF
final argument next Monday.
All preliminaries were swept away at
today's session of court, wherein coun-
sci for the defendant, after offering to
submit the case without argument,
agreed to the courts decision providing
for another arrangement, whereby the
attorneys will inaugurate an unre-
stricted period of oratorical effort
scheduled to begin next Monday morn
ing.
Assistant District Attorney Heney,
who appealed to the court for permis-
sion to show that Abraham Ruef was
conceded to be the boss" of San Fran
cisco during the administration Of
Mayor E. E. Schmitz, was denied the
privilege after a stirring debate eX-
tending over several hours.
When the courts decision was fin
ally pronounced, Mr.. Heney stated the
people had no further testimony to Of
fer and there was prompt SUBMISSION
of the case by Stanley Moore, one or
the attorneys for the defense.
Before the jury was dismissed Mr..
Heney rejected a proposal to submit
the case without argument, declaring
that the proposal, made by one OF the
attorneys of the defendant, was in
tended as an effort to influence the
jury.
Arrange for Argument
According to arrangements made be-
fore adjournment today, Assistant Dis
trict Attorney John j, O'Gara VIII
make the opening argument and VIII
be followed by Alexander King of the
defense. A. A. Moore, senior counsel
for the defendant, will present the clos
ing argument in behalf of Mr.. Cal
houn, and Mr.. Heney will make the
final argument for the people. 1t Is
believed the case will be submitted to
the jury by Thursday or Friday of next
week.
Several witnesses of minor impor-
lance were recalled to clear up frag-
ments of evidence that the prosecution
desired to put before the jury in clearer
light. One of these was Robert Perry,
a detective from the office of William
]. Burns, who said he had been en-
gagged in shadowing Abraham Ruef
during the month of August, 1906.
Perry said he had on seevral occa-
sions followed Ruef to the residence
occupied by the president of the United
Railroads and his assistant, ThornWell
Mutually. On one occasion, the witness
said. Ruef had entered the house after
coming from his office and shortly
ATIGTWdIQ calhoun anu lib elSSSi9t
ant arrived in an automobile. Perry
said that Ruef, emerging after an hour
had elapsed, had gone to the residence
of Eugene Schmitz, at that time mayor
of San Francisco.
In anticipation of argument the court
room was crowded to its seating ca
pacity, and scores of would-be specta-
tors were turned away by the police
man on duty at the entrance.
Heney Wants Witnesses
Heney finally was asked by Judge
Lawlor if he intended to conclude. The
prosecutor then admitted that since
adjournment last night he had been
advised of the departure of two wit
nesses from Eureka whom he desired
to examine before resting the case
He stated that the steamer upon which
the witnesses were coming was due Le-
fore noon and asked if the intervening
time could not be used to advantage.
Stanley Moore, one of the attorneys
for the defense, gave the first intima-
ton of the course his side will pursue
by stating that he had followed the
precedent established on the three
trials of TREY L. Ford and had pre-
pared a number of motions asking the
elimination of certain testimony Of
fered by the prosecution. This was &C
cepted as a virtual admission that the
utLGnSE Will OlLCl llO lCoLAliO4iys
At the suggestion of Judge Lawlor
the jury was dismissed until this after
noon, and Mr.. Heney, stating that he
had a proposal to submit, was given
permission to open an argument that
was prolonged to an unexpected length,
and was completed only when the lour
of the noon recess arrived. Mr.. Heney
said he wished to call one or more wit
nesses to prove that the relations be-
tween Abraham Ruef and the board of
supervisors during the early part of
1906 were so corrupt as to be matter
of public knowledge
Il wish to show this continued He
ney, "for the purpose of permitting the
jury to gain an inference that Patrick
Calhoun must have known of these re-
lations."
Defense Opposes Plan
The proposal met with bitter resist
ance from the defense, represented in
the argument by Alexander S. King and
Stanley Moore.
In the course of Mr.. Heney's argu-
ment he said:
For instance, how do I get the idea
that the congress of the United States
has acted corruptly in the matter OF
the tariff? In the words of an English
ambassador who is acknowledged by q
great majority of our citizens to be
fair, this charge is made, and he fur
ther says that a great NUMBER or mem
bers of the United States senate bought
their way into that body"
II have read the works of Mr.. James
Bryce, and 1 never came across thai
statement" said Mr.. King Il do not
believe it is there"
Eyes, it is" said Heney.
'"Then he is an English muck-raker, ,
declared John J. Barrett of the defense
Eyes" said Mr.. Heney, land I sup
pose, according to your definition, the
term muck-raker will apply to any per-
son who drags into the light the cor
ruption of public officials"
your remark is a SANDER upon Mr.
Bryce said Mr.. King, in conclusion,