The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-06-17
By w. RUSSELL COLE


est crowd of spectators that has ever
been marshaled into Carpenters hall
since it was converted into a court
room listened yesterday to a continue
ton OF A A. Moore's appeal in behalf
OF his client. Patrick Calhoun.
Crowded though it was from rail to
door. the courtroom was still too small
10 accommodate more than a fraction of
the number Of spectators who clamored
for admission. On the police detail
under Captain Gleason there devolved
a duty almost as strenuous in its per-
Torrance as that assigned TO the at
torney who stood within the bar and
fought out the final battle Of the de-
PENDANT before the jury which has his
fate in its keeping.
Before court convened after the noon
recess the crush about the entrance to
the building had assumed such proper
tons that the barrier was raised
against all but court officials and others
having some direct connection with
the case. More than half the crowd
that finally found its way into the
courtroom was composed of women,
but scores Of women We're turned
away, as well as accredited members
OF the bar, whose cards gained them
40 more consideration than a sharp
order TO keep clear Of the passage TO
the doorway and not 10 obstruct the
sidewalk.
POLICE CHECK CROWD
Time after time mounted policemen
rode through the crowd, forcing il back
from the entrance and driving all ap-
plicants for admittance TO the opposite
side Of the street Ii took more than
Lawlor's courtroom yesterday after
noon. II took a decided tug.
Within the strictly guarded portals
the scene was practically the same that
IL has been since the closing argu-
ments Of the trial began. In the first
rows behind the rail on the defend
ants side of the room sat the latter's
wife and daughters in the midst of
= group Of society women, while two
Of his sons occupied places near his
attorneys. Scattered through the
crowd We're many women of the League
of Justice, and beneath each blue badge
of the organization there was pinned a
small American flag.
Moore announced, when adjourn
X. he
expected 10 finish his argument within
three-quarters Of an hour this morning,
but experience has proved that law
yer's conception of time is generally
2 most elastic thing, and so il is use
less 10 attempt 10 predict the hour at
which Francis J. Heney will begin his
rebuttal argument in behalf of the
prosecution. Once yesterday, when
an interruption occurred Moore made
1,-I~ f,a1a
him if he was threatening to continue
forever, and the speaker responded
that he felt capable Of doing that very
thing unless physical disability called
4 halt
TECHNICAL ARGUMENT
In its final summing up. Moore's
argument turned, as every other argu-
ment for defendant in any of the
craft cases has done, on technical
A point, the essence OF which might be
= immed UP in a few words: Did
James L. Gallagher offer Ford P.
Nicholas a bride in so many words
and if he did was that offer direcfIv
authorized by the DEFENDANT" The
savage sarcasm which characterized
Moore's opening remarks Tuesday aft
ernoon was not so apparent yesterday.
The argument contained more Of log
icsl analysis Of the evidence and less
OF NlLuDerat1fe attack. Toward the
end Of the afternoon the speaker he
came visibly tired. He made several
misstatements in which he was forced
10 correct himself, and once called upon
lis son. Stanley Moore, TO read A nor
tion Of a record for him. but then
changed his mind and read it himself
in resuming his argument Yesterday
morning. Moore said:
Before court adjourned last even
ing I was intending to discuss with
you the attempted sneer passed upon
us for not calling Mr.. Ford to the
stand. ] call your attention to the
fact that they could have called Cen
eral Ford TO the stand, as they did Mr.
Abbott and Mr.. Mutually. who also have
large numbers Of indictments pending
= gainst them And if he had refused
10 testify they could have forced him
TO do so by dismissing the indict-
ments against him, on two of which
he has already been acquitted And
so could they have called Mr. Ruef to
The stand. 1t is in evidence here thar
Ruef was for a long time in the camp
Of the graft prosecution and his testi-
mony was doubtless accessible to the
prosecution.
Lille the other side are throw
ing atones in that regard it might be
glass houses. Why was not Ruef
called in one OF the Ford trials2 Was
II not because his testimony would
have proved unsatisfactory TO them?
Mas il not because they knew that il