Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1909-05-21
Transactions in Trinity

satisfactory on account of mistake III
/ the dates"
Transactions in Trinity
Helms said he was acquainted Will
/ Winfield S. Lamb, a rancher of Trim
/ ity county, John Mcclellan, state as
semblyman and rancher of Humboldt
county and A. J. Munroe, an attorney
of Eureka. Helms swore that John
| O'Neill an attorney of this city, had
visited him at his home in Trinity
county April II.
Il left my home on May s." said the
witness. "On April IS, prior to my de-
parture I had a visit from Mcclellan
and Lamb, who remained overnight
on the way to the city 1 received a
telephone call from Lamb at Harris
At San Rafael May 10 l was approach
ed on the train by Frank J. Murphy,
the attorney recently acquitted on
charge Of jury bribing. Murphy talked
to me from a seat behind and all the
way across on the ferryboat l was
accompanied by Charles Golf and Fl.
Laurentz, two agents of the district
attorneys office, who heard all these
conversations. on the san Francisco
side l was met by Attorney Hugh
O'Neill of San Francisco, who also
talked to me-
Helms also told of telegram re-
ceived by him on the train before
reaching San Rafael. The telegram,
he said. was signed Cook" 1t was
admitted in evidence but not read.
In reply to questions by Earl Rog-
ers of the defense, who undertook the
cross examination, Helms stated that
he had been detective for six years
and a United states secret service OPP
erative for two years before he went
t. work for the United Railroads
"Were you not a motorcycle rider
when Mr. Calhoun spoke to you about
employing motorcycles or automobiles
to carry on this work?" asked Mr..
Rogers
II was not" said the witness.
IT rode one of the machines but
once and then l broke my head
you would expect a man of Mr..
Burns perspicacity and extraordinary
powers of observation to notice such
machines, would you not?"
you will have to ask Mr.. Burns
about that" said the witness.
Attorneys in a Clash
At this point Heney objected that
Rogers was arguing the case and at
tempting another vaudeville show.
I'm carrying on the show as you
opened it last night" said Rogers.
And you enjoyed the performance
on this witness, l have no doubt, SAID
Heney. you are carrying it off well
this apparent enjoyment"
Don't you recall that the day you
were employed to engage motorcycles
was the very day that Boxton said he
had been instructed by Burns to per-
jure himself?'
Heney objected to this as incorrect
and improper statement and 1t was not
answered.
Did you tell Mr.. Abbott that Burns
had once put counterfeit money in the
pocket of a man he wanted to getT
asked Rogers.
Il did not" replied the witness.
Did you not tell Abbott that it was
Burns method to get an agent into
the employ of the people he wanted to
get?"
Il did not know anything of Mr.
Burns methods and I am not explain
ing the methods of the United States
secret service"
Did he tell you Mr. Burns had men
in the employ of the United Rail-
roads?"
He did not, but I knew It, I also
knew that the United Railroads had
men in the Burns office
1T was a case of dog eat dog, then?'
That's it." agreed Helms.
At this point Heney and Rogers in
dulged in an alteration relating to
the investigation Of secret service men
by congress.
Helms was asked If he ever saw a
report by one of Burns men on j. D.
Arthur, a prospective Calhoun juror,
who was described as the most preju-
diced juror I have met"
Helms denied having seen 1t, and
went on to tell that Platt brought him
from so to $50 reports from Burns
office at one time.
Before the session was an hour old
the police were holding in reserve a
line of fifty people who awaited admis-
sion to the courtroom. Among those
who heard the testimony were District
Attorney William H. Langdon, who
seated himself at the prosecutions
tables Rudolph Spreckels awaiting the
completion Of his cross examinations m
William j. Burns and Judge Frank H.
Dunno, who presided over several of
the graft trials.
Shows Expenditures
Neither prosecution nor defense was
prepared to continue the examination
when Rogers announced he would be
Obliged to suspend temporarily. At the
suggestion of the defense Spreckels
took the stand and handed Rogers
statement of expenditures made by him
in aid OF the prosecution.
Rogers declared he wanted some per-
son to swear that the items were cor
rect, but SpreckelS stated ne Was uu-
able so to swear, not having inspected
the statement owing to lack of time.
Heney finally offered to produce the
Spreckels employees who prepared the
accounts, to allow it to be compared
with Mr.. Spreckels' books If it was
agreed that the names of other sub
scribers to the prosecutions should be
kept secret. During the cross examina-
ton Attorney Rogers, appealing to
Judge Lawor. complained that Heney
had said to him in an undertone as he
passed the prosecutions table, you'll
get what's coming to you"
Il don't think It's right that l should
be threatened in that manner" he said,
Then you want to stop your insinua-
tons" said the assistant district attor-
ney. rising from his chair, 'or you will
get what's coming to you"
Judge Lawlor sharply reprimanded
Heney.
At the opening of the afternoon SEES
sion the inquiry into Rudolph Spreck-
els financial disbursement was re-
sumed. Robert o. Boxes, an accountant
In 10 pD1tolOu Of SnrapkplS WAS