The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-06-19

Jurors, from the facts of this case
Case Goes to Jury Today
Il During the discussion which came
iate IN the afternoon as to the amount
| or time which Heney expected 10 CON
sumo In bringing his argument TO an
emu The question arose over getting the
case TO the jury today. Judge Lawlor
called attention to the fact that under
the statutes no procedure in a criminal
trlal Is lawful between Saturday noon
and Sunday at midnight, except to re-
celVe verdict, and said that he in
| tended that the case should go To the
jury by noon today
Does your honor have IN mind that
It's always u o'clock until it's /
oceockT Inquired Heney iaughingiy.
congress has that notion. but / don't
Entertain such view" answ cred the
court
hhe question OF a night session was
4e1t 10 the Jurors, who promptly de-
iuelAFeo themselves willing. as one of
flhem expressed 1T. ITO go on all night,
Heney argued until o'clock and re-
Snmed again al s o'clock, speaking for
eWo hours during the evening He will
Icegln again at o'clock this morning
and viii conclude before 1880. which il
the hour set by Judge Lawlor at which
10 begin his instructions to the jury.
Shows Transfer of Cash
During the session last night Henev
produced charts showing in tabulated
FORM the amount and time of the trans
Ter OF the money from the mint to-
Sether with the payments TO the super
ff3sors. The figures formed a strong
Illustration to aid him in his conten
lions. and he spent much OF the even
ing IN going over the charts for the
benefit of the jury
deneys entire address during the
fday was powerful following up of
that begun Thursday Instead of read
ing testimony and analysing it as the
oasis OF argument ha brought his story
out in narrative form referring To the
testimony TO illustrate it, In this wav
ne maintained the sequence of the case
with forcefui effect
CONDITIONS BEFORE THE FIRE
Al the outset Of his argument YES
! terday morning Heney went at Length
into q summing up of conditions of
United Railroads affairs prior to the fire
anu regarding the controversy about
the respective merits of the under
ground conduit and overhead trolley
| systems. Together with this he cou-
pied description of the manner in
winch the board of supervisors ives
| preparing to meet the issue when a.
was presented 10 them. He told of the
various talks between Calhoun and rep
IesehtatiVes or the civic organizations
which were demanding theundereround
CONDUIT system. In part he said:
am going Into this because l claim
/ tnaL the thlugs that transpired from the
time that Mr.. Calhoun arrived here on
was passed on May IA show concIusiveo
~ that Patrick Calhoun came here de-
4 ternlneo 10 get the overhead trolley
ana came here etermined to get II
through Abraham Ruef and the Doodle
board Of supervisors. and not other
wise. Now, in the first place he could
NOT get IT any other way. The adorn-
ment committee could not give him the
franchise. the people of San Francisco
could not give him the franchise. The
board OF supervisors had to pass upon
the franchise or permit The-efore Fba
board of supervisors was his ,,ltims are
goal How did he propose to reach the
board of supervisors? It is absoluteTv
nemonstrsted by the letters of Mr. Cal
ne had made arrangements with Abra-
! ham Ruef at that time: that he was
holding meetings In the Bohemian club;
that he had already arranged that IN
was TO go through the board OF stipe-
| visors.
RUFF FRIEND OF CALHOUN
Why. the board of supervisors had
70 put 1t up for sale before It could be
pid upon, anc with Mr.. Ruef as his
I
this case has been conducted, and the
| argument of counsel the Inference
arises that he is still his friend. because
| they nave been careful not only not to
charge that Abe Ruef held them up. but
! they have been careful to assure Won
that Mr.. Calhoun was not held UP. Not
and absolutely inconsistent with Az
l-dinner party given to Mr.. Ruef; because
1t rs utterly and absolutely inconsistent
with the visit OF Abe Ruef to the house
1 Calhoun
1906, after the so called hoIdup. If there
was any holdup: because 1t is absolute
ly inconsistent with every piece of tes-
! by Abraham Ruef.
No Abraham Ruef still belongs TO
them; he is their friend; they don't at
tack him, they attack nobody but the.
board of supervisors. and the only hold
| up that ever occurred was the holdup
that the supervisors made of their poor
/ friend, Abraham Ruef, who didn't get
any money from them at all. or even.
on the supposition OF Mr.. A. A. Moore. ir
he got anything he only got $4,000 as
that rspacious board of supervi-
sors took away from poor Abe SIS. 600
out of the $4,000 he got, so that Abe
stood loser $4,000 in the matter of the
| troiley, according to mis- friends oh
that is the reasonable hypothesis thar
is consistent with the innocence OF fha
defenoant in this case. That Is what
tney say raises a reasonable doubt in
/ the nina or man Of common sense
and half reason. Why. q half witfed
person would not accept that as a rea
sonaoie DOUBT, as reasonable hypothe-
SIS arising out OF and upon the evidences
In this case, and yet counsel stands nm
here and with an audscity born of con-
ndence IN something that ] see no foun-
thought he was safe IN adyanc;ne
! propositions that reflect either ,,nosS
your honesty or your intelligence.
COULD HAVE OPERATED CARS
Now. here is the Mr.. Spreckels who
| wanted to secure the United Railroads
and had no other purpose in this opno-
/ sition. lie said he would Join with
other property owners to put in drain
age condufts at their own expeneee
maintain them for an entire year. pro-
vided the company would agree that IL
at the end of that time there was not a
single hour during the IL months that