Arizona republican., 1909-05-20
United Railroads Thought Prosecution Needed Watching ONE SPY WHO PREACHED"
A Bitter Fight in the Calhoun Trial Over the Admission of His Testimony Regard ing the Shadowing of W.. Burns.

San Francisco, Cal, May 19.-In the trial of Patrick Calhoun, the president of the United Railroads, there was in- jected late today an extraordinary chapter dealing with the uses and the methods of detectives.
 John Helms, at one time head of a private detective bureau in this city. narrated in detail as a witness for the prosecution. the secrets he claims to have learned during his term of em- plOyment as an agent of the United Railroads. His testimony, which re- lated to an early period in the history of the graft prosecution, already in wolves the names of several persons more or less prominently identified with the defense, and there is a prom ise of revelations more sensational when he resumes the stand tomorrow. Helms had scarcely started his narra- tiOn when there ensued a legal wrangle that has had no parallel in the five months that have elapsed since the trial commenced.
 Five of the defendants attorneys protested against the admission of Helms testimony and the spectators were hardly aware of the important issue involved, for counsel on both sides with flushed faces and voices raised to an angry pitch, were engaged in legal battle that waged for nearly an hour. Judge Lawlor finally ruled that the evidence was admissible and Helms testified under objection until the session of court had been prolonged half an hour beyond the usual hour of adjournment.
 Helms said: During the Ford trial I talked with Abbott about E. A. Platt, who | thought was working for Burns. I told him I thought Platt would be useful and could be induced to come over to us. Ford arranged a meeting for the three of us. Platt told Abbott he could supply us with all reports on jurors in Burns possession and with general information as to the move ments of his men. On this showing he was engaged. rSi
 After this, Platt reported to me and I turned over the reports to Abbott, retaining duplicates for myself. l paid Platt and Abbott gave the men the money, Platt reporting to me from the time of the Ford trial until August 31, 1908, when I told him to report directly to Abbott. Hesgave me, whenever he could get to me, the reports on jurors, which were copied and returned to him so that they could be returned to Burns office.
 T received all manner of correspon- dence from Burns office. There were letters and answers, tetegrams in code and otherwise, every report on the 1908 jury panel. There were telegrams from his son while the latter was following Schmitz through Europe and telegrams from the operatives who were search ing for A. K. Detwiler, the telephone magnate who was indicted.
 Among other letters received there was one from Frank Leach, superin- tendent of the mint. I submitted a copy of this to Abbot and two or three days later he spoke to me about this and said he would like very much to get Burns letter to Leach. He told me he would give Platt s25 extra if he got the letter Platt did succeed in abstracting it and I gave a copy of it to Abbott"
 Helms testified that he had come to this city in response to a request by Attorney Louis Hoeffler early in May, 1907 at which time the first trial of Tirey L. Ford, counsel for the United Railroads, had been commenced. Hoef- fer, he said, instructed him to watch everything done by the prosecution and report the information so gathered.
 Assistant District Attorney Heney attempted to learn what persons were shadOWed by Helms, but the court sus- tained the objection by the defense. Helms said he once informed Calhoun that the men on motorcycles were constantly losing Burns who trav eled in an automobile, and Calhoun authorized him to hire an automobie and men to man it.
 This is offered" said Heney. with the intent to show a guilty conscious ness on the part of Calhoun; to show his conduct in interfering with the course of justice and the fabrication of evidence"
 T assign that statement as miscon- duct" said A. A. Moore; it IS not a sign of guilty consciousness to follow Burns. who has followed everyone else. The defendant is still presumed to be innocent, notwithstanding the diatribes of a public prosecutor who accepts no pay from the state, but gets S550 per month from a private individ- ual His following of Burns did not show a guilty conscioushess. It show ed common prudence"
 Is it admitted then that the allega- ton of the witness is true?" asked Assistant District Attorney O'Gara.
 It is not" responded Stanley Moore.