Los Angeles herald., 1909-04-30
MONEY PAID DID
NOT INFLUENCE
CALHOUN CASE MAY GO TO
JURY IN THREE WEEKS
Because He Did Not Have Previous
Understanding Regarding Vote,
Schmitz Member Failed to
Recognize Bribe
tBy' Associated Press.l

SAN FRANCISCO, April 29.-The
trial of Patrick Calhoun, president OF
the United Railroads, advanced to-
ward completion today with rapidity
almost mechanical.
Four members of the Schmitz board
of supervisors finished their admissions
of completely in the graft scandal OF
1906, and a fifth was on the stand
when the hour of adjournment arrived.
Basing the estimate on the records
of previous trials, it is expected the
case will be submitted to the jury
within three weeks, unless the case is
distinguished from preceding trials by
the introduction of new witnesses.
Prosecution and defense had dis
posed of James F. Kelley, Sam Davis,
Jennings j. Phillips and Patrick Nc
Gushin during the day, and Cornelius
j Harrigan, the eighth member of the
Schmitz board of supervisors, sum
moned by the prosecution, had been
returned to Assistant Prosecutor
O'Gara when adjournment was taken
until tomorrow.
Former Supervisor Phillips was sub
jected to the most severe examination
of the day by Earl Rogers, represent
ing the defense. One question by Mr..
Rogers brought out this reply: Il was
not on the board for the purpose of
holding up anyone or going after any
one. I did not have that intention
when l ran for office"
Examination Prolonged
Patrick McGushin's examination was
prolonged by Mr.. Rogers through an
intricacy of motives.
1t had been established in. previous
trials that McGushin was strongly in
favor of public ownership of service
utilities and he attempted to explain
his vote for the United Railroads troll
ley permit on the ground that he be-
lieved the exigencies of the times fol-
lowing the fire of 1906 demanded restor-
alton of street car service.
81 believe it is the only franchise OF
the kind | ever voted for" he said.
Subsequent testimony indicated that
Mr.. McGushin had opposed the grant
of other franchises awarded by the
board and he was asked by Mr.. Rogers
to explain his apparent departure from
principle.
''I never considered that I had ac-
cepted a bribe, because I never had
previous understanding that / was to
receive money in any matter for which
I voted" he said. I'm the affair of
the prize fight trust I was visited In
nv place of business by James L. Gal
lagher, who handed me a package con-
tanning $475 and said this was to meet
my campaign expenses"
'Why did you not vote for the Park
side franchise?" asked Mr.. Heney on
redirect examination.
"On account of my principles, said
McGushin 81 was living up to my
platform as we'll as l knew how. I
may have done wrong in allowing Gal
lagher whom / recognized as the arch
tempter to approach me, but I was
voting as would have voted If no
money had been offered me-"
'"Then why did you not assist the
grand jury in it's Investigation when
the district attorneys Office instituted
its inquiry?" asked Mr.. Heney:
''I was not asked to do so.' said the
witness.
Harrgan was called just before the
hour of adjournment, and recited the
circumstances under which he is al
(Continued ON Page Twol