Los Angeles herald., 1909-01-29
LAWYERS Tits
GIVE SPIRIT TO
CALHOUN TRIAL
HENEY AND OPPONENTS IN
DULGE IN DISPUTES
JUDGE LAWLoR REBUKES At
ToRNEY FOR DEFENSE
Whole Day Consumed Without Single
Juror Being Accepted to Try Pres
dent of United Railroads on
Bribery Charges
by Associated Press.l

~ AN FRANClSCO, Jan. Io.--r d1llllS
~ to find a citizen who had not al
~ ready made up his mind as to the
guilt or innocence OF Patrick Calhoun,
president of the United Railroads, at
torneys engaged in the trial today COM
pleted their examination Of twenty-five
talesmen without acceptance of single
juror.
Today's session was enlivened by sew
eral spirited controversies between
Francis j. Heney and the attorneys
representing the defense. The basis OF
disagreement was the form of questions
put to talesmen under examination, and
the interrogations, for the most part,
related to the motives actuatlng the
prosecution in it's grant of immunity
to the bribe-talxing supervisors.
On one occaS sion Stanley Moore of the
defense was rebuked by presiding Judge
LaWlor for implied criticism of one OF
the courts rulings.
The fourth panel, which originally
consisted of siXty-five citizens and
which contributed nearly half that
number for actual investigation of their
opinions and prejudices, was found up
on exhaustion today to have brought
forward not a single talesman without
a firm conviction as to the merits OF
the case.
j
sion completed his preliminary interro-
cation of a fifth panel of sixty men.
Half of these escaped service for Varl-
Gus reasons, and the remainder will APP
pear for examination as to their quail
ficationS tomorrow.
Immunity Questioned
Walter E. Buck, an employe of the
Associated Oil company, replying to
a question by Stanley Moore of the
defense, declared he did not believe
the situation warranted the grant of
immunity to all the bribe- taking su-
pervisors of the Schmitz administra-
ton.
Before taking issue with this opinion
Prosecutor Francis ]. Heney elected
the fact that Henry Ach was attorney
for the Associated Oil company and
that w. F. Herrin was a director.
Stanley Moore resisted a challenge
by the prosecution long enough to ask:
"Did you ever hear of the prosecu-
ton being after any one except the
so-called 'higher-ups,' and did you
ever hear of them being after any
higher up except Patrick Calhoun,
and possibly Louis CLASP
The taleSman returned a nOn-com-
initial answer and the opposing attor-
neys engaged in a somewhat bitter eX-
change which was summarily ended
by Judge Lawlor. The talesman was
subsequently challenged for cause and
discharged.
John w. Hoyt, another member of
the panel, who succumbed to a chal-
lenge, frankly stated at the outset of
his examination he was strongly
prejudiced in favor of the defendant,
and his feeling of sympathy was
based on what the president of the
United Railroads had done for San
Francisco.
Attorneys in Tilt
The proceedings were again livened
and the bitter exchanges of counsel
were renewed later in the session, when
Charles F. Hutchinson, a planning mill
proprietor, who also objected to i'm
munity, was Intercepted by Mr.. Heney
as follows:
would you prefer to have graft
continue uninterrupted in San Fran
cisco rather than grant immunity to
secure convictiOnS?'
The prospective juror replied he
would not go as far as that, and an
objection by-A. A. Moore, who termed
Mr.. Heney's next question ga mere
Grafton" was sustained. The prosecU-
ton in turn objected to the first ques-
ton by the defense, and Mr.. Heney
said:
eff you honor will permit us to go
on with this line of examination we
shall welcome the opportunity
There was a confused babel of voices
raised in protest when Mr.. Heney, re-
newing hostilities, asked,
''Did you ever read that Harrison
Gray Otis of the Los Angeles Times
admitted receiving $4,000 for articles
on this case?"
There was a storm of objections
from three attorneys for the defense,
and L. F. ByingtOn raising his voice
said:
"And did you ever hear that Heney
said he would have Otis indicted and
had failed?',