The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-05-19

tbc United Railroads with an lnJunc-
ton suit just at the time the statute
permitting the purchase OF the Mar
ket street system was about to expire,
and if he had not then forced the
company TO pay him SIS a share more
for his stock than any one else re-
ceived and also TO pay fee OF Sl'eoV
ITO his attorney.
Il have no knowledge of any such
thing said Spreckels. L don't Know
what steps Mr. Wheeler took or what
he contemplated"
PAID WE'LL FOR SHARES
Did YOU not get sl15 share for
YOUR stock?p demanded Rogers.
L did. / offered to sell my stock
for such an amount would give me
per cent interest on the earnings OF
the company for the five years proceed
ing that, but rather than disclose the
enormous profits of the road which
they had withheld from the stock hold
ers they paid me s115 on my 1897
shares
You don't mean to say he didn't
have the right to sell his stock as ne
pleased. do you?" interrupted Heney.
Well" observed Stanley Moore, ris-
ing, stock was selling then for only
about so or So and
You are testifying and you are not
testifying 20 the facts, Mr. Moore,
broke in Spreckels. Il don't think
stock did sell for 60 or 65 at that
time. It sold for about So"
During the noon hour Spreckels
primed himself on the subject under
consideration and was better ready
10 answer questions when he returned
to the stand in the afternoon. He
was given an immediate chance by
Rogers.
Now don't you ,recollect that Mr..
Wheeler threatened suit?" asked the
latter.
.sThat is not true" declared Spreck-
els promptly. IT asked Mr.. Wheeler at
lunch today and found that your in
situations in regard to this, like your
other Instructions, are utterly false
Mr. Wheeler told me me never received
a fee from the United Railroads while
acting in my behalf. The check you
refer TO he received for representing
a Mr.. Wilson. a friend OF his, for whom
he settled the sale of some stock
Returning TO the time OF the forma-
ton of the competing company, Rogers
asked the witness if he had not told
Richard Tobin at the Burlingame club
in 1905 that he had better sell his
United Railroads stock, as it was go
ing to be war from then on. Spreck-
els denied this, but the question was
repeated several times.
I'm telling you no. shouted the
witness angrily.
AT a dinner party you attended
didn't you tell James D. Phelan there
was to be war;" asked Rogers.
such a general statement is in
accurate I did say there was to be
a determined opposition to the over
head trolley
Don't be squeamish," suggested
Heney to Rogers. Tell us the names
of those who were at the dinner party"
II don't, as a rule, bring in names,
answered Rogers.
WAS that the dinner party where
you drank 10 the death of seven of the
proseeution?" demanded Heney or
Rogers. To this fling there was no
reply
Rogers charged Spreckels with never
having cast a vote until after the be-
ginning of the graft prosecution and
received an answer that this was prob
ably true. Then he asked how much
Spreckels had paid out for the graft
prosecution and was told that the en-
tire account was itemized and could
be produced.
win you produce it?' asked Rogers.
Not unless Pm forced TO do So re-
sponded the. witness. My reason is
that a great many people contributed
with the understanding that their
names be kept secret and ] promised
TO do So
Will Produce List
IF I won't ask for the names. but
allow you to show the sums blank
Then ] have no objection. That was
my only reason"
SO 1t was agreed that the statement
should be introduced as soon as it could
be prepared. Heney brought the dis
cussion to an end by asking Rogers,
sarcastically: VIII YOU produce an
itemized account Of the moneys ex-
pended in defense of this prosecution"
Have you any figures showing pay
ments to Mr.. Heney's law partner, Mr..
COBB" asked Rogers of the witness
Heney's last remark.
Yes" answered Spreckels. 81 think
about $1,000. That was by personal
arrangement with him. and there is
some $4,000 still due him for two
years services"
is 1t not true that you have been
paying Mr.. Heney's office expenses?"
Yes. / have. It has been between
$500 and 5000 a month";
And did you not help pay for his
law library?'
L
Did you ever pay any money to Mr.
Heney in addition to his Office ex-
pensesg' demanded Rogers.
NO, sir, not cent" was the an
swer
SpreclSels admitted that he had paid
Hiram w. Johnson a fee for attorneys
services and had paid the expenses of
William ]. Burns and his force of as
sistants. Efforts to make him admit
however, that Heney had ever prof
tied by cent at hfs hands were futile.
He was positive in his denial of such
allegations. When asked if Heney's
April check this year had not been for
SL1941e, he responded that it had not.
but that such sum might be the total
for two months.
Have you caused any money to be
paid out that is not shown in your ac-
counts?" questioned Rogers
Not cent" answered the witness.
Brown Not on List
In regard to the list of subscribers. >
suggested Rogers. Was j. Dalzell
Brown on that list?"
He never subscribed a single dol
lar
How about the California safe de-
post and trust company"
Not a cent.
How about James d Phelan9'f