The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1909-05-15
TRIAL OF CALHOUN
MR.. HENEY STILL PURsUEs FRISCO
GRAFTERs.
Detective Testiaes to 4shadowtng''
Abraham Ruef--Lswyers Clash
Over Testimony OF q
Witness.

San Francisco May 14.--when the
bribery trial of Patrick Calhoun. Pres
ident Of the United Railways. was re-
sumed today. opposing counsel prompt
" ciashed over the questioning by Mr..
Heney OF Richard Cornelius. President
and business agent Of the carmen's
union.
Mr.. Heney asked the witness to give
the substance OF a conversation with
Rudolph Spreckeis. which took place
prior to the Garments strike OF 1905.
The defense objected.
Mr.. Heney replied that It was the In
tention of the defense to argue con-
spiracy to cause q strike on the part
-uf Spreckels and others. He declared
the people proposed to refute that In
situation and would place Mr.. spreck-
els on the stand.
"You may question him from his
birth dowr. to- the present tlme." he
said.
The court sustained the objection af-
ter heated argument by counsel.
Mr.. Heney then went into the mat
ters surrounding the strike and drew
out a. statement that Rudolph Spreck-
els. Fremont Older and Mr.. Herey had
not advocated the strike or discussed
Il with the witness. The Interrogation
was carried on under q constant cross
fire OF objections by the defense.
John ] Barrett. OF counsel for the
defense, entered a protest against what
he termed "a conversion OF the case
into an attempt to rehabflitate the
regulations OF Mr.. Spreckels, Mr.. Phe-
Ian and Mr.. Heney."
The court overruled the protest and
the inquiry into the time OF the strike
and the connection tof the witness with
1t proceeded. 1t being the apparent i'm
tention of the prosecution to show that
Cornelius opposed the strike.
Robert N. Perry, q special agent en-
ployed by Detective w. J.. Burns to
shadow" Abraham Ruef In 1905, festI-
fed that on August rs. 1905, the day or.
which TREY l.. Ford, general counsel
OF the company, Withdrew large sums
from the mint. the money which the
prosecution alleges. was paid to the
sHperyisorss by direction of the defend
ant, Ruef went to the railroad COM
paiay's ONCE at the car barns. After
short stay inside he came out and hur-
rled to his automobile with something
bundled up UNDER his coat and man
whom the witness learned later was
Mr. Ford, came to the door Of the Of
dee when Ruef drove away.
The cross examination OF the de-
tecttve was conducted Dy MT byinG-
ton. who reverted to q statement made
on direct examination that some one
had appeared to take Mr.. Ford's pie
ture as he stood In tine doorway after
Ruef's Departure.
Mr. Bylngton went into the testi-
nony given by the witness In the Sec
ond and third Ford trials, attempting
to show contradictions. The COMPARE
son did not bring out any important
discrepancies.
Much of the cross examination was
devoted to a scrutiny OF a note book
which he kept while "shadowing" and
which he used to refresh his memory
while under direct examination. Mr..
Byington noted every blot or blurred
figure or letter on the page referring
to Ruef's visit to the railroad once
ard sought to show that Nthe witness
contradicted himself.
Mr.. Henry on redirect examination
deanded OF the witness what no reant
by endeavoring to hide certain words.