The San Francisco call., 1909-04-22
By w. Russell Cole

With former Supervisor James L.
Gsiiagher's cross examination well un-
der way. but one Issue has as yet been
clearly drawn in the calhoun trial.
That issue is the same that was raised
during the cross examination of Ferd
?. Nicholas. and the point open for the
consideration OF the jury is the identi-
cal point that was made at the very
outset Of Nicholas examination at the
hands Of caIhoun's attorneys: Are both
Nicholas and Gallagher deliberate per-
Jurers?
Already the line of defense in the
Calhoun case has taken a decided twist
away from the ordinary rut pursued in
The other graft cases that have been
brought 70 trial No attack has been
made upon the testimony of the for
mer supervisors to the payment or the
bribery money in the overhead trolley
ordinance cases. Instead, an open ef-
fort Is being made 10 impeaci the tes-
tlmony Of the principal witnesses and
10 raise a doubt in the minds OF the
jurors as 10 whether a definite offer of
= bribe was ever made TO Nicholas
prior TO the time the money was ac-
PURELY TECHNICAL DEFENSE
At best, the defense that has been
outlined up to the present time is
purely 4 technical one. There has been
no reference TO Patrick CalhoUn's re-
peated declarations of two years ago
that neither himself nor any one else
connected with the United Railroads
ever paid cent 10 corruptly influence
the vote Of the supervisors regarding
H.
conceded by Calhoun's seven attorneys
that the money was paid. The one
point upon which days have been spent
in cross examination is whether Gal
lagher ever told Nicholas that he was
10 have the bribery money which he
later received.
The Indictment in the present case
does not charge the payment of the
money, but the offer to pay It. So
the point OF attack has been upon the
statements Of the witnesses that this
offer was actually presented. 1t was
thrsshed out through hours of cross
examination IN the case of Nicholas
and now il is being thrashed out in
even more detail in the case of Gala
CHER. who has corroborated Nicholas
testimony in full.
A. A. Moore, senior attorney OF the
Calhoun staff, took charge Of the cross
examination OF Gallagher when Heney
unexpectedly announced at the very
beginning of yesterday mornings ses-
sion Of court that the prosecution had
no more questions to put to the wit
ness on direct examination. All day
yesterday Moore conducted a hammer
and tongs inquiry, attempting by every
weapon Of logic. oIatory and persua-
sion to dislodge Gallagher from his po-
sition and force him to admit uncer-
tsinty concerning the point in issue.
EXAMINATION Is BITTER
Throughout the ordeal Gallagher
never wavered for an instant Moore's
examination was even more bitter than
that addressed by Rogers on the pre-
cediug DAY TO Nicholas. but il was less
subtle and insinuating. Gallagher is
himself a trained lawyer, and he fenced
with Moore over every question that
might have driven him into a corner
had he answered it thoughtlessly.
IIeney and O'Gara also fought to keep
the record clear Of statements which
might be misconstrued If brought up at
later trials. and the result was that
the entire day teemed with quarrelsome
dialogue.
Moore went after Gallagher just as
Rogers went after Nicholas. He in
4roduced the records of previous trials
and sought TO show damaging discrep-
sncies between Gallagher's testimony
on former OCCASIONS anu titdl SlNti eSS-
terdav He did his best to hold the
witness to yes" and no answers
and 20 prevent explanations which
might throw a different light on certain
statements by considering the context
rather than taking them alone. The
whole thing was futile so far as any
actual Impeachment OF Gallaghers oi-
rect testimony was concerned.
In passing Gallagher TO the defense
for cross examination, Heney stated
that he might wish TO examine the
witness further but that ne deemed
Interrogation concerning other mat
+ers inadmissible unless new subjects
were opened by the defense on cross
e,.s-,ination. Moore made il apparent
~ the outset that he would give the
f,ofirv as wide scope as possible in
fhe face Of objections by the prosecu-
fion. objections were forthcoming soon
after be took up the examination, how
ever and resulted in some angry
clashes between counsel. The first real
bitterness grew out of Moore's remark
that Heney's tone Of voice in taking
AK biection was "snarling and bawi-
ingA
CLASH BETWEEN LAWYERS
You evidently think that you should
have a monopoly of the snarling that
goes on in this court. answered Heney-
THE Jury can decide that for them
selves and don't need any instructions
from YOU as 10 my behavior" declared
Moore
There would be no need of all these
objections If counsel would adhere to