The San Francisco call., 1909-03-02
NEW LAW CROP
SPRINGS UP IN
CALHOUN TRIAL
Defense Makes Intellectual Fight
TO Retain TaIesman Cas-
sius c. Moss
Peculiar Attempt of Rogers to
Keep. Man Who Favored
Prosecution
Touch of Comedy of Dromio
Brand in Examination of
Two MOrrisOns
By W. Russell Cole

ne hrst day of spring was hera lded
IN the Calhoun trial yesterday by the
bursting forth of "a brand new crop of
law relative TO tie selection of Jurors
That was the only thing that did burst
forth. however, and like a good many
other spring crops it peeped out too
soon and was frostbitten. While it
lasted 1t received tender nourishment
at tie hands of the defense and made
plain the fact that somebody has
thought il worth while TO specialize on
study Of law pertaining to this par
ticular phase of the case
GENEROSITY OF DEFENSE
There was nothing momentous about
the introduction OF the little excursion
into legal technicalities. 1t came about.
quite naturally during the examination
Of >Talesman Cassi1s c. Mess q furni-
ture salesman whom the defense
seemed anxious TO retain as a Juror
Moss expressed a leaning which
seemed slightly In favor of the prose-
cution, bat Stanley. Moore overlooked
this point with the greatest of generosity
and signiaed his willingness to take
Moss, leaning and ali. .Heney' was not
fancy about the whole matter, because.
as he explained, he. believed the firm
for which Moss worked to be openly
and avowediy. antagonistic to THE pros
ecution, and he used the talesman's
bias as hoax on, which to hang a
challenge.
ROGERS is PREPARED.
Immediate disSension arose from the
side Of the defense. and. Earl Rogers
advanced with 2n offer to argue the
challenge. Though. the :oIestion in is
sue had not arisen before. since. the. case
began, Rogers was armed with manu-
script Of several type written pages,
consisting of excerpts from vailous ai-
thorities on tie particular. point in
volveo- The. appearance. Of the manu-
script was a Significant reminder that
the real battle or the Calhoun. trial is
being fought as fercely III. the impanel-
ment ofsthe jury as it ever win be in
the presentation OF evidence :.
There was no chance that the defense
might retain Moss by argument for: the
talesman already had deciared-that he
had read the transcript OF the confess
sions OF the supervisors before the
grand jury. and this was long ago rec
ognized by the court as an ADEQUATE
ground Of challenge under. one Of the
peculiar constructions given THE law
by a higher court. In fact. Judge Law
Ter allowed the challenge before he al
lowed Rogers to argue, but the latter
was so insistent about giving publicity
10 the newly discovered legal citations
that the opportunity was not denied.
His contention was strangely opposed
10 the often repeated platitude that
lit is as much the duty of the district
attorney to conserve the interests of the
defendant as it is to represent the
people, For. argued Rogers
.1.1,s.
because he expresses an opinion in their
favor. We are the guardians of our
own right and they can not be heard, to
object for US
Rogers iead and elaborated on two
or three citations and then suggested
tnat as he had 80 or 30 more from
nearly as many states. the court
should adjourn until morning. Judge
J.awlors did not comment; he simply af-
frmed his former ruling and instructed
that the examination of the next juror
proceed.
COMEDY OF DRoMIO BRAND
There was touch of comedy of the
Dromio brand in the examination of
Jurors Charles J. and David J. Morri-
son. and though the. tanEle was even
tuaIlv Strengthened out il completely
upset the records of the court for a
little time David Morrisonfs name
was first called. and he was presum-
ably examined and excused. At least.
every one connected with the case
would have been ready to testify that
he had been examined and. excused.
So there was some wonderment when
: Charles J. Morrisons name was called
and the only man who answered to il
assured the court that his name was
David and not Charles. He insisted on
this in spite of the fact that everybody
else doubted it and that the record
showed that David J, Morrison already
had been excused 1t was finally found
that Charles J. Morrison had answered
the name Of David J. Morrison by mis-
take and had been examined and ex-
cused under. the latter designation, the
real David, in the meantime, remain
ing wholly obliviOus Of the masquer-
sde As Charles had usurped his place
it was agreed by the attorneys that
David should take Charles place, and
so the trouble ended: The second Mr.
Morrison was excused as. quickly as
the first had been.s
MEN IN BOX KEEP AWAKE
Though the day dragged somewhat.
none Of 5the accepted talesmen in the
jury boS fell asleep which is better
than the record Of several days last
week. Talesman Wesley s. Maxson. a
dealer ip gas and electric appliances.
opened the way for little lecture on
fbe duties Of citizenship by asserting
as reason for never having given the
graft cases his attention that "a bust
nessman has no right to discuss those
matters" Heney was squaring HIM
self in his chair for the catechism when
the expected was averted by a chal-
lenge ipterposed by the defense.
other fa4esmen who were examined
and excused were Nat T. Messer, John
q. Mcintyre Charles w. Mccormick,
John W. Mason, Harry G Lewis. James
A Mccullough. Jacob c. Morris, Pat
rick AIaIoney: Thomas ". Monroe, Ed
ward II. Moller, Harry c. Norris. WI.
liam Morgan Walter Mohns, George A.
Sbeehan John c.. Mearns, John Z. Nal
len. Harry ]. Moore. Eugene Carrigan.
Donald H. Mccorkle and Martin +.
Cosgrid.
Ruef JaiIer Loses Job
For allowing Abe Ruef TO leave his
cell and 10 Join in midnight dinner
The county Jail recently, Jailer Frank
Johnston was discharged by Under