The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-06-19

THIS valuable privilege that they bought
from the board of supervisors; mere
pasaleile, drop of water IN the
bucket; something they didn't notice
when we think of what they save every
year. And when you come TO talk
aoodt their $4,000, 900 investment. when
iass t ,h put that in? they PUT PUT ON IN
WAS put into one building In this CITY
oy man in this city prior TO 1900:
I'm a,,d 'raeted for and the building started
me United Railroads didn't put any
more than that much into the entire
system in 1906. Three or four mil
I r,,ii9s more during 1907, and all these
unions being put in down here by
pIlVale individuals into private build
ings Wnere they were taking chances
tnat We're thousand to one grea ter
nan the chances being taken by the
Unlted railroads. Aye, TO repeat II,
tnese eulogies about an idol OF the peo-
PIE, because he broke a strike.
put II has been said by Mr.. STANLEY
Tlo1Ie. My father didn't say that MI.
cainoun was held up" You are mis-
taken, Mr.. Heney." Let us see. What
Is the trouble? Is this argument be-
Sinnins to develop the fact that that
Is the only recourse upon which this
Jury can fall back and not convict Mr..
Calnoun? That they have got to make
up .neif minds that he was held up
ana let him go, although guilty. on
anaL account, in violation or their
oaths? Are they sorry Mr.. A. A. Moore
saio II! IL would seem so. Whenever
sou near a pig squealing getting under
q renee you know it is not quite high
enough, 1T Is scraping his back.
ana now Tor minute let us consider
MI. Ruef, who went on one occasion to
aiI. oprecKeis and proposed to him that
general strike be brought about and
ghat together they buy the bond issue
'oI something like $1S.000.000 that this
cry was about to put out. Just think
OF the infamous character OF the man
VINO would make such q proposition as
lhat. But he was the same man who
was dining with our idol at his home.
ne Is tile same man who was iunchlng
win the general at the Cosmos club.
he IS the same man who called at Mr..
Calnoun home on August 80, 1905, and
again the same night and again the
next DAY, August 81, 1906. He is the
Ford's office the last week in May the
week In which Tirey l.. Ford got the
$4,000 In small bills He is the same
man who handed the same kind of
coin exactly to JamesL. Gallagher in
the sum of $4,000, which James l.. Gal
lagher distributed among these super
visors for their votes on the trolley
matter. He is the same man who was
at the United Railroads office on Aug
ust %, or about that of 1906, the same
day on which Mr.. Tirey l.. Ford got
100000 down there a the mint and
changed 1T into 500 bills and carried ii
10 his office. IT is the Ruef who went
into Mr.. Spreckels office years before,
but after Schmitz had become mayor,
In Tact, about three years, / suppose,
after Schmitz had become mayor, and
made the proposition that If Mr.. Spreck-
els would get up a syndicate to buy
bonds-now, mark you. that wasn't a
man used to hiding his character. Why,
II Mr.. Ruef would talk that way to Mr..
Spreckels, whom he hardly knew, whom
he had been brought into and intro
In Gut h. OF
Mr.. Ruef would talk that way to Mr..
Spreckels after meeting him only once
or twice, how do you suppose he would
talk to TREY l.. Ford, at whose office
he had been down here, and you al
ready know that Tirey l.. Ford had
been an attorney general of the state
not so long before, and you know that
Abraham Ruef had been practicing poll
itics by this evidence for some time,
and you know from the evidence in this
case that Ford and Ruef We're on some
what intimate terms. If he would talk
that way to Spreckels, how would he
talk to Ruef?
And that is the same Ruef who was
dealing with TREY L. Ford; that is
the same Ruef who paid $4,000 to Jim
Gallagher that was turned over to this
board of supervisors, and Will you, as
reasonable men. say that you can not
convict until we bring TREY L. Ford
here or Ruef here to tell you what was
said between them on that occasion?
honestly have a doubt arising from the
evidence in this case that suggests
itself to you as reasonable men, that
fits all the facts in this case? doubt
as to what actually occurred between
Tirey L. Ford and Abraham Ruef, and
II between them then between Patrick
Calhoun and Abraham Ruef.
Have you stopped to consider what
the effect of an acquittal in this case
means? Have you stopped to consider
the circumstantial evidence In this case,
tracing the money into the mint, trac-
ing exactly the same character OF
money into the hands OF Mr. Ruef'
tracing Mr.. Ruef on at least two occa-
sions to the car barns, proving 1t even
by the people there In the barns them
selves, Miss McDermott and FRANCIS.
that Ruef was out there couple OF
times although they can not specify
the exact dates?
But as to the money passing from
Ford to Ruef. here are all these Wit.
nesses whose testimony may be or
slight Importance taken alone, but all
these circumstances put together be-
come so strong that 1t is impossible TO
break the chain. 1t is like taking
fagot that you may break over your
knee with ease: you take two of them
and they are more difficult to break;
you take three of them and perhaps
you can't break them at all; put a
dozen of them together and 1t is I'M
possible for you to break them: they
are far stronger than the bones of your
leg. So it is with these facts. Mr.
Moore takes one fact at a time, one
circumstance at time, and says, why
does Mr.. Ford going into Mr.. Ruef's
bathroom UP there prove anything?
Does that show that these men were
guilty OF any conspiracy?' No, OF
course 1t doesn't, standing alone, but it
Is one of the fagots, it is one out of
many.
Now, Alec Latham. they say, did not
testify that he saw Ruef come out with
bundle. That is true, that is true.
But Alec Latham has been away from
here long time, and If Alec Latham
ever did testify to that We couldn't I'M.
peach our own witness by proving it,
That is the difference between the de-
Tense calling a witness and the prose-
cution calling a witness. They say We
called al 1.-The witnesses. Yes, we did
right out of their own Offices. even: and
II witness told something that we
knew was not true we couldn't i'm
peach him. that is to say If he had tes-
titled to something to the contrary at