The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1910-05-04

vindication of my good name And
| here l am at last, anxious for the ear
Hest possible trial of the charges
against me.
My absence has been with the sole
idea of recovering my health sufficient
ly to stand the ordeals of a trial, and
there never has been a moment from
hte day 7 first learned of my indict-
ment until the present time that I did
not intend to return TO San Francisco
directly my health would permit. That
I have done so voluntarily is the best
proof that I have nothing to fear. Lib
erty is priceless, but not more so than
honor, and ] could not so down to the
grave with these charges standing
against my reputation. which, until
these indictments. was never ques-
toned during a business career ex-
I tending over 30 years.
DEFENSE NOT DISCUSSED
This is neither the time nor the
place TO discuss my defense, so I Will
merely say that the indictments
against me are without foundation. !
had nothing 10 do directly or indirectly
with the bribing of any supervisor; I
never authorized directly or indirectly
any person to bride any supervisor
and l had no knowledge directly or
Indirectly that any bribery was ar
ranged for or occurred.
According TO District Attorney Flick
ert, Detwiler returned only to avoid
capture. Said Fickert Yesterday:
"Detwiler came in only because he
had but d short time to run. We had
been after him. We had located him
in Toledo and had sent a detective
there He knew that he would soon
be taken. The first l knew that he
was in town was when 1 received a
message this morning from kaufman
that he had d client who desired to
surrender to the court. Upon examin-
ing the record learned that it must
be Detwiler
Il do not know when we will go to
trial. / do not think we can proceed
for couple of months because of other
matters"
do you think you can get. convic-
tion?" was asked
TESTIMONY NOT STRONG
The testimony of the supervisors
doesn't show up very strong" replied
Fickert. It's another case of Ruef
paying over the money. Gallagher tes-
titled that he receiced S62, 900 from Ruef
and paid it over to the supervisors in
the Home telephone case. 1t seems
from the testimony that Gallagher
holds the same position in this case as
he does in the Calhoun case [ be-
lieve, though, that there is other testi-
mony m this case. We can, for instance.
call the other officials of the telephone
company. They can not refuse to teSti-
fy. as they can no longer be held for
the offense."
IT has been generally understood that
100000 was paid for the Home COM
pany franchise, the supervisors receiv-
ing So, 900. The balance was divided
between Ruef and Schmitz. The thir-
teen indictments against Detwiler
charge the payment of $500 to Will
son. Lonergan, Coffev, Nicholas. Nam
lock, Furey, Coleman and Phillips;
$4,000 to Duffy. Harrigan. Kelly and
Davis, and $4,000 to Gallagher.
The unequal allotments were devised
by Ruef to even up the payments made
to certain supervisors by the Pacific
telephone company.
Detweiler was vice president of the
Home telephone company at the time
of the scandal. Since then he has dis
posed of his holdings in the corpora
ton. He spent a great deal of time
in San Francisco while the franchise
was pending and handled the political
affairs of the corporation during that
momentous period.
Jerry DriscoII Back
Jerry Driscoll. brother in law of
former Mayor Schmitz, has returned to
San Francisco after an extended abb
sence. He was associated with his
relatives in many enterprises that
formed the subject of grand jury in
vestigations. Driscoll left California
more than two years ago. 1t was