OCR Text |
Show COUNSEL AGAIN CLASH. Heated Argument at the Mention of Spreckels in Calhoun Case San Francisco, 'May 14. Within a few minutes after the resumption today to-day of the bribery trial of Patrick Calhoun, Cal-houn, president of the United Rail-, roads, the opposing counsel clashed' over a Question put to Richard Cornelius, Cor-nelius, president and business agent of . the Carmen's union, relative to tho substance of a conversation had by tho witness with Rudolph'Spreckels, prior to the Carmen's strike of 1906. This was brought up during the cross-examination of Cornelius yesterdav. The witness referred to a meeting wllh Mr. Spreckels during the strike, but was not asked what the conversation had been. When the re direct examination was taken by Mr. Heney. he asked: "What -was that conversation with, Mr. Spreckels?" The defense interposed an objection on the ground that the conversation had not been gono into in the cross-examination. cross-examination. Mr. lleney replied tbat it whs the intention of the defense to argue a conspiracy to cause a strlko on tho part of Spreckels and others. He declared that the people proposed to refuto that Insinuation and would place Mr. Spreckels on the stand. "You may question him from his birth, down to the present time," he said. "What has tho Spreckels family tn do with this case?" asked Mr. Alexander Alex-ander King, of the defense. "Whenever "When-ever the name Is mentioned, Mr. Heney goes off into a discourse and gets angry." The court sustained the objection after a heated argument by counsel. Mr. Ileney then went Into the matters mat-ters surrounding that strike, and drew out a statement that Rudolph Spreckels, Spreck-els, Fremont Older and Mr. Heney had not advocated the ntxiko or discussed dis-cussed it. with the witness Tho in- , terrogation was carried on, under a constant cross-firo o objections by tho defense' " ' - John J. Barrett, of counsel for tho defense, entered a protest against wliat ho termed tho conversion of tho case Into "an attempt to rehabilitate . the reputations of Mr. Spreckels, .Mr. Phelan and Mr. Heney." "Mr. Heney has eaid that ho is throwing down the bars, and he is being be-ing beaten with them when he does. If he does not know It, ho must be in dreamland," Attorney Barrett added. The court overruled tho protest, and the inquiry Into tho time of the strlko an the connection of tho witness with it. proceeded. It being the apparent Intention In-tention of the prosecution to show that Cornelius opposed the strike. Robert II. Perry, a special agent employed em-ployed by Detective W. J. Burns, to "shadow" Abraham Ruef In 1906. was next called to the 6tanJ. He told oC the movements of the man he trailed on July 31 and August 23, 1906, the day on which Tlrey L. Ford, general counsel coun-sel of the company, withdrew large sums from the mint in currency, ths money which the prosecution alleges was paid to the supervisors by direction direc-tion of the defendant Perry said tb;t on August 23, Ruef went to tho railroad rail-road company's office at the car barns and after a short stay inside, cnm out and hurried to his automobile with, something bundled up under his coat, and a man. whom the witness learned later was Mr. Ford, came to the door of the office as Ruef drove away. |