OCR Text |
Show FATE OF PATRiauHHOCN OF THE JURY Heney Finishes His Impassioned Appeal of Sixteen Hours and One-Half For the Citizens of San Francisco Judge Lawlor Gives His Final s Instructions to Jury Review of Famous Case Unparalleled Un-paralleled in Western Courts San Francisco, Juno 19. Concluding the greatest issue in the history of San Francisco's graft scandal, the case ! of Patrick Calhoun, millionaire president presi-dent of the United Railroads, charged with bribery, was given to tho jury shortly before noon today, after a trial that dates back to January 12, 1909. Assistant District Attorney Francis J. Heney, in a session of court that opened an hour before the usual time, added materially to an argument argu-ment that had already extended over a period of fifteen hours, before Judgo William P. Lawlor began his chargo to the jury a few minutes before 11 o'clock. j Every faction of municipal politics, and every shade of bitter sentiment that has arisen, slnco the overthrow of "Boss" Abraham Ruef three years ago, was represented in the over-i over-i whelming thiong that stormed tho doors of "Carpenter's hall," when court assembled this morning. Mounted Mount-ed policemen charged into the crowds I again and again, and a full company of patrolmen, inside the building and out, ! was scarcely able to preserve order I and regulate admission to the court room. When Mr. neney faced the jury for the final instalment of his address, j the hall was packed to suffocation. Men and women, prominent in every 'detail of the city's life, who had .wealthy man Is on trial, although a supei visor Coffey, for Instance can be comictcd in a few minutes." After a recess of five minutes, the floors were locked and the judge began be-gan his instructions to the jury. Patrick Calhoun was one of tho score of wealthy corporation officials indicted as an outcome of tho municipal mu-nicipal upheaval of 1907, when tho administration dominated by Mayor Eugene E. Schmitz and Abraham Ruf was overthrown, lu November, 190.", Francis J. Heney, already well knowu as a public prosecutor, charged in public address that Ruef and Schmitz were guilty of corruption and with W. J. Bums, formerly a government secret service agent, undertook an investigation of privileges awarded several pubTlc service corporations. : Ruef and Schmitz were indicted on : charges of extorting money from 1 French restaurant proprietors In No-; No-; veniber, 1906, after Ruef had failed in an effort to seize the district attor- ney's office through his own appolnt-j appolnt-j inent by the board of supervisors. The graft investigation, as it camo I to be known, was conducted secretly ; for several months following, but In tho early part of March, 1907, Burns succeeded in trapping Supervisors Thomas F. Lonergan, Edward I. Walsh and Charles F. Boxton in the act of agent of the district attorney's office. The list of defendants headed by M. M. Ahbott and Luther G. Brown, included in-cluded Rex Hamlin, secretary of Burns and three others of Burns' assistants who confessed that they had given private reports, letters and telegrams to John H. Helms and the agents of tho United Railroads. On Saturday and Sunday. March 26 and 27, the offices of Abbott. Brown, Calhoun and Mullally were raided by the police upon a search warrant secured se-cured by Burns who professed to havo information that the men named wero in possession of his stolen papers. Safes and desks were forcibly opened In the presence of protesting attorneys and officials and documents to tho n'imber of 2.000 were seized nnd delivered de-livered into the custody of the police i judge who granted the warrant. Bc- fore the raiders had completed their i task, attorneys for tho UnUed Railroads Rail-roads secured and served an injunction injunc-tion forbidding further search. Another order was secured to forbid for-bid the police judge opening the sealed seal-ed packages and after days of argument. argu-ment. Superior Judge F. J. Murasky took under advisement an application for an order adjudging Assistant District Dis-trict Attorney F. J. Heney and two detectives, who participated in tho .ods, guilty of contempt of court-No court-No end of complication has been (creaieu mrougn tue activity of private pri-vate detectives, several of whom are admitted to have been privately in tba employ of one side while secretly furnishing fur-nishing information to the other. A fortnight was added to tho length of the proceedings by the testimony of John Helms, once a dctectlvo In tha employ of the United Railroads who was later added to the force of Burns to obtain evidence of alleged illegal activity on "tho -part'of "United" Railroad Rail-road agents. Helms testified that he had. paid Piatt and other Burns men to secure papers and had turned them over to Abbott. Prior to his appearance appear-ance as a witness, he charged, several sev-eral attempts were made to prevent his testifying for the prosecution. Another Burns agent produced In court sums aggregating .?250, which he alleged had been paid him by Luther . G. Brown to betray secrets . of the district attorney's office. One of the I witnesses called during the trial was j Rudolph Sprcckels, president of tho First National bank, who Instituted the graft prosecution by undertaking to pay the expense Involved. The tes-jtiniony tes-jtiniony presented showed that a fund 'of $234,000 had been raised and ex- ponded, and Mr. Sprcckels accounts voluntarily pmduccd in court showed that he had contributed approximates j ly $175.00j of the total, j ' The jury had been out an hour and I a quarter,' when Judge Lawlor, stating j that he would have luncheon served I to the jurors in the quarters abovo 1 the court room, excuse the defendant and the attorneys on both sides, until '.' o'clock this afternoon, declaring a, recess of two hours" I fought for entrance, counted them-i them-i selves fortunate to hav e the privil-j privil-j ego of standing in the remotest corners, corn-ers, whilo in the street, hundreds wero I marshalled in lino by tho police, or stood patiently at the ends of the block, denied even the privilege ot remaining re-maining in the vicinity of the hall. Not alono because of the exceeding bitterness that has marked many of Its stages, but because of lt3 length, has the trial been a notable one In' western west-ern history. Between January 12, of this year, when the attempt to secure the first Juryman was instituted, and today, when the case was given to the twelve men finally selected, five months and a week elapsed, and 15S days had intervened. Of this period 110 days had been devoted to court sessions. In this respect, the case outstripped every record established in the case pf "Abraham Ruef, who was convicted after 70 days devoted to actual court proceedings. A thirteenth juror, Michael Murphy, was added to tho regular panel of twelve by order of Judge Lawlor, with the expectation that his services might be required by emergency. Three months and two days were necessary to qualify the thirteen jurors. Of the 2.110 citizens, summoned by the sheriff, 1123 wore actually subjected to interrogation in-terrogation by the attorneys in tho case. Peremptory challenges were first exorcised ex-orcised on March 9, and since that ' date, six members of the jury havo been n custody of a court bailiff, residing re-siding at tiie St. Francis lintel. Four oilier members of Iho panel havo been separated from their families and business affairs since March 31, and I the others since April 14, when the ; thirteenth juror was qualified Tho typewritten record of the case amounted to 2,500.000 words, when the Jury was completed. Judge, attorneys attor-neys and witnesses have added another an-other million and three-quarters to the bulky transcript since that time, making mak-ing a total of 1.25H.O0O words. I Tho cost of the trial, including tho maintenance of jurors, a special police po-lice detail, transcript, and tho usual expenses of the court for so great a period, can only be conjectured, hut. it is estimated that it will exceed $00,000. When tho morning session opened, Heney, who had spoken fifteen hours nt the end of last night's session, resumed re-sumed the final stage of his argument, j accepting money irom UnpJcn iM. Koy, a skating rink proprietor who was acting in the interests of the prosecution. prosecu-tion. Within a week eighteen supervisors super-visors had confessed their acceptance of money from six different sources. It was subsequently announced that the supervisors had been promised immunity im-munity for their testimony against the men charged with offering tho .brlbes . . . 1 ... The Oliver grand jury, empaneled under the direction of Mr. Heney In October, 1906, heard the confessions of the supervisors on March 19, 1907, ! and during a period of IS hours re-j re-j turned over 300 indictments against various persons charged with complicity com-plicity in the briberies. Mr. Calhoun together with Abraham Ruef and three subordinate officials of the United Railroads was indicted ou fourteen counts, three of which I were returned by a later grand jury. It I was charged that the corporation had secured from the supervisors in May 21, 1906, a permit authorizing substitution substi-tution of the overhead trolley system ; for the cable lines partially destroyed by tiie earthquake and fire of April 16. 1906. Calhoun and the other defendants de-fendants were accused of having paid 1 Ruef, Schmitz anil, the supervisors 1 $200,000 for their services in securing I the permit for the company and each j indictment was based upon the money ; received by one of the 'supervisors, j Tlrey L. Ford, general counsel for ; the railroads, was ouo of the ollicials implicated in the indictments and during a poiind of eight monlhs was tried three times. In the first in- ; stance a disagreement resulted and in I two subsequent trials Ford was acquitted. ac-quitted. Ruef's trial upon one of the so called trolley indictments was commenced com-menced on August 27, 190S. There was an interruption of several days subsequent to November 13, when Francis J. Heney was shot flown in ; the court room by an ex-convict who . subsequently committed suicide In the county jail and Ihrpc volunteer prosecutors prose-cutors took the caso which- enled December De-cember 10. 1908, when a jury returned ( a verdict of guilty. I On December 29 Ruef was sentenced ! to fourteen yen re in San tiuentlu penitentiary pen-itentiary and since then has been con-j fined in the county jail, awaiting ac-j ac-j tion on an appeal to Ibe higher court. , ! Tho prosecution during the several j ! trolley trials has attempted to prove j that Calhoun on the day following tho final passage of the permit, sent from New York to the mint in this city $200,000, which he previously author-i.ed author-i.ed the mint officials to pay to Tlrey L. Foul. The money, as is admitted, was withdrawn in three installments by Ford, who presented orders signed by Calhoun. It was alleged by the prosecution that within a few dayrt . after each of Ford's visits to tho mint be received a call from Ruef. Following this theory James L. Gallagher, Gal-lagher, chairman of the supervisors, testified that Ruef had paid him over . $40 000 in July and an equal amount, in the following month. Gallagher declared that ho had retained $1.1.000 for 'himself, had paid $l0.o.)0 to An-, drew M. Wilson, one of his lieuten- 1 ants, and had given $4,000 to each f the supervisors It was affirmed by the prosecution that Ruef and Schmitz divided tho balance of tho fund amounting Jo about $115,000. The specific indictment upon which Calhoun was tried was the offer ot a bribe of $4,000 to Supervisor Fred P. Nicholas, to Influence his action up-on up-on the trolley permit. Nicholas call- ' ed as the first witness admitted tho ' acceptance of the mouey for that purM pose. - v I Since the trial, first commeu?ed a' great number of new issues, more or less important, have been presented j for the jurv's consideration. I In March whea the trial was nearly near-ly two months old, warrants were Issued Is-sued for the arrest or several men charged with stealing documon's from the office of William J. Burns, special His voice was hoarse, and he spoko j rapidly, apparently in an effort to make the most vt his allowanco of ninety minutes. j Mr. Heney made direct charges of t witness-fixing and perjury against sev- ! eral officers or employes of the United ' Railroads. The "speaker charged that James L Gallagher's home in Oakland had been dynamited by agents of tho defense, and at the end of this sub- ! ject, said: "Now that A. A. Moore of tha dc- ' fense has assured me thafc tbp do- 1 fendant and his associates VYish mo a long life. I shall take added precautions precau-tions for my own protection, anaymako certain as I can that I shall not bo shot in tho back or dynamited in my ' bed. The evidence here shovvK that it is often possible v to prepare a do- ; fenso in advance, and I don'd over- ! look warnings of this sort." j Mr. Heney brought his argument ! to a close three minutes ahead ot tho ; allotted time. A moment before, ho was engaged in a review of the1, testimony testi-mony of a supervisor. Judge lawlor j reminded him that the remaining mo- I ments were fow, and Mr. Heney, throwing aside a quantity of notes : yet unreferred to, said: "Gentlemen: I thank you for your ; attention. I leave this case In your , hands, confident and expectant that San Fraucisco will have no cause to I Question tho zood faith of your ver- diet, whatever it may be, and tho state office of California will learn I from your conduct that you do not have to bring before a jury the men I who saw a briber pats the money, to secure a conviction; and that any 1 I amount of circumstantial evidence will ' not be treated as Inaufllck-ut, when a ' |