“Q. And what is the reason for that? A. For charging it to legal?
“Q. Yes. A. For charging it to legal—because—I don’t know the reason—it is always done that way.”
See Supervisors’ letter to the Examiner, [footnote 64], [page 62].
Calhoun returned to San Francisco April 10. In interviews published in the San Francisco papers of April 12, Calhoun emphatically denied all knowledge of the bribery transactions. In his interview in the Chronicle he said:
“I wish to go on record before the people of San Francisco as stating that not one of the officers or legal counsel of the United Railroads of San Francisco or the United Railroads Investment Company of New Jersey ever paid, authorized to be paid, approved of paying or knew that one dollar was paid to secure the passage of the trolley franchise ordinance by the Board of Supervisors, and if I had known that one dollar was paid for the purpose of securing this franchise I would not have accepted it.”
The refusal of Calhoun and Mullally to testify created a sensation, even in those sensational times. The Chronicle in its issue of May 4, 1907, printed the following account of the incident:
“For the first time in the history of the examination of witnesses before this Grand Jury, Heney was careful not to instruct the prospective witnesses as to their legal rights. Instead he merely asked them if they were already familiar with their rights under the law.