“Mr. Heney. Yes, it was fixed; the first conversation, and he has fixed it as nearly as he could.
“The Court. Have you in mind the testimony on that point, Mr. Moore? There was some reference to it in an earlier part of the examination.
“Mr. Heney. Q. When you had the talk with Mr. Heney in April, 1906, did you say anything about prosecuting Mr. Calhoun, or anybody connected with the United Railroads? A. I did not.
“Q. Did you at any time tell Mr. Heney, that you desired to have him prosecute Mr. Patrick Calhoun? A. I did not, at any time.
“Q. Did you tell him at any time that you desired to have him prosecute any person connected with the United Railroads Company? A. I did not.”
The Chronicle in its issue of March 19, 1907, the day after the story of corruption of Supervisors was made public, refers to the denials of United Railroads officials as follows:
“Weeks ago, when the first charges of a corruption fund was published, Patrick Calhoun issued from his New York offices a typewritten statement, equivalent to about three-fourths of a Chronicle column, in which he announced:
“‘I have just seen the San Francisco papers, in which vague charges are made that the United Railroads of San Francisco paid or caused to be paid $700,000 for a permit to use electricity on the roads that it formerly operated with cable. There is no foundation for this rumor. The United Railroads of San Francisco never paid or authorized any one to pay on its behalf a single dollar to the Mayor, Supervisors or any public official of the city of San Francisco or the State of California.’
“Late last night the following additional denial was issued from the office of the United Railroads: