"Q. How would your cash account for it? A. It wasn't taken out of the cash account, so far as I know. "Q. What was it taken from? A. By check issued on the regular bank account. "Q. Who was the check made payable to? A. Eaton, treasurer, the same as other coin checks are issued, coin or currency. "Q. It would have appeared somewhere in the books, that check, that amount would be deducted from the bank account? A. Yes, sir; but carried in the expense account of the cash suspense. "Q. Leave a tag with you? Leave a tag, would you? A. Yes." [192] Before the Grand Jury, Sherwin was closely questioned as to one of Mr. Halsey's "Special expense" claims. The following is from his testimony: "Q. Now, then, that shows that it was charged against what fund? A. That got in the legal expense finally, we charged it to Reserve for Contingent Liabilities, and each month we credit that account, I have forgotten maybe $2,000, and charge it to legal to make it run even in the expense each month. "Q. Why does it go to legal? A. Because--instead--to what else would it go? "Q. What makes it legal? A. Oh, that's just a subdivision of our expense. "Q. Was this $600 legal expenses? A. I don't know what it was. "Q. Who told you to put it under legal expenses? A. You mean who told us to put it in that account? "Q. There is nothing on that paper that indicates that it goes into legal expense? A. No. "Q. Now, then, you say it was finally charged to the legal department. Why? A. Simply because everything that is charged to that reserve finally gets into legal expense. "Q. Everything that is charged to that reserve fund? A. Yes, that reserve fund is charged off for legal expense. "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." [193] See Supervisors' letter to the Examiner, footnote 64, page 62. [194] 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."