Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-12-29
THE TWO CASES.

The San Francisco -4hd, in a virtuous
"spurt," remarks upon our comments upon
the publication by the San Francisco
press of the disgusting details of the Hill
Sharon case, and without questioning the
soundness of our structures, replies, you're
another, and refers to the reports in the
Sacramento press of the examination in
the Evinger case as more scandalous. 1t
does not appear how any misconduct of
the Sacramento press can justify the san
Francisco papers. But, in fact, no parallel
exists, and We are content to have the two
compared. The HilI-Sharon reports were
published by the san Francisco papers to
cater to a morbid taste and sell the dirty
story in print. They were intended to in
flame the passions. They were published
for coin. They invaded the sanctity of
the home and the marriage relation. They
were lecherous, and dealt in the details
of the amours of libertine They
were given publicity because William
Sharon is a rich man, and Sle Hill-Sharon
woman something of beauty and an ad-
ventures. Had Sharon and Hill been
poor people, the case would never have
been reported by the San Francisco press :;
it would never have found it, as the Bmte-
TN puts it, the duty of newspapers to pub
lish it. Plenty of cases equally as lascivi-
Gus, nasty and "racy," are of record in the
Courts of San Francisco, and have been
for years, but they are not deemed news
by the press of that city.
The Evinger case moved upon a very
different plane. \ brutal assault was
charged heinous criminal outrage al
legged. 1t was complained that virtue bad
been assailed and a gross ofense against
society had been committed There was
nothing in its details to inhame lust or
create other than feelings of horror and
loathing. The published accounts were
brief and guarded reports OF proceedings
by society against alleged offenders before
the law, whose acts, it was charged. had
brought shame upon the community, and
demanded swift punishment No conceal
ment was possible, and the published truth
rather tended to lessen the exaggerations of
busy-tongued rumor. In the one ease the
press echoed the voice Of an indignant
community in defense of virtue and the
right in the other, the press served up
dainty dishes of private scandal and the de
tails of libertinism. In the one case an
alleged horrible crime was laid bare. as
disclosed by the law in Its yindication of
human rights. In the other case. private
litigation was dragged from the secresy the
law accords it, and made the vehicle for
flooding the State with moral slush The
Sacramento press treated its case in such a
way as to create loathing to warn the
weak and strengthen the guards to virtue.
The San Francisco press treated its case in
such a way as to lead the weak astray, to
gid vice, sugar-coat moral corruption, and
tickle the palate of greedy desire In the
San Francisco case, for the gain of greasy
half dimes, the press turned Its columns
into bawdy-house publications, and en-
tered into competition with the vendors of
suppressed books. In the Sacramento case
the press gave such disclosures of the eff
forts of society to right alleged wrong, as
made men grasp hands with frmer grip as
they met, and pledge themselves anew TO
the defense of female virtue and the honor
and sacredness of the daughters of the
land, however poor and humble.