The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-14
JUGGLED WITH THE FACTS.
Byron Waters Attempt to
"Square Himself With
the Railroad.
RESORT TO A CLEVER RUsE
Another Attorneys Friendship
Abused to Protect the
Southern Pacific.

| ~
his attempt to secure compromise of the
damage cases of Harry Knox, James Null
Inns and Thomas Compton against the
| Southern Pacific for 100000 each has re-
sorted to questionable means, according to
the statement of one of the parties inter-
ested in order to cover the exposure of
the railroads methods and to protect him
self from the censure of his superiors.
On last Sunday The CALL published an
| account of the manner in which Waters
approached George w. Monteith, the attor-
ney for the three plaintiffs in the cases
mentioned. The substance of the state
ments then published was obtained from
one of the plaintiffs, to whom Mr.. Mon
teith, in his relation of counsel, had COM
municated the facts.
Having failed in his endeavor to make
satisfactory arrangement with the plain
tiff's attorney, Waters assumed, in view of
the friendly relations that had in years
past existed between himself and Mon
teith, that the latter would pay no further
attention to the incident, nor did he, ex-
cept to relate it, as in duty bound, to his
clients. When, therefore, Waters saw the
particulars of his interview with Monteith
published in THE CALL he became excited,
assuming that Monteith had been the
| He called on Montelth as soon as he
| found an opportunity Monday and at
| tempted to explain the significance of his
| former visit and words to Monteith by de-
claring that he meant simply to be locular
| when he suggested the compromise. But
Monteith refused to accept this explana-
| ton, as there was no other matter that
served to afford Waters an excuse for his
| visit to Monteith's Office at the time the
compromise was suggested; for it was only
| a suggestion and not direct offer. When
| Waters found that Mon teith s sense of the
| humorous was not to be utilized he re-
sorted to what Harry A. Knox, one of the
plaintiffs who was present at the inter-
view, termed "a very foxy trick"
| On the 'old-time-frienis hip' plea he in
duced Monteith to write him a reply to
letter which he addressed to Monteith.
| This he said he wanted Monteith to do so
that he (Waters) could square" himself
with the railroad people.
| In Waters first interview with Monteith
| it was reported that Waters in proposing
the compromise had used the words:
1--WE will pay them their wages from the
! time time they ceased to be in the COM
panys employ, and we will reinstate them
in their positions if they will only with
draw these suits.
In fact he said nothing about back wages
/ being paid. What he said was:
'How do you think it would suit the
men if we were to reinstate them in the
company's employ and have them drop
| these suits?"
At the Monday interview Monteith ad-
mitted that nothing was said about wages,
and on the basis of this misquotation, by
| Encouragement with Monteith, Waters
drafted and forwarded to Monteith the fol-
| lowing letter:
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug IL, 1895.
George w. Monteith, Esq.-DEAR SIR: While on
| the train yesterday morning to fill an urgent ap-
pointment which / had made to be in the Santa
| Cruz Mountains, l noticed in THE CALL what
| purported to be an interview with you relative
| to the suits for damages brought by the strik-
| ers against this company and its officials, in
which you quote me as saying: eve will pay
them their wages from the time they ceased to
be in the company's employ ana we will rein
| withdraw these suits" You know that never
| offered you any proposition of compromise and
| that 1 never used any language to you out of
| which the above could be understood or i'm
1 piled. telegraphed you to meet me last night
at the Occidental and correct this. You an
I swered me you could not come tonight l do
not propose to rest under this imputation and
| desire that you should do me the justice to set
me right in the premises. An early reply will
| much oblige yours truly, BYRON WATERS.
To this Montieth, as personal favor to
Waters, in order that the latter might use
| it to square" himself with his employers,
sent the following reply:
SAN FRANCISCO, August IL, 1895.
| Byron Waters, Esq, City-MY DEAR SIR: In
! answer to yours of even date l will say that
! did not make the statement to CALL reporter
/ that you say am credited with having done;
! indeed, you will see that THE CALL does not at
| tribute it to me If you will take the pains to
/ examine the paper.
The statement that you quote is as follows:
1--WE will pay them their wages from the time
| they ceased to be in the company'S employ, and
| we will reinstate them in their positions if
| they will only withdraw these suits"
You did not use these words in your CONVEX
| sation with me. Very sincerely yours,
| GEORGE W. MoNTIETH.
| Despite the fact that this answer was
| sent Waters with the express understand
| ing that it was to be shown only his ST.
| periors, both it and the letter to which it
was the reply appeared in yesterdays Ex-
| aminer, with an introduction evidently
| prepared by Waters. Though the matter
| was printed in the local columns of the
Examiner it was plainly marked as an adj
vertisement, and the identical matter,
word for word, appeared in the Chronicle.
| The Introductory paragraphs were written
| in such manner as to imply denial of
| the statement originally published in THE
CALL that a compromise had been sug-
| gested. That the compromise was sug-
gested by Waters, however, remains fact,
| confirmed by most reliable authority.
1