The record-union., 1896-10-30
The Assault on Judge CatIin.

Eds. Record Union: To the many
people Of Sacramento County who have
observed the course pursued by the
management of the Bee since the
death of the respected and veteran ed
ltor, James McClatchy, with relation to
the various individual citizens who have
from time to time been hanged on the
crucifix by that journal, it is unneces-
sary that there should be reference
made to its unwarranted attacks upon
Judge Catlin. Our people recollect the
violent and continued abuse by the
Bee" of D. j. Simmons, County Clerk
Hamilton, George P.Royster, Congress
man Johnson, Charles H. Gilman, Mayor
Hubbard, and others. 1t is generally
| recognized that in many instances the
animus arose from the fact that the par
ties attacked had differences which af-
fected the big safe in the front office Of
the Bee" not the editorial rooms.
The attack upon Judge Catlin has it's
history. Several years ago Charles H
| Gilman, when conducting a prominent
departmental store, feeling, as he tells
me, that 1t was necessary, in view of his
/ private business, to curtail his adver-
Using expenses, withdrew (as was his
right as a plain, ordinary American cit
izen doing business in the city Of Sacra-
mento) his advertisement from the
Bee. 1t seems that such action is es-
| teemed an offense to the business end of
the Bee" the punishment for which
may extend to an intrusion by public
| journal into the private and the home
affairs OF home patron. 1t is unneces-
sary to remind the people of the con-
splcuous and furious attacks that the
| Bee made upon Mr.. Gilman there
after. The elimination came in a suit
for libel which he instituted against
that paper, and at the trial Of that case
there is doubtless quite general recol-
| lection that the Bee endeavored to
sustain'itself largely on the testimony
of one by the name of Barry-a man
VINO admitted in court that he had
! served in our State Penitentiary for a
perjury committed in a newspaper suit
in San Francisco. The case of libel of
/ Gilman against the Bee" was tried be-
| fore Judge Catlin. The Judgment was
against the Bee" and Immediately af-
ter the rendition Of that Judgment the
shafts from that journal were directed
against the Judge of the court.
An intelligent public realize that II
every individual against whom an ad-
4
the Judges Of the courts, there will be
quite formidable array of opposition
| developed about the eleventh hour of
election against any one who may have
occupied judicial position. This Gill
man libel case was appealed to the Su-
preme Court. In the interim, before it's
hearing there, the Bee" very thor
oughly tried it by a side appeal to about
every newspaper in the State from
Gougeye 70 Milpitas. The judgment it
received from the intelligent editors was
that the sore finger the ''Bee" presented
to them was one that needed the strong
est commiseratfon. The Supreme Court,
however, thought. differently, and af-
| firmed the Judgment of Judge Catlin.
The Bees application to the Supreme
Court for rehearing was subsequently
promptly denied.
With relation to the Talmadge case, it
was one of divorce The reporter of the
Bee" (and he also represents the San