The record-union., 1896-03-23

with the momentouS consequences OF
the answer to the question: eff this
agreement Of the Southern Pacific Com
pany, by which it was to receive and
did receive 81, 900 per month was SIM
pie contract for advertising, and the
advertising having been done was full
performance on the part Of the 'Ex-
aminer' of its covenant, why did not
the Examiner bring suit for the re-
ccvery of the remaining unpaid sums %
On this $4,000 contract the Southern
Pacific Company paid so, 900; ST. 900
Was paid directly to the Examiner"
and $1,000 was paid to the First Ma
tional Bank. It's payment was discon-
tinued, and the bank required the man.
agement of the Examiner to make
good the amount which had been ad
yanced upon it, These are statements
cf fact but we make them with the hui
INFLATED regret that they are true.
There remained, therefore, $4,000 of an
undischarged obligation by a perfectly
solvent debtor, and the question will
repeat itself in the minds of everyone:
why did not the Examiner bring
suit"
The Examiner publishes this morn
ing the full evidence of it's own convic-
tion. Under date of September "a,
1894, c. F. Crocker addressed w. r.
Hearst directly with these words:
81 understand from Mr.. Herrin that in
your interview with him you agreed
that at the time this contract was made,
providing for the payment of $4,000
to the Examiner it was stated by your
q i,,I -, ~
company for making this contract that
the Examiner would accord to the
railroad company fair treatment in it's
columns"
Here Mr.. Hearst is directly informed
by the Vice-President of the Southern
Pacific Company by letter that the lat
ter understands the former to have ad-
mitted that fair treatment was the
basis of the contract. Where is Mr..
Hearst's reply, under date of September
10Th or any subsequent time, to this
allegation? Mr.. Hearst remained ST.
lent, after having received this state
ment of his confession until March 20,
1896. But his agent and business man
ager, T. T. Williams. replies, and in that
reply he does not say MIR. Hearst has
never made the admission set forth in
your letter." He does not say: 'The
Examiner never made an agreement
for money, the basis of which was fair
treatment of a corporation" but he
does reply, according to the "Examin
er's" own printed statement, under date
of September 25th, the day following
the date of Colonel Crocker's letter, as
follows:
Permit me to respectfully suggest
that you have missed the point which is
to US vital The question of fairness is
one which could only be determined by
us, and could not possibly be question
of debate or arbitrator"
There is no declaration here that the
Examiner" had not agreed to treat the
company fairly as an element and attri
butte of a contract entered into by it.
But there is a claim that the question
of fairness was one that could only be
determined by one party.
Here is a letter to the proprietor of the
Examiner declaring that at the time
the contract was made 1t was under
stood by his agent that the inducement
to the contract was fair treatment by
the Examiner of the Southern Pa
cific Company. There is no denial of
this in the correspondence which fol-
lows, but a practical admission of it by
declaring that the question of fairness
was one that could only be determined
by ''us" the "Examiner'D, and could
not possibly be a question of debate or
arbitration.
1t is a part of the record of this trans
action that it's payment was twice sus-
pended. That it was at one time re-
duced to $500 per month, and that in no
instance, either under suspension or re-
duction, did the Examiner seek to en-
force it as a legitimate claim of adver-
tising.
If the relation between the Exam
iner" and the Southern Pacific Company
had been Of the innocent character it
now pretends it was, why was it silent
under the goading of the Post" for
six days? If the payment of $1,000 per
mnoth to the EXAMINER" was merely
the discharge Of a legal obligation due
by the Southern Pacific Company to the
paper why did it seek the concealment
Of silence?
The Examiner has it in its power
to appeal from allegation and denial,
assertion and counter assertion, to Ju-
dicial inquiry. According to its own
statement, the Southern Pacific Com
pany owes it $4,000. 1t claims this in
debtedness to be due for legitimate
advertising, for a service it has per-
formed on it's part. It must follow,
therefore, that the Southern Pacific
Company is indebted to the Examiner
in the sum of $4,000. 1t is perfectly
solvent debtor. The Examiner" can
obtain judgment against it if the con-
tract was legitimate, and it can collect
any Judgment it obtains. Why did not
the Examiner bring suit for the re-
covery Of the money; and why does it
not now Immediately proceed to sue for
the amount which is its due? Our
morning contemporary also has a good
action for damages for defamation Of
character and against perfectly sol
vent party. Until the Examiner
brings suit for the recovery of the
amount which it claims the Southern
Pacific Company owes it for an adver-
tisement which it published in good
faith on its part, it will stand convicted
before the world of being unable to JUS
tify it's contract by the standards of
good public policy
1t was not until the Examiner" had
hypothecated the following letter of w.
Fl. Mills. calling attention to the agree
ment." that the paper began its criti-
Iali ~