The record-union., 1896-03-17
THE EXAMINER ADDRESSED. "
Under This Title a Pointed Question
is Asked
And an Explicit Reply Demanded in
Unmistakable Terms by the
san Francisco 'sPost.o
Is. F. Evening Post, March 1eth.)

| (S. F. Evening Post, March 16th)
] There is a limit line of decency in the
| latitude which public journals may take
in the abuse of private citizens, the mis-
representations of the motives of public
men and the assault upon private char
acter. Dispatches were received by the
press of this city to the effect that c..
p. Huntington had stated that the ''Ex-
aminer" was at one time in receipt of
| 81 900 per month from the Southern
Pacific Company; that there was a later
time when the payment of that 81 900
per month was refused, and that the
animus of the Examiner was to be in
| terpreted by that refusal. The words
employed by Mr.. Huntington to make
| this statement are not given, but the
| general purport is unmistakable.
The Examiner" has abused and Will
| fed C. P. Huntington far beyond the
limit of decency. The gentlemen who
are conducting that paper should have
some consideration for their personal
! character for honesty. That they have
shown an utter want of consideration
| in this direction is amply illustrated by
the methods employed by them TO
abuse, vilify and denounce the Southern
Pacific Company. Unless this commu-
nifty is lost to all shame, the course of
the Examiner" toward the principal
| transportation instrumentality of this
coast should meet with condemnation
| Beyond it's Vilification and perpetual
| assault upon the Southern Pacific Com
| pany, it has chosen to ridicule abuse
and vilify its officers, and especially
has its hatred and malignity been man
ifested toward c. P. Huntington. There
are thousands Of citizens in the State
of California who believe that the fa-
| natical excesses of the Examiners
abuse has some other animus than the
public good. There is a sottishness of
mind not referable to the excessive use
| of bad whisky. 1t manifests itself in
vulgar railings as a substitute for rea-
| son, argument or convincing statement.
1t INDUCES in a saturnalia of denuncia-
| ton, when dignified reasoning would be
| far more effective
| This species of journalistic advocacy
can be referable to no other than a per-
sonal animus. Mr. Huntington has
sounded the keynote of that animus, or
| he has not. Either there was a time
when the Examiner" was in the receipt
| of 81 900 per month from the Southern
Pacific Company or there was not; and
we now call upon that journal to state
in its own way the facts and circum-
stances of the case.
| Was the ''Examiner'' at one time in
the receipt of 81 200 per month from
the treasury of the Southern Pacific
Company. Did Mr.. Huntington or any
other officer of the company cut off the
| payment of that 81 900: If Mr.. Hunt
| fngton has lied, as the EXAMINER is
accustomed to say in its bald iil-breed-
| ing. why does it not demand from that
gentleman specific retractions
Let the Examiner now stand forth
and tell the journalistic fraternity of
| California, as we'll as it's readers and
the general public, exactly what it's
relations have been and are to the
Southern Pacific Company's treasury.
This is fair and especially liberal to the
Examiner" 1t gives that organ the
| first say in the premises.
In the meantime, to prick the EXAM
iner's" anticipated indifference, the
Post" asserts that the Examiner was
at one time in receipt of $1,000 month
from the Southern Pacific Company,
and that that receipt was cut off by
| ClOC VI SOll1C OlllCS1 VI the COIlpduy :
We are not in possession of the details
of that transaction, but the Examiner
| is. The excessive zeal of its advocacy,
the constant repetition of brutal in
vectiye, the overcharged vehemence of
| its opposition to a single corporation,
| it's complacent leniency toward all other
corporations, all other monopolies, all
other institutions which would excite
its wrath if it's opposition to the South
ern Pacific Company proceeded from
public-spirited motive alone, all indi-
cate that underneath its journalistic
course there is something to be ex-
planned. Again we repeat that Mr..
Huntington has sounded the keynote of
that explanation, and again we leave
the Examiner face to face with the
appropriateness of an explanation from
its side.