The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-01-31

ms general dislike to all criminal business,
from which he withdrew many years ago.
He said he was engaged to pc rform a
certain duty; that he had done all he had
agreed to do, and that he thought the City
Prosecuting ATTORNEY, assisted by DIR.
Browns counsel, ought to be able to con.
Duct the case to satisfactory conclusion.
ne following letter was received by the
editor OF the Bulletin yesterday. 1t pur-
ported to have been written and sent by
J. J. Valentine, president of Wells Fargo
d Co.'S bank, but Mr.. Valentine declares
it a fraud.
He called attention to one peculiar fea-
ture in it. He said that the only person
who knew that he and DR.. Brown had met
put once during the year were himself and
DIR. Brown.
SAN FRANCISCO jan 90 1896.
To the Editor of the Bulletin: In common
with many others who have long been readers
of your valuable paper regret Exceedingly to
see the course you are pursuing in regard to
the Rev. c. o. Brown. The disposition to
no9 a man VINO mas as yet had no hearing,
and to pronounce Judgment upon him before
his side of the case has been heard, is unfair
unjust and utterly reprehensible. 1t really
seems as If a man who has the courage to ex-
pose blaekmailer must be punished for tax
Ing manly ana open course.
But, regardless of the merits of the case, all
lovers OF fair play must depreeate the ten
dency to pronounce verdict before the evil
dS nee is all in. Every man is entitled to pre-
sumption OF innocence before trial and 1t
would be as fair for Judge to instruct a Jury
10 bring IN verdict of guilty" after the peo-
pie had rested as to condemn a man before we
have heard his side of the case.
know the Rev. DR.. Brown very slightly
nave seen him but once in the last year. and
not at all since his troubles began, but his high
character and reputation for many years enti-
tie him to at least fair hearing and patient
investigation of the charges which have been
made against him. 1t is very reasona BILE to
suppose that he does not wish to disclose his
version OF affairs until after the trial of the
Davidson woman.
And when men of the high character of the
trustees. deacons and standing, committee of
the First Congregational Church give him a.
vote OF confidence, with doubtless far more in
formation than we outsiders can have, l prefer
70 suspend my judgment until he has had
1alr hearing and the truth is told. | prefer to
De guided by the opinion of such men, to ac-
ceptlng as true the conjectures of pack of
scanoal-mongers and writers,
Whose trenchant pens, no longer trusty,
For want of fighting have grown rusty
And eat into themselves for lack
VI something else to hew and hack
There is too great tendency, especially
among newspapers. to pronounce verdict of
gulty as soon as q man is charged with an
oHense and IN advance of his trial. Is it not
better to withhold our judgment for a few
weeks and give the doctor the benefit of the
doubt? The church is NOT going 10 let the
Dr. Brown knows MS well as the public knows
that he owes it to them and to himself
TO explain matters. Miss Overman has
not yet acknowledged that she wrote the letters
TO Mrs. Tunnel, and even if she does there may
be satisfactory explanation forthcoming in
due time. DR.. Brown is fairly entitled to the
benefit of the doubt Yours respectfully,
JNO. T. VALENTINE