The San Francisco call., 1896-02-05
ACCUSES THE BULLETIN.
DR.. Brown Thinks That the Forged
Letter Emanated From the
Newspaper Office

DR.. Brown was very evidently much
pleased last evening when he exhibited
letter which had been brought to him
from the Bulletin office during the day
and which he said completely cleared up
the mystery of the forged letter.
:" do not care to make the cont ents
known at the present time" he said, 'but
l can say with perfect freedom that it places
me In much more comfortable frame of
mind than l was before its receipt.
at is in exactly the same handwriting as
was the forgery and is from the same per
son that inspired and wrote that doeu-
ment. The author apologies humbly for
the trouble he has caused me and promises
to repair the damage as far as he is able.
He tells why he forged the name of Mr..
Valentine and why the letter was sent to
the Bulletin. The matter will be fully
ventilated very soon." The doctor caused
the following letter to be written last
evening and signed it:
February 4, 1896.
Editor Call: have very strong reasons to
suppose that the Bulletin itself caused the
writing OF "the forged letter." which it was
first to publish and which, in the face of strong
evidence to the contrary, it has persistently
and Yiciously ascribed to me.
i. The Bulletin is the only paper to which
my Sunday notices have been sent in writing,
quently that paper had at hand the specimen
of my writing on which 70 frame the
clumsy and altogether unsuccessful at
Q. The bulletin took the forgery and
specimens OF my writing to the ex-
pert MI. Eisenschimmel, as the Report
not have written the forged letter and so told
the Bulletin; but that report was suppressed
and another expert was sought who could find
as the Bulletin desired. Why should that pa.
per have suppressed the report favorable TO me
If its attempt to find the truth was honest?
3. Although Mr.. Valentine promptly pro-
nounced in my favor TO the editor of the Bull
letln, in my presence, that editor closed his
report of that Interview with the contemptible
lnslnuation that suspicion was still on me-
and decisive weight to Mr.. Valentines opinion
II it was after the.truth only and had no ak TO
grind?
my house a letter addressed to me in care of
the editor of the Bulletin. No letter was ever
addressed to me in his care before. My
address is quite as well known as his Why
should this letter have been so addressed?
The reason was revealed when the reporter
sent by the Bulletin had the impudence to ask
that the letter should be opened in his pres
ence. The Bulletin wanted another sensation
and, in my opinion, had itself attempted to
prepare 1T in the letter that came to me to-day,
and which ii took pains to address SO that il
should pass under the eye of its own editor.
The inclosed letter was anonymous, and pur-
ported TO come from the writer of the forgery,
avowing It's authorship and expressing regret
for the trouble he had made me. The Bulletin
doubtless thought would be SO pleased with
the anonymous vindication as to fall into the
trap and become the willing victim of con-
temptible trick.
Gentlemen of the Bulletin, this may be
journalism in the region of 1922 Bush
street," but in the estimation of honest men it
is the basest OF perhdy. If you were honor
able men you would have accepted the abund-
ant proofs that did not write that letter; but
have one case in the courts now, hence you
know that you are safe in this dastardly kind
of attack. Yours is the last resort of towards
A generous public will demand that you shall
seek more honorable weapons before you are
permitted 10 kill me. CHARLES o. BROWN.