The record-union., 1897-10-09

words at that time and compare them
with the words of his counsel at this
time, for he did not dare to go on the
stand and speak for himself.
If any man on this jury should say
hereafter that there was no libel, ask
him what Dr. Van Norden testified to
and if Mr.. McClatchy went on the stand
and denied it, when he had an oppor-
tunity TO do So
He wanted them to bear in mind that
everything that was alleged against
Weinstock was in relation to his con-
nection with the agent OF the bee =
their paid agent and detective in gath
ering this stuff Everybody knows
that there was no red pocketbook, ana
yet in their article they say the en-
tries in the red pocketbook lndlcate
something. If they had any charges
to make against anyone, why did they
not come out into the light or day ana
make it like men. It was lie. Ihey
started out with a lie. Was there not
enough corruption discovered by them'
according to their allegations, without
rendering it necessary for them TO pub
! lish lie?
and the court would instruct the jury
| So Turning to the allegation tnat
combine exists, he said that II charSeu
! a crime against Sheehan and certain
Trustees, but he had nothing TO 90
with that as he was not trying thSh
! case but the fourth paragraph men
| tions Weinstock. IT was not IN Leed
of a. parenthesis. The proper construc-
ton to be put on it is that Whlch the
| jury would put on it when reading II at
! their own firesideS. Sheehan ana the
| Trustees have been in the former par
agraphs charged with crime. rms
! paragraph says that the combine or
Trustees that had been formed counted
on James C. Davis for support and
John A. Sheehan and Weinstock to
control the elections and city patron
/ age. These men are masters OF Eng
lish and if they had meant what they
say, they would have written it count
ed on James G. Davis, John A. Sheehan
and Weinstock for support to control
the elections"
In the former paragraph they had
said that Sheehan was the head of the
combine and now they are so tender of
him that they say the combine count
ed on him for support" What was
the necessity of their counting on him
| for support if he was the head of the
combine? They called these other men
! boodlers and blackmailers and could
the jury believe that associating Vein
stock With such men did not hold him
up to contempt and reproach? What
would any member of the jury think If
they had been told that Weinstock was
control the election and city patronage
in connection with such men? Would
| it not have Mortified them?
And these men say through their at
torney that in writing this they
charged nothing against Weinstock and
respect him. 1t was a lie and they
knew it to be lie for they did not go
on the stand to defend it. Every man
on this jury swore before he was chos-
en-, to protect a mans character, and
the plaintiff now calls on them to keep
their oath.
A daily paper was to be started by
May 1st, with Won Arnold and Sheehan
as managers and Weinstock, Grove L.
Johnson and John We'll as silent stock
holders. Won Arnold was to start a
gambling hell and the newspaper as
to be used to protect it, 1t has been
said by counsel that John We'll does not
consider himself libeled. He would
like to have John We'll on the stand and
let the jury hear what his opinion is.
But John We'll did think of taking
stock in the paper and Mr.. Weinstock
never had any intention of putting any
money into the paper. John We'll was
never charged with running for Mayor
and combining with the others to con-
troll elections and city patronage.
And there was to be no newspaper.
There was to be no gambling he'll. There
was to be no $4,000 put up to start
the newspaper The whole plot was
hatched in the Bee Office and in the
heated brains of the McClatchys. 1t
was all concected for the purpose of
tearing to pieces the regulations of
good citizens in a sensational newspa-
per in black type. If such things are
to go unpunished what security is there
for the community? If they can send
their detectives to citizens, to worm
out of them something, when they have
won their confidence, that will wiring
their hearts and ruin their regulations
it is a menace to every citizen. Shall
the private citizen who is living a
blameless life in the community,
be dragged before the public and his
name held up tc contempt and re-
proach, to satisfy the malicious long
ings of a sensational pewspaper. IT IS
awful for a man who has done his best
to live good life, to find some night
that his name is held up to reproach in
the evening paper. AS he goes home his
former friends eye him askance and he
hears men whisper Where there is so
much smoke there must be some fire.
The Bee would not make such charges
1 if there was not some truth in them.
There is no protection for any man in
the community unless jury with
firmness and fairness will bring in a
verdict of libel that viii deter them
from ever doing so again. This is not
a case Of Weinstock alone. 1t is a
case that concerns the community al
large and no man is safe unless these
defendants are taught such a lesson
that. the next time they have an ex-
pose to make they will be sure of their
facts before they publish them. Not
until then will the homes and reputa-
tions of citizens be safe.
The court took an adjournment till
| 10 a. m. to-day.