The record-union., 1897-10-09

In this city and county there is, as
appears from articles in the paper con-
cerned, a political combination for car
rying out corrupt plans. 1t has been
shown that the crimes charged have
been committed in this city. And shall
the paper which pointed out these
abuses be abused and prosecuted? Shall
it be punished when 1t strives to expose
rascality by being exposed to innu-
merable libel suits? Citizens who have
good government at heart will range
themselves on its side and stand by it
and support it in its efforts. 1t made
an investigation of the matters charged.
at great expense to ITSELF and great
risk, and he hardly thought that coun-
sci for the plaintiff would deny that 1t
did right. The question is shall it be
applauded for doing it's duty fearlessly,
or shall if be censured?
This brings us to the real question
with which the jury has to deal: was
a libel published, as charged? Counsel
complained of the means adopted by
the Bee in carrying on its investiga~
tions. In what other way could 1t have
proceeded? Does a government official
conduct a case any differently? Does
he go and ask the suspected criminal
if he is guilty? No one complains OF
detectives who is innocent and has no
reason to fear them. 1t is only the man
whom they can injure who complains
of them.
The main stress of the prosecution is
laid on the fourth paragraph, which
Mr. Rruner had explained to them, and
he wished to call their attention to IL
again. There was no doubt that COM
bination had been formed by the Trus-
tees referred to. What follows is that
the combination referred to depended
for support on James G. Davis and
John A. Sheehan and H. Weinstock.
That, he claimed is clear. Those three
men, he said, are Joined together as
the ones on whom the combination de-
pended for support. They did not de-
pend on them to join the combination,
for that was already complete. They
counted on these men for support for
the control of the fall election and the
city patronage, he claimed. 1t Is con-
ceded by the argument of counsel for
plaintiff that. if the parenthetical
clause cannot be segregated, the libel
cannot be upheld. That is the most
valuable parenthetical clause he had
ever known. It is worth $4,000. He
would mark the clause with a paren-
thesis to show what the effect would
be. 1t would take all the sense out of
the sentence. as it would leave 1t to
read: That a combination has been
formed Of the Trustees referred to and
John a Sheehan and H. Weinstock to
control the fall election and the city
patronage" This, he claimed, had no
meaning, and the only way in which
the sentence would make sense was to
restore the clause.
The prosecution claims that Davis
was the only one counted on for sup
port. If this be So the objects charged
are perfectly legitimate 1t is what
every political party in the country
does, and there is nothing wrong in 1t.
From the President down, all candi-
dates are involved in combinations to
control elections. The mistake has
been made in this case of not stating
that the end was to be attained by
corrupt means. No such thing has been
charged, and it is necessary in order
to make a case.
A recess was then taken until 1:3O
p. m, when Mr. Reddy resumed his ar
gument upon the sentence. If there
was any question as to who were the
combine, and whether Weinstock, Shee-
han and Davis were part of it, 1t could
easily be ascertained by reference to
other parts of the article. In another
place it states that combine has been
formed, consisting Of several Trustees,
who are named. The names of Vein
stock and Sheehan do not occur there.
How would the reader Of the Bee
construe it? He would understand 1t
that those Trustees formed the combine
and depended on Davis, Weinstock and
Sheehan for support. The article must
be construed by itself by the jury, and
its decision must be based on such con-
struction.
The plaintiff has upon him the burden
of proving that the article complained
of is libelous.
He did not understand that plaintiffs
claim the sentence will admit of their
construction, unless the clause is left
out, and they have no right to omit
or put in. He claimed that punctua-
ton did not control the meaning OF
the sentence. If there is a doubt re-
garding the meaning with a certain
punctuation, the ordinary meaning OF
the words must be taken. The prose
cution has no more business to change
the commas to a parenthesis than il
has to out If it wants to make out 9
case. 1t must charge that they combin-
ed for an unlawful purpose, or else that
they combined to carry out a Lawful
purpose in an unlawful manner. i
the latter. the complaint must go fur
ther. and charge that plaintiff Is charg-
ed with knowing of an unlawful pur-
nose and entering into it with a knowl-
edge of it.
Is not everything consistent with the
belief that Mr.. Weinstock was innocent
Of any knowledge of an unlawful OBJ
ject? Suppose that A, and are
charged with a conspiracy to commit al
unlawful act. and that they count or
the assistance of D, without his know
ledge, to carry out their unlawful pur-
poses Would any man convict . or
that account, or charge him with any
unlawful act? Is there anything tC
show that plaintiff knew that they
counted on him to help them in theiI
unlawful acts? Is there anything in the
article to indicate that he is charged
with knowing their objects? He
thought he had covered all that could
be said with reference to the paragraph
Taking the headlines of the article
and the remainder of it. he said it al
legged that in furtherance of the plan
John A. Sheehan was to start a daily
newspaper and that Grove L. Johnson
H. Weinstock and others We're to be-
come stockholders, their names not &c
be known to the public. Is Mr. Vein
stock accused of anything here, or is
there anything to show that he ever die