The record-union., 1897-03-22

support it? Why, as reputable mer-
chant and a good citizen of this city.
does he not hold up the hands of the
Bee in it's effort to expose
crime and bring the guilty to justice?
Why did he not show the motives Of
good citizen and help in the good
work? Why, when the Bee" appealed
to him to tell the truth, did he state
things which put this paper farther
and farther from the track? Why did
he make it necessary for Mr. Stillwell
to force confederation Of matters by
other means? The testimony of Won
Arnold would have stood anywhere
against John A. Sheehan's,
but when a man with the character
and standing Of H. Weinstock stood
blocking the way, it was necessary to
have Won Arnold corroborated.
is 1t thus that reputable merchant
and good citizen gives his support
and encouragement to a paper which,
is exposing wickedness in high
places, and aiding to bring wrong-doers
to justice?" Possibly. however, Mr..
Weinstock does not believe it would
the Bee" in this work, and Mr. Vein
STOCK has averred before now that the
business man is a fool who sacrifices
policy to principle.
But Mr.. Weinstock goes on to say:
But when a newspaper so far for
gets Its mission as to enter into a pre-
medltated scheme to injure and to ruin
the reputation of private citizens who
nave committed no wrong and who
nave had no thought of wrong doing,
the liberty of the press becomes license
and new Journalism becomes villainous
journalism, which should be denounce
and condemned by all who value their
liberty and their good name"
To what scheme" does Mr.. Vein
stock refer? The Bee" entered into
this work for the purpose of exposing
=. The Bee" had no plan or
scheme, and no man knows that better
than H. Weinstock. More than that.
the managers of the Bee" will place
the reputation, the character, and the
record of this journal for honesty. in
tegrity and fair-dealing in the public
scales with the reputation of the firm
Of Weinstock & Lubin And they say
this in no spirit of dispara cement to
the good name of the firm to which
they refer
The Bee" never believed and always
| declared that it never believed that
Weinstock was engaged in any corrupt
matters OF the combine The very ar
tlcle put into Weinstock's complaint
would show that. 1t was very careful
to draw the line in this matter. as if
was in the case of John We'll. It's fair
ness in the line of separation was also
shown in the case of Albert M. John
SON Any person who has read the
articles in the Bee" knows exactly
how far the paper went with each par
ocular person. but Mr.. Weinstock has
seen mt to select certain portion III
order TO wiring from it a meaning which
the publication in full shows does not
attach to it,
Again We come to Mr.. Weinsto took s
communication:
/ believe one of the most conternpt-
Ible and despicabe among Gods crea-
lures IS the libeler and the slanderer
the destroyer Of other mems characters
ana regulations, and l believe that to
transmit Islander is to be as guilty. as
to invent SANDER # am to be con-
denned for refusing to give for publi-
cation to the Bee the decoy letter sent
by Won Arnold, which l believed came
from crank, containing what I be-
heVed to be slanderous lies against
others, shall cheerfulIy bear whatever
punishment such action meris"
linen we are to understand that Mr.
Welnstock is acting in this matter not
only in defense of himself, but as a.
protection and a shield also to John A.
Sheehan and to Charles f. Leonard
He believes the references in Won Ar
nold's letters to be ''slanderous lies
against others" =
And now a few words about that
'decoy letter The actions of Mr.
Weinstock subsequent to the receipt of
that letter were not those of a man filed
with virtuous Indignation against a
crazy individual' who had written
to him a screed filed with "slanderous
lies" Mr.. Weinstock himself has stated
that he subsequently met Won Arnold
IN the store, John A. Sheehan being
with him, and that he chatted with
him about his concert. hall, and also
about Won Arnold's proposition to start
a daily paper. Is 1t not strange that
Weinstock was not filled with virtucus
Indignation at this remarkable, and. as
he now says. discriminating letter"
and that he did not vehemently protest?
Is it not strange that in subsequent
communications with Won Arnold he
did not take that individual to task for
writing such document? Is it not
passing strange that H. Weinstock
never lifted up voice or pen against this
screed filled with ''slanderous lies?"
Again, Mr. Weinstock writes:
Il have been logged by a Bee re-
porter, who placed words in my mouth
in his reported and published inter
views which / never uttered, and who
turned and twisted many things I did
say in a manner to lend color to the
/ Bees infamous charges
Mr.. Weinstock's pen slipped when he
wrote that, and he had quite a collision
with the unvarnished truth. No Bee
reporter has logged him. Bee" re-
porters have acted to him as gentlemen.
They have interviewed him fairly and
properly, and have reported him truth