The record-union., 1897-10-08

able to move from its convictions in the
matter. The article charges that q
combination existed in the Board of
Trustees, through which regular as
sessments were made upon the gam
bling games that were permitted to run.
This means that corruption exists, and
these officers are guilty of taking money
to allow others to carry on gambling,
which is criminal offense under the
| law. When a man is charged with be-
| longing to such combination the
good citizens naturally look on him as
| a scoundrel. If, in addition to this, he
is charged with selling positions IN
public offices in order to line his own
/ pocket, everyone will say that he is
one of the biggest scoundrels unhung.
He is undermining the foundations Of
| good government.
The next section charges that the
members of the Board of Trustees, with
John A. Sheehan and H. Weinstock,
combined to control the fall election and
the future patronage of the city. Why
| does this combination wish to control
| the patronage of the city except to sell
positions and protect gambling? what
man can read the paragraph without
seeing that it says Mr.. Weinstock has
entered into corrupt combination? 80
| with the next paragraph, naming PLAIN
tiff and others as concerned in the
| proposed paper, which is to be used
| to protect the combination and the
gamblers. Mr.. Weinstock was to be
connected with paper run for these
! orlx that his con-
nection was to be kept a secret He
was not man enough to be open and
above board but was also charged with
being afraid to have his fellow-cltlzens
know it, and was therefore to hide his
connection with the scheme.
He was to be a political boss, the as
| sociate of thugs and shoulder strikers,
to gain power in political primaries ana
| conventions. and sell them out for hls
own profit, to corrupt the elective fran
chise, and do all that low, dirty poll
tics suggests If the jury would take
! the time to consider what other mean
ing could be attached to the article
it would find the time and labor thrown
away, for it is susceptible of no other
meaning The defense would tell then'
| they were public journalists, running
| daily paper and claim that II they
had made mistake in the discharge OF
| their duty that allowances should be
made for them, and they should be
looked on as public benefactors,
Mr. Holl was interrupted by Mr.. Red
dy, who protested against any such ar
guments being imputed to the defense,
| as there was nothing to show that
they intended so arguing.
The court decided that Mr.. Holl was
| speaking within his province, and the
! latter resumed, saying that there was
a time when the public press was hon
orable, and did it's best to forward the
| interests of society in every way There
are no doubt few journals that still
do So but unfortunately they are few,
and most of the papers no longer do
| it. Unfortunately the press of the coun-
try, with a few honorable exceptions, are
run only for the purpose of filling the
pockets of their owners. 1t would be
grand thing if the press would strike
fearlessly at all forms of corruption.
| Mr.. Reddy took an exception, saying
that the press was not on trial, but the
defendants were.
The court thought the argument was
a little beyond bounds, but gave the
defendant the benefit of his exception.
Mr. Holl said that the press was
what plaintiff was complaining of, or
at least that part of it that was de-
nominated by the best members of the
press as yellow journalism How
ever, as counsel We're so sensitive on
the point, he would leave it.
| The jury was not to consider alone
| the amount of damage done to the
| plaintiff and his character, but also
what it should award against the de-
PENDANTS for their acts. 1t was not to
limit the amount to Mr.. Weinstock' S
| injury. but should also fix the punish
| ment of the defendants who had de-
| famed him. They had libeled Mr..
| Weinstock. Tomorrow and next day
they might libel the different members
of the jury. There are different degrees
of s1ander. A verbal slander may be
| forgotten next week or next year. but
| a published libel goes out to the world
and lives forever, and this is what is
complained of in this case,
From the testimony in this case it
appears that the plaintiff was pursued
in vindictive spirit with a desire to
| injure him There does not appear to
| be the slightest evidence that Mr..
| Weinstock was in the slightest way or
degree connected with the combination
! charged But the defendants in their
| answer set up the defense that what
| was published concerning him was
true The door was thrown open to
| them to allow them to prove their al
legation, but they failed to put in a
word of testimony to show that it was
| true They had two months in which
to investigate the charges by and of
| their detectives and they came into
| court and swore that the charges
! against him were true, and now, when
they come to trial, they do not intro
duce a word of evidence. They sent
| private detectives to his house. They
sent spies to his servant girl to obtain
his secrets Not only that, but they OBJ
tained the name of his private Secre-
| tary and tried to worm out of him
something by which they could say Mr.
weinstock has said this or that in his
conferences"
Mr. Reddy objected that there was
no evidence TO this effect, and Mr..
Johnson said that in his deposition V.
| S McClatchy had stated that he sent
detectives to Mr.. Weinstock's house
and to his private Secretary. Mr.. Red
dy said he was not aware of that fact
and withdrew his objection.
Mr.. Holl emphasized the statement
| that it was in evidence, and asked why,
if there was any evidence against Mr.
| Weinstock the defense did not produce
| it, They concocted a scheme TO en-
| trap him and sent decoy letters to him.