The record-union., 1897-10-09

brighter, if possible, and he could desire
nothing better and in that case he would
say to the defendants, ''I am with you
hand in hand to expose the workings
of corruption from this time forward. "
1t is only men who are guilty who can
| complain of the law or of the processes
used to detect guilt He contended that
the subsequent article on March Ioth
did not constitute a libel and could not
be introduced to prove a libel, unless all
that is not contradicted in it is admitted
! to be true
He quoted from the article on the 1oth
that Mr.. Weinstock was not believed
to be in the combination, but it was
reported that he was concerned in the
newspaper scheme and was doubtless
| aware of the tribute paid by the gamD-
ling games to Sheehan and the Trus-
tees" Reference TO the letter written
to him by Won Arnold from San Fran
cisco shows that he was aware of 1t,
but this imputes no bad action to him.
! Why did he not come to Mr.. McClatchy
and say to him, Are we being robbed
IN this way?" He supposed it was be-
cause being a business man he did not
care to take the trouble and possibly
| injure his own interests.
! He asked the jury, if they found a
verdict of libel, to look into the matter
and try to find out il the defendants did
/ not enter into the matter with good in
| tentions and investigate it in that
| spirit, While they might in their zeal
! have made their expressions too strong.
! He wished them to remember also that
plaintiff had not asked for special dam
/ ages and was therefore not entitled to
| any except as provided by law. AS it
| was not pleaded that the corporation
! OF which he is President has sustained
! any damage, he is not entitled to dam
ages sustained in his business, indeed
| it is not even alleged that he is q part
ner. He warned them not to be carried
away by the pathetic appeals of counsel
for plaintiff, but to consult only their
! cool judgment in bringing in their YER
dict. They should not give verdict OF
$4,000 to the man of whom defendants
had spoken so highly and for whom they
entertain SO much respect.
MIR. JOHNSON RESPONDS.
II. w. Johnson had the closing argu-
ment. He congratulated the jury and
all connected with the trial that it was
so nearly through and of the oppor-
tunity they had enjoyed of listening tc
the eloquent address of the gentleman
from San Francisco.
All he asked of the jury was that they
would give him free, fair hearing. AL
the plaintiff asked was that it would
give the matter full and impartia
hearing and do him justice When the
issue is between a newspaper and q
! citizen, all he asked of them was that
remembering their oaths, they give tC
each party a fair and impartial decis-
| ion.
He had been asked if he did not think
1t was right for a newspaper to expose
municipal corruption fearlessly. il
should be commended. The plaintiff
| answers yes, if the newspaper fearlessly
ana fairly exposes corruption. But il
the newspaper, in its office matches III
rotten schemes and charges from mat.
ter that it and it's detective have gath
cred, he answers no. He would show
that every statement made in the arti-
cles was concocted in their office and
was lie. There never was a red mock
etpook- There never was a newspaper
and Mr.. Weinstock never intended r.
become interested in one, and the whole
paper. through its managers, to sit il
its office and hatch up statements TO dc.
stroy the regulations OF citizens and b;
| upheld in it and considered a publ,
benefactor?
was there ever a libel case before
where the plaintiff threw open the door
and invited the closest investigation ant
when the defendants We're given an op.
| T0ntfI1nifx IN
everything that they have alleged anC
they did not take advantage of it? They
did not even take the stand to deny the
malice of the allegations they had made
He hoped if he made any misstate.
ments OF law or facts that oposing coun-
sci would correct him, as he did not in.
tend to do so. The Supreme Court has
said that the construction of libel is
very broad and will include almost any
| thing that will tend to injure a mar
| in his business or reputation or expose
him to obloquy. If one line of that ar
| ticle is libelous, that is sufficient anC
they must give a verdict for plaintiff
Can any man take up the Bee" o1
March Sd and look at Weinstock's name
in big letters and believe it is not libel
And it does not matter how it is ex-
pressed, whether as their opinion or G
statement A newspaper cannot pub
lish a lie about a man without assuming
| responsibility. No man can writ
freely or speak freely, but he must mo-
write or publish lie and escape the
responsibility. He must write the truth
or suffer. They say they did not charge
Weinstock with wrong doing; that they
have the highest respect for him. Why
then did they publish such things abou
him? If it was not true, they did mol
need to publish it. If they did not be
lieve it why did they publish it? They
did not have so much respect for Vein
stock then as they have now. What
right have they to set themselves up tC
judge mems characters and to vilify an6
ruin them? He did ont wish to speal
harshly of them, but he wanted to tall
earnestly and honestly to the jury.
Is there any one line or sentence il
the article that tends to hold Mr.. Vein
stock up to censure or reproach? /
there is, all the jury can do is to de
clare it libelous. In considering tht
| article they should be governed by th'
law. If it is libelous. it is a lie. The
| plaintiff offered to prove it lie, bu
the defendants did ont wish to test it
There is no escaping from the propo'
sition. 1t is a lie and these men lied
Take the heading and read it and how
can a man do so and see Weinstock':
name in the article and escape the con
viction that he is charged with wrong
doing See what it says of the combi-
I nation of official and private rascality il
our midst" Read what it says abou
the combine and the newspaper and sex
how Weinstock is mixed in it. Who was