The record-union., 1897-10-08

credit, and that would justify their de-
famatory articles against him. But
they are not able to produce line of
evidence that they can produce against
him, and they have not been able to
| offer any. So, again, when their mu-
tual friend, DR.. Van Norden, went TO
them and told them that Mr. Weinstock
had nothing to do with the matter, and
asked them to drop his name, they re-
fused, saying that there were some sus-
pfcious circumstances that they wanted
to investigate, and that they We're not
prepared TO consider him innocent Ana
! two months afterwards they came
into court and swore that the charges
were true. Why did they not present
| their proof?
| Taking all these facts together, how
can any other conclusion be arrived at
than that he was pursued maliciously,
with the intention to do him an injury.
| The article was sent out broadcast into
the world, and persons who knew his
name and his house read it. How can
| it be told how much injury has been
done him among his customers and 9TH
ers who were strangers to him and the
reputation he has built up here. Let
each member of the jury take the mat
ter home to himself.
He read from the Bee" the article
which spoke of the public officials and
private citizens whose corrupt prac-
tees have been investigated" by Won
Arnold. The matter of who the private
citizens are who are meant is for the
| jury to determine. So, also, the ''pri-
vate citizens, who, to crafty personal
ambition have consented to ally them
selves with scoundrels." The jury must
determine for itself who the private Cit
! lzen with personal ambition was, when
the paper states that WeinStock was to
run for Mayor. He asked the jury to
seriously consider this case. They had
/ heard the evidence and the articles. 1t
| deVolVed on them TO say whether a
mans reputation is worth anything.
The verdict of this jury will live through
| time. Will it say that a newspaper or
any one else must not destroy willfully
and mahciousIy, the character of cit
izen without cause? He wanted it to
stand firm and say to the people of the
| United States that no newspaper, how
ever powerful, can destroy maliciously
and willfully the character of a citizen.
| h4N- . AOI)IlE@fOO
Elwood Bruner, for the defense, next
| addressed the jury. The case for the
jury to consider, he said, was solely the
case of H. Weinstock against the Bee"
The only question for them to consider
was: Was Mr. Weinstock libeled by the
article in the Bee of March 3, 1897?
He might begin his remarks with the
last statement of Mr.. Holl, that the
question for them to consider was
whether or not the reputation of every
| citizen was at the mercy of a licentious
| newspaper. He denied that the Bee"
was licentious newspaper. 1t has
| become the custom for the newspapers
to pay attention to the doing of public
| officials in order that when the time
| comes for an election that a change
may be made, if their conduct seems to
make it expedient or necessary. When
| DR.. Van Norden went to Mr.. McClatchy
| he was told that they were inyestigat-
ing the whole matter.
| He denied that Mr.. Weinstock had
| been libeled, and said that he was a
man of good repute in the community
and the verdict of the jury would lie if
in defendants favor, that his reputation
had been vindicated, and that there was
no libel against it. There were names
OF other highly reputable citizens in the
article, for instance, Grove l.. johnson.
D. Lubin and John We'll, his warm per-
senal friend. No injury, he claimed,
| had been done to Mr.. WeinStock, to his
! business, or his firm. The best vindi-
cation he could have before the commu-
nifty would be verdict that no libel
| had been committed on him.
! The Bee of March Sd was introduc-
| ed in the plaintiffs case. The defendants
| had introduced neither papers nor evil
| dence, and the article must be taken as
| true, so far as it does not relate to the
| plaintiff, because his complaint only al
| legeS that the parts relating to him are
| false, malicious and untrue. There was
a pocket memorandum book came into
the hands Of defendants, he said, read
| ing from the article, and that is an ad-
mitted fact. The article says that the
entries indicated certain things, which
were embodied in the complaint. He
read the paragraphs, and asked if, as
public journalists, they would not have
been derelict if they had not made an
Investigation and carried it to an end
They did so for over month, and then
published the article, which contained
several paragraphs con tanning their
conclusions on the matter.
| He read the paragraph in relation TO
the starting of the paper, and the OBJ
! jects for which it was to be run. Is Il
crime to run a newspaper he asked.
Is there anything wrong about? If so,
there is no use for further argument.
Although the whole article is admitted
| in evidence he said if docs 60
as this jury is concerned, convict Mr..
| Sheehan or Mr.. Leonard of anything.
| The fact that Sheehan and Won Ar
mold had conducted negotiations, and
that Mr.. Weinstock had been mentioned
in the matter, does not in any way af-
| feet Mr.. Weinstock, when he knew
nothing of the matter. AS for his run
ming for Mayor, that was his privilege,
and any one of the combine or any one
else had the right to support him There
! is nothing to prevent any voter from
| voting for the man of his choice. He
wanted the jury to remember that they
were to construe paragraph just as it
| is written, and not put in a comma or a
parenthesis or anything else If COM
| bination to control an election is wrong,
! then no elections are right. Combina-
| ticns have always been formed to con-
| troll the elections of cities, counties and
/ States, and even of the United States.
and it is right that it should be So Is
there anything wrong about it? 1t is
done every day.
An adjournment was then taken until
| IL a. m. to-day
BALLINGToN BOOTH.