The record-union., 1897-03-21
H. WEINSTOCK
SUES THE BEE"
Another Libel Suit for Fifty Thou
sand Dollars Damages.
Mr.. Weinstock Replies to Charges Preferred by
Our Evening Contemporary

the Record Union" and in reply to
questions about the document, fur
nished the following statement:
so long as the press confines its
efforts to exposing wickedness and cor
ruption in high places and in aiding to
bring wrong-doers to justice, it is ac-
complishing a high purpose and de-
serves the commentator, the support
and the applause of all lovers of good
government. But when a newspaper
so far forgetS its mission as to enter
into a premeditated scheme to injure
and to ruin the reputation of private
citizens who have committed no wrong
and who have had no thought of wrong
doing, the liberty of the press becomes
license and new journalism becomes
villainous journalism, which should be
denounced and condemned by all who
value their liberty and their good name.
The proprietors of the Evening Bee,
without the slightest provocation and
for no cause, have for days in success
sion libeled me in their paper in the
most outrageous manner. They boldly
charged me with being a party to a
combination who were to conduct gam
bling rooms, immoral places of amuse-
ment, to corrupt officials and to establish
a newspaper to protect all these inter-
ests and who were to aid in having me
elected Mayor of this city SO that
might use the power of my official po-
sition as an additional protection to
this unholy alliance The carefully
planned scheme Of the Bee to ruin my
reputation began by their sending me
many weeks ago a cunningly prepared
decoy letter signed Chas. J. Won Arnold,
the contents of which were known to V.
S. McClatchy, one of the propretors of
the Bee and which he admits having
personally mailed to me from San
Francisco.
THE contents Of that decoy letter,
which has since been placed by me in
the hands of the Grand Jury, spoke
about starting a newspaper and other
enterprises, and was so startling in it's
character and so discriminating to the
writer of that letter, as a self-con-
fessed briber of public officials, that
could not believe nor could any of my
friends believe. to whom at the time
showed that letter, that a sane man
would write such communication to a
and who had never before heard of him.
L therefore concluded that the letter
must have been sent by a lunatic and
put it aside without further thought or
attention.
According to the ethics of the Bee
it may be just and honorable to pub
fish communication, even though
written by a lunatic, which charges
men whom the Bee believes to be hon
est, with being corrupt and venal If
so, L rejoice that my code of ethics is
different from the Bees code Of
ethics
L believe one of the most contempt
ible and despicable among Gods crea-
lures is the libeler and the slanderer
the destroyer of other mems characters
and regulations, and l believe that to
transmit SANDER is to be as guilty as
to invent SANDER. If I am to be con-
demned for refusing to give for publ
cation to the Bee the decoy letter sent
by Won Arnold, which 1 believed came
from a crank, containing what l be-
lieved to be slanderous lies against
others, shall cheerfully bear whatever
punishment such action merits.
Arnold letter made by V. S. McClatchy
was not Unidentified as being his until
March 1st, over one month after it's
receipt Up to that time l supposed it
to be the words of crank and gave it
no significance.
THE Won Arnold decoy letter, falling
in its purpose, a decoy telegram was
sent me from San Jose several days
later, asking if l had received the let
ter and requesting an answer, to which
L replied that l did not understand the
letter and had never before heard
about the enterprises referred to there
in. The decoy telegram having also
failed in it's intended purpose, yet other
decoy letters We're sent me at later
dates inviting me to visit the Western
Hotel, where / have since learned con-
ditions had been prepared by the clever
plotters to have my presence in their
headquarters lend color to the I'M
founded charges which the Bee con-
templated making.
These decoy letters also failing in
their intended purpose by my declining
to accept the invitation to visit the
Western Hotel for the reason that /
felt absolutely no interest in Won Ar
mold nor in his proposed newspaper en-
terprise, the proprietors of the Bee
have since been moving heaven and
earth in their efforts to twist to dis
tort, TO garble and to insinuate by in
uendo with a view of coloring facts to
substantiate their false and grossly
malicious charges formulated by them
against me. In the face of the follow
ing facts the mystery as to the motive
which lies hidden behind all this out
rage TO which / have been subjected by
the Bee becomes difficult to under
stand. The Bee charges that Won
Arnold began operating in Sacramento
December lS, 1896: that by January
Both the supposed combine had been
formed: that all the parties implicated,
including myself. had agreed to a gen
eral plan and only details were left
to be perfected; that on January Both,
Won Arnold left for San Francisco in
order to afford a pretext for corre-
spondence with the parties implicated
The Bee boldly makes all these state
ments despite the following facts:
Il. That up to February I'd l had
never heard of Won Arnold
-. ] had never seen Won Arnold be-
fore the middle of February when he
was introduced to me in the store by
John A. Sheehan of the Sunday News
at which time / did not talk with him
beyond five or six minutes, and then
only in reference to the merit of the
location of certain business property he
said he contemplated buying
y. ! had not seen, nor spoken to.
nor correspondent with John A Shee-
han of the Sunday News for many
months before his visit above referred