The San Francisco call., 1898-05-15
YELLOW MORALITY.

man who is admitted into decent company re- port therein conversation with another upon mat
 ters of serious personal importance or ot pubic in- terest and 1t that such conversation oc- cured he is called, known, branded and posted as liar II he persist in reporting things that never nap pened and conversations never had he runs the flsK of condgn punishment It is safe to say that no gen tlenan would speak to such man and no lady would tolerate his presence. He would be without infuence' and men would prefer his enrty to his riendship hs blame to his praise.
 Will some tell us the difference between the man who offends against truth and decency oy woro of mouth and one who commits the same onense Ill cold type and persists in it, using newspaper as hs medium? What difference is there between William R Hearst telling all who will hear him of conversation with the Pope in which that august person treated issues of the greatest gravity with undiplomatc brusoueness when he had not seen the Pope at all, and William R. Hearst publishing such an interview with the Pope that never occurred and was promptly denied by the Pope himself2
 Again if William R. Hearst should boast of an ln- terview with the Queen Regent ot Spa1n, n which she talked of the most delicate matters pertaining to her kingdom and her people, and he should vaunt himself upon his enterprise and influence Ill pelng able exclusively to her secluslon and get such an interview and turned out that he had never seen the Queen Regent at all, and that the tale was lie from beginning end what gentleman or lady would recognize him again7 Can any one suggest any dif- ference between his telling of such interview and printing it in the Journal and Examiner when 1t never took place and was lie, made outJof whole cloth?
 If William R. Hearst go among others and tell of
 conversation with the wife of the President of the United States and it turn out that he had never met the lady and that no such conversation had been had with her. it would be the verdict of every gentleman that he should be kicked of decent company as liar and poltroon.
 Now all of these things have been done by William R Hearst Through the Examiner he has 'boasted of interviews with the Pope, the Queen Regent and Mrs Mckinley, and has published the same in de- tail putting words into the mouth of the Pope, the Queen and the Presidents wife when such inter views occurred.
 Will some one here speak for him and tell us why and how such conduct differs when its medium IS a newspaper from the same course by word of mouth? When Mr. Hearst says in his paper that his com missioner" interviewed the Pope, Queen Presi- dents wife knowing that such things never happened it seems that he has defense He pretends to state as fact that which he knows is not fact It IS not like printing rumor of outside origin. It is pre- tense that he ordered his personal representative to
 meet face to face these three persons the Pope the Queen and Presidents wife, and receive from them an expression of their views upon the issues between the United States and Spain, and that such order was executed and that 1t evidence of his enterprise and power. when such order was never given and never executed and he knew that they were not.
 His offense is deception of his readers and is y ing of the most serious kind. The Pope's Secretary of State Rampolla, at denounced it. The Presi- dent through his private secretary has denied the in terview with Mrs. Mckinley and is known as posi- lively that the Queen Regent never met any repre- sentative of Hearst nor gave any interview
 Now what perverted mind it must be that can parade these three gross ofenses, these three out rageous lie and boast of them journalistic enter prise!
 If Hearst had told them by word of mouth his coat tails would have been frayed by the deserved kicks of every gentleman who could get within leg reach of him. Why is he entitled to any more consideration because his lies are in print?