The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-02-18
JURORS ARE LOOKING WEARY
THE TENTH DAY OF THE BEE
LIBEL CASE.
City Trustees are Placed on the
Witness Stand by the
Defense.

sen, he SAID that ne coulu not poSiliNeiy
identify the document found the day
before and Endorsed interview with
Weinstock" His report, he SAID, was
dictated by him to the stenographer V.
S. McClatchy was present, witness re-
membered, and interrupted him, asking
if that was what Mr.. Weinstock SAID
He could not remember whether both
the interviews on the day were dictated
at the same time, but shortly afterWard
said they We're not and that, as he recol-
lected it, after the dictatlon of the first
interview he was sent back for the other
one. He did not know whether he die
tated his interview in affidavit form.
Some of the interviews he dictated in
that form and some he did not. He
did not remember which ones. The in
terview of March LIST was the one in
which he asked the questions of Mr..
Weinstock. He dictated this to Miss
Davis, the stenographer. He told Mr..
McClatchy on his return that Mr. Vein
stock had answered motto all the ques-
lions. He had been instructed TO tell
Mr.. Weinstock what information was in
the possession of the Bee" on the sub
ject of the combine and ask him the
questions.
THOSE INTERVIEWS.
In answer to a question as to why he
dictated an interview when he had the
questions written out and the answers
written down, he said that he had been
instructed to report the interviews very
fully. If he had written out the ques-
tions and answers it would have occu-
pied much more space than to write it
out as he did. He did not aim to get Mr..
Weinstock's exact language, but to get
the substance of them. In answer to
a question as to why he did not write
the exact language, he said it was not
their style He tried to make it interest
ing reading and to get the facts in.
Interesting 10 whom-to the readers
of the 'Bee?' asked Mr.. Johnson.
L always try to- said the witness. at
would be very embarrassing to publish
simply the questions and answers in an
interview
Then" said Mr.. Johnson, you, with
the exact language of Mr.. Weinstock in
your possession, determined how it
should be presented to the readers of
the Bee
Witness answered that he had gen.
eral instructions from Mr.. McClatchy
to have the interviews and give the sub
stance Of them in his report He had no
special instructions at this time.
Mr. Johnson asked him if he did not
have an interview with Trustee Devine
in the Bee" of March 9TH, and if it
was not published categoricaly, ques-
ton and answer, and why he did not
publish the interview with MIR. Vein
stock in that manner also.
The witness answered that he did not
remember such interview and that the
interview stated it was by Mr.. Nc
CATCHY. He afterwards in looking at
another interview in the same paper,
said he did not remember whether it was
his interview or not. He wrote the
Weinstock interview in the way he did
because he thought it put it in better
shape He admitted writing the inter-
view with Devine in the paper of March
9Th which was published with questions
and answers. but did not think he had
questions written out when he went to
Devine but he published questions and
answers as containing the substance Of
the interview He explained that they
contained some alleged wit and that was
the reason for publishing them in that
shape.
Whose wit, yours?" queried Mr..
Johnson.
No. Mr. Devine's," answered the wit
ness.
SUBSTANTIAL CORRECTNESS.
In writing out the interviews with
Mr. Weinstock, witness continued that
he used his own language. intending
to preserve the sense. He did not pre-
tend to have used Mr.. Weinstocks ex-
act language. When they met at Sew
enteenth and ] streets Mr.. Weinstock
complained that he had not published
the interview with question and an
swer, as it occurred. He did not re-
member whether he promised to cor
rect ii or not. He did not correct it,
because when he spoke to Mr.. Nc
CATCHY the latter asked him if the re-
port was correct and witness answered
that the substance Of the language was
there and Mr.. McClatchy said that If
the substance was correct, he did not
see any reason for correction. Mr..
Weinstock said that there were other
errors and, witness said he was very
sorry He did not ask what they
We're, as Mr.. Weinstock had simply
spoken of error in form. He did tell
Mr. Weinstock that he had not clear
recollection of the facts. I'd If he de-
MED ii short time ago, he was mis-
taken IT was his recollection that he
volunteered the remark to Mr. Vein
stock that he could see no connection
between a concert hall and newspa-
per. but he was not positive. His Sec
ond interview on the 18th was for the
purpose of getting the letter of Won
Arnold He was there only a short
time and his remark about the concert
hall was not so much in confidence as
il was TO find out, both for himself
and his employers. the real state Of
affairs In the second interview. when
they were on the porch. he again vol
unteered the remark that he saw no
connection between the newspaper and
the concert hall. Mr.. Weinstock said
that If the newspaper was 10 be start
ed to bolster up the concert hall, he
thought il was a poor business venture
and that /. would be better. he thought.
to try to silence the two papers al
ready existing. He ia Mr.. Nc
CATCHY of the conversation when he
returned. He did not remember how he
learned of Mr.. Weinstock's deposition.
His best recollection was that he men
toned gambling to Mr.. Weinstoclk on
the second interview. He did not
think Il had been mentioned before, in
fact II had not He did not remem-
Der having spoken TO Mr.. Weinstock