The San Francisco call., 1898-02-16
Trouble Over His Criti- cism of the Wine
 makers Association.
An Explanation of Why He Said It "Bunkoed" Mrs.
 Kohler Demanded.
HE HAS NONE TO GIVE.
Offered a Chance to Make a State naent, MT. Crocker Only Asks That
 He Be "Set Right"

Henry J. Crocker, president Of the California Wine Makers Corporation. talks too much He has himself said 50, and events now occurring give to his words confirmation sure as proofs of Holy Writ. In fact the war between the California Wine Makers Corpora tion and the California Wine Associa- tion is developing incidents which will be interesting to large number of people not directly concerned in the issues of the fight It was in connec- tion with one of these that MT. Crocker made his admission of talking too much, and now finding himself in trouble is trying to get out of 1t by writing too much.
 The matter is pertinent to the news of the day by reason of the following letter:
 San Francisco, Feb. g, 1898.
 H. J. Crocker,
 sos California Street.
 William Thomas Esq.-Dear Sir: Your favor of February g to hand enclosing one from you to The Call of February 5. The first letter l had from you l de- livered to The Call representative and have not seen 1t since.
 1 will say in all fairness that the printed article in The Call, to which the Wine
 
 justice, as well as myself, and this was acknowledged by Mr. Burke in your of fee.
 1 now say that did not use the words attributed to me by The Call, nor in the sense of the article are my well-known views represented.
 could not possibly have known what took place between Mrs K0flier and the association in their business deals, nor would l be able to state as fact that she had been bunkoed into receiving 100000 of stock in a. .3,O00,O00 corporation, as stated by The Call.
 As l told you, l am perfectly willing to have you proceed against me in the matter if The Call does not care to cor rect the publication as it seemed willing to do at the time. Yours very truly,
 HENRY J. CROCKER.
 It will be seen that the letter refers to an article published in The Call of January 27, which contained an inter view with MT. Crocker on the subject of the controversy between the Wine Makers Corporation and the Califor- mia Wine Association. In the inter- view certain statements were made which the Association regarded as of fensive and they called upon MT. Crocker for an explanation.
 When the attorneys of the Wine Makers Association demanded of MT. Crocker an explanation of his state mentS in the interview concerning Mrs. Kohler, he set about trying to put him. self right, and with that object asked the manager of The Call to straighten the matter out in the paper.
 MT. Crocker was informed that if The Call had misquoted him it would gladly make the correction necessary to do him justice. He was requested to point out in the printed interview any thing which he had not said, but this he would not do. He was told that if he desired to make a statement The Call would publish 1t. He said that he had no statement to make All that could be gained from him in that interview was that he wished The Call to set him right and get him out of the trouble the pub lished interview had brought upon him. It was in that conversation he said T have talked too much
 At the close of the conversation with the manager of The Call. MT. Crocker was told to call at the editorial rooms and consult with the city editor and the reporter with whom he had had the interview, being assured that if he could or would point out to them any part of the printed interview that did him an injustice or misrepresentedh him a correction would be made.
 He visited the editorial rooms and conferred with those gentlemen, but to them, as to the manager, he declined to make a statement in the paper over his own signature, nor would he assert that any portion of the published in- teryiew was essentially different from what he had said. He stated that he would like to have a portion of it cor rected, but would not say it contained anything he had not said, nor would he make the correction himself. Here again his only explanation was T