The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-02-09

Clatcheys into difficulties, from MS
knowledge of them He said to Mr..
Weinstock that he saw Won Arnold had
sent him some dispatches, but he did
not seem to catch on Mr.. Welnstock
answered that he received some dis
patches, but as he did not know the
party from whom they came he did not
answer them, and afterwards Won Arm
old came to the store and introduced
himself and asked for a letter to some
one.
HAD NO ESCAPE.
Witness said Mr. Weinstock had had
very narrow escape and the latter said
he had had no escape; that Won Arnold
was stranger and he did not do bust
ness that way. He thought it presump-
tuous in Won Arnold, stranger, to come
to him in that way and gave him no let
ter. Witness told him that Won Arnold
was a scoundrel and he was afraid he
would get the McClatchys into trouble
| if they relied on him.
Mr.. Moran, the reporter, had been in
his office short time before Mr.. Vein
stock came, but had gone away and
witness did not see him again until after
the publication of the article. Previous
to the publication of the article neither
the McClatchys nor any one connected
with them had called on him in reference
to the statements made in it concerning
Mr.. Weinstock.
MORAN'S TESTIMONY.
Edward F. Moran testified that he
wrote the article published in the Eek
aminer" and that Mr.. Weinstock gave
him no information regarding the state
ments made in the article and he learned
none of the alleged facts stated in the
article from Mr.. Weinstock.
Mr.. johnson asked if, subsequent to
the publication of the article witness had
a conversation with V. S. McClatchy in
relation to the statements regarding Mr..
Weinstock
Counsel for defense objected. Mr..
Johnson said that the question was in
order to show that such an interview
did take place and ne proposed to show
malice, as Mr.. McClatchy never retract-
Cd the article. The objection was over
ruled.
ADVISED TO RETRACT.
Witness said he told Mr. McClatchy
that he had read the article in the Bee"
and that he had made a mistake in at
tributing the statements in the article
III AAC I<Aoi4liIiCI, dt NilIlCSS HetO DeNCl
received any of the statements from Mr.
Weinstock and that he thought the
easiest way out of it would be to retract
Mr.. Weinstock had given him no infor-
nation about Won Arnold and the article
was not based on any information from
Mr.. Weinstock. Mr. McClatchy said in
that case he had made a mistake
Witness thought this was subsequent
n he
was not sure. Mr.. McClatchy had never,
prior to the publication of the article,
asked witness anything about the facts.
When he met Mr.. Weinstock in the Of
| flee of Chief Lees he did not recognize
him. Chief Lees was not present at the
time. He went into the Chiefs office
and prior to that, in the outer office he
was introduced to Mr.. Weinstock by
Senator Dryer and they talked a few
minutes about Won Arnold
Mr.. Weinstock said Won Arnold had
called on him at his office, but the con-
versation was principally about Won
Arnold's appearance and the impression
he made. He also mentioned Mr.. Shee-
han as calling at that time with Won
Arnold.
Since that time he had written to
Mr. Weinstock, and had received two
letters from him. He identified copy
of the letter and his reply to it. He
showed the letter to Chief Lees when
he received it, and completed the reply
at his office, adding postscript. Chief
Lees also wrote reply to a letter he
| had received from Mr. Weinstock, and
they were mailed Immediately.
The letters were offered in evidence
and read, as follows:
WEINSTOCK'S LETTER.
Sacramento, April IA, 1897
Mr.. Moran, San Francisco-Dear Sir:
L beg herewith to enclose a clipping
from this evenings Bee" in which is
republished an article in to-day's Eek
aminer," doubtless written by you. in
| which the Bee" endeavors to ascribe
TO me the statement made concerning
Won Arnold's career while recently in
Sacramento
III you wrote the Examiner" article,
did you intend to convey the idea that
had said: % II had narrow escape
from becoming a victim to Won Ar
mold. % THAT he was masquerading
| in Sacramento as Baron Won Stein
metz" 90 THAT it led to an investiga-
ton by the Grand Jury and nothing
came Of it,
The Examiner article conveyed to
me the idea that you incidentally made
mention Of the fact that / had, called
on Chief Lees in relation to the Won
Arnold matter, the rest of the state
ments in the article being based on
statement Of what you knew in the
matter generally. Kindly send me your
reply at your earliest convenience. and
oollge yours truly, H. W.
MORAN'S REPLY.
The answer was as follows:
Mr.. II. Weinstock, Sacramento. CAL
My Dear Sir: In reply to your note of
April l4th, received to-day, allow me
TO say in answer to your various cues
tons:
First-You are not quoted in the Eek
aminer as stating that you had a mar
row escape from becoming a victim of
Won Arnold, nor did you make such a.
statement 10 me.
Second-You are not quoted as say
ing that he had masqueraded in Sacra-
mento as Baron Won Steinmetz, nor did
You tell me so.
| Third-You We're not quoted as say
Ing that an investigation was held by
the Grand Jury and nothing came of it,
| The Examiner" article merely men,
! tons your visit to Chief Lees Incl
/ dentaliy. The other matter. in the
! following paragraph, referring TO Won
/ Arnold's career in Sacramento. was
| generally known here 1t did not come
| from you. and an intelligent reading of
+ the article shows clearly that you are
not quoted in it in the slightest degree.