The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-11-13
SAYS He DID
NOT APPROVE
OF THE LIBEL
Hearst in the Claus
Spreckels Case.
DECLARES HIS INNOCENCE
MANAGING EDITOR LAWRENCE
WOULD NOT RETRACT.
Grove L. johnson Wanted to Show
That Lawrence in the Conduct Of
the Examiner Was Incompe-
tent and Unskillful.
MANAGING EDITOR LAWRENCE
WOULD NOT RETRACT.

The preliminary examination of w. II.
Hearst, proprietor of the Examiner,
charged with libel by Claus Spreckels,
was held before Judge Mogan yesterday
morning. The defendant was represented
by Carrot McEnerney, and Grove l.. john
son assisted Prosecuting Attorney Spin
ETH.
The prosecution put in. evidence copy
of the Examiner of June z, 1897, contain
ing the libel complained Of, and on the
admission of the defendant that he was
the proprietor of the paper, rested.
The defendant took the stand and testi-
fed that on June z, 1897, he was in New
York and had not been here since, until
within the past month. A. NJ Lawrence
was the managing editor of the paper in
June, 1887 and since that time. Defend
ant did not order the publication of the
item complained of and first heard or its
publication when he received information
that suit for damages had been brought
against him by Mr.. Spreckels for 81 ,0OO, 900.
Cross-eXamined by Attorney Johnson,
defendant said that Lawrence had entire
control of the paper as Tar a as a m al aGa
proprietor. Defendant reserved 10 MIN
self the policy of the paper on national
issues only. He had given Lawrence no
instruction as to policy regarding the
Spreckels family. Lawrence made reports
to him from time to time.
When his attention was brought TO the
item he disapproved of it. He had talk
over the wire with Lawrence about 1T.
He did not know If he asked Lawrence
to make a retraction and could only re-
fresh his recollection by asking Lawrence.
He did not send Lawrence retraction-
He paid but little attention TO the mat
ter He considered Lawrence was a Skill.
full and competent man for the position OF
sDo You remember Lawrence having a
collision with the State Senate? asked
McEnerney objected to. the question;
II want to show" said Johnson, tnat
that he was in collision with the state
Senate that he has abused and v1lifled
nearly everybody, in the community, and
by his. conduct has prougnt crop Oh
libel suits upon Mr.. Hearst.
The Judge sustained the objection and
the defendant stated that ne mad SUI
that he received reports from Lawrence
about once a month. He did not think
he gave Lawrence written instructions as
to his policy with regard to the paper or
his duties. He also received reports as to
the financial condition of the paper. He
claimed to be a resident of this State and
was merely absent in New York on BUSH
A M. Lawrence testified that he became
managing editor of the Examiner In June,
1896. He first knew of the article. COM
planned of when the papers in the 81 ,0O0,-
600 suit were filed. He notified Mr.. Hearst
when the papers were served.
Cross-examined, he said he communi-
Gated with Mr. Hearst, by wire, and
Hearst wired that ne dlSapprOVed or
ouarrels with people with whom they had
no quarrels. He consulted McEnerney,
and it was decided that the item was of
such a character that it was difficult to
know Just what to do as to making a re-
traction. Hearst did not instruct him to
make a retraction. He would only con-
Ibid you consult McEnerney as to a
retraction?'
Yes"
was it not the other way-McEnerney
called upon you and advised you to make
a retraction?"
mo"
In answer to McEnerney Lawrence said
that If he had seen the item before it was
published he would not have published it.
There was no occasion for Hearst giving
him instructions such matters.
In answer to Johnson Lawrence said