The San Francisco call., 1898-01-06
< EtT4'7

sentations of your solicitor, besides being extremely busy at the time the contract was signed without scrutiny and in accordance with our understanding of it's purport You will say that this was carelessness on our part, and we admit that 1t was. put you must bear in mind that we dlo not Know we were dealing with a special canvasser whose sole interest In the transaction was to endeavor to innate our bill to the uttermost ex- tent-this we found out later We supposed. at the time, that he was one of your regular attaches and Knowing the Bulletin as an honorable paper, relied upon any assertions its representatives might make, with the belief that through him we were daaIo ing with the Journal itself. This was more especially so as we have always regarded the Bulletin as partfcuIa rir, tr1end-Mr. de la Montanya having been subscriber to 1t, as your rec ords will show. from the first number or the first volume up to the nresant time. period of nearly fifty wears ano so; when your solicitor appeared. we took an interest in the project and listened to his proposition when canVasser from any other paper would nave been refused a hearing at onca we had no desire to have the article printed at all. certainly not if if was 10 cost lls anything. and if vour rnr reSentaffve had stated that if WAS for the article itself we were to pav wa Fpbiu I'-lLHeT nave signed A contra 1t for dollar a line nor even for o,1ar ter of that amount, but would have dronped the matter at once Even if we had ever entertained the idea of having the matter nrirted at our ex penFe we would have had 9 Iurnn e,,rn snecihed and not an elastic doI'er-a- hon aRraenent. n he evnandaS ec "erd'r~ to the wishes of the solicitor
 The foregoing Is a correct state ment Of the whole transaction. and MT de la Montanya himself and two other parties in our office can testify place and verify the assertions here made. We are willing to pay small amount conformably to our original understanding regarding the special preaching the amount In the bill pre- sented We think the Bulletin. as well as ourselves. has been misIed in tnis matter. and that 1t will not trv 70 ava itself of any advantage ad- nerlng 10 contract so palpably p-o- cured by misrepresentation. Re spectfuliy yours.
 J. DE LA MoNTANY6. 'Ihis courteous protest produced , quick response from a man namef Jennings, who was pleasantly men tioned yesterday as having been dis barred, and the bill was paid. SimiIa, bills have been paid by firms desirou, oi HNololng litigation. Here is the Jen nings letter:
 SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 23. 1897.
 J. de Ia Montanya Esq. 214 Jackson street. City-Dear Sir: The Bulletin has handed me your favor of 22d inst. With instructions to reply.
 l. The Bulletin appreciates you- good Will and support and begs to re- ciprocate.
 z We beg to say you misapprehend- ed our solicitor when won Ilnderetood him to say 1t would not cost us Cyou single cent" of which we think little reflection will convince you. Newspapers are not run that way Ca fact which is well known. What the, solicitor did say, as he states, and what he was authorized to mention in editorial review would he made without cost; that is, no charge would be made for the cut and the editorial mention; and none has been made. The charge is $1 per line for the write up." which is strictly in