The San Francisco call., 1898-02-25


 ' \ been treated to a newspaper
 fight which is unique in the annals of California journalism. The character of this controversy makes it of more than ordinary interest, for in its bearing upon journalistic morals it affects all the newspapers of the commonwealth. The only purpose in referring to the subject at this time is that The Call hopes by the publication which accompanies this article to make a point in favor of journalistic ethics in San Francisco which shall be last ing.
 So far as this matter has affected the parties referred to in 1t. 1t is of very little public moment. Each man whose name has been mentioned in connection with the unfortunate death of John J. Livernash is probably able to take care of himself Certainly w. s. Leake, one of the editors of The Call, who has been made the victim of a personal at tack by the Examiner, need not ask at the hands of this or any other journal q vindication. So far, therefore, as the matter affects him, 1t is the desire of The Call that it shall be considered as entirely divorced from all his feel ings or prejudices. Mir. Leake is an employe of this paper and that Is all.
 For some time The Call has been mak- ing rapid strides When it was taken in charge by the present proprietor it was understood that every effort would be made by him and his subordinates to publish the news first, and at the same time tC conduct a journal Of which ;ts readers might be proud and of which the State need not be ashamed. In pursuance of this determination a great deal of energy has been expended by The Call in the pursuit of news. It has disbursed considerable money in organizing corps of reporters and cor respondents who would furnish 1t by telegraph and otherwise with the latest information about all matters of inter est to the public.
 In pursuing this course necessarily no attention has been paid to the inter est or rival journals. At the very out set the Examiner, which has long claimed precedence in the domain of news in California, began systematic fight, not only to cut under The Calls news sources, but by faking and mis- representation to thwart every effort that might be made by this paper to gain a place as an enterprising and re- liable daily newspaper. Those among newspaper readers who have for the last five months followed the news of the day must acknowledge that The I1aH hoe In,a x-ohl ivn notwithstanding the efforts of it's rival the Examiner, to obstruct its news sources and damage and destroy its business.
 The pursuit of news referred to re- suited on last Saturday morning in the publication of the story of the sui eide of John J. LivernaSh, an ex-news- paper man, formerly editor of the Healdsburg Enterprise and lately col lector under the Harbor Commission. MT. Livernash called at the office of The Call on Friday evening and saw one of its editors. He said he had a story to sell, stated briefly the nature of it and asked S100 as compensation. Precau- tionS were taken to ascertain whether or not he was a reliable man, and upon assurance being brought to the editor that he was an employe of the State and respectfully connected a bargain was closed with him.
 No one connected with this paper was aware of his intention to commit suicide nor of the subsequently, de- veloped fact that he had written the story of his own death and had sold it under the guise of an article detailing the dedication of a State official.
 It. is not necessary at this time to enter into any detailed narration of the circumstances under which Livernash sold this article. A sufficient state ment of the entire affair was given under oath at the Coroner's inquest on Wednesday, and those who may desire to master all the facts of the case are respectfully referred to yesterday mornings Call. in which a stenographic report of the testimony taken by the Coroner was published. It is sufficient at this time to say that the publication of Livernash's extraordinary story and the account of his death were the cul- imitation of a long series of news scoops by The Call.
 In his last letter Livernash referred to a man named Lawrence by his so- briquet of Long. Green" Livernash was on terms of intimacy with Law renee and had attempted to sell him the article before he visited The Call office, and he knew that that individual Is generally designated as Long Green"-a name which was given him to describe his propensity for acquiring and retaining the property of others. Livernash said in his letter that Long Green" Lawrence would pay blood money and that he would commit nur- der if there were sufficient in it for him.
 No one connected with The Call was responsible for these statements. To have eliminated them from Livernash's letter would have made the editors of this journal as guilty of falsifying let ters as the editors of the Examiner have been frequently guilty of sirni- lar course. What the dead man wrote The Call published without amend ment, and the only Justification it need ed for doing so was it's desire to re- produce things as they are.
 It appears, however, that this refer ence coupled with the exclusive nature of the story-which, as has already