The record-union., 1898-02-24
STILL HEARING TESTIMONY.
WEINSTOCK-McC CASE
DRAGGING ALONG.
". s. and c. X. McC1atchy Occupied
the Witness Stand
Yesterday.

-uCSldtCily continued MS ttSliiioiis'
and identified a letter sent by Won Ar
mold to C. E. Leonard on February l,
1897.
Mr.. Johnson, in his croSs-eXamlna-
tion, asked him as to whether the letter
written by Won Arnold to Weinstock
was under the direction of witness IN
the Investigations that the Bee had
made, and Mr.. Metson objected.
Mr. johnson said that Mr.. McClatchy
had stated in his testimony that the
Bee" had found certain prominent cit
izens to some extent connected with the
charges of corruption, and had depend
ed on them to assist in exposing IT.
Such being his statement, Mr.. Johnson
said as the court had permitted wit
ness to make ii. he had, he thought, a
right to cross examine him upon it. He
had protested against the evidence be-
ing allowed, but was overruled, and he
thought he was entitled now to exam
inc on it.
Mr. Metson argued against the prop
osition, and the court finally ruled that
the witness should answer the ques-
ton. He answered that the letter was
a part of number of letters written in
accordance with the general plan. He
had copy of the letter in his posses
sion after it was written and ever since
Won Arnold reported to him from time
to time. He did not make a written re-
port that he had taken dinner at Mr..
WeinStock's house. but did so verbally
report towitness. He did not report that
he took dinner at the French Restaurant
with Mr. Weinstock. The reports pre-
vious to February 1st We're made solely
by Won Arnold Witness said he in
vestigated as to whether Won Arnold
took dinner at WeinstockS house and
found it untrue. They investigated
carefully all Won Arnold's reports. and
found that Won Arnold reported it in
order to account for time and money
spent at that time. Won Arnold did
report that he had gone to Albert john
sons office in order to sign certain pa
pers connected With the Bees inves-
tigation but he did not think that the
reported going there to look at articles
of Incorporation. He did not send de-
tectives to Mr. Weinstock's house, but
he was aware that detectives had gone
there, and he was responsible for the
fact. He knew that, in pursuance of
the plan, it would be necessary to in
terview Weinstocks servant girl. 1t
was a woman detective. He sanctioned
the detectives interviewing and inves-
tigating Mr.. Weinstock's private clerks.
He learned that some of the reports
We're true and some Were untrue. He
learned that Won Arnold had been in
Weinstock's >office prior to February
1st, as Won Arnold described accurately
the pictures on the wall and other
things.
BASED ON THE "EXAMINER."
The article of March 14th was based
on the Examiner" article, he said,
and if the latter had not appeared the
article would not have been written.
He did not make any investigation as
to whether the statements in the 'Ex-
aminer' We're made by Mr. WeinStock
or not He had been acquainted with
Mr. Weinstock for many years, and
been always on friendly terms with
him He had counted on Mr.. Vein
stocks aid to help expose the combine.
In answer to question by Mr..
Johnson as TO why, under these cir
cumstances. he did not go directly TO
Mr. Weinstock and tell him what he
wanted, he said that it would have
spoiled their plans by putting a stop
TO the newspaper scheme. which he did
not want to do. He thought that after
the expose Mr. Weinstock would give
his aid The letter of Won Arnold to
Mr.. Weinstock was written in accord
ance with the general plan.
Why did you sanction the writing
of a letter to man In whose integrity
you profess to have had full conf
a Mr.
Witness answered that if Mr.. Vein
stock had no connection with the
scheme il would do no hurt, and if. in
case he did which was not at all likely,
IT would be of use. He believed from
Won Arnold's statements, prior to Feb
ruary 1st. that Weinstock was a cam
didate for Mayor. He did not think
that. when Won Arnold was at the
Western Hotel, he had him write to
Mr. Weinstock, but il was part of
Stillwell's plan of confederation. and he
knew it was written. He received all
the letters written, among them the
letter of Weinstock repudlating the
scheme He did not publish the repu-
diation by Mr. Weinstock of Won Ar
nold's letter, for the reason that Mr..
Weinstocks statement was published
in the Bee" covering it. They pub
ushed the letter written by Won Ar
mold from San Jose, but did not publish
Weinstock's answer till March 18th
Mr.. Johnson asked why witness sent
to ask Mr.. Weinstock for the letter
written with his sanction. the contents
of which he knew well. and a copy Of
which he had in his possession at the
time.
Mr.. Metson objected, but the court
overruled the objection, and said he
proposed TO allow both sides a wide
latitude in cross-questioning.
THE BEES" ATTITUDE
Witness stated that up to March list
the Bee" stood in the attitude Of
knowing nothing Of the matter except
what il had found out from investiga-
ton. and their reporters We're sent out
to interview everybody who was sup
posed TO know anything about the mat
ter They expected from Mr. Vein
stock such information as would expose
the relations of Leonard and Sheehan,
and calculated on receiving it. Instead.
Mr. Weinstock refused to give it, and
denied things that they knew We're alb
solutely true.
= Mr. Johnson objected to the last part
OF the answer. Here. he said. was the
place for the defense TO prove the
charges made. but they cannot prove
II hy the mere statements OF witness.
Enp fnun&