Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1909-05-30
Journalistic Defenders of Larceny

employed attorneys detectives actions of Mr. Cahoun
supporters among the and periodicals Of the state
become and to extent amusing
When person has to believe that any OF his personal
property being wrongy concealed and held by resident OF
this the law provides means by which this properly may DC
reached and returned to the possession Of the rgtul owner
This is called in law search warrant person hay
ing reason another surrepousy and wrongu
possessed his property before court and by making the
will authorize upon the premises of
M wrongful and proceed to the extent of breaking
doors and blowing safes for the purpose OF discovering
and recovering the property SO wrGngGy held force 81 the
trict attorneys office had believe that
Calhoun of his representatives had wonguy become
been Stolen from his office at the Calhoun his rep
had by the thief been placed in their possession and
Mr. Burns taking advantage his legal rights in the premises
applied proper in San Francisco Tor search warrant
which issued and under its authority certain offices and ece
Mr. Calhoun and his supporters were broken open and MIR
When the officers invaded precincts of Mr. Calhoun
supporters the journals led by the San Fran
by Calhoun and followed by the San Francisco News Letter
the Wasp Jewish Times the Argonaut and indeed by every
rav Blanche and Sweetheart pack Calhouns journals
including this city, broke out in agonzng ana clam
oros headlines calling the Outrage that had been per-
Deaed upon American citizens that followed these
headlines journalistic champions the right to steal denounced
bitterly the ghhanded and yrannlcai actions OF Wha was
Sprecks San Francisco subJecng the mno
and mucabused Calhoun and his innocent and
attorneys and employees to process which the laws OF Caoa
plainly provided for and which issued by court OF California
Within the last two days by evidence pro
trial OF Mr. Calhoun and which venture to say that
of Mr. Calhoun his employees men had been
paid steal the property of Burns that this property had been de-
Cahouns employment and their possess
sion when by virtue of the of search war
laws and by court of the state that might be
The taking Of this property Mr.. Burns office plain
and simple larceny Had it by in Mr. Burns
employment had been bribd by Mr. Cahouns to take it
would been burglary twas not only larceny on the
thereto by procuring either by the of money
other persuasion became party to the crime and
Have these various newspapers journalistic supporters of
Calhoun who have been bitter in their condemnation OF Mr.
inc themselves plain remedy which the law provides for the re-
of another had anything condemnation of the larceny which
committed the instance of Mr. Calhoun or his employees
and paid for with money furnished by Mr. Calhoun!
We have lately been furnished an opportunity OF reading nearly
are being widely throughout the country by Mr. Cal
We have diligently scanned their pages being able thus
condemnation of of the most outrageous OF
larceny that the laws of the country were ever called upon to de
with The condemnation has been med out to Mr. Cal
houn whose paid for this larceny evidently because 1t was
Surely the issuance Of search warrant by court OF Cali
under the authority the laws OF this state and the of that
such violation OF personal rights the employ Oh et 10 al
property from its rghu and deliver it to Mr. Calhoun or his
hired men was an invasion OF personal rights. , ..
every act OF the prosecution which trying to enforce
San Francisco have anything condemnation of
d h Id ] d in Mr. Burns PropeTtv beno stolen
his office and delivered Mr. Calhouns employees?
OF not word of condemnation OF Mr. Calhoun and
his hired will appear And this for the good reason that
procuring Burns office which the property
gentleman through the medium of hired thief Mr. Calhoun
simply pursued the tactics toward Mr. Burns which they
pursued under like circumstances toward the city of San Fran
cisco.
property belonging the city
San Francisco wit railway franchise He employed Mr.
of other thieves steal this property from the city Of
Francisco They and delivered Mr. Calhoun and
being prosecuted having paid the guilty
of that larceny for committing it.
Mr.. Calhoun representing him. wanted certain
property belonging Mr. Burns witt Certain documents Mr.
Calhoun representing him employed thief steal this
property and the thief paid for committing the larceny with
money furnished by Mr.. Calhoun.
Why should the journals which defending Mr. Calhoun
against larceny which his committed
of San which his paid anything
condemnation the larceny which his committed Mr.
Burns and for which the money of Mr.. Calhoun paid?
MEMORIAL DAY They are all the same hght-right upon
side the other