The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, December 18, 1896, Page 1

+ 4+ 7A2R2Q1T BYY wiol; uexey 9q o3 | | jou Jeded siyy | " VOLUME LXXXL_NO. 18. SAY FRANCISCO, FRIDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 18, 1896. PRICE FIVE CENTS. A GROSS SLANDER REFUT Latest Exhibition of Fak- ing Interviews by the “Examiner.” CHARGING OTHERS WITH ITS BESETTING SIN. How a Libel Was Fabricated Out of Whole Cloth to Serve an Ignoble Purpose. § THE FALSEHOOD DENOUNCED BY REPUTABLE WITNESSES. Charles L. Fair and His Attorney, George A. Knight, Repudiate an Alleged Interview Defaming “The Call’'s” Proprietor. The Examiner yesterday morning contained an article sensationally headed and leaded to the effect that Charles M. Shortridge last year demanded of Charles L. Fair the loan of $300,000 for himseif and the employment of the firm of Delmas & Short- ridge as Mr. Fair’s attorneys in consideration of the support of THE CALL in his litiga- tion to recover his share of his father’s estate. In the article itself and in a leaded eaitorial in the same issue Charles M. Short- ridge ic termed a blackmailer, and.the charge is directly and unmistakably made that Mr. Shortridgze had attempted to blackmail Mr. Fair. Those who know the Examiner intimately; those who have been approached by Long Green Lawrence with a demand for hush money; those who have heard the evil reputation of that indecent sheet discussed in the highways and byways of the State, need not be told that the article in the Examiner is a malignant falsehood from be- ginning to end. The evidence 1s at hand. All the parties interested—gentlemen of prominence, of -respectab:lity, of business standing and of unquestioned integrity—unite in declaring that the Examiner has deliberately, wantonly and knowingly and with malice falsely deinmed tne-character of Mr. Shortridge. Charles L. Fair and George A. Knight deny that they made the statements which the Examiner says they made. They depy also that any attempt at blackmail was made or even the suoggestion of it, and corroborate Mr. Shortridge’s version of the affair. ‘There is one little thread of truth in the Examiner story. Itisthat Mr. Short- ridge did apply for a loan of $300,000 or thereabouts to Cnarles L. Fair; but the loan was not for himself; it was for the Shasta Lumber Company. Now for the facts: Afier Mr. Shortridge became proprietor of THE CALL in 1895 he had a talk with Hon. B. D. Murphy and other prominent gentlemen in S8an Jose. Mr. Murphy and the pank of which he was an official were interested in the Shasta Lumber Company. The company desired a loan for the pupodse of making some betterments, and Mr. Murphy spoke t> Mr. Shortridze about the matter. The loan required was a large one, being $300,000 or $400.000, and Mr. Shortridge promised Mr. Murphy that he would do what be could to obtain the loan for the company. The attorney for the bank drew up a prospectus setting forth the assets of the company, which were gilt gdged and more than ample to :ecure the lender. Mr. Shortridge inquired of Charles L. Fair whether he had that sum of money to loan to the Shasta Lumber Company ana offered the prospectus for that gentleman’s examination. Mr. Fair replied that the affairs of his father’s estate were in such an unsestled condition that he had no money to loan. Mr. Shortridge thereupon pro- ceeded to the Mutual Savings Bank on Post street and there applied for the loan, Mr. Shortridge called at the office of Charles L. Fair yesterday morning. He found George A. Knight, Mr. Fair's attorney, there. Mr. Knight expressed his sur- prise on finding that his name had been dragged into the matter, and denied ever having made any remarks imputed to bim by the Examiner. Mr. Fair not being ‘present an appointment was made for 8 meeting with him at 1 o’clock, and at that Lour, in the presence of Joun E. Richards and George A. Knight, Mr. Fair made the following statement: STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. FAIR. I was very much surprised and distressed this morning to find that my name had been dragged into a newspaper controversy. I had an interview with Mr. Shortridge in the early part of the year 1895, with reference to a loan of about - '$300,000 to some one whom Mr. Shortridge represented, but whose name I cannot now recall. The facts regarding the affair are as follows: I was passing through the grill- room of the Palace Hotel one day about noon when I saw Mr. Charles M. Short- ridge and Mr. B. D. Murphy of San Jose sitting at lunch together. Presently Mr. Shortridge came over to where I was standing and said that he had a very jmportant business proposition to submit to me, and inquired when and where we could have an interview. Itold him that I would be over at the office of my attorney, Mr. Knight, at 1 o’clock, and would be pleased to see bim there. At that hour Mr. Shortridge came over to Mr. Knight’s office. We met in the outer room, and I do pot recall whether any one else was present or not. Mr. Shortridge stated that the business provosition which he wished to lay before me was an application for a loan of $300,000, or thereabouts. He inquired if T had that amount to loan. I told him that I had no money to losn, as I had not received as yet any portion of my share of my father’s estate, and that there- fore, there was no use in going Into the proposition or considering the matter of security. That terminated the conversation so far as it related to the loan. I did not understand for whom Mr. Shortridge desired the loan. After that pertion of our iiterview was over and we were about to separate the matter of my being concerned in a big lawsuit was mentioned by one or the othér of us, and incidentally, I don’t remember just how it came about, Mr. Shortridge undertook to say some kind things of Mr. Delmas, who was the partner of his brother, Samuel M. Shortridge. Then we separated, and 1 gave the matter no further thought. The conversation did not occupy more than five minutes sltogether, and there was not the slightest suggestion or intimation of blackmail on tke part of Mr, Shortridge, nor any thought of such a thing on my part. f have never intended to intimate in any interview upon the subject that Mr. Shortridge had any such idea. The relations between Mr. Shortridge and myself have always been of the most friendly nature, and are so still. STATEM!NT OF GEORGE A. KNIGHT. George A. Knight, who was present at the interview, suid when seen later in the day: 1 see that my name has been used in covnection with this newspaper con- . iroversy and I desire to say that Chailes M. Shortridge mever, at avy time or place, talked with me about the Fair estate, or ever suggested in any way the enlistment of *The Call’ on behalf of myself or my clients in that litigation, I was present at the interview, which occurred in my office at 1 o’clock this Witernoon, between Mr, Shortridge and Mr. Fair, and I heard the statement of Mr. Fairin the course of that interview, and saw the foregoing statement of Mr Pair after it had been reduced to writing. It contains the exact lunguage of that gentleman with re‘erence o the matter of his former talk with Mr. Shortridge regarding a proposed loan. _““In all my connection with the matter of the Fair estate I never heard of ‘x ny proposition on the part of Mr. shortridge to blackmail Mr. Fair,and I am sat sfied that no such effort was ever made.” Hon. B.D. Murphy was seen at his home in £an Jose yesterday, to which he is coifined by very serious iliness, and when shown the article in the Examiner of yes- terday morning said: ; “The nlntlir refers to a loan of between $300,00 and $400,000 which Mr. Shortridga Tepresented me in seeking for the Shasta Lumber Company early in the vear 1895 and “during which Mr, Fair was seen by him. I was interested in that company and it de- sired a loan, Looking about for the money Mr., Fair's name was mentioned asa 2UPERIOR COURT, i W~ e ) in San Jose. Iinstructed our attorney, Mr. Hyland, to draw up a prospectus setting such a statement and forwarded the same to Mr. Shortridge in San Francisco. A few days thereafter I met Mr. Shortridge in the Palace griliroom. We were taking lunch together when Mr.. Fair csmeinto theroom. At my snggestion Mr. Short ap- _proached him and made an engagement for # furtherinterviow After theinterview was to be nad Mr. 8h through Mr. Fair as that gentieman e to make the loan, but that he had other parties in mind to whom be wou'd apply.. Stbsequently he reporied to me that he could procure the loan on a short term. This was not satisfactory as thé company could not reahize upon the property within such a time to make this loan desirable. In the whole matter Mr. Shortridge was simply acting as my friend and as the friend of the other gentlemen interested with me in the Shasta Lamber Company.’’ J. W. Findley, vice-president of the Commercial Savings Bank of San Jose, was also seen with reference to this matter, and upon being shown Mr. Murphy’s lnterview said: “I was present in the bank when the interview was bad between B. D. Murphy ané Mr. Shortridge. I heard the instructions given by Mr. Murphy to Mr. Hyland, who was present, in the matter of preparing a statement of prospectus to show the assets of the company and forward the same to Mr. Shortridge at his address in San Francisco.” The entire subject of the loan and degirability of the same was gone over and the great value of the property was thoroughly explained to Mr. Shortridge. The names of several gentlemen of sufficient wealth to make so large a loan were con- sidered, and among others the name of Charies L. Fair.” M. H. Hyland, the Superior Judge-elect of Santa Clara County, was next seen, and stated: *'I recall perfectly the matter of the loan which was sought on the part of its officers early 1n the year 18u5 of between $300,000 and $400,000 for the Shasta Lumber Company. I was the attorney for the Shasta Lumber Company, and was present at the interview between Mr. Murphy and Mr. Shortridge with reference to the procurement of the loan. I understood that Mr. Shortridge was going to under- take to gei the money, and I was instructed by Mr. Murphy to prepare and send to Mr. Shoriridge a prospectus of the proverty {o assist’him in making the loan. I prepared and'sent to him by express a full statement of the assets and resources of the company.”’ . C. B. Hobson of the Mutual Savings Bank of »an Francisco, when shown the article in the Fxaminer of yesterday morning, said: *'1 read the article in the Examiner early this morning and at once thonght to my- self, this must be the same loan which Mr. Shortridge sought at our bank in the early part of the year 1895, on behalf of the Shasta Lumber Company. He came to see me at the bank, and as I have known him in San Jose in former years l interested myseif in his proposition and introduced him to F. B. Washington, now nssistant cashier of the United States Mint, who at that time was in the bank and had special charge ot such matters. Mr. Shortridge explained to Mr. Washington, in my presence, the nature of the business. It was aloan of $300,000 or $400,000 which he was trying to negotiate for the Shasta Lumber Company, and he had a prospectus showing fully the assets of the company.”” $ F. B. Washirgton of the United States Branch Mint in this City was an attache of forth all the property owned by the Shasta Lumber Company. Mr. Hyland prepared | g¢ o Banguot of the the Mutual Savings Bank, at which Mr. Shortridge applied for the Ioan. Mr. Wash- ington made the foliowing statement last night: “One day Mr. Bhortridge spoke to me about a loan. 'I don’t think he mentioned security particularly, but he gave me to,understand. that it was not for himself, but that he was negotiating it for other parties. The amount was $4€0,000. He said that the security was unlimited; the only question was'to find the man who had the money to loan and he would find all the security wanted. “I distinctly remember the loan, was not for himself, but for some lumber con- cern. He spoke of lumber-milis and other things. That was while I was in the Mutual Bank. It is almost sixteen months since Ileft the bank, and it was shortly before then that Mr. S8hortridge spcke to me about the loan. It was a year and a half ago, or somewhere about that time. He mentioned B. D. Murphy of San Jose, and that Mr. Murphy would be a party to the loan in some way or other.” “Did he say anything about THE CArLL?’ Mr. Washington was asked. “'No,” replied Mr. Washington; ‘‘my understanding was that the whole thing was an outside enterprise, as he spoke of lumber-mills and lands and so forth. It was not for himself nor for Tue CarL. The negotiations never got to ‘he footing of mention- ing what it was exactly. < ““What caused the negotiation to fall through was that the loan was wanted for a long time, and the party whbo had the money would not loan on a long time, and that was the end of it. “I don’t wish to express an opinion about the article regarding Mr. Shortridge in this morning’s Examiner. I think an unprejudiced man would hardly approve of it.” Mr. Washington was positive in his assertions, and especially so in his tone of voice when stating that Mr. Shortridge was negotiating the loan for an enterprise on behalf of a friend or {riends interested in it, and that Tue CALL was not mentioned at any time during the interview. DRAYTON'S FORMER WIFE WEDS. The Daughter of Mrs. William Astor Be- comes the Bride of George Haig, a Liguor Merchant. LONDON, Exe., Dec. 17.—Mrs. J. Cole- man Drayton, daughter of Mrs, William In her hand she carried a spray bouquet of white lilacs and purple orchids. The bride was given away by Count Zoborow- ski. Before the ceremony Dr. McLeod deliv- ered a homily upon the marriage state. The register was signed by Consul-General Coliins as witness at the request of the bride. The organ played Mendelssohn’s Astor, was married in St. Columbia’s | Wedding March as the party left the Church this afternoon to George Haig, a member of the firm of Haig & Haig, whisky merchants of London. 3 The ceremmony was performed by Rev. Donald McLeud, DD., pastor of the church and one of the Queen’s chaplains in the national church of Scotland. Not more than thirty persons were present, about twenty of them being intimate friends of the contracting parties. The bride was dressed in a dark plum-colored moraing gown with a hat trimmed with plum- colored velvet, white feathers and violets. 4 church and entered carriages to be driven to the bride's residence on Hartlord street, Mayfair, where a wedding break- fast was served. Mr. anc Mrs. Haig lelt London for Dover at 4:30 P. M. en route for Paris, where they will arrive to-mor- row morning. Later they will go to Nice. e e Mg Lithographers Assign. i NEW YORK, N. Y., Dec. 17.—Liebeler & Maas, lithographers and printers of this igned to-day. Liabilit Rominal assels $125,000. - 'w'm' proper party to apply to for such a loan. I spoke to Mr. Shortridge regarding the loan | PEACE W/LL NEVER BE BROKEN. a lerchant Venturers Mr. Bayard Talks of the Relations Between John Bull and Uncle Sam. BRISTOL, Exq, Dee. 17.— Thomas ¥. Bayerd, the American ter, atriyed here to-day in response to an invitation to distribute the prizes and de- liver an adaress to the students at the an- nual commencement of the Technical Schoel of the Society of Merchant Ven- turers. Mr. Bayard was invited to be present at the commencement for the reason that his great-grandfather on the maternal side belonged to a distingnished family of Bristol merchants. This great- grandfather was born in Bristol in 1709 and subsequently settling in Philadelphia was Mayor of that city, as his father be- fore him had been Mayor in Bristol. The Society of Merchant Venturers is one of .ithe surviving medieval guilds. The society forms an unbroken link be- tween the Cabots and the present day and purposes in connection with the people of Bristol to éelebrate in an adequate man- ner next year the four hundredth anniver- sary of the sailing of the Cabot expedition. As M. Bayard is a lineal descendant o! an ancient Mayor of Bristol and member of the Merchany Venturers his presence at the ceremonies was particularly appro- priate. He took luncheon with the Coun- cil of the Briuish Chamber of Commerce in the boardroom of the Council. Reply- ing to a toast to the health of the guest of the occaston Mr. Bayard said thatthere was much in the hearts of Americans to- day to make them look upon England as their old home. The ties of biood, he said, were thicker than water. Continu- g, be expressed hope that when he re- turned to America no cloud would ob- struct the vision of any liberal-minded man. Mr, Bayard then proceeded to make his usual extreme Anglopbile speech, con- cluding by declaring his belief that the peace existing' between ibe two English- speaking nations would never be broken. —_——— RIO10US DOCK STRIKEES. Frequent Disturbances at Hamburg Lead to Numerous Arrests. HAMBURG, GerMANY, Dec. 17.—There have been frequent riotous disturbances by the striking dock laborers in chis city to-day, and a large number of the rioters heve been taken into custody. A tavern belonging to the stevedores’ scciety was wrecked by the strikers, who emptied all the liquor in the tavern into the streetand smeared the bedding and furniture of the tavern with paraffine. The sirike com- mittee is discussing a plan for the forma- tion ot a workman’s organization to per- form dock work independently of the master stevedores and other middlemen. DU R SR PATRIOTIC LEAGUE OF AMERICA Energetio Citizens Jorm an Important Organization. NEW YORK, N. Y,, Dec. 17.—The Pa- triotic League of America was formed at a meeting at the New Amsterdam Hotel last night, with the following among its ob- jects: “The inspiration and extbnsion of patriotism; the maintenance of the broad- est interpretation of the Monroe doctirine; the independence of Canada, with a view to political union with this country; the admission into the Union of the Hawaiian Islands and the islands adjoining the country on the east; the completion and control of tte Nicaragua canal and the independence of Cuba.’ An address was issued to American citi- zens, in which it was demanded that the Government take immediate steps for the recognition of the Cuban insurgentsand to bring about Cuban independence. The establishment of six naval stations by Great Britain near our eastern coast, and others ‘at Vancouver, Quebec, St. Johns, Kingston and the fl_llglrn River, was regarded asa plndlnx menace to this country. “No agree! ent for the establishment of a permanent court of arbitration shonld ever be ratified,”’ reads the address, “ex- cept on the condition that all Great Britain maritime fortifications south of Halifax and those along the southern border of Canada shall first be dismantled and de- The, league hopes to establish branches ‘throfighout the country: S jrieéeasa A FEARFUL *CRINE IN OKLAHOMA. Murder of a Man and Woman Who Were Traveling in a Ccvered Wagon. Negroes Suspected. ST. LOUIS, Mo., Dec. 17.—A special to the Globe-Democrat from Guthrie, Okla- homa, zives an account of the discovery of a dastardly murder in thas Territory, followed probably by a lynching. The body of a man ag'd 40 was found lying in a road near Perkins, and by him. was a young woman, sull alive, but so terribly hurt that recovery was impossible. The man had been brained with an ax and the woman had been assaulted with the sawme weapon. Near the scene of the trageay stood a covered wagon in which the cou- ple had been traveling. The discovery of the murder caused great excitement throughont that part of the country. News was received from Langston that a man named Clemens had been accused of the crime, had been cap- tureda by a posse of 100 white men and had been dragged into the woods, the avowed intention being to lynch him. Sheriff Painter was asked to go to Langston with enough men to quiet the mob. He leit at midnight, The crime was committed ‘in the midst of a large negro settlement. The whole populations of the surrounding towns are reported up in arms. GUTHRIE, 0. T., Dec. 17.—Clemens, the negro charged- with the murder, was rescued from the mob this morning and landed in wLincoln County jail. The evi- dence against him was only circum- stantial. . gy e MURDER OF 1 LAWXER, Fatally Stabbed in His Office by an | Irate Oil Man. PARKERSBURG, W. Va., Dec. 17.— Hon. M. K. Duty, one of the prominent lawyers in this State, was murdered in his office at Pennsboro by Cad Collins this aiternoon. About 5 o’clock Benton Thomas, aclient ot Duty’s, calied on the latter on business. Thomas had been in Duty's office but a short time when Collins, a well-known oit man, entered, and began an abusive attack upon Thomas. Duty ordered Collins to leave the office, whereupon the latter rushed at Duty with a long knife and ;began to cut him. Duty received three slashes across the abdomen and one over the liver, and was so badly cut that be died shorily afterward. Before Duty fell he struck Collins on the head with a poker, and it is believed he is also badly tnjured. Officers are looking for Collins, wno is said to be a desperate man, Duty was the late Democratic can- didate for Circuit Judye ot Ritchie County. faredatiey . agricultural Bill Completed. WABHINGTON, D.C., Dec. 17.—The House Committee on Agriculture. has completed the agricultural bill for the coming fiscal year. The measure will carry an appropriation of about $2,300,- 000—about rhe same as for the current year. No appropriation for seed to be dis- iributed by members of Congress was asked for by the Secretary, but the com- mittee inserted this item, as has been the case before. The bill contsins no new legislation. L . Held Up by Highwaymen BIRMINGHAM, Ara., Dec 17.—Two highwaymen held up a westbeund South- ern Railway passenger train near Bryant station, twenty-five miles west of here, to- night and succeeded in escaping witha large amount of money. Details are mesger. THE SWAG READY FOR LONG GREEN Judge Sanderson Refuses to Dirty His Hands With It. AGAINST THE STATUTE. He Decides That the Law Was Violated by Fitz and Sharkey. CANNOT £QUABBLE FOR PURSES Principals, Seconds, Referee and Club Officers May Be Taken Before the Grand Jury. Judge Sanderson yesterday morning de« cided that Fitzsimmons, Sharkey, Wyatt Earp (who is the bodyguard of “Long Green” Lawrence), the directors of the National Athletic Club, H. I. Kowalsky, General Barnes and all others connected with or present at the $10,000 ‘‘glove con= test”” had violated the statute prohibiting prize-fighting and were amenable to in- dictment. The court, therefore, could not intere fere in the squabble over the purse. So the injunction was dissolved, and the complaint of Fitzsimmons against Shar- key was dismissed. General Barnes began bis argument with the assertion that the complaint was founded on information and belief and was too vague to ask summary proceed- ings. The complaint also showed that the parties had contracted to do some- thing illegal and contrary to good morals, and it was not necessary to plead this fact 50 long as it came up in the evidence. The speaker read authorities to show that ifin the progress of the trial either by admission or proof a fact was developed which may render it necessary to termis nate a case the court may of its own motion dismiss the proceedings. The court would not listen to any claims for services in things forbidden by law orcon- demned by public decency and morality. It was officially before the court that there was a wide difference between a prize-fight and a glove contest before a club, The case of Seville against the State was cited. In that case the losing fizhter was knoocked against the rope senseless and died from the result of the injuries received from the gloved fists of Seville, those injuries being a fractured brain and various bruises on different parts of the body. The glove contest took place before a club and was licensed by the authorities, but the court decided that it should not have been licensed and thatit was a prize- fight, an assault, and contrary to public morals. In the case of an athletic club in New Orleans the court decided that whether the contest was called a glove contest or a boxing match, it was nevertheless a prize-fight, a breach of the peace end contrary to good morals, and the license of the club was rescinded. It was decided in another case thatina contest for a purse, with or without gloves, there was an intention to do an injury and to break the public peace. The purpose of the contest was to stop the opponent by knocking him senseless or injuring him soas to prevent him from continuing the fight. The claim that such fizhts were simply glove contests was equivalent to a claim that a contest with sharp-pointed foils and drawing blood wasa harmlggs fencing maten. In the case before the court Robert Fitz- simmons testified that the fight was for a purse of $10,000, to be decided in ten rounds, occupyinz about 40 minutes, and that he so injured and discomfited his adversary that he was nnable to continue the fight. Mr. Barnes closed by saying: “If this is a case which the officers of the law, the police, and what they call the Supervi- sors, are willing to wink at, it is some- thing to which this tribunal should not close its eyes; and in the name of those who have witnessed your Honor’s judicial career, in the name cf the bar, of every citizen of this Oity, I respectfully suggest that this is one of those cases which the law does not recognize, and that when professional pugilists contest for a $10,000 purse the law will not undertake to re- referee a contest like this, and decide that one man was a better fichter than the other and therefore entitled to the purse.” Mr. Freidenrich followed with his argu- ment, beginning with the contention that the court could not go behind the face of the complaint 1tself, and therefore could not regara the testimony taken in the depositions. Mr. Barnes had tried to make the court believe, he said, that the Supervisors of this City had idsued a per- mit for a prize-fight, of wnich all the spec- tators would be guilty of a misdemeanor. A physical contest or a boxing match is not necessarily a fight. The statute of 1863 prohibits prize-fights and not such harmless diversions as that engaged in by Messrs. Thomas Sharkey, late of the high seas, and Robert Filzsimmons, late of Australia. A prize-fight in violation of the statute meant a ight in which the contestants tried to injure each other. Mr. Freidenrich drew attention to the neglect of Mr. Barnes to make the voint that this contest was for a prize or a purse. The fact that a contest is for a reward dces not imply that the contest was il legal. iir. Barnes said he had not raised that point and that Mr. Freidenrich was wast- ing his time. By request of the court Mr. Freidenricn read the complaint. It recited the passage of the ord.nance granting a special privi- lege to the National Athletic Ciub to give a boxing tournament during th® month of December, no contest toexceed ten rounds. The remainder of the ccmplaint consisted of a recital of charges to the eftect that the referee and others had entered into a con- spiracy to defraud Fiizsimmons by a wrong decision. Judge Sanderson said: “I may as well dispose of this matter