The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, January 6, 1898, Page 14

14 BULLETIN BUNKO GAME THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 1898. DENOUNCED BY VICTIMS Piling Up Evidence of That Pa- per’s Crooked Methods. Blackmailing Demands Are Paid by Some, but Others Resist. The Bulletin does not seem to ap- preciate that the exposure of its meth- ods has been made more in Sorrow than in anger. tual grasp to understand that the task is one of pain; that mere recognition of the fact that any paper is rotten from the core out must cause discom- fort to decent journalism. If it could realize that the exposure is made with a desire not only to protect the com- munity but to have the Bulletin see it- self as others see it, perhaps it would be grateful, and ultimately led into the paths of rectitude, atoning by fasting ~—probably enferced—for its career of crime. Of course the Bulletin cannot answer the charge of working a confidence game. The evidence is complete, the verdict of “guilty” on record. In the court of public opinion there is no “stay” while technicalities. lawyers If a paper steals, it is - i It has not the intellec- | wrangle over | been condensed, as the matter, as written for the Mechanics' Institute, was rather an elaborate statement of facts from which a short account, suited to their report, was supposed to be written. He then suggested that most of the other houses had cuts of their build- ings, and inquired if we had any elec- trotypes that he - could use, as it would very much improve the ap. yearance of the artiele. We told him that our billheads were lithographed by Dickman, Jones & Co. and possibly they could furnish him with an im- pression. We saw later, when the article appeared in the paper, that your enterprising solicitor had suc- ceeded in obtaining the impression also. Finally he produced the con- tract you possess, and remarking that this referred to the special mention of which he had spoken, requested that it be signed, in order that the Bulletin might know that it was au- thorized by us. We did not see the special mention. but supposed that it was to be written by some one con- nected with your office and would ap- pear in connection with the main article or in_some other part of the paper, and, relying upon the repre- socee OBTAINED BY MISREPRESENTATION. %fi %/%//27@ . oy Shoes v Shoe Fore W&J Cmlits 2 e Slreet Tolphione Clory 72 %z 7’7;7”“1 ca,%[ /;_9 The solicitors from the Bulletin in this industrial edition came to inter- view me one day on the matter of giving me a ‘‘write-up,” stating that I had been selected as one of the leading representatives in my line of busi- d wishing for data and information in general in regard to myself i my line of b to embody in this “write-up.” Particular emphasis rite-up,” and also the fact that the *‘write-up” was answer to my inquiry as to where their particular ed that no doubt I would not object to taking which I could suit myself on, anywhere from “Of course T would not object to buying a certain end away,” all of which I would have been perfectly E up.” it seems to me, was the trick that did r most of us, and this was understood by me and others with ve conversed to be entirely without cost, and that the advertise- rt proper was to be solicited later by a different set of men sent for that purpose. No one, however, has ever been to see me since ion as to the “write-up, and no arrangement made for any ertising of any kind. My surprise was very great on receiving a demand for advertising, and I have refused absolutely to pay the same, be- ng that the contract was obtained by misrepresentations, and could be °d. They have been to see me three times for their money, and also request to call at their office. My business is such that it does not require advertising, my goods being sold entirely by travelers under no particular trade mark or name, and the retail dealers are the only ones in my line who do anything of the kind; hence there would be no reason why 1 should do anything in this way, anyway. in, it all ad suggested: papers to The wo I a0 00000000 PPNt ItIIINIIIIILIILS T ettt St ettt ettt et eseey a thief. If a paper tries to extort ; Sentations of your solicitor, besides money and holds over its selected vic- | (br;‘(‘:flzmflilremely. nus)'1 at the time, tims a threat, it is a blackmailer. There 7 o e eaed Siwithouy * is no midlde ground. reply such as would have been made had the Bulletin had grounds for defense, there is the undig- nified squeal of a poaching pig caught under the gate. There were yesterday many expressions of pity that a jcur- | But in lieu of a | the slightest | nal once respectable should have fallen | 80 low, and yet its victims show no inclination to shield it. They feel that they owe a duty to the public. The evidence on which the Bulletin has been hurled from a place among honorable publications was already heavy enough to be final, but it con- tinues to pour in. It shows that the contracts under which the Bulletin is trying to collect were procured by fraud, and that the means resorted to in the process of collecticn are the most contemptible known to the dis- barred attorney. There is little need for comment, as the correspondence and interviews below fully explain themselves. The following letter from 2 well-known house is an interesting | sample: Dec. 22, 1897. Business Manager San Francisco Bulletin—Dear Sir: We were consid- erably surprised to haye presented to scrutiny and in accordance with our understanding of its purport. You will say that this was carelessness on our part, and we admit that it was, but you ‘must bear in mind that we did not know we were dealing with a special canvasser whose sole interest in the transaction was to endeavor to inflate 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 [epresentatives might make, with the belfef that through him we were deal- ing with the fournal itself. This was more especially 50 as we have always regarded the Bulletin as particularly a friend—Mr. de la Montanya having been a subscriber to it, as vour reec ords will show. from the first number of the first volume up to the present time, & period of nearly fifty years— and so. when vour solicitor anpearad. we took an {nterest in the projenrt and listened to his proonsition when a canvasser from anv other naper would bave been refused a hearing at onen, Wa hnd no Aesire tn have the article printed at all. certainly not if It was to cost us anvthing. and if vour ren- Tesentntive had stated that it was far the articla itself we were to pav we would nefther have signed a eontract for a Aollar a line nor aven for a ouar- ter of that amount, but woma have dronmed tha matter ‘at once. - Fven 1¢ we had ever entertained the fdea nf us on Monday last a bill for $155 for having the mattsr nrinted at anr ex- what purported to be advertising Penee wa wonld have had » Jumn enm done for our account and at our gnecified and not an alastle dallar.a- direction in your special edition of recent issue. We wish to say that we authorized no advertising done for that amount or for any amount approximating it whatever. When your solicitor first appeared with the proposition to insert the matter re- erred to we absolutely refused to listen to him, saying we were not in the market as advertisers even to the most limited extent. He replied by saying that the Bulletin was going to write up all the most prominent busi- ness houses in the city, and that an article on our estabiishment would certainly appear—that it would be better it we prepared the matter our- selves so as to avoid errors—and, finally, that it would not cost us a single cent. On our expressing sur- prise at so generous a proposition he remarked that if the article pleased us after it was written we could have a few additionai lines prepared as a special notice, for which the charge would be $1 a line, and in that way we could discharge our obligation with regard to the main article for *which they absolutely refused to re- celve compensation. But he also re- marked that this special notice was entirely at our option—that it would cost but a small amount in any event, and he mentioned $5 or $10° as the probable amount which we would be called upon to pay. We told him we had no time to furnish him with ma- Nina agraement. +n he aynanded an. nrrATne perfine to the wishes of the sollcitor The foregoing is a correct state- ment of the whole transaction, and Mr. de la Montanya himself and two other parties in our office can testify to the conversations which then took place and verify the assertions here made. We are willing to pay a smal] amount conformably to our original understanding regarding the special notice, but will not pnf any sum ap- proaching the amount In the biil pre- sented. We think the Bulletin. as well as ourselves, has been misled in this matter. and that it will not try to avall itself of any advantace ad- '}:\::l:bx ta a cn?trn.ct 0 palpably prn- Y misrepresent: i - Bpectrully yours: o oo iAton. Re J. DE LA MONTANYA. “This courteous protest produced a quick response from a man named Jennings, who was pleasantly men- tioned yesterday as having been dis- barred, and the bill was paid. Similar bills have been paid by firms desirous of avolding litigation. Here is the Jen- nings letter: SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 23, 1897. J. de la Montanya Esq., 214 Jackson street, Cl:x—l)enr Bir: The Bulletin has handed me your favor of 22d inst., terials, but that, a short time pre- with instructions to reply. viously, at the request of the secre- 1 The Bulletin appreciates your tary of the Mechanics' Institute, we £00d will and support and begs to re- hag wr!ttfin a history of the business, <l r%gatf; and, as was copied In our letter- e beg to say you misaj - book, he could read it over and use ed our lolfcitor whzn you ul:x%?l:::gd what material he wanted. He Sug- gested that it would be a capital idea, and we suggested that our type. writer copy the article and he could then take it away and look it over at his leisure and select such parts as him to say “it would not cost us gou) a single cent” of which we ink a little reflection will convince you. Newspapers are not run that way (a fact which is well known). What the solicitor did say, as he he required. He did so, and in a few states, and what he was authori; days he produced a proof for our in- say was that a cut of your ltor‘:‘ir:g spection, which we examined, and mention in editorial review would be inding no typographical errors made without cost; that is, no charge handed it back with the remark that it was correct. We noticed that the article was copled almost word for word, and wondered that it had not 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 VH 0000000000 000000000000 000000000000 0000000000000 00000000000 accord with the terms of the contract. A house in business as long as yours, and with the successful career that yours has had, would not, we assume, sign a contract without knowing what it was, and if it did, we do not see, as we accepted the matter in good faith, what legal dif- ference it would make. No one is better aware than yourself that a man is chargeable with notice to whatever he puts his signature, and we do not understand how, having done this and received the considera- tion undertaken on the part of the Bulletin, there could be a demurrer entered to bill. People do sometimes make contracts that they afterward regret, that do not, in their estima- tion, return them a quid pro quo: but that, we submit, furnishes no legal or just'grounds for annulment or repu- diation. The fact that your house has not for some time ~undertaken much, if any, newspaper advertising would suggest that an extended notice in our industrial edition would be agreeable to you. In conclusion, we accepted this contract from you in good faith, like- wise published the “write up,” and feel that we shall have to insfst on the payment of this bill we ghould make a reduction for one we should have to for all, and this we could in no wise consent to; besides, many of the parties who joined with us in this special edition are constant patrons of our advertising columns, and if we should make concessions to any one these would be entitled as- suredly to consideration. We have not done so, and to do so would in- volve us in loss. We believe that the “write up” will result in much greater advantage to you than this modest charge. Kindly send check to cover. Very truly yours, C. M. JENNINGS. (Dict.) W. F. Mau of the firm of Mau, Sad- ler & Co. was too keen for the bunko sharp. The game was cleverly put up to cinch the firm to the extent of $50 or $75, but Mr. Mau was shrewd enough to mark on the accepted copy the | words, “The expense in no event to ex- | ceed $5.” The write-up which the so- | licitor brought to the store for accept- | ance was rejected, and forty words | were substituted. According to the | calculation of the solicitor the words would run eight to a line, therefore five lines would amount to forty words or | $5. Speaki of the transaction Mr. | Mau said: “The Bulletin sent in a bill of $9, but we pay only $5. I did not | sign anything, but simply put the rub- | ber stamp on the acceptance and wrote on the face of the copy that the amount was not to exceed $5. The difference is slight, but we pay only $5." | Max Ordenstein, 320 Battery street, was among the bunkoed. He paid up and did not intend to say anything about it until he heard that others who had been victimized by the Bulletin's game were making the scheme public. “I have no time now to tell you all about it, as I am busy balancing my books, but come to-morrow and I will | give you the whole story just as it hap- | pened,” said Mr. Ordenstein. “My case is similar to the Excelsior Glove | Company’s experience,” continued the | victimized merchant. “I paid, but 1 | do not care to say how much. It was | a swindle, all the same. 1 signed no contract and made no agreement to pay what was demanded. That's | right. I was bunkoed.” At the meeting of the Bulletin's vic- | tims called by the Merchants’ Associa- tion F. W. Dohrmann stated in the clearest and most explicit language in | the presence of Boyle, the business | manager of the hunko paper, that the | words “one dollar a line” were stamped |on the “O. K.” signature of Nathan, Dohrmann & Co., after the document was taken from the store. ““The dollar a line stamp was not there when I | signed,” said Mr. Dohrmann. “I would | take an oath to that.” } An old and respected institution which has patronized the Bulletin for thirty-four years figures in the bun- koed list. It was planned to swindle | this institution out of a sum consider- ably in exctess of $200, when only an | expenditure of $5 was authorized. One of the directors of the institution said | to the business manager of the Bulle- tin: “We have never sued or been sued since our institution was created. We will pay the full amount of this claim if you demand it, but when you get our | receipt you get notice that no solicitor from your paper shall ever be received in our place.” “How much did you figure on pay- ing?’ asked Mr. Boyle. “The sum which we authorized was $5, and in no event did we expect to go above $25."" The business manager then took out an envelope containing several con- tracts, saying as he disclosed the con- tents of the envelope: “These are con- tracts made by our particular friends and no suit will be brought to enforce scheme. picture of the building, but that a lit- tle write-up would cost §1 an inch. He took out his paper and a rule and drew a diagram of an inch—not an iach square, but a space a half inch one way and two inches another. We agreed to take several inches. The so- licitor then went away, and some time after that there came to the store a bungling write-up which we did not want. We prepared something more suitable, and I supposed it would amount to five or six dollars. I signed something which I did not read, as I was very busy when the paper was put on my desk, but nothing was ever said about a dollar a line. When the bill for $65 came I thought there was a mis- take and told the collector so. I thought it was $650. 1 went to the Bulletin office and saw Wolf. He said arro- gantly that $65 was what the contract called for. I demanded to see the maa with whom I had made the agreement. Woif said, ‘He's only a solicitor and is not here. The contract talks.” My first thought was to refuse payment, and stand a lawsuit, but recollecting that a suit in law does no good to a firm, I concluded that since I had been such a jackass as to sign something without reading it carefully, I ought to be made pay even if the amount was $500. At first I was ashamed to let the public know that 1 had been bun- koed, but when I found that others wno had been swindled in the same way were coming to the front with their experience I decided to speak.” “That's the reason I notified The Call. We have been miserably swin- dled—yes, bunkoed, that is the term. The glove company’s case is the same as ours. Hereafter I sign nothing. This morning a man came to me and said: ‘Goldberg, you own 2 lot in the cemetery?’ I said ‘Yes.' Then he said ‘We are getting a subscription to fix up the walk and I want you to sign for your share. It will be very little. I told him to go ahead and fix up the walk and that I would pay my share. He said, ‘Then sign the little paper.® 1 replied, ‘I sign nothing from this time out. You take my word—no more sig- natures from me after my experience with the Bulletin.” " R. H. Pease, vice-president and man- ager of the Goodyear Rubber Com- my own handwriting. They sent in a bill for $40, but they will wait some time before they get that sum. The main thing that worries me is that I made such a jackass out of myself, but there is one consolation—there are others. L. G. SRESOVICH, FRUIT DEAL- ER AT 507 SANSOME STREET—It is the meanest thing out. I was told I could put in a small ad. and the bill would be all right, the write-up to be free. They sent in a demand for a bill that nearly reached $50. They will take less. D. E. ALLISON OF THE D. E. ALLISON COMPANY, PRODUCE MERCHANTS, 501-3 SANSOME STREET—I didn’t know I was to pay a cent and was led to believe the write- up was to be free. I signed a contract and did not take any time to read it, as I regarded the Bulletin as a decent sheet. I was sent in a bill for $34 and when I refused to pay it was told suit would be brought if it ‘were not settled on a certain day. I didn’t pay and no suit has yet been brought. It-was the smoothest thing I ever saw. I am will- ing to do what is right in the matter and that is all. H%‘IRY CAMPE, DEALER IN WINYS AND LIQUORS, 221-5 FRONT STREET—The bill I received for the write-up given me in the Bulletin In- dustrial Edition amounted to over $40. It has been compromised and I do not care to say too much about it on that account. It was very smooth work and I was led to believe the bill would not amount to more than $10, at the outside limit. I went on the assump- tion when I signed the contract that the paper was an honorable one and would deal justly with reputable mer- chants. T am sorry to say that I was disappointed and I think the action was reprehensible. L. HARTTER OF HARTTER, HAYES & CO.. WHOLESALE GRO- CERS, 216 FRONT STREET—I was led to belleve that the write-up was to be free by the Bulletin solicitor and was thunderstruck when I received a bill for $43. I have refused to pay it and have not gone to see the business manager, as I have been requested to do. Tt is a pure skin game in my opin- fon, and there will be trouble in camp HERRMANN KULLMANN, PRESI- DENT OF KULLMANN, SALZ & CO., LEATHER DEALERS, 106 BAT- TERY STREET—The whole story was told in The Call this morning. I was Jed to believe that the advertisement would be gratuitous, so you can imag- ine my surprise when a bill for $77 was presented by the Bulletin. It hasn’t been paid, and never will be paid. I don’t know how the game was worked, but I do know that there was some hocus-pocus about it. I wasn't hyp- notized, and didn’t sign any contract, so the Bulletin has no claim against the firm. 1. S. ACKERMAN, one of the mana- gers of the American Crockery and Glassware Company, at 108 and 110 Pine street, is very indignant over the deceptions practiced on the firm. “The solicitor,” said he, “told Mr. Block that the Bulletin was going to give the merchants a write-up that would cost but a few dollars—just enough to cover the cost of the cut and the type set- ting. A few days ago a bill for $70 was presented and we refused to pay it, for there is a business principle at stake. It is not the amount we object to, but the deceptive methods practiced by the solicitor. We would rather spend $5009 than pay an unjust bill like the one presented.” G. H. MALTER, SECRETARY OF THE ST. GEORGE VINEYARD COM- PANY, at 123 Market street, is saving a $79 bill as a memento of the visit of the Bulletin bunko man. “It was rep- resented to me,” said Malter yesterday, “that the Bulletin was preparing a special edition, and that in order to defray expenses, a write-up of the com- pany would only cost $10. I told the solicitor to go ahead, but did not sign any contract with him. A proof was | | sent me and I sent it back after mark- | ing it O K. You can imagine my sur-| | prise when a bill for $79 was presented | | to me. T am willing to pay $10, the { amount I promised. but not one cent more. The St. George Vineyard Com- pany pays all its just debts on present- ation of a bill, but as secretary, I will never allow or pay a bill like the one | presented by the Bulletin.” | _H. MOHR of the South San Francisco | | Packing and Provision Company, 218 | | Front street, was absent from his | place of business yesterday. The book- | keeper said that he had heard the con- versation between Mr. Mohr and the Bulletin solicitor in regard to the write- up in the Industrial Edition, and that | he had represented that the only cost | | to the firm would be a dollar. The | bookkeeper heard the solicitor use the | words, “A dollar won’t break you, any- | | way.” The bill that was sent in was | for $114. It is stated that a reasonable | | settlement will be made, but that no | | such sum as mentioned will be paid | | his private use. | tract, which T had néver seen. | pany, somewhat reluctantly consented | to tell the story of how deception was | practiced on him by the Bulletin. “A solicitor called on me and asked to be allowed to give our firm a write-up,” said Mr. Pease. “He sald it was to appear among others in an industrial edition. .I told him that I had re- fused all the other papers an adver- | tisement and did not think I could glve him one. In fact I refused him point blank. He then told me that the write-up would be without charge and was done for the purpose of adver- tising the Bulletin among the large business houses and to advance the city’s interes Witn this under- standing T gave him a few facts about our business which he incorporated in an article that I received some days later. There were some corrections made by me and I marked the copy the same to the O K and returned | Bulletin people. I knew of | being charged for the ar e was when | a collector called and tendered me a bill for $119, being at the rate of $1 a line. I was surprised at receiving the { bill and declined to meet it, telling | him I had not agreed to pay anything | for the write-up. ““The next day the manwho had Inter- viewed me called and showed me a blue contract on which was the name of the firm in rubber stamp. He told me I had signed it, which I denied. He told me his word was as good as mine, and on that point I did not care to argue. After he left it occurred to me that he might have asked to be allowed to stamp the firm's name on a paper so | as not to make a mistake in spelling, and he may have placed it on the con- | It has never been my ~ustom to sign con- tracts with a ruboer stamp, particular- 1y this one, which was constantly in use around the store for every pur- pose. It was clearly a case of decep- tion, and had I not been busy, I would have called on the proprietors and stated the facts to them. I have not attended any meeting to complain against the treatment I received, as I did not care to bother about the mat- ter. Had I signed any paper, not know- ing its contents, T would willingly pay the bill. As I did not, I do not tkink I shall.” Such are the facts concerning the Bulletin. They cannot be evaded, nor does It appear that paper is trying to do so. It has passed the stage at whien it can be conscious of sbame, and its attitude is not one of contrition. On the contrary, it rages like ary other rogue caught in the commission of crime, yet determined to cling to the booty. Yet the Pulletin has caused the lauaching of a rumor that it is to be issued Sunday mornings. Are not six days encugh for it to labor and do all its work of fleecing the business men of San Francisco? J. C. HALL, MANAGER OF THE UNION LITHOGRAPH COMPANY, EXPERIENCE. A solicitor of the Bulletin called on us some weeks ago and stated that the Bulletin would publish an lllustrated and industrial edition. grand thing, containing cuts of all the principal wholesale houses, factories, etc., with a description of the same, amount of capital Invested, etc. got any further I told him it was no use to talk to me, as we would not spend a cent advertising. Then he proceeded to explain that it was not an advertising Thousands of Bulletins would be sent to different points in the United It would be a Before he States, and the purpose of this edition is t6 show what great advantages this city has from a commercial standpoint; and In view of the expected great rush to Alaskanext spring,it would no doubt be the means of convincing a great many that San Francisco is the best place to outfit. That all they wanted was the moral support and co-operation of the business men; that there would be *abso- lutely no charge for the write-up.” But the paper was going to a great expense, with the write-up. what I agreed. and we would be at liberty to donate whatever we saw fit if we were satisfled Then I again told him we did not care to have a write-up, in reply to which he said: ““Well, you can give anything from $1 up; you would not object to giving a dollar?” Then I told him if it would not be any more he could go ahead. He then wrote down a few lines, which I dictated to him, and afterward handed me a paper to sign, stating at the same time it was “only a matter of form to show at the office that we gave our consent to a write-up.” A few days afterward we received by mail a typewritten proof of about twelve or thirteen lines; I don’t remember exactly. and returned it by mail as requested. A few days after this write-up and cut of our store appeared in print, a collector calléd with a bill, not for $1, as per agreement, but for $42. I protested, of course, but r. ~ 1 made a correction of the street, sed to pay any more than fiz@% their collection. Your contract is here and you will not be sued.” At last.accounts the matter rested in this manner. The Bulletin will prob- ably receive $5, and a chance to try the bunko game again. About the rawest work of bunko steerers was done at the house of Con- radi & Goldberg, 730 Montgomery street. The solicitor had the cut of the building to display, and likewise had committed to memory the fine rigmarole about the “absolutely free notice” in general terms. Speaking of the game, Mr. Goldberg of the firm yes- :;rd-y’ “r.etma;ked: “The solicitor sat ere Where you are sitting. He sald nothing would be charged for the 325 SANSOME STREET—I have no kick coming, because I must have en- tered into the contract with my eyes open. However, I thought the bill would not exceed $25, and it amounted to about $50. When I paid the bill T told Boyle that I would charge the ex- tra sum up to experience. J. 8. DANNER, MANAGER OF THE FIRM OF S. P. TAYLOR & SONS, DEALERS IN PAPER AND PAPER BAGS, 400 SANSOME STREET—The solicitor told me the bill would not amount to more than $5. I don't re- member signing any contract, but must have done it, as my name is there in nder any consideration. before they can make me al h [ u ey any such | W€ VANCOVIGH OF THE “FI sum as that. MANAGER FOR C. R.‘BPL]’VALQ OF IVANCOVICH & CO,, COMMIS- & COMPANY, PROPRIETORS OF SION MERCHANTS, 209 AND THE YOSEMITE F! . MILLS WASHINGTON STREET—I was AND CALIFORNTA ITAI COMPANY,307 BATTERY STREET— | this jubilee edition of the Bulletin for Our case is rather a peculiar one, as the simple reason that I never adv\eilu Mr. it I| we had write-ups in the Buleltin before | tise in the newspapers whatever. and had always paid $10 for copies of | Price came to me and asked me PASTE verse from the start of advertising in RM | 211 | ad- ].IHIPIIIHIIII—II-—I—IIII AN EASTERN SWINDLE. place of business. merchants free of charge. They could, of course, give anything pleased toward defraying the expenses of the publication. was shown me I marked it O K and mailed it. presented to me. sued was an old Eastern style of swindling. least bit fair we would have paid something for the advertisement. now stands we will never pay a cent. would pay. “ [} [ ] = He then left the office. [ ] " a L oy B b o B B o Bn Lo b B Bl B8 BB BN B BT The Bulletin solicitor called on us and asked for a photograph of our He said that the paper was going t¢ advertise the local When the proof The agreement to pay $1 a line for the advertisement was written in afterward, by whom I do not know, but certainly not by any member of the firm. A bill for $8 75 was I refused to pay it, as T had learned that the method pur- Had the paper acted in the As it When the collector called a few days ago I told him that it was a swindle, and offered to bet him $500 that no one Frirna el St o B2 | they :' { the paper. We made the same arrange- | wouldn't consent to a write-up of ment as regards the facts concerning | €Stablishment generally, together with mentioning at a cut of my building, the same time that it would cost | nothing. us published in the Industrial Edition, and had a bill for $55 sent in. We do not intend to pay it and the paper will | L | my Boyle and arrange matters, but I re- fused to go. uéEORGsE HERMANN, PROPRIE- TOR OF THE PACIFIC AMMMONIA BOTTLING COMPANY —1 agreed with the Bulletin solicitor to pay $5 for the insertion of my business card in the paper and informed him that I wanted nothing else in the way of a write-up in their holiday edition ex- cept the insertion of this card. I have my bookkeeper and others as witness- es to this fact, and the bills these peo- ple hold against me will not be paid. I recognize that the sketch and his- tory of my establishment were ex- tremely complimentary; but I didn't authorize it and I won't pay for it. C. M. MANN, 211-213 WASHING- TON STREET—I do not intend to pay a cent of the bill for $61 that these peo- ple hold against me, as I told the so- licitor when he came to me that if lh'e write-up and cut cost a cent I didn’t want them. He told me that I needn’t be afraid on that score, as the Bulletin was doing it for the good of the city and didn’'t mind losing a few dollars in the interest of such a cause. I told him if this was the case he could have my permission to write as much as he pleased concerning my establishment. This he did to the extent of sixty-one lines, and now expects to collect $1 a line for the praise that was given my establishment on a verbal promise that it was to be free. I refused to pay the money and I intend to place the mat- ter in the hands of my attorney. Senator Braunhart Is Angry. Senator Samuel Braunhart, who is also a member of the Board of Port Wardens, is justly indignant because of the use by the Bulletin last night of a private letter received by him over a year ago from Louisville, Ky. The letter has no bearing on the charge that the Bulletin, through its agents and solicitors played a sharp bunko game on the local merchants. “I am astonished,” said Braunhart, last night, “that the letter was pub- lished, and I have a poor opinion of the person who gave it to the Bulletin for publication. It is true that I recelved the letter and in March last I gave it to J. P. Edoff, president of the Califor- nia Protective Association, and mem- ber of the firm of Dallemand & Co., for It was a private and confidential letter, and I believed that | Edoff, knowing that, would treat it as such. I intrusted it to him as a pri- vate communication so that he alone might have the benefit of the contents. You now see how the confidence re- posed was betrayed.” REAL ESTATE MEN SPEAK: They Will Oppose an Objectionable Plumbing Ordinance Before the Supervisors. About a dozen representatives of the larger real estate firms met yesterday in the offices of O. F. van Rhein & Co., 636 Market street, to con- sider the questions involved in the proposed plumbing ordinance, to which all real estate men are strongly op- posed. O. F. von Rhein was elected chairman, and the proposition was dis- cussed from every standpoint. There are sixty-eight sections in the proposed ordinance, all of which are couched in technical terms, and the | principal objection to it from the real- ty men is, that it will permit irrespon- | sible deputies to condemn tie plumb- ing of all houses over five years old and put in new pipes and drains. They state that they are for anything in the | nature of an improvement, but regard this provision as harmful. It was finally decided that a commit- tee go before the Health and Police Committee of the Board of Supervisors to argue the question Friday next, at 2 p. m. R R o, SICK AND DESTITUTE. Sad Condition of a French Cook’s Family on Seventh Street. The attention of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was me | called yesterday to a sad case of pov- I asked him how a paper | erty and hunger in a very deserving have a sorry time making collection. Their game was one of the slickest I ever saw. M. EHRMANN, OF THE FIRM OF EHRMANN & COMPANY, IM- PORTERS AND DEALERS IN WHOLESALE GROCERIES, 104 FRONT STREET—I was informed by the solicitor that the write-up would cost us nothing and signed a contract for an ad. with the understanding that it was not to exceed five or six dollars. They never came for the ad., and sent in a bill for $39 for the statement pub- lished regarding the firm. We are will- ing to pay what we agreed, not to ex- ceed $6, and that is all. HAMILTON PAGE OF THE INDI- ANAPOLIS FURNITURE COMPANY, on Mission street, between Third and Fourth, was fortunate enough to es- cape the bunko men. *“When the proof of the ‘write-up’ was forwarded me to O K,” saild Page yesterday afternoon, “I telephoned the Bulletin to inquire the cost. I knew that the Bulletin was not giving a reading notice and a cut of our building without expecting something in return. A representative of the paper called on me and told me what it would cost. I made him a much lower offer and he accepted it. The ad. was published and I paid what 1 promised.” R. L. LILIENTHAL, SECRETARY | OF THE BERNHARD MATTRESS COMPANY, is anxious to meet the so- licitor who called on him. “I was busy at the time,” said Lilienthal, “and told him that we did not care to advertise. He assured me that the Bulletin was getting up a trade edition for the ben- efit of its patrons and that a write up and cut of the building would not cost anything. I gave him a catalogue of our house to get rid of him, telling him at the same time that he could get all the data he desired from it. He handed me some kind of a printed pa- per and asked me to put the address of the firm on it, so that there would not be any mistake. I stamped the paper without reading it. A few days later I received a proof with a request that T O K it if it were satisfactory. I did so, and thought nothing more of the matter until a collector came around with a bill for $35. I told him that the firm had not contracted for any advertisement. He then informed me that I had signed a contract and that he would send around the man who secured it. I answered him that it would afford me great pleasure to meet him and kick him into the street. There is one thing certain, we will not pay a cent. I told the collector that it was a skin game, and I guess he knew what I said was true, for I haven't heard from him since.” BERNARD ROSENBERG, SECRE- TARY OF WILMERDING, LOEWE & CO., was presented with a bill for $27. “The solicitor came into the store,” saild Rosenberg, “and asked for some data as the Bulletin wanted to give the house a gratuitous write-up. I gave him some particulars, and he left after assuring me that the advertisement would not cost anything. all that would be expected of us would be to buy some copies of the issue to distribute among our customers. A proof was sent us but we did not re- turn it. You can say that the $27 bill will never be paid by the firm as we never contracted for the advertise- ment.” » HORN & CO., TOBACCONISTS, at 205 Battery street, are among the vic- tims of the swindle. “We were elected by the Bulletin,” said one of the firm yesterday, “and feel very sore cver it. ‘We do not care, however, to go into details.” He said that, could publish such things free of | charge, and he told me that the Bulle- .tin people were willing to defray the expense of gratuitously publishing a write up and cut of each business house in the city, as it would materi- ally benefit the metropolis and also in- crease the circulation of the jubilee | edition in the FEastern cities. He | showed me the list of merchants who had already agreed to advertise in the paper. Not wishing to be excepted from them in a matter of this kind (as | I thought the Bulletin people were do- ing it for the good of the State) I agreed to have my establishment de- scribed and exhibited before the pub- | He. He then gave me a paper to sign, tell- ing me that this was to be done simply MISERABLY SWINDLED. ‘We were miserably swindled and do not hesitate to say so openly. Our experience was about the same as that related by the Excelsior Glove Company in The Call. We pald $65 because we did not care to have a lawsuit abofit so small a matter. Now | that the Bulletin has compromised | with the glove company and other | firms we intend to take measures to | recover the amount from the paper. | The solicitor came here and distinctly stated that the price for the write-up would be $1 an inch. He explained fully what an Inch meant, and we ‘were astonished when the bill came In for $65. Our bookkeeper was certain that there was some mistake and that only $6 5 was charged. When we asked to see the man who made the contract or called to see us we were told that he was only a solicitor and was no longer there. We insisted that the man who came to see us should be produced, but Wolf would not produce him. We were bunkoed, and concluded at first to say nothing about it, belleving that we were the only house taken in. Now that others come forward and admit that they have been done up by the.same game we are willing to speak. That is the reason we telephoned to The Call office as soon as we read the state- ment of the Excelsior Glove Company. We have all the papers, including the letter from the Bulletin’s attorney demanding instant payment on threat of instituting suit. At first we said if we have been such jackasses as to sign a contract without knowing what it contained we ought to pay, but the dollar a line was never men- tioned by the solicitor. CONRADI & GOLDBERG, 130 Montgomery street as a matter of course, and assoclating no importance to the paper whatever. Thinking that everything was all right, I inadvertently signed it without first perusing it. I told Mr. Price I would give him flve dollars to help the edition alcng. I thought no more of the mat- ter until a few days ago, when the collector of the paper presented me with a bill for $61. I asked him for an explanation, and in answer he told me that he had devoted sixty-one lines of space in the edition to the exclusive description of my establishment, and at the rate cf a dollar a line I owed him $61. He showed me the contract with my signature affixed and asked me if 1 could deny its authenticity. I admitted that I had signed it, without family. The head of the household is Gustav Diehl, a French cook, and with his wife and four little children live at 316 Seventh street. All of these are huddled in two small rooms for which they pay $5 per month. Diehl was formerly a well-to-do cook in several of the large hotels in Europe and the East. It was an evil day on which he came to this coast, for bad luck has followed him ever since. For a time he followed his vocation in this city and then went to Seattle, where event- ually he started in business for himself, but failed. Again he came to San Francisco and worked in one or two of the best eating establishments and clubs, but in every place he was obliged to give un his work on aeccount of {ll health. Just before the holidays he found employment in a restaurant on Sixth street, but that failed on the day before Christmas, and Diehl only received $2, which sum has lasted the entire fam- ily ever since. Most of the time the father has been so sick with consump- tion that he has not been able to work, and when the neighbors learned of the condition of the family through the children there was not a single crust of bread in the house. Officer McMur- ray of the society informed the Asso- ciated Charities of the condition of the family and the help was promised at once. ——————— Cure your cold with Low's Horehound Cough Syrup; price 10c. 417 Sansome st. * NEW TO-DAY. RATHIE S 3-DAY SPECIALS! Every week you’ll find something new red here. Don’t fail to keep track of u EGGS, per dozen - - - - - 30c Guaranteed fresh. ENGLISH MUSTARD, per Ib. - 30c Keene's, equal to any. Put up in 1} and %-Ib. tins. Regular price, 50c. SAUTERNE, gallon - - - = 40c As pleasing and as satisfylng as the most exacting could wish. Regular price, T TOILET SOAP - - = - - - - I0c Imperial brand, 3 cakes to box. B Oatmeal, Glycerine, Honey, made by an |04 English " process, excellent quality. Regular price, 25c. knowing its purport, but I told him it was a fraud and defied him to collect the money. Since this interview I have been repeatedly requested to call on 21 STOCKTON ST., 3253 FILLMORE ST., Near Market. N e Tolephons Maia 5522. | Telophons Wees 19, SEND FOR NEW CATALOGUE. e l