The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, December 19, 1900, Page 1

VOLUME SAN FRANCISCO, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, WITNESSES TELL OF THE MIDNIGHT ORGIES AND DRUNKEN REVELS OF BARON VON SCHROEDER AND HIS ROYSTERING COMPANIONS AT THE CLUBHOUSE OF THE HOTEL RAFAEL sensational Testimony Introduced in the Trial of the Suit for Libel Instituted Against The Call. Tales of Shocking Immoralities and Gross Festivities Which Put the Hostelry Under in of Reputable Men and Women and Gave to . the Place a Name of lil Repute. 1900. Tall, This p to be ta the Lip aper not ken frOm rfary.++ 44 PRICE FIVE CENTS. o | i | | 1 | 7 | \ JuDae, ‘ AGUIRE . S To CXCLUDE | EVIDENCE-_ ) | | | | | | | Schroeder, his brother and | | | companions were the actors, | 1 Witnesses swore that in | veled in s | quences of thelr acts.. These | women, the witnesses swore sses and dishes out of the win- v p and capered about 14 clubhouse; they sark | overcome, senseless in their | | ! King story of disgusting viee | | was t t by fact, incident by inei- | dent inight suppers, drunken as-| | signati clandestine excursions wera | | told, t torney for Baron von Schroe- 1 der rposed, but witho purpase, his | % - e | ver ending objectlons. Now the Baron ] ! Prtaiite wete 5 misERinE i IN THE TRIAL OF THE SUIT FOR LIBEL INSTITUTED BY BARON J. H. VON SCHROEDER AGAINST THE CALL s the ahcionie. " Reaie) he ol TESTIMONY OF THE MOST SHOCKING AND SENSATIONAL CHARACTER WAS INTRODUCED YESTERDAY Drbtha s AR TraNL i TO PROVE THE CHARACTER OF THE LIFE WHICH THE PLAINTIFF LED AT THE HOTEL RAFAEL. his wild orgy by nausea. e X 3 s me of the women revelers | . o o ohis melody “He Cer- | assured him that he was importuned to| Baron. I told him I did not. Mr. Leak= |that day, after you read that purported letter? | RS St g deny the truth of the publication, and | next asked me .what seméd to be the| Mr. Preston—This is all under the same ob- These were the stories which witnesses | POSitively declined to do so and only at | general reputation of the Baron. I fold |Jection? { I of the life which Baron J. H. von | the urgent solicitation of Von Schroeder's | him that in San Rafasl the Baron's gen- | The Court—I would prefer an objection when er led at the Hotel Rafael and | 8ttorney did he sign a statement assert ‘;eral reputation was very bad. I had never | ®Ver you wish to make it, if you wish to sa tuted by Schroeder was resumed before jury which was sub- was presented | wh was | nation ssues was of such a heard urt of . acterized H. von thelr stc fctured from th ss stand debauchee, ng with his women friends, made nofsy the ight at the Hotel Rafael t a pleasant one and J. H. von Schroeder flushed scar- | as he heard it told. He turned and chair, he counseled in agi- h lawyer, he scowled an- B so lost his self-command as to © & sharp rebuke from his attorney. cath his breath and in an degenerate, drunkard, oral a er who, of the Ty W e cursed ber He heard men declare under oath that | been a drunken debaucher of hat in'the clubhouse of the Ho- | he has drunk, gambled, supped | at seemly hours raised his voice on of revelry with intoxi- He heard men swear that | subject of the generosity | friends; that he permitted | which was drunk as the silence of the | ght by maudiin laughter | the discords which intoxicated brains | t were melody Sceses of shocking immorality, in whick ken v ny n the y the wine, ken of ronment which he created for trons and guests of the es- And the climax of moral degradaiion not reached ness testified that Baron von reputable p tablishm was Schroeder had attempted to bribe him to watc oeder and see that she did not sur- prise her husband in his debauchery. Testimony such as this has seldom been offered in a court of justice. The neces- sity of any reference to it is unfortunate. When the interests of soriety demanded that Baron von Schroeder be exposed the Call was careful not to jeopardize the reputations of women who had been be- gulled by him or had so far forgotten themselves as to be his companions. In this trial, therefore, the name of no woman has been spoken. The proprietor of The Call instructed the attorneys for the paper that under mo circumstances, whatever the outcome of the case might be, whs the name of a woman to be used. The offender against soclety is the man who demands damages for an alleged in- jury to the reputation which he estab- lished for himself at the Hotel Rafael. When the case opened yesterday testi- mony of a very vital character was intro- duced and it is significant that it was elicited by the attorney for Baron von Schroeder in cross-examination of W, §. Leake the manager of the Call. Baron von Schroeder, through his attorney, has insisted that R. H. Warfleld, over his own signature, declared that he had suffered, as lessee of the Hotel Rafael, no injury from the actions of Von Schroeder. It is also contended that if the hotel gained an unenviable notoriety, which made it objectionable to decent people, it did so after the publication in The Call of the article which Von Schroeder claims is libel. : On the first of these points the manager of The Call testified thsat B H. Tartiald thg. movements of Baroness. von | SEA CASTS IP BODES 0F VICTIHS ‘Wrecked Steamer Alpha Fast Going to_P;‘gges. Remains of Owner Barber and His Brother Are Recovered. Survivors Declare the Vessal's Ancient Machinery Was Responsible for the Disaster, Special Dispatch to The Call VANCOUVER, Dec. 18—News to-day from Union Bay, the scene of the disaster to the steamer Alpha, shows the wreclk of the famous British steamer to have been complete. Three bodies have been recovered of the nine men who were ing that he did not of his own Knowledge know the charges to be true. More than this, Warfield declared that-the charges published were substantially true and that his reassuring letter written to Von | Schroeder was, dictated by policy. | Upon the second point, which is one of | the significant ‘and most tmportant devel- | opments of the trial, the manager of The | Call testified that Warfield had told .him | that men and women had declared to him that they would not live at the Hotel | hafael while Baron von Schroeder was within its doors. Both oral and written objections were made to his presence. As bearing upon the allegation that Baron von Schroeder injured the hotel, this de- velopment is of exceptional importance, particularly from the fact that every ob- { jection to Von Schroeder was made be- fore the article in The Call was published. Tne very day upon which the article was published Warfield secured his release as | lessee. Subsequent to that it would have been absurd for any one to voice an ob- | jection in reference to Von Schroeder to ‘Warfield, who was not in the remotest way connected with the hotel. - REPUTATION OF BARON WAS BAD Continuation of Testimony Be- gun at Monday Afternoon Session. At the beginning of the morning seesion of the court Frank L. Perkins was on | the stand. Being asked to continue his testimony as to what Lad occurred at the interview between nimself and W. S. Leake, manager of The Call, he sald: “After I had answered several ques- tions asked by Mr. Leake he asked me if I s knew anything ‘personally about. the heard anything agamst his honesty in momney matters, but-lis.reputation as to women was very bad. “Mr. Leake next asked me if I had heard of any fincidents relative to his conduct with women. 1 told him that I had, and he asked me to state what I had heard."” The plaintiff's counsel had been inter- posing objections during this testimony, and at this point their objections became more strenuous, and the questions, “What was your reply?” and “What did you see | at Pastori’s?’ - put * successively, ~were each withdrawn by Preston, and the wit- ness was withdrawn temporarily, his tes- timony in mitigation bemg completed, in order that plafntiff’s counsel might recall W. 8. Leake before argument should be heard as to the Introtiuction of testimony regarding oécurrences that had taken place away from the immediate vicinity of the Hotel Rafael. W. 8. Leake, recalled by the plaintiff for further cross-examination, testified as follows: Mr. Maguire—Mr. Leake, after you read the article In the San Francisco Bulletin on Octo- ber 25, 1899, containing a purported letterof R. H. Warfield, which, you {dentified yesterday, did vou see or speak to Mr. Warfleld on that day after reading the purported letter? Mr. Preston—Objected to on the ground that | 1t 1s incompetent, first, in ‘that. the letter is | not in evidence and therefore cannot form the subject matter of a cross-examination. | The Court—It is the purported copy, or @ purport of the purported. letter contalned in the Bulletin as shown by plaintiff's_proposed exhibit A? The objection is overruled. I think I understand (he object of this line of testimony. e i Mr. Preston—We will take an exception. A.—T bave no recollection of seeing General ‘Warfleld on that day.. Mr. Maguire—Did you see him on the night of that day? B A.—1_think mot. Q.-Did y0u serid anyboay -to. see 'him on the point. An objection as interposed to this question is overruled. A.—1 certatnly did not, because that is not in my line of business to detall people to go and wait on other people. If I might be per- mitted to explain how I happened to go 1t could be stricken out if there is an objection to it. The Court—How you happened to go In the first instance? A.—In the first Instance, that is all. Mr. Maguire—Well, I don’t care about that. You stated that you got Information from Mr. Perkins? . A.—T went at the request of General War- field to see him, the same as I would go on your request or anybody else's. Q.—I will ask you, Mr. Leake, if at any time after you read this purported letter in the Bulletin you had a talk with General War- fleld about it? A / A.—I have had two or three conversations with him in the presence of Mr. Spreckels in which he gave me the reasons why he wrote the letter. Q.—When did you have the first conversa- tion with him about that? A.—1 could not name a date. Q.—Was it near the time of the publication? A.—It was some time after that; quite a while after it. Q.—Ycu say that General Warfleld gave cer- tain reasons for writing that letter? A.—Yes. Q.—Mr. Spreckels, you say, was present at that conversation; the first conversation that you had with Warfleld about that? A1 don't know whether it was the first or not. ‘Warfield Made No Denial. _ Q.—Dtd you at your first conversation with him call his attention to the letter, or how did the matter come up? A.—My recollection is that at the first meet- ing we had the matter was talked of. In fact, 1 did very little of the talking. Most of the S S e S R SESRSI % Continued on Second Page | her stdes that she re | helm and went steadily toward the rocks. | Then the engine bells rang to reverse drowned. They are those of Samuel Bar- ber, part owner, his brother, James Bar- ber, and Seaman Sullivan, Captain Gosse of the steamer Coquitlan, which arrived this afternoon from Yellow Island Lig house, where the Alpha foundered, says the hulk has nearly gone to pieces. The vessel's back was broken In three places 8nd parts of her deckhouse, together with portions of the cargo, are strewn along the rocky coast for tiree miles. Fireman Joseph Young told a thrilling tale of the disaster to-day. After the | first smash on the ledge of rock under the Yellow Island Lighthoase he was in the stokehole and tried to clamber out. as he felt the vessel lurching under his feet. He had on a jacket, shirt, overalls, boots and hose. As he climbed out he was swept away from the fireroom door oy the suction of a wave. Then he was car- rled against the rocks, where his feet caught in a jagged crevice and he left both boots. His feet were horribly mangled as he jerked himself free from the course of the next wave. He was burled repeatedly against floating wreck- age, and his legs, acting as fenders, were frightfully lacerated before he finally was able to obtain a footing. All his clothes were torn off except a remmant of his shirt. Above the roaring of the storm he could hear men shouling and crying for help and several were in the rigging as the vessel went down. Young says that Captain York and Bar- ber were on the bridge when the Alpha attempted to enter the Union Bay chan- nel and failed. An effort was made to swing the vessel around, but so great was the force of wind waves against sed to answer her At full epeed. The machinery, of ancient de- sign and always slow to work, could not be handled and the steamer’s own speed | drove her to destruction. Willlam Enos and J. A. Craig, two voung Englishmen, were the only passen- | gers aboard, with the exception of the Japanese who were engaged to look after | the fish. They were among the last to leave the vessel, and two of the swinging lines that connected the Alpha with the rocky shore had already parted when Enos attempted to pull himseif hand over hand on the last remaining rope.' He got through safely. Cralg was in the center with a flcod of water smoth- ering him when the steamer plunged backward and the rope snapped. Craig managed to hang on and a half minuts later was pulled in, more dead than alive. He was the last man saved. Just as the vessel sank from sight two engineers plunged from her side, but were sucked down as the water rolled in from either side where the vesel had been. VICTORIA, Dec. 18.—When the steamer Alpha left here on Saturday her master refused to take a pilot, saying that he did not need one, although as a matter of fact Cafain York had not been over the route more than twice prior to his last | tatal voyage. That he did not know the waters is shown by the fact that hé tried to bring the Alpha into Baines Sound from the wrong side of Yellow Island. There is, however, another side to this, according to sensational storfes told by the deserting engineer, who is imprisoned here, and firemen who left the steamer. They say that the steering gear of the | steamer was defective. Therefore Cap- tain York may have endeavored to bring the steamer to the proper channel, but was unable to steer her during the gale. Gordon, the tmprisoned engineer; Dons van, a fireman, formerly of the Robert Adamson, and C. E. Swanson say that two men could not hold the wheel with ease In fine weather. It was common for her to go off two or more points. Gordon in his interview also says that the steam- er's steam pumps Wwere worn out, and the valves being smooth the pumps coul get no suction. They were useless when their services were required when the steamer began to make water, which ne- cessitated her returning from Cape Flat- tery. Gordon was charged by the master and owners with having opened ome of the seacocks and letting water into the hull. This he denied, but Donavan, the fireman, said to-night that Gordon could tell more than he would wish to of this. 00 MU SCHOONER PIONEER ASHORE. SHERIDAN, Or., Dec. 18.—The three- masted schooner Ploneer, Captain Mich- aelson, went ashore at 4 a. m. on Monday on the Nestucca beach, opposite Ocean Park. She was lumber laden from the Knappton mills on the Columbia River and bound for San Francisco. When xty miles off shore in 45 degrees latitude she lost her rudder and a gale blowing ninety miles per hour forced her in shore, where she lies high upon the sands with 500,000 feet of lumber. The captain and crew are safe. across GHTS O NESENTS OF | | f i EW DONA Arguments in Porto ~ Rico and Philip- pines Gases. 'Question as to Whether the Constitution Follows the Flag. ‘Attorney General Griggs Declares In- habitants of New Fossessions Are Not Citizens. S PR WASHINGTOD D the Porto Rico-Philippin ing the status ef th United States, was preme Court to-day terest in the cases was show by large attendance of promi of the bar and by a crow which filled the public area flowed in the corridor. Senat resentatives in Cc gs dr the nd gave rguments proce tive ear to the proc Prior to the openir counsel conferred and plan of procedure Perkins, can case, Wc to-day, being followed by Lawrenc mon, counsel in the Philippire appellants would then give ney General Griggs for the of the case in behalf of the This, it was expecte would until to-morrow, w drich, former Solicitor ( nior counsel in the Philip close in behalf of the appell Mr. Perkins, in resuming took up the Dred Secott a relating to the extension of the ¢ tion over territory. Soon after M kins began Justice Brown interpo: inquiry as to whether Mr. Perk examined the most recent cases rela to the extenston of the e tu ritcries, and also whethe ined those sections of the Un statutes wherein Congress e constitution to certain territories | Perkins sald he had examined both these branches, and he hoped to be ab to present snswers to the cententions made as to them. Sort of Transsubstantiation. After examining numerous ¢ Perkins said that the constitution did not exte tories was based on the idea that t stitution was a substance, a | chattel, which could be moved abo | ond there as Congress saw fit, rather than something bequeathed to us by ot It was, he said, a sort of “tr stantiation of the constitution.” a contention that the cofstitution could not get Into a territory unless Congress placed it there. stitution in itself extended tories by declaring that it was an Inani- mate substance, lacking the powers of lo- comotion. senfor co his argum: Har- way A presentation Governme continue Chart he had exam- ited Stat was He denied that the con- to the terri- At this point Justice White asked a serles of pointed questions of Mr. Perkins. The Justice first asked if Mr. Perkins’ contention would lead him he ec clusion that immediately on the making of a treaty ceding territory States every pers after the date of ce a citizen of the U Mr. Perkins answered in th saying that if his those born in the territory after the sion were citizens if they vilized and not in the position of our Indians. | White Asks About Indians. Justice White asked what authority there was for exciuding Indians. He pointed out that the distinction between | the Ameriean Indian and the citizen ante- dated the constitution. He again pro- pounded the query as to citizenship fol- lowing immedtately upon session of terri- | tory. | Mr. Perkins answered that undoubtedly persons born in the territory after the | cession and subject to the jurisdiction of | the United States were citizens of the | United States. | Justice White suggested that in this an- | swer “under the jurisdiction of the United States” stated out of the ouestion the very contention which was being made in | these cases. Mr. Perkins sald the limitations of his answer were intended to cover such spe- clal circumstances, relating to Indians and uncivilized persons, which had been referred to. Continuing his argument Mr. Perkins cited many other authorities supporting his view that the in itseif extended fo territocies.” Philippines Case Presented. Mr. Harmon, of counsel for appellant In the Philippines case, followed Mr. Per- kins, speaking at times in impassjoned tones which rang throughout the cham- ber. He spoke of the august character of the court, and of the sentiment that on this “holy ground” justice and right were certain to prevail. The proposi presented, small in itself, sults affecting the entire future of the Government. Mr. Harmon briefly recited the circumstances of the Philippine case; to the United on became Ipso jure ted Sta affirmative, ontention was correet w constitution involv Emil J. Pepke, a volunteer serving in the Philippines, purchased fourteen diamond rings valued at $%0 to §1W0, brought them back to the United States, where, at Chicago, the United States cus- Continued on Fourth Page.