The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, December 20, 1900, Page 1

VOLUME LXXXIX—NO. 20. SAN FRANCISCO, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1900. CUDARY'S SON LOST AND FOUND Boy's Mother Says He Is Kidnaped for f@nsom. Police Believe the Youth Runs Away After a Quarrel. a Time the Millionaire Packer of Omaha Employs Many Men in an Excited Search. For statement ex- t would be the ran away and -» Nition » ever, that her had been right. rking on the n for inside i v that the with some his means through which Mr. ave passed since the r son was telling on em s almost totaily collapse g, and Mrs s . of her anx- 8 o’clock ks to the abeut two was the last seen ght arrived and he did notified and 0 work on wer 8 o'clock yester- the m that tter 1ly serious aspect. ack rode and as he & w a letter into saw him took se, where it was v Your son is safe ke good care of x 2 in consid- £ $25,00. We mean JACK.” te the police at as they say it re ¥ s to e re to ir com- . nt who able to this are police He wore a vercoat black send f Pinkerton detectives to s ’ they are expected to row, when to-n detective agency ectives have search. STICKEL TO BE HANGED FOR THREE MURDERS Law Will Avenge the Killing of Rancher Shanklin and Mr. and Mrs. Knapp. KALAMA, Dec. 18.—Martin Stickel was y of murder in the first killing of William B. at his home nkiin was shot while eat- his supper and the house was burned The case was shrouded to the murder the November, 1889 1e mpurderer. mystery and no clew vening of November 25, 1900, Mr. rnelius Knapp, an aged cou- r Castle Rock, were kille supper table. It was evi- he same man had committed The latter murder was in Stickel, who lived on a near the mouth of the Cowlitz River, was arrested. ¥e maintained his 1 confronted with the fact and keys had been identi- £ belonged to Shanklin, the man. Then he made a confes- three murders. igned in the Superior Court aded not guilty. The defense p o prove that the man bad in- ted a criminal disposition to the ex- ent that he was not accountable for his His mother testified g be- birth she was mad at y t the child was horn sick and was nnatural The jury was out but one hour. The prisoner was sentenced by Judge Miller to be hanged on & date to be hereafter fixed. crimes Ma g ways he case. The CLEVELAND'S REMEDY FOR - DEMOCRACY Writes of Fallacy of - Free Silver and - Populism. Declares the Party Needs Repair, but Not Re- Organization. Return From Wandering Under the Ban- ners of Strange Symbols Abso- lutely Essential. O 2t Copyrighted, 190, by the Curtis Publishing Co | PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 18.—Former Presid>nt Grover Cleveland contributes to this week's issue of the Saturday ing Post of Philadelphia an extended arti- cle on the plight of the Democracy and the remedy. Mr. Cleveland begins by re- viewing the history of the party, and he discusses its defeats since 1864 in detail. In taking up the question of the present conditions of the Democracy, he says that the succese of the party in 1882 was so de- cisive and overwhelming that a long con- tinuance of pated. Then came the silver and Populism.” Mr. Cleveland proceeds as follows: | “The of was reached when its compact with these undemocratic forces was complete, and when our rank and file were summoned to do battle under banners which bore strange symbols and waich were held oft in unfamillar hands. The resuit of such a betrayal was foredoomed. This abandonment of the principles of true Democracy, this contemptuous disobedi- ence of its traditions and this deliberate violation of the law of its strength and vigor were by a decree as inexorable as Even- was antici- of free its supremacy “fallacy culmination Democratic woe those of fate followed by the inevitabie | punishment of stunning, staggering de- feat “*The disaster of 1872, invited by similar mad adventure, was guickly followed by a return to the professions and practices of sane Democracy. But the: extent and | persisténce of our wanderings in 1596 is {llustrated in a most astounding way by the command, issued on the day of our rout and discomfiture, tle should be fought with the same false war cries and the same leadership that had brought us to the surrounding gloom of defegt. “Thus in 1900 the lesson of 15% was con- temptuously rejected, and every hope of Democratic success was wilifully cast on the same field, aside, file, whose loyalty and obedience de- served better things, were sacrificed in a cause theirs only in name, and agaln it was demonstrated, but more clearly than ever before, that the only forces that can win Democratic success are adherence to | recognized Democratic principles and re- jance upon Democratic counsels and lead- | hip. Why should we not return to these and in their name again achieve victories no Jess glorious and renowned than were ours in the days of courageous advogacy of our time-honored faith? shopworn or antiquated as to require ren- ovation or their displacement by others more fashionable? Democrat in this broad land that will not concede these, nor is there one who will not hail the proclamation of the old faith with that fighting enthusiasm that beto- k s Democratic triumph. As new condl- i arise our principles must be applied to them, but in the creed that has guided us through a century of party existence we shall find the key to every such appli- cation; nor shall we need the lexicon of Populism to aid us in interpreting this creed.” Further on he declares: | “I believe no Democrat will have the hardihood to deny that we have fought | our last two campaligns in alllance with undemocratic forces and that this alliance was immensely costly in defeat. Is there not good reason to suppose that even in success such zn alliance would have proved umprofitable and dangerous?” He preaches the return of Democracy to its old faith, saying: “Bincere Democrats of every condition and in every part of the land realize that the situation of the party needs repair. | Reorganization is not necessary, but a | return from our wandering is absolutely | essential. except in the Democratic cause and through Democratic methods. Reorgan- | ization is worse than useless, and the ar- rogation of superior party virtue will breed only mischief. This is a time for | sober thought, tolerant language and fra- ternal counsels. We are dealing with the | condition of a party that cannot be de- stroyed by external foes, and, since its ruin can be wrought only from within, it should be imperishable. Above all things there should be a manly renunciation and Ia\'oldance of undue sectional control | Democracy will not operate efliclently on sectional lines. ““There is much for us to do, and the future is full of Democratic duty and op< portunity. Our fighting forces will re- spond listlessly and faiteringly if sum- moned to a third defeat in a strange cause, but if they hear the rallying ¢dall of true Democracy they. will gather for, battle with the old time Democratic en-: thusiasm and courage. 1 “If 1 should attempt to epitomize what I have written by suggesting a plan for th~ rehabilitation and restoration of true Democracy 1 should embody it in thess words: ‘Give the rank ang M 5 ghence.’ that a second bat- | Again our long-suffering rank and | Are our principles so | There is not an honest | Let us be frank with ourselves | and candidly acknowledge the futility of | attempting to gain Democratic victories | in the suit for libel instituted by Baron J. H. von Schroeder against The Call. The defense of this paper was submii ed. Its testimony was completed and the rresentation of the facts offered In justification of the article, character- ized as libelous, was closed. ‘Perhaps the most important witness of the day was John D. Spreckels, the proprietor of The | Call. He testified that he had absolutely |no thought of malice for Baron von | Schroeder. He declared that he Knew Baron von Shroeder casually, enough to bow to him in passing. to salute him in | places of general meeting and to express the customary greeting between men. With Baron von Schroeder the proprietor of this paper declared that he had never had any business transaction, no quarrel and no occasion fer {ll feeling. There was nothing in their relations to inspire a feeling of malice Mr. Spreckels declared that he knew nothing of the alleged iibelous article un- til he read it in The Call. He had be:n absent from the city.a week or more be- | fore the publication of the article and had | not been consulted in reference to it. When he read the article and saw in an | evening newspaper the dublously phras#&d denial of R. H. Warfleld he determined | to make a searching inquiry and learn whether or not manager of The Call to investigate and absolutely verify every article iiore | publishing it had been obeyed. | The result of this inquiry was deeply | significant. Mr. Spreckels testified that he had several interviews with R. H. Warfield, who informed him that the arti- cle published in The Cail was true; that fact presented was without exag- every geration. | More then this, R. H. Warfield declared | that he had written his quasi dental stm- ply to protect himself from Baron von | Schroeder, from whom he sought to se- | cure a release from his obligations as lessee of the Hotel Rafael. Warffald de- clared In these interviews that he feared { the Baron would refuse to grant the re- lease if the fomma! denial was not writ- | Going still farther Warfleld declared | that from severa! sources he was con- | vinced that the charges made in The Call | were true ..d had represented to tie pub- lic the facts which had injured his busi- | ness as lessee of the Hotel Rafael. Baron von Schroeder, through his attorfiey, had | sought to induce him to deny the truth of | the published article, but he could not in honesty do so. | With these facts In his possession the | proprietor of The Call declared that he | was assured that the published article | should neithen be retracted nor wodified. While he was testifying the attorney for Von Schroeder made every possible at- | tempt to prevent the introduction of his evidence. The plaintiff had adopted these tactics of obstruction for the entire day. The testimony offered by other wit- | nesses was of the most sensational char- | acter. Some of it wa® of such a shock- ing mature that it cannot be published. | The notoriously immoral life of Baron von Schroeder was pictured so in the matter of fact recital of evidence that even the | morbidly curious crowd that listened was stunned into silence and the scene reached the evil dignity of a moral tragedy, the | incidents of which cannot, in public de- | cency, be reproduced nor even suggested. One witness was placed upon the stand and the court and jury listened to the story of actions that made night hideous at the Hotel Rafael. It was the stcry of drunken men and | of the conduct women gambling throughout the hours of | the night, roystering, singing, shouting, | wagering in disgraceful hazards and call- ing upon themselves the rebuke of those in whose keeping was the reputation and the prosperity of the hotel. While the reputable guests of the hotel were asleep Baron von Schroeder and his intoxicated men and women friends were holding high carnival in the clubhouse. They were gambling at poker, the lights were blazing from the windows, drunken volces were raised in excitement and in the recklessness of liquor. Glasses were smashing and from the custodian of the hotel’'s welfare came the command to cease ana put out the lights. The com- mand was disobeved. Baron von Schroeder answered it with the announce- ment that a few more “Jackpots” were to be played and then it was 4 o'clock in the morning. And then the scene changed from smashing bottles, games of poker, male | and female indecency In the darkness of the night to the light of day, to other scenes of immorality, to other grossness, to assignations in the gardens of the hotel, to clandestine meetings in the tower flaunted in the faces of men and women who had reputations to lose. Throughout it all the attorney of Baron von Schroeder interposed his objections. ‘When an effort was made through a wit- ness to prove another justification of th. alleged libelous article Von Schroeder attorney objected and carried his point. A witness whose duty he said is to put out from a local hotel immoral women, fires and thieves attempted to show also that he had put out immoral men. The attorney for Baron von Schroeder ob- Jected and carried his point with an eager-: ness which his purpose probably justified. And then with evidence to prove that no malice had'dictated its publication of the alleged libelous article, that verification of the truth of the assertions had been given by the man best qualified to know i i \ [ and that every endeavor to investigate the | his instructions to the CLIMAX was reached yesterday | scandal of an evil life had been made, The Call closed its defense. —_——— B+<INGS BRIDE HOME IN CART Some More Testimony About the Escapades of Pastorl’s Patrons. S William H. Jew:l:'l: recalled at the beginning of the morning session and on direct examination said that he would hot “Two or three times a week.” 1 “Now, be careful to mention no names, | but tell us if there were women at these | games.” ““There were." “How late would they play?’ * BARON VON SCHROEDER MADE THE HOTEL RAFAEL A DOM “T ata.” “Why did you go there?” “I had been discharged from the Hotel | Rafael, and I thought he had a wrong im- ‘ | pression.” “You thought you could clear that away MINION OF IMMORALITY Testimony, the Suppression of Which Public Decency Demands, Is Given at the Trial | of His Suit for Damages and Libel Against The Call, in Court at San Rafael. This“Paper Closes Its Defense With Evidence to Prove That the Article in Controversy Was True, That It Was Without Malice and Was Also Adequately Verified. L = | - | | | * : a be certain but that only four people, two couples, including the' bride, composed the party who took the carriage for Pas- tori's. He had testified before that there were three couples, but he wished to modify that statement. “What kind of a rig was It you de- livered?” asked Mr. Maguire, “I think it was a three-séater, although they usually ised a broad two-seated rig on these night escapades. 1 cannot be sure which wa$ taken on this trip.” “To whom was the, rig charged?" “I do not knéw. I did not charge it. At the stable it was understood that it was for the Baron's party.” “You testified to hanging on at the rear end of one of the rigs as it returned to the hotel. Which rig was it?” “The one/the Baron was in—the one I had delivered and was to recelve again at the same place.” “Why did you not let them know you were hanging on and take charge of the team at McAllister's corner?” I supposed they wanted to drive up to Bell avenue, where they had recelved the team and where the bride and her sister were waiting. The night. was cold and I had walked down toward the corner when 1 met the rig returning and caught on be- hind in order to be at the appointed place to take charge of the team.” The witness said the Baron did not know he was hanging on. “The Baron cannot see very well at night,” he said. “Do you remember what team you took out that night?” “No, I do not remember exactly. It was one of the old livery teams, safe to drive at night.” “Did you g0 up to the hotel with the ladies?" “Not clear to the hotel. I walked along beside the carriage perhaps half way up ‘Watt avenue to the hotel.” “Where was the other rig while you walked along toward the hotel?” asked Preston. “I left it standing and started to go along if assistance should be needed to get the lady into the hotel. were riding in and they drove along so fast I could not keep up, so I went back, got my team and returned to the stable.” OPENS A FEW MORE JACKPOTS Mrs. Warneid Orders Lights Put Out, and Woman Grows Indignant. Carl Schaubye, a walter now at the Ho- tel Pleasanton, who, was employed at the Hotel Rafael from March to October, 1899, and again in May, June and July of this year, was called to the witness stand. clubhouse?” - (2 “How was he occupied at times?” “Playing cards” . friends play poker?” : i But Baron, Alexis climbed irto the tea cart they carL oTTo JENSEN SCHAUBYE I | + > =i Pl { | | [ WITNESIPS-PWECRIBE TO THE JURY :nmz—m SCHROEDER SUIT FOR LIBEL SCENES NTS WHICH BROUGHT SHAME AND SCANDAL — | i1 i1 TO THE HOTEL RAPAEL. , i “Up till 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning.” “What was the latest you remember to have seen them play?. “The latest was 4 o'clock in the morn- ing."”" “Don’t name the women, but who were there?” ’ ““The plaintiff, the Baron Alexis, two other men and a lady.” “Did you hear what was saild to the Baron by a servant about lights?” At 3 o’clock I came and told the Baron that Mrs. Warfleld said the {Mights must be pat out. The lady &rew very indignant and all insist- ed that the lights should not be put out: A quarter of an hour later I came back and said that Mrs. War- field inxisted on the lights being put out. The Baron said it would be all right, to let them piay three or four jackpots and they would go to bed “What was the condition of the lady who protested?” “‘She was intoxicated.” “Do you remember of one occasion when wine was bet?” ““Yes; once in the barroom of the club- house, both men and women being there. They took an empty champagne bottle and struck it on the floor, trying to break it. Bach took a turn at it.” “Were the doors open?” “I pulled down the blinds and closed the doors.” “This was the clubhouse intended for general use.” “Yes.” “And it was about 11 o'clock in the evening?” “Was there a pafticular woman to whom the Baron was attentive on various occasions?” “There was.” “What was their conduct as to drink- ing?” | “The Baron did not usually drink very much in the clubhouse. The women often drank too much.” On cross-examination witness denied that he had recelved any money from de- fendant. “Have you stated that you intend to go to Germany shortly?” “No; I have not.” “Have you stated that you expect to get money enough out of this case to take you back to Germany?” “No; I have not.” ‘Witness denied that anything had been said at any ot his four visits to Mr. Leake about money or payment for his time. “Did you know that Bernard Peters had got money?” 2 “1 bélieve I knew then that he had got some money for expenses in hunting up ‘evidence.” X ““You did not expect to be pald for your time or trouble in coming here to testify?” “Have you ever been known as Jen- them my name is Jensen, as that is part of it."” “Have you ever been known as Otto?"" “Yes, that Is a part of my name also— Carl Qtto Jensen Schaubye, and I have : g “No, sir; I did not.” 3 ———— and then give your testimony ag you have | | given it' here to-day and it would be all right?"” “The Baron knew two months ago what my testimony would be and I have waited | on him. since then.” | | COOING MATCH ' "IN THE MAZE Baron arid Companion Beat Love- lorn Swain and Girl to | the Bench. | Thomas Flaherty was called. He was emploved at' Robinson's stable in 1898-and | 1899. “Did you ever Hotel Rafael?” “Yes.. At the hotel and the clubhouse.” “Wheén would you deliver them?” “At about 8 o'clock, and the rigs would usually return at 1 to § o'clock in the morning.” “Have you ever seen the Baron in the grounds with women?” “Yes." “What was his conduct?” “I saw him with one woman and he had his arm around her.” “What time of night?" . “Eleven or 12 o’clock.” “‘How often did you see him thus.” “Three or four times.” “Was the lady with him his wife?” “She was not.” g “Do you know of any occasions when the Baron and his friends were drink- ing?” “Yes, often.” \ “Any particular occasion?”’ “One night I was waiting down the hill 200 or 300 feet from the clubhouse and I heard a noise in the clubhouse. I could hear billlard cues and bottles falling on the floor. I went up and looked in and saw the crowd throwing bottles around.” “Did you sometimes deliver teams to the Baron and his friends?” “I.did. “What was the condition of the women when these parties would return from the rides?” “Often they were intoxicated.” “What was the Baron's conduct toward them?" “Only talking to them and sometimes he would throw his arms around them.” deliver teams to the “Did you ever see the Baron in the maze in the hotel grounds?” “1'd1ar “When was that?” “In '99 or '98; I do not remember defi- nitely.” “Tell rence." “] was walking in the maze with a girl and saw the Baron and a lady sifting on the bench. I was trying to get the bench ‘myself. He was there 2 “What was their position?" *“He had his right arm around her, the other hand on her bosom and his cheek against her’s.” © *Was the lady his wife?” “She was not.” ‘the circumstances of that occur- tower?" ‘ s “I daid.” £ ““What occurred?” “It was dark and I could not see.” 1 *“Was he alone?” “No, a woman was with him. He had his arm around her.” Clubhouse Revelry. On cross-examination the witness sald that he had often walked up to the hotel grounds with a lady. He was with her when he heard the noise QL-billlard cyes rapplag w0 the floof™ It was'? or 3 o' dock in the morning. “How many party?” “Three or four.” “How many women?" “Who was the young lady who was with you?"' asked Maguire. A Preston objected, and Mr. Gallagher of plaintiff's counsel wanted Maguire to withdraw the question. Witness squirmed in his chair and sald he would not tell her name. The court sald it was proper cross-examination if counsel insisted upon it. Maguire finally consented to with- men were there in the | draw the question. “How did you happen to be & witness in this case?” asked Maguire. “Mr. Boyd and another gentleman came to the Golden Gate stables and fisked what I knew about the case.” ‘Witness had recetved no offer of money, except witness fees, nor had been offered a place.” “Did vou see the plaintiff breakx any glasses that night in the clubhouse?” “1 daid.” “How many?" “I could not tell whether he broke only one or several.” “How 6id he break it7” “He swept it off the table with his hand or the cue, I am not sure which.” “Did you say you saw him break any bottles?"” “Yes. He threw bottles on the floor trying to break them.” “More than one?” “I am not sure it was not the same bot- tle each time.” “You saw the plaintiff going into the tower?” “Yes, sir.”” “There is a stair leading to the top of the tower?” fou were waiting for a team?” “Yes.” ‘Witness was dismissed and the noon re. cess was taken. SCENE ON HILL BACK OF HOTEL Jobn Bailey, Walter, Stumbles Upon Baron and Female Companion. John Bailey was called at the begin- ning of the afternoon session. Mr. Pres- ton cautioned him mot to mention the names of women in his testimony. He has been a hunter, a guide and a walter. He was employed at the Hotel Rafael as a waiter in the dining-room during the summer of 1898. “Did you ever see the plaintiff and a ‘woman guest of the hotel together on a hill back of the hotel?” “Yes." “Had you seen them that day before™ “Yes, at lunch and again at dinner.” “And between that time yom saw them at lunch and the time you saw them at dinner, you saw them together on the hill a mile back of the hotel?” Maguire interposed an objection and the answer was stricken out and counsel ar- gued upon the admissibility of the testi- mony. Preston reframed the question to locate the hill. “Did you ever see him go into the| “How is the hill reached?" “By an unfrequented road.” “Is it within = distance ordinarily preached by stroilers from the hotel?” “Yes. It is about a mile and a quarter away.” “What peculiar actions did you ab-