The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, December 23, 1900, Page 14

14 e= DECENCY WINS A MOST SIGNAL VICTORY. THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, SUNDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1900. based upon faots, against the platntiff here, and @€ not hesitate to awaken the owner of the peper, who was then quietly slumbering in his home at the Mimston, to pweken him past midnight to come to the ©ffice of The Call and to give his final ap- proval or @isapproval of the publication of sn article already composed and ready to o to press which revealed such a con- on end such conduct on the part of iff here that his counsel shrank vestigating it when we bad the witnesses here. of which a copy purports to be published in the Bulletin. Where is that letter, gentlemen? And I will tell you why I | | make that statemnent. The purported let- | | ter is addressed to Baron von Schroeder, confessedly the plaintiff here. It addresses him as ‘My dear sir.” It is signed, sub- scribed ‘Believe me, very truly yours. It | professes to place the author of it in a position of am: pent and regret at the | publication which has been made. Why | In the name of justice is not that le produced? It is addressed to the plain- tiff. He must have rcceived it. It | ports to be a friendly letter to the *Wes John D. Spreckels at that time ; [oSte S catngs Bim fl_ p | subscrfbing it with an exhe ectustel by persenal silios SEsinat this s // ‘belleve me, very truly yours. Why I3 re to use his paper | {”.:(m.-) | | not that letter, if there is an uch a let- in order to | i | | ter in existence, produced? But the publi- i “!\ | cation in the Bullet was undoubtedly made, because here is a copy of it. You have heard the explanation of that letter, | gentlemen, given by to Mr. Spreckels by | | The general says: ‘T @id not In | do not intend by that letter to state s information was nd guestion. Mr. Spreck «ls suif, ‘No, kill this article’ Was that | Gome in malice? Was there any desire to | the facts contatiied in this article gratify revenge? Did not the facts ex-| tfues On the contrarv, * they not existed, would my every one of them to be jearned 4 have objected to our proaf | of them? If he could have introduced evi- s mot true, that ople at that hotel | 1y true. All that I mean | | that T personally did not = | and consequently have no edge of them.' That is | | purport and all there Is of t Jhe conception of General Wartle |‘the court will tnstruct you, ge | least we ask the court to i | that the letter itself does not | single particle of le eral Warfleld ever aues of these facts, and, furtherm | stated, there is not a particl | that General Warfleld ev | signed a letter of th FACTS FULLY ESTABLISHED Testimony of Witnesses Not Met by Any Contradictory Evidence. hich he read, of it of there, learned friend have objected to d have disproved it? He knew that He knew that | l being booted were true. e it hman of the Palace stand he could have d have thrown in e most disgusting rev- ve been heard by you wi Counsel has no right s matters that the d out. am inclined to think, Mr. u are going beyond the “Let me ask a question right here and reiterate upon my learned friend a ques- | tion of his own, which he seems to have | asked with considerable vehemence, the | degree of vehemence being no doubt in | the inverse ratio of his confidence in his | | position. Why, he says, did not the de- | | fendant call General Warfleld? And I ask | | the other side, why did not you call him? nd I think I ought to say t know them to be true be untrue. make this offer: I Permit us to tele- t him to take | | y does not sa E = A g 3 | I will gtve you the reasons why we did v nf imated is true | | not call him, gentlemen, and you can dict. | | learn from the learned counsel, either by 2 We are n ot golng to try | | | his silence or by his words if he repifes | to this argument, w you are not. offer im- ked bef comes here nking cause of his own ight ng a proper course? g of the court upon ce was to the effect a Ju imitted by counsel to any article that ift court ruled 4 promised to in- was not essential Does vour me. nents upon that T e made by the s st night? Does your he espe dwelt upon wh he said that the t has been such as to | 3 i out of the hotel, a £ malice of Mr. I erstand that perfectly; e be ore the jury as to the na- blication. sed p t propose to violate 2 the 10th " ore this ar- certain information ts affecting the ression of that e of the plaintift elf and his brother t is in evidence. And ease your Honor, vds of propriet w were authorized in- and aracte of that n the conduct of his counsel in this case. INSTRUCTIONS NOT VIOLATED Investigation Made in Advance ch Fully Justified Publication. “Another e re in this plece of evi- that T desire you to eckels learned of time after midday He reads it on the he way from Salinas to San He arrives in San Franclsco e of a week or more ai afternoon. That e, having employed, ning hours of daylight of October. ated business of his ning, 1 say, at his home, he read in the Evening ting to be a letter rfleld. He at once se question: ‘Have my in- 3 given from the start to my staff been violated during my absence? I istructed them to publish nothing th most scrupulous and on. Have they in this mistake? Has a wrong on von Schroeder? What ning of this apparept denial of ¢ General Warfleld, who, as r of that hotel, must have had some cognizance, direct or indirect, of the facts?” It was too late to send for Gen- eral Warfleld then. but the very next morning Mr. Spreckels sends for General Warfield, requests him to come to the e of The Call and there they have the rview which has been detailed before Mr. Spreckels says: ‘General, here s your letter; here is the article. Do I understand that by this letter you pro- pose to deny or do you intend to deny the accuracy and truthfulness of the state- ments of this article? ‘No, Mr. Spreck- els, 1 Wi carefully guerded language of my letter. I do pot say that this article is not true. 1 do not say that the statements in it -are untrue. On the contrary, I afirm to you that I believe every one of them to be srue. I merely state to you and all that I dark, us what he tification. | which your Honor | So I pass on, | 1 that Mr. Spreckels | r 4 o'clock In dis- ! to call your attention to the | | intend to Imply by this letter is that I personally did not see these things; mean- ing I personally did not sit up from § | o'clock until the gray dawn of the morn- | Ing to mee the Baron gambling in the club- lhrmsn_ 1 personally did not sit up from § at night until 4 o’clock In the morning in | one of the winerooms of the clubhouse | and see him drinking and getting drunk with women. I personally did not see him drive to some resort up here somewhere the valley with married women and | come back at 3 o'clock in the morning in | a maudlin, drunken condition; I person- | | ally did n e these places in San Rafael | here a certain woman made assigna- | tions for him with young girls and women | | by inviting them to dinr and so forth; I perscnally did not see him sitting in the maze or sitting upon the porch with | women on his lap and fondling them. But | all these things have come to me, and T/ believe them to be true, and I do not wish | to and do not Intend to retract them.’ That is what General Warfleld in lan- guage and in fact ence stated to Mr. Spreckels. Do ycu believe, gentlemen, after Fear- | ing the testimony of Mr. Spreck=ls given to you here, do you believé, after hearing metion which he has given to his staff from the start, do you belleve that, after he had suppressed the article on the | 10th of October, fifteen days previous; do you believe, after he bad sent for Gen- eral Warfleld at the very first opportu- | pity after reading this article, do you be- lieve, I ask you, that if General Warfield had at that interview said, ‘Mr. Spreckels, this is an unfortunate article, it is not | true. Baron von Schroeder, during the many years that I have conducted the Ho- | tel Rafael, has always behaved like a perfect gentleman., His conduct toward | the lady guests of the house has always been characterized by chivalric courtesy | and propriety. I have never heard of his | doing anything that could be censured or | made the subject of reproof.’ Do you be- | lieve, gentlemen, that John D. Spreckels 'd by proper infer- |’ would not at cnce have given orders in the very next issue of the paper to say, ‘ ‘By inadvertence we have done unwitting | injustice to a ‘worthy gentleman. We de- sire to say that the source of our infor- mation was incorrect and we make the amende honorable, which ry honest man should make to evéry other man | | whom he has unwittingly wronged'? You | know that would have been the course of | the paper. You know that would have | been the impulse of Mr, Spreckels,and you know that his authority there was su- | preme, | “Let me call your attention in the next place, gentlemen, to a very singular fact: | That article was published on the 2%th | of October, now more than a year ago. | The plaintiff here claims that it did him | a great injustice. Gentlemen, did the | plaintiff ever seek Mr. Spreckels personally | | or by his representative to have that in- | justice righted? If he had been, as I say, | | conscious of absolute innocence of all the | things with which he was charged in this article, do you believe he would not have | gone to Mr. Spreckels Inhisoffice and said, | “Mr. Spreckels,vou have done me an injus- | tice. 1 can satisfy vou that these things | | are not true. You have brought suffering | upon me and mine, and I appeal to you as | a generous, an honest and just man, to | right, as far as yvou can. the wrong that you have started unwittingly, I believe, | to do to me and mine’? Do you believe, gentlemen, that that would not have been the course of a man conscious of his own rectitude? And do you belleve that if | that appeal had been made to John D.| Spreckels, and it could have been substan- | tiated even in a slight degree, that the generosity and the innate kindness of his nature would not have embraced the op- portunity to right an apparent wrong which had been committed? Or, if you | say that Baron von Bchroeder shrank from golng personally to see Mr. Spreck- els for fear, if you please, that he might not be able to control the ardor of his temperament, or his indignation, why did he not send my learned friend there? Why, when he consulted him, did he not say, ‘Judge, go to Mr. Spreckels. I have been deeply wronged. I know that he has no cause of complaint against me. I have never hurt or eought to hurt a hatr |of his head. 1 have had no business dealings with him. Go to him and tell him that he has wronged me, and invite him to a complete investigation of my conduct. I am ready to satisfy him that this article 1s not true. Appeal to his sense of justice and of right to set me right before this community’? Gentle- any one deny that Mrs, Warfleld men, would not that have been the course of a man conscious of his own innocenca? But Baron von Schroeder, neither in per- son nor by friend, nor by attorney, nor by any one, ever sought any interview with Mr. Spreckels; cver sought the opportunity to prove the baselessness of the accusa- tions contained In this article; but, like a man conscious of the untenableness of his own position, preferred to go into a court of justice to demand a Quarter of a million damages, and hopes to escape the condemnation which his conduct de- served by excluding, through technical appeals and objectlons, the evidencewhich might be brought against him.” Mr. Maguire—Do I understand counsel to Intimate that the court prevented him from proving the trutk of this article i¢ he could? The Court—You will have full opportuni- ty to reply to Mr. Delmas, Judge Ma- aguire—Well, it seems to me that s improper argument. The Court—I do not understand that that is the intimation at all. Mr. Delmas—You are entirely welcome to make any objections you please, Judge Maguire, They do not disturb me and if they please you they are entirely wel- come. ORIGIN OF THE ALLEGED LIBEL General and Mrs, Warfleld In- terviewed by Call Rep- resentatives. “I will say, then, gentlemen, as I con- clude these general remarks, that we are then brought to the examination of the article itself, to its origin, its develop- ment and its final publication. What was the origi of the article? In this city of San Rafael, in the month of October and for some time previous thereto, was a young man who acted as the correspond- ent of the San Franzisco Call—Mr. Per- kins. Early in October Mr. Perkins firat made a statement at The Call office relat- ing to the conduct of the Baron at the hotel and the consequences that that con- duct brought about. And this, gentlemen, | was the statement then made orally, in October, by Mr. Perkins to Mr. Leake. And if you care to follow me, Judge Ma- guire, in this matter 1 will read from pages 62 and 63 and pages 64 and 65 and page 67 of the official record. Mr. Per- kins told to Mr. Leake the following story: Mre. Warfleld had informed him that the general would be obliged to give up the lease of the Hotel Rafael on account of Baron von Schroeder's profligate conduct; that for months the conduct of the Baron toward the lady guests of the hotel had been such that it had grown notorfous: that he had insulted women; that there were other women who were on such Intimate terms with him that he could not Insult them, but that his conduct with them bad been an insult to decent women at tke hotel: that his conduct had not been com- fined to the hotel, but that it had been carried on at roadside resorts with the guests of the kotel, and ¢n particular at a place called Pas- tori's, or Fairfax Villa; that he had taken guests of the hotel there and his” conduct there had been such that it had become noised about the town, and that these stories were reflecting serfously upon the hotel; that his carousals around the hotel with members of both sexes had been such that Mr. Warfleld had been com- pelled to make repeated protests to him, and that it that conduct did not cease that the Warflelds would be obliged to give up their lease; that she did mot belleve that that con- duct would cease, because she did not belleve the leopard would change its spots. “Now, that was the statement—I quote it verbatim from the reporter's officlal transcript in this case—made by Mr. Per- kins to Mr. Leake early in October and was the first intimation The Call office had of the conduct of the plaintiff in and about the hotel and in and about this city. The statement was made, you will recall, by Mrs. Warfieid to Mr. Perkins in the presence of General Warfield, in the back office of the Hotel Rafael, and General Warfleld by nis silence at least confirmed its truthfulness. Now, then, let me ask you at this point certain tions to be determined right here. | of the Hotel Rafael, in the presence | the lease, | and | public record and notoriety—the | up of this lease—we will be compelled or | we will be at least authorized as a pub- {lic journal to acquaint the public with | the facts.” | they pointed should be determined | point of fact, and it was seen whether | the Warflelds were compelled in reality | to give up their lease. | on the very next day. the 25th. these statements? No one denies it. There were present at that interview Mr. Per- kins, Mrs. Warfield and General Warfleld. | Mr. Perkins relates what Mrs. Warfield told him; the failure to call Mrs. War- fleld or General Warfleld to contradict him is an admission that he tells the truth, and, indeed, in (he argument made by the learned counsel, Mr. Perkins is one of the few witnesses, though I am not so certain of that, that has escaped the general wholesale denunciations of the learned gentleman. “We then start out, gentlemen, if you i pleasé, so far as the article is concerned, with the undisputed fact that Mrs. War- field, early in October, in the rear office f her husband, General Warfleld, spea ing to & man whom she knew to be the correspondent of a great metropolitan newspaper, deliberately made these state- ments as to the offensive course and con- duct of the owner of that hotel. That. gentlemen, is a fact undisputed~and in- disputable here. It is a second fact in that connection equally undisputed and | indisputable, that Mr. Perkins in the dis- charge of his duties as correspondent of | The Call immediately notified the man- ager of the paper of this important in formation affecting a well known place of public resort, affecting the character and conduct of a weil known individual. That is undisputed. What did the man- agement of the newspaper do? Did they seize with avidity upon this piece of in- formation coming from such a relfable source? No. Mr. Leake said to Mr. Per- kins, ‘Wait until we have a confirmation of these things; wait until we hear that there is substance enough in them to cui- minate in the threatened abandonment of and then if we find that the Warfields are indeed compelled to give up the lease of that hotel by this man’s con- duct, the story will have materialized it will have assumed a tangible shape, and then it becoming a matter of giving Is that disputed? Not at all. Bear in mind, then, kindly, gentlemen, these three facts that we meet at the very threshold of our investigation into the origin of this article: First, that Mrz. Warfield in the presence of her husband deliberately made these statements, re- cetving his assent by silence. Second, that Mr. Perkins in the discharge of his duties did communicate these statements to the manager of the paper, Mr. Leake: and, third, that Mr. Leake withheld the pubiication until the event toward which in Bearing in mind these three facts, gentlemen, and taking them along with us as the chainman takes his chain as he surveys a plece of ground, and carrying them along In our | future measurements, let us proceed. “On the 2ith of October of the same month, Mr. Perkins, in pursuance of the instructions which he had recefved from the office to Keep track of this matter and see it the lease was Indeed to be given up, telegraphed to Mr, Leake saying that | the release of tha lease was to be signed In other words, explaining that--I take my own way, If you please, beyond the limits of a mere closely worded telegram—Mr. Per- kins said in substance to Mr. Leake: ‘The event which you had instructed me to watch is about to take place. The ar- rangements have been made. The Baroa has consented to these people giving up their lease, and the formal documents and papers are to be executed on the morrow.’ What was Mr. Leake, as manageryof the paper, whose first duty to the public and to its patrons is to give the news of what is going on in the world, the news of those events which are of absolute public. or quasi-public nature, to do? Not con- tent with the statement of his corre- gpondent here, but pursuing the just spirit of those instructions which he had re- ceived three years ago from his employer, Mr. Spreckels, to publish nothing until after every avaflable and reasonable source of information had been ques- | place at that Interview with General War- | statement: i1 P idiiaa AUDITORS FILL COURTROOI'T AT SAN RAFAEL ON LAST DAY OF THE LIBEL SUIT THAT FAILED. — | \ | | son I will give you the facts and the ex- ‘[ planation of it. | GIVEN RELEASE { OF OBLIGATION | Early Information Confirmed by | Later Developments in the Case. “That is the fourth fact, gentlemen, in the birth of this article, or the fifth which T desire you to bear in mind. The con- ference in the office of the Hotel Rafael, the report of it given to Mr. Leake, the instructions gtven to Mr. Perkins, the telegram of Perkins, and, in the fifth place, the communication by telephone to General Warfield, to which T have just | alluded. Now. what took place? What did these malignant defamers of private character, these men who had a grudge and a malice to vent of their own, and the | principal of the paper, as we are told, too? | Mr. Leake, whose duties obviously do not permit him to act as interviewer and | gatherer of news, being at the head of the paper as {ts manager—Mr. Leake proceeds in person to the California Hotel to inter- view General Warfield and from his own lips to ascertain what the facts are about that transaction. What took place at that interview? We have such a complete au- thentic record, such a complete bulwark of proof upon that subject that the learned counsel has not and of course will not, because he has too much candor to have made, and the length of it affords a sufficlent warrant that he has done us the justice, since he would not submit this case without argument, at least to pre- sent fully and fairly in his opening all the arguments he had to present; and therefore I say that the events which took fleld as detailed by our witnesses have not been and will not be questioned for the simple fact that they cannot be. “And now what took place? You have, gentlemen, as authentic sources of in- | formation as to what took place at that interview, first, the testimony of Mr. | Leake; you have, second, the testimony | of Mr. Raymond, and you have, third, the | very notes, the very paper from which Mr, Raymond took down in writing the very words which General Warfleld uttered upon that occasion, and those notes are preserved and are brought into court and are offered to learned counsel for inspec- tion and to be put in evidence, and would | have been put In evidence if he had not objected to them. But the notes existed the identical pleces cf paper and the {d: tical writing made at the time by Mr. Raymond, corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Raymond and Mr. Leake, neither of whom have been or attempted to be contradicted in this case, You have heard the statement that Mrs. Warfield made In the office of the Hotel Rafael. What was the statement that General Warfleld made in the California Hotel on the evening of the 24th of October, 1899? ‘This is the i { | | General Warfield sald: The Baron's conduct had brought scandal on the hotel and had | driven many respectable people away. That formerly he had a good Sunday to Monday trade, but the Baron's conduct had caused that trade to fall away. That he had acted like a low, vile character. That there was & certatn prominent soclety woman of San Rafael whose relations to the Baron von Schroeder were lla- ble to become a public scandal at any time. That she was in the habit of inviting young | women to parties or dinners given to the Baron, and abetting him in debauching them. Poker games were conducted by the Baron. Certain fast women had made it so easy for the Baron that they had given him a swelled head, and he thought he could insult any woman with impunity. That his presence at the golf links had driven respectable peop! away. That a young woman who had come to the hotel a respectable girl, but susceptible to flattery, of which the Baron was a past master, had been ruined by the Baron. He had debauched her right there in the hotel | by name of the hotel, for the Baron took fio pains to cover up these acts, but he rather took pride In flaunting them. Guests had com- plained repeatediy of the Baron's conduct. He followed women through the ground of the — to your hotel, and if T know of stx, how many | more are there?" | | Mr. Maguire—Do you claim that that‘ statement of General Warfleld was made | to Leake before the article was pub-| lished? Mr. Delmas—To Mr. Leake. Mr. Maguire—The statement that Wal- ter Dean said particularly. It was made afterward. Mr. Delmas—Very well, it was made af- | terward. It is possible, but highly im-| probable, gentlemen, I am in error as to | this, for I copled this language | verbatim from the record, of which I have an officfal copy, at the time, that a cer- | tain lady wrote, asking if Baron von| Schroeder was at the hotel, and if so she | would not come there while he was pres- | ent. 1 “Now, that Is the statement of General | ‘Warfleld, confessedly the whole of it, as I infer from the learned counsel’s remark, | with the single exception of that relating to Mr. Dean, which he disputes, and In | which I do not agree with him, but the | balance of it at least is not disputed by | him, as the statement made by General Warfleld on the night before the publica- | tion of the article when Mr. Leake and | Mr. Raymond had gone there to ascertain | the truth. 'Now, gentlemen, to the ques- tion of malice I am addressing myself. | Will you please place yourselves now as the editor or manager of a great paper. The manager, if you please, for Mr. Spreckels was away. Will you place you: selves in the shoes of Mr. Leake and ask yourselves as honest men, candld, dispas- | sionate, having no motives of animosity | against any one, desiring to injure no one, | but knowing that you were receiving a salary from the owner of the paper who was away, that you were charged with the conduct of a great paper, and with the duty of getting the news—I ask you if, with the information that Mr. Leake had that night, when he left General War- fleld’s office, whether you would not con- sider it monstrous to have any one charge | you with malice in the publication of the | article that was published? What did Mr. Leake have? He had the statement | of Mrs. Warfleld, as communicated to him early in October by the correspondent of the paper here. He had knowledge of the transaction at the Palace Hotel which was ‘killed’ by Mr. Spreckels on the 10th of October, but still Mr. Leake had knowl- edge of it. He had the knowledge impart- ed to him as to the character of the | Baron's conduct by General Warfield in | this interview which I have given you, | an interview which General Warfield knew would be published, for he had sent for the manager of the paper to come | there in person, he had seen with his own | eyes a reporter of that paper, pencil and | paper in hand, taking down his very words. He was no child, he was no fool, he was no obscure person. He had been a general In our militia. He was a man of vears and of experjence. He had been a manager of hotels, one in San Francis- co and one here, for years. He was still manager of the California Hotel. Woula you have belleved, gentlemen, that facts | coming to you from such a source, cor-| roborated by the statement of the wife | made earlier in the month, corroborated the Information which you had re-| ceived as to the escapade in the Palace Hotel—would you have believed that you | were publishing a falsehood when you took such an article based upon such !n-} formation as this was? I cannot con- cetve it, gentlemen, for to imagine that | you could so believe would be to imagine |k m you lost either to common intelligence | or to common justice, and that justice, gentlemen, which you would have admin- | istered to you had you been acting under | these circumstances. and were you called | upon to pay a quarter of a million dollars to answer for your acts, that justice which you would have your fellow-man | extend to you, you must in justice extena | to him. “Now, has General Warfleld, has Mrs. Warfleld, his wife, ever contradicted these statements? Learned counsel says thesé statements reflecting upon the Baron are untrue. Has he called Mrs. Warfleld to prove them untrue? Has he called Gen- eral Warfield to prove them untrue? They were at the hotel, but General Warfield 1s said to have written a letter—is said to have written a letter—I emphasize the word, gentlemen, because there is no proof, and If your Honor will permit we could have proved what? | rear office of the Hotel Rafael. | could have proved what? dQecent, shall ask an instruction to that effect. ‘There is no proof, not a particle of evi- dence that General Warfleld ever wrote any letter to Baron von Schroeder. There is no proof that he sver wrote the letter what are his reasons for not calling him. General Warfleld Could have proved the interview that took place be- tween his wife and Mr. Perkins in the That was uncontradictedly General Warflel. Could ha proved the interview which took place be- tween Mr. Leake, Mr. Raymond and him self at the California Hotel on the night of October 24. That was proved by M Leake. It was proved by Mr. Raymo: It was proved by the notes of that inter. view still in Raymond’'s possession. Th was no necessity of calling General Wa field to prove a fact already es by two witnesses and by documentary idence, especially a fact which no one questioned. But, gentlemen, why did not they call him? “General Warfleld had been there already proved and proved by Mr. Perkins. in that hotel during all the time that Baron von Schroeder was there, during the con- tinuance of his Schroeder’s conduct and reputation in that lease. If Baron von hotel had been that of a well behaved honorable, courteous, respect gentleman to ladies, Gemeral Warfleld would have known what that standing and that reputation was. Mrs. Warfleld would have known what that stand: and that reputation was. And bear i mind, gentlemen, this is a suit to recover damages for injury to reputation and to that alone, and while I am upon this sub- ject, gentlemen, permit me to extend those remarks a little. Why, out of the broad circle of acquaintanees which Baron von Schroeder must of necessity have mado in this State by virtue of his position, by virtue of his wealth, by virtus of the standing and position of the family Into which he married, by virtus of the gay associates among whom he mingled, how Oontinued on Page Twenty-Three, ADVERTISEMENTS. POINTS OFLXCELLENCE. A Few Reasons Which Are Rapidly Making & New Catarrh Cure Famous. Stuart’s Catarrh Tablets, the new Ca~ tarrh cure, has the following advantages over other catarrh remedies: First: These tablets contain no cocaine, morphine or any other injurious drug and are as safe and beneficial for children as for adults; this is an Important pc when it is recalled that many catarrh remedies do contain these very objectionable ingre- dients. Next: Being In tablet form this remedy does not deteriorate with age, or an ex- posure to the air as liquid preparations variably do. Next: The tablet form not only pre- serves the medicinal properties but it is so far more convenient to carry and to use at any time that it Is only a question ¥ > ! of time when the tablet will entirely su persede liquid medicines, as It has a done in_the medical department of United States army, Next: No secret is made of the compo- sition of Stuart's Catarrh Tablets; they contain the active principle of Eucalyptus bark, red gum, blood root and Hydrast all harmless antiseptics which, how * are death to catarrhal germs wherever found, because they eliminate them from the blood. Next: You ean not cure catarrh by lo- cal applications to the ngse and throat, because these are simply local symptoms and such treatment can not possibly reach the real seat of catarrhal disease, which is the blood; for this reason, inhalers douches, sprays and powders never really cure catarrh, but simply give temporary relief whicy a dose of plain salt and water will do just as well. Catarrh must be driven out of the sys- tem, out of the blood, by an internal rem- edy because an Internal remedy is the only kind which can be assimilated into the ad Stuart’s Catarrh Tablets do this better than the old form of treatment because they contain every safe specific known to lern science in the antiseptic treatment of the disease. Next: The use of Inhalers and spraying apparatuses, besides being ineffective and disappointing, is expensive, while a com- ?lete treatment of Stuart’'s Catarrh Tab- Sia can be had at any drug store in the United States and Canada for i cents, REWARD. Notice is hereby given that & re- . ward of $500 will be pald for in= formation leading to the arrest and conviction of parties who ma- liciously or otherwise tamper with the poles, transformers, cables, condults, lamps, meters. fuses or othes property of the Independent Elee~ tric Light and Power Compang.