The point about the Associated Press upon which it lays greatest stress, and which it never fails to bring forward in defending itself, is that it is a "mutual" corporation; it is owned and controlled by the many hundreds of newspapers which use its services. In La Follette's magazine during the year 1909 there appeared a series of articles on the Associated Press by William Kittle. Mr. Kittle showed, taking the figures of the year 1909, that the seven hundred newspapers which then used the service had less than one-seventh of the voting control of the organization. The rest of the votes were cast on bonds which had been sold to certain of the members. These bonds represented a voting-strength of four thousand, eight hundred and ninety as against seven hundred and seventy-five votes of the member newspapers. The total of fifty-six hundred and sixty-five votes elected the board of directors, and this board, having power to issue new bonds at any time, could keep its control absolute. Could anyone imagine a smoother scheme for holding a corporation in bondage? And then fancy Melville E. Stone coming before the public and making this statement concerning his organization:
It is purely mutual in its character, and in this respect is unique.
All of the other news-supplying agencies of the world are proprietary
concerns. It issues no stock, makes no profit, and declares no dividend.
It does not sell news to any one. It is a clearing-house for the inter-*change
of news among its members only.
I wrote to Mr. Stone, explaining that I was discussing his
organization in my book, and wished to be scrupulously fair
in every statement I made; would Mr. Stone tell me the present
status of these bonds and their votes? Mr. Stone delayed for
some time to answer, and when he did so, explained the delay:
First, because I have been taking a vacation, and have had no
leisure to think of you, and second, because in the slight reading I
have given to your publications, I was led to believe that any failure
to acquaint yourself with the facts of a matter would in no wise
embarrass you in presenting your case.
My answer was that, curiously enough, this was precisely
the impression I had formed of Mr. Stone's organization; the
only difference being that whereas he admitted having given
only a slight reading to my publications, I had had intimate
first-hand experience with his organization over a period of
fifteen or twenty years.
