It so happened that this storekeeper had a shoe-sale scheduled for the following week. He called up the business manager of the newspaper on the 'phone. After five minutes of conversation the editorial went to the waste-basket.
And if the advertisers censor the general ideas, needless to
say they censor news about themselves. Henry Siegel owned
a department-store in New York; his wife divorced him, and
nothing about it appeared in the New York papers—that is,
not until after the department-store failed! Our great
metropolitan dailies are, as you know, strong protectors of the
sanctity of the home; you saw how they treated Upton Sinclair,
when he got tied up in the divorce-courts; you saw how they
treated Gorky and Herron. But how about the late C. W.
Post, of "Postum" fame, when he decided to divorce his wife
and marry his stenographer? Hardly a line in the newspapers
throughout the country!
I have told how the Philadelphia newspapers suppressed the suicide of one of the Gimbel brothers. This same firm has a store in Milwaukee, and I have before me a letter from the District Attorney of Milwaukee County, setting forth what happened when the vice-president of this firm was indicted for bribing an alderman:
Representatives of Gimbel Brothers requested, as I am credibly
informed, the newspapers in which their commercial advertisements
appeared to suppress the facts connected with the proceedings of
Mr. Hamburger's trial. With two exceptions, so insignificant as to
justify their being entirely ignored, the English press did so. The five
daily English newspapers published no account whatever of the trial,
which occupied about one week and disclosed sensational matter which
would have undoubtedly been published broadcast in an ordinary case.
Some of these papers printed a very brief notice at the time the case
was called, stating this fact, but not all of them did even this
much. . . . It was shown that all the books of account of the Gimbel
Brothers, together with their correspondence and legal documents
pertaining to the transaction in connection with which the bribery was
alleged were burned under the direction of the defendant immediately
after it was brought to his attention that the grand jury which indicted
him was in session and about to investigate this case. This destruction
of the books and documents occurred within the period of the statute
of limitation, and less than three years after some of the entries had
been made in them. The only explanation for this singular proceeding
given by defendant or his business associates was that they lacked
room in their vault and found it necessary to do away with papers,
books and documents which they felt they could dispense with. I
mention this particular line of evidence because I am satisfied that if
such a showing had been made in an ordinary case of bribery the facts
