persons, far from the scene of the incident, should be matched against the report of an admiral of the navy. As a result the Associated Press sent out a "kill," but with such a start the story could not be caught.
The partizan press leaped forward instantly in eager acceptance of the truth of the anonymous cable, and even friendly papers, unwilling to lose a "good story," joined in the hue and cry. The Secretary of the Navy was besieged by correspondents demanding the original cable from Admiral Gleaves, and when he refused for the very same reasons that had prevented publication in the beginning, a great shout arose that the whole occurrence had been nothing more than a "Fourth of July hoax." Then, and only then, did every solemn editorial ass discover that the statement was "lurid" and "bombastic."
A reporter of The Tribune called at my office the following afternoon on some personal matter, and while we were discussing it several other correspondents came into the room. The submarine controversy came up, and I told them, naturally enough, that I had no comments to make whatsoever, as any statement must properly come from the Secretary of the Navy. In the course of what I conceived to be personal conversation I tried to explain the point of view of the admirals, citing the importance of the navy code, the value to the enemy of the information as to longitude and latitude, and remarked also that a navy cable would have small news value, anyway, inasmuch as its technical wording made it cryptic to civilians.
One of the men then sneered something about "elaboration," and I answered that the veriest fool could see that the release did not purport to be the Gleaves cable, but was openly and frankly a statement of the Secretary of the Navy based upon the facts contained in the cable. I should have been conscious of the possibility of distortion, but aside from the fact that I did not consider it an inter-
33
