paper. Some one has written to ask if "The Jungle" is a true book. The editor replies, ex cathedra, that President Roosevelt made an investigation of the charges of "The Jungle," and thoroughly disproved them all!
And again, here is my friend Edwin E. Slosson, literary editor of the "Independent," a man who has sense enough to know better than he does. He reviews "The Profits of Religion" in this brief fashion:
The author of "The Jungle" has taken to muck-raking the
churches—with similar success at unearthing malodorous features and
similar failure to portray a truthful picture.
I write to Slosson, just as I wrote to the "New York Evening
Post," to ask what investigation he has made, and what
evidence he can produce to back up his charge that "The
Jungle" is not a "truthful picture"; and there comes the surprising
reply that it had never occurred to Slosson that I
myself meant "The Jungle" for a truthful picture. I had not
portrayed the marvelous business efficiency of the Stockyards,
their wonderful economies, etc.; and no picture that failed
to do that could claim to be truthful! That explanation apparently
satisfied my friend Slosson, but it did not satisfy the
readers of the "Independent"—for the reason that Slosson
did not give them an opportunity to read it! He did not
publish or mention my protest, and he left his readers to
assume, as they naturally would, that the "Independent" considered
that I had exaggerated the misery of the Stockyards
workers.
