Marietta daily leader. (Marietta, Ohio) 1895-1906, 1899-03-31
Henry Apthorp's Letter.
Cleveland, o., March Is. '99.

be unjust to anyone, therefore l re-
spectfully request you to correct an
error into which the Democratic
Standard has been innocently led in
some of its recent issues concerning
the Standard Oil company's advertis-
ing.
This company has recently enlarged
the scope of its advertising and has
1besh hbklf&SPbtracts with the lead
ing Nugwspap8s'of the state to publish
advertisements of its various CONNER
cial products, and statements of the
character of its business This action
would have attracted mo public com
ment and evoked no criticism had not
the company been involved in litiga-
tion.
Attorney General Monnett, who is a
party to this litigation. became anger
ed because several editors saw fit to
criticise his official actions and he
made the charge that the Standard Oil
company was subsidizing the press, 'or
as he expressed it, buying up editousd
He has no proof of his assertion beyond
assumption, based Upon the fact that
the Standard company was a patron of
the newspapers, therefore it would
seem he felt that, in order to stbstAhi3i
tlate his. charge, it was .-pecessh hrymto
manufacture such evidencA
He had in his possession a genuine
copy of the c0Bt Act made by, the Jen-
nings Agency having this advertising
in charge,bu this contract was in such
form that it would not support his
claim, Therefore a garbledr version of
this contract was given out to the
newspapers from his office at .the cap
itol
The genuine contract provides > for
the printing in newspapers of such
reading notices acceptable to the pub
Usher" as are furnished by the adver-
tiser. The mutiIated contract omitted
the words acceptable to the publisher
thus, as he charges, involving the sur
render, sale or silence of editorial
opinions These omitted words con-
constitute the essential point at issue
in his charge of influencing the press
According to his mutilated copy
newspapers making the contract, would
be bound to publish such reading no.
tices as are furnished by the adver-
tiser whether they agreed with the ed
itorial opinion or not; but according
to the genuine contract, they agree to
publish only such notices as met with
their approval. The real contract left
the editors free; the counterfeit con-
tract bound them.
The Jennings Agency, which pro-
vides for space and lines, left the
newspapers free to decline the pubH-
cation of any matter they did not ap-
prove, the false contract furnished by
Monnett to the newspapers, held them
bound to publish anything furnished
by the advertiser,
The Democratic STANDARD, in cons
mon with other newspapers, printed
the garbled version. Of the contract,
which was sent out from the attorney
generals Office, and made comments
thereon. A few days later the Stand
ard published the following indorse-
ment from Mr.. Monnett:
The Standard Publishing Co., Ashta-
bula, o.
Gentlemen-My admiration for an
incorruptible newspaper prompts me
to thank you for the stand you have
taken against the subsdizng of the
press, as evinced in the article in your
issue of the STANDARD" of the 7th
inst. | am sure that the great mass
OF people cannot but help appreciate
the position you take in behalf of an
honest press, and | believe that in the
long run it will not fail to bring you
supporters and friends. Hoping that
this may prove true and trusting that
you Will continue the campaign in be-
half of right and the people, am,
Very truly yours,
F. S. MONNETI,
Attorney General.
In his letter to you he speaks of IAN
honest press" and compliments your
integrity in publishing his counterfeit
evidence.
With the above explanation and the
difference between the two contracts,
the false and the true, leave you to
measure the value of his praise and to
estimate the sincerity of his purpose.
do not hold the same opinion of
the newspapers that is, avowed by Mr..
Monnett, for 1 DO mi believe that all
the reputed wealth OF the Standard
Oil company could control or infuehtal
the editorial opinions of the Ohio
newspapers. Holding this belief i cer,,
talnly would not make the effort, and
in no instance have l done so, nor was
any such action ever askeY or suggest
ed by the Standard Oil Co. ..,l
Having this opinion of the newspap-
ers, and believing they are always
ready to expose and condemn double
dealing and trickery, submit this ex-
PLANTATION of a matter which has been
the subject of recent publication and
discussion. l enclose a copy of the
genuine contract so that you may see
and compare il, with the garbled vars