The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1911-03-31


tice how glibly the big figures are
written. This, of course, was figured |
out on a full membership, but the
membership was assumed and all the |
arguments and promises and persua-
sions were urged as if the member |
ship was an assured fact. The women |
were not allowed to consider the re- |
suit of failure to complete the mem
bership. One timid creature ven
tured to ask what the result of this |
contingency would be, but Lewis as
sured her in at least two published
statements that it would make no diff
ference to the members, as each one
was provided for, and that each mem
Der, whether the number was large or
small, would receive a cash semi-an-
nual dividend for life out of the en-
dowment fund in addition to the edu-
cational and other benefits. The an
endowments was represented to be
$3,8OO,OOO
With all this in mind, now let us
turn to the statement just made by
Mr.. Lewis. The women sent him all
told for memberships $1,785,154. One
half of this went clean and without
reductions of any kind into the hands
of the publishers. All the papers
published by Lewis at the time of the
organization of the league and which
i 20 he - 1;chi
company in the world, paying 100
per cent dividend the first year, are
now to be discontinued, because, as
Lewis says, he cannot compete with
other publishers who support no
league or other schemes. The other
half, or 1897, $40, is credited to the
league; but unfortunately, it is not
there now. All the cost of organic
ing the league has come out of this
half, and instead of having twenty
six millions in cash as nest egg and
two millions of stock paying 100 per
cent dividend for life, the expenditure
of the league has virtually been $342,
064, more than its income, according
to the Lewis statement. In addition
to this, Lewis has recently promised
the members a debenture OF $40 in
lieu of the stocks that were promised
as an endowment and dividends that
did not materialize This would add
$1,186260 to the other indebtedness Of
the league, or a total of 81, 528, 1924
The women can easily learn how the
promised nest egg got away from
them. Every letter written to then
cost themselves, according to Lewis
}. 20 cents; every subscription sent II
! cost them FIVE cents for bookkeeping
every new member to the ranks cos
= the old members from six to eight dol
t lars. Lewis now admits in thi
t statement that the league was organ
t lied as a subscription scheme for hi
e publications, though he sued the Ru
o raj New Yorker last June for saying
o so. 1t was a Enthusiastically Lew
Il is scheme. The papers were to hav
/ one-half the returns, and the subscrip
r ton agents, Qeague members) tn
o other half. The first half went d
/ rectly to the papers. The agents pal
y all the expenses out of the other hal
N even the postage stamps and the re
1t plies to their own lettrs, as we'll a
al the expense of alluring new member
a Most publishers are glad to get sui
N scription agents to work for the
ip papers and pay their own expense
10 They pay the agent besides. Lew
Sc simply lured the women into a schen
Sc by which they paid the expenses OF
{. Of their commission of SO per GER
D. and as a result, they are short near
I'd half million In the beginning v
told these women that no publish
rs could do the things that Lewis pror
d ised, even If he wanted to do so, al
in from Lewis previous record we HI
by no reason to accuse him of sincere
,r tentions. Now he admits that il ca
MS not be done. but proposes new pla
'ut worse than the old one. He propc
10, es to raise the membership TO $lI
MS but says it costs $40 per year for t
At expense of a membership. The mel
lit bership is for life, and unless the q
erage life of membership is limit
10 FIVE years every year th9t me-
III Der lives in excess of this will put
os' league $40 in debt on his own reeko
vas ing. But against that we have
zen present record of the membersl
ald which has paid in nearly $50 each a
the vet leaves the league short about h
st million, 1t is characteristic of lie
nat is to compare his schemes to thir
my entirely different and prove his &C
be tention from the comparison. He n
the compares his league scheme with
&c | r., Ir ;A....a.,rs 81,