The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1913-11-22


statement today in which he an
swered an attack made or him editor
iallv by the New York Times. which
designated him a reckless falsifier
because of a statement in an address
before the meeting of the league re
Gently at Toronto. in which he said
that the public often does not know
who is in real control OF the newspa-
pers.
The following editorial appeared in
the New York Times on the morning
OF Nov. 10
NO MORE OF THIS.
1T becomes our duty TO invoke pub
lie Censure upon WILLIAM Dl DlEG /
FOULkE. President OF the National
Municipal League for peculiarly
odious offense Of which he was guilty
in his address at the meeting OF that
organization in Toronto on Monday
last. Mr.. FOULKE was discussing the
influence of the press upon public
opinion. After some observations up
on the loss OF influence suffered
by the newspapers. matter as to
which he is entitled TO his opinion.
however little value il may have. Mr..
FOULKE declared that the cause OF
this was the diminished public conf
dence in the sincerity and impartial
ity OF the press. He continued:
This is not confined to the mere
party organ, nor to the so-Called vel
low press" In quite a different class
OF newspapers there is a feature which
inspires mistrust. The public does not
know who is really in control. A large
amount OF capital Is required for our
great metropolitan papers. and the
men who own them are usually con
nected with other large interests.
They are often large stockholders.
and perhaps. directors or railroads.
banks and vast industrial con
Germs which are seriously affected by
many public movements.
Plain words are best in this mat
ter. and we must therefore describe
Mr.. FOULKE as a reckless falsifier.
A falSifier because what he said is al
together untrue, reckless because the
facts as to the ownership of the great
metropolitan papers and all others are
| a matter of record. and he appears 10
have made no effort to ascertain the
/ truth
The ownership OF newspapers is no
! longer open to conjecture. A Federal
| statute demands OF them. under pain
i of exclusion from the privileges OF the
mails. that they publish twice annual
! " the names OF all persons owning as
much as ! per cent Of their capital
| stock. The publications required have
! been made during the last year by all
! the newspapers, as Mr.. FOULkE very
/ we'll knows. They are made on oath
! II Mr. FOULKE will in any individual
case charge that the real ownership
was concealed, and that the statements
ymade are perjuries, we have no doubt
that he will be accommodated with an
opportunity to prove his statement in
a court OF law.
The press of the country has long
enough submitted TO this ancient cal
umny. It has made no particular pro-
test because the authors of these false
hoods were for the most part unworthy
of attention. Mr.. Foulke is person OF
some public note. and ii Is necessary
TO remind him that such gross mis-
Representations as he permitted him
selft to make at Toronto can no longer
be tolerated. The time has gone by
for that Now that the newspapers
have in good faith complied with the
statute requiring publicity, the charge
that they are owned or controlled, and
that sucn ownership or control unduly
Influenced by the large interests Is
one that no man can make without
bringing upon himself the reproach OF
slander and falsehood.
I'VE have felt that the rider 10 the
postoffice appropriation bill, which
embodies the publicity requirement is
incomplete 1t was intended TO sub
stitute knowledge for conjecture in
respect to newspaper ownership. Log
ically. a penalty should have been
| -H1 mill fr
conjecture when knowledge is before
them. We would suggest that the
statute be amended to provide that
when any man makes such false state
ments about newspapers as those made
by William Dudley Foulke. he be com
PEELED publicly to eat four copies oi
the Congressional Record containing
Jonathan Bourne's speech In support
os the appropriation bill rider"
Foulke Replies.
A representative of the Palladium
called upon Mr.. Foulke at his resi-
., dence this morning and asked him foI
an expression of opinion on this edi
torial He replied:
Il am more than willing to become
the object of any 'ppublic censure
which can be invoked by such effer
vescence as this. When no newspaper
was mentioned in my remarks / did
not suppose that any would spring VI
and vince quite so openly in the pres
ence OF the public"
What answer will you make"
The article itself must be its OWE
refutation. The editor talks of SANDER
gross Misrepresentation etc. and calls
me a reckless falsifier Let US see.
say a large amount of capital is re
Quired for our great metropolitan pa
pers and the men who own them art
usually connected with other large in
terests' Isn't that true? ! add They
are often large stockholders and per
haps directors OF railroads, banks and
vast industrial concerns which are Sc
riously affected by many public move
ments.' Will the Times deny it? say
The public does not know who is real
ly in control
Control Not Ascertained.
The Times answers that the paper
: are required 10 publish semi-annuaill
; the names of those who own as mucs