New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-08-14
The Tribune JuStifieS in
GreenhufS Libel Suit
Answer Filed in Court Declares Every Charge Against
The Big Store in Samuel Hopkins Adams
Articles To Be True

Germ, so that by this publication q
great public service was rendered.
This portion of the answer tells now
there had grown up in New YORK ana
elsewhere in the country "a class OF
dealers and so-called manufacturers
and merchants who were habitualiy
seeking TO deceive, mislead and impose
upon the public" by their false, de-
ceptive and fraudulent methods OF ad-
vertsing and methods of sale, and now
the evils resulting therefrom became
so great as 10 demand public exposure
that complaints regarding these abuses
of advertising and business methods
had come to The Tribune from victim.
lied customers, from reputable ana
fair-dealing manufacturers and mer.,
chants and from the public generally.
So The Tribune undertook an IN
vestigation of the matter, organized It's
Bureau of Investigation and prepare
tions and publication Of a series OF ar
ticles showing the facts revealed By
the Investigations. Samuel Hopkins
Adams was the expert who wrote the
principal articles.
"The conduct of said Investigations
and the publication of such series oil
articles" the answer states, had rem
dered a great pubic service PRIOR 70
February 4. 1916, in the exposure oil
such deceptive and misleading adver'
Using and other business methods
abuses and practices: in the prevention
of the injurious effects thereof, in the
protection of buyers of such merchan-
disc and of customers who had been
yictimized in the shops of said dealers
and so-called manufacturers and pro
prietors; in the protection OF manu-
facturers and merchants of high repute
and standing and of the public gener
ally and in bringing about the apah
Comment, from time TO time, by many
of such individuals and concerns, OF
such bad and dangerous business meth
DDS and practices" =,
The answer proceeds to set forth
that the investigations conducted D!
The Tribune revealed that "Greenhuts,
or "The Big Store had been one OF
the large establishments misleading
and imposing upon the public by IT'S
evil methods OF advertising and sale
and gives the details at great length.
II alleges that the present corpora
ton has continued TO follow the same
methods as its corporate predecessor
in the same store, whose bad prac
tees had already been exposed by The
Tribune, and that its Bureau of In
vestigations had found some OF tht
most glazing examples of this in con
nection with the advertisements anc
the conduct of the A. d. Matthews sale
of goods.
Facts Get Out.
The facts 70 show the truth Of every
charge made against Greenhut's in The
Tribune publications are set forth II
detail. The answar states that wha'
is known as the Honest AdvertisinG
Law" against misleading and deceptive
advertising and announcements. was
not in force when The Tribune article
about Greenhut's was published IN the
snrinr of 1915, but was in effect a.
the time that the plaintiff conducted
the Matthews sale in January, 1916;
that The Tribune's investigation dis
closed the fact TO be that said so
called sale at said Greenhut's store
was a fake and an imposition upon th'
public. and that in the course thereof
the plaintiff sought 20 and in fact diC
mislead and deceive the public by "
means and in the respects hereinaboy'
set forth and many others; that TIM
Honest Advertising Law was INTENDED
10 and was enacted in order that II!
provisions might reach and apply t
and result in the punishment of those
who were knowingly responsible fol
the practice of such deceit; that th'
presence in the statute of the wore
knowingly" was claimed by some e
present an obstacle to the successfu
prosecution of such a concern a
Greenhut's because of the dlihcult!
of establishing the fact that particular
individuals had actual knowledge o
the deceptive or misleading methods
and practices used and followed in thu
conduct of the business; that If tn
responsible individuals of Greenhut'
saw such hope in the presence of the
word knowingly" in the statute "ant
were confident that guilty knowledge
could not be proved against them
and If such confidence were wei
founded said statute had failed 70
accomplish one of the said chief anC
vital purposes of its enactment; the
continuation of such methods anC
practices on the part of the plaintif
in the face of said law, was Al
actual defiance thereof; and that
under the circumstances set forth
in the answer. "the fact was that the
plaintiff had conducted said Matthews
sale in the face Of said statute, in
violation of the intents and purposes
of the enactment thereof and in actual
defiance of the provisions thereof"
It is the expectation of Sackett
Chapman & Stevens, counsel for The
Tribune, that the extraordinary evil
dence in their possession in justiiica-
ton Of Samuel Hopkins Adams S
charges against Greenhut's will attract
widespread attention to this highly
important litigation when introduced
in court upon the trial. If there IS
unnecessary delay in bringing on the
trial or evasion of a judicial determl-
nation of the case upon its merits. il
will not be the defendant which has
resorted to dilatory tactics.