New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-09-02

conian finds a defender in the Portland
Ad Club, whose Better Business Bureau
(the clubs chief claim TO Distinction
the paper has houted. II would ap-
pear that The Oregonian quite stupid
ly) assumed that the Ad Club inspired
my criticisms. instead of it, own evi!
advertising columns. What pressure
it brought TO bear | know not. But
The Orcgonisn is locally powerful and
feared. When it pointed its sun at the
Portland Ad Club that organization
cmulated the cautious rather than IN
spring procedure Of Davy Crockett
coon; it came down. II wrote letter
TO me, furnishing copy TO The ore
eonian for publication. in which 1t
seeks to oxculpatc that paper in re-
spect 70 certain advertising offences on
the ground that these were "the acts
or misunderstood attitude of one repre-
sentative of this paper But that "one
representative" happened to be the ad-
Z
policy of a newspaper is not to be in
terpreted by the official and unrepudi-
ated acts and statements of its adver-
Using manager, how is it to be csti-
mated?
The AID Club goes on to claim that
credit is due The Oregonina for edi-
torial support Of the Better Business
campo ign. Such credit was specifically
given in my article. II states that other
local newspapers are equally guilty,
and by implication calls me to account
for not bringing out this fact. did so
bring it out in my article, though the
AID Club seems, inexplicably, to have
overlooked this. But these are details.
The crux of the matter lies in the fol-
lowing paragraph of the letter, which
constitutes, if true. sufficient refuta-
ton Of the most serious of my charges,
and a complete generation of the
newspaper:
"The Oregonsn several years ago
this is the Official statement of the
Portland Ad Club discontinued run
ming ads that fall under the classified
ton of medical quackery, healers, per
sonsl. etc"
Here. at last, is something definite to
90 on. Ny criticisms were based upon
the advertisements running in The Ore
gonian last spring. when | was in Port
land. Certainly that is not several
years ago" At that time The Ore
gonian was running Peruna. What
does the Portland Ad Club think OF
Pcruna? Does this notorious concoc-
tion fall under the classification Of
medical quackery' or does il not? The
Oregonian was boosting the trade OF
Deafness Specialist Sproule. a mail
order curer OF various ailments. Is
tie Portland AID Club, after reading
these advertisements. prepared TO as
sort that Sproule is not quack? Bon
Op.o decorateS the columns Of The Orc.
Conian. The Portland Journal refused
this exploitation on the ground that it
was absurd and potentially harmful.
VIII the Portland Ad Club take issue
With The Journal on this point? Nux-
ated Iron, beloved of pugiists, ball
players, renegade physicians and other
monial-mongers, patronizes The
Oreconian, likewise two epilepsy cures.
Are these quackery, or. in the belief Of
the Portland AID Club, legitimate adj
vertising?
"Healers" the Portland Ad Club
specifies as being excluded By The
Oregonian. When | was in Portland
The Oregonian was advertising "mag-
netic healer" This suggests an old
form of riddle referable to the Port
land Ad Club: When is a healer not
a healer? Answer: When he's mag
netic and advertises in The Oregonian.
] found, also, the lure Of divine
healer in The Oregonian. Did the
word "healer" slip in by mistake? And,
even so, what OF the divine" claim
Few, indeed, are the newspapers, Of
standing that will accept money for
publishing this sort OF blasphemous rot.
1t would be easy TO 60 on. TO point out
other quack explorations and the lures
Of mediums, pslmists and the like. But
think that enough has been stated 10
indicate the salient and underlying
feature Of the Portland Ad Clubs off.
cial communication, viz:
That it was composed by some per-
son or persons who had apparently
read neither my article, which it criti-
cises, nor the advertising columns of
The Oregonian, which it defends.
Mild, indeed, in comparison with The
Oregonian's frenzy is the editorial COM
ment Of The Portland News, which err
roneously interprets my article as Civ
ing it IAN almost although not quite
clean bill OF health" For its adver-
tisements of a Chinese medical COM
pany are blatant fakes and its allega-
tion that the Chinese doctor who pre-
sumably is the head of the company
has license and many testimonials is
a wholly insufficient defence. Comment
ing upon the article, the editor of The
News says:
81 do not know what Adams means
by other Objectionable exploitations.'
He may have thrown them in for good