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

myself, ana undertook 10 nlTe MIN 10
make an attack on this newspaper as
an institution and me as "hired
slanderer." With equal good sense
the Los Angeles daily that 1t would be
very difficult matter to answer the
criticism and that The Los Angeles
Times could i'll afford to carry "adver-
Using that robs it's readers To which
The Times responded that it had no
intention of defending itself; what II
desired was to besmirch The Tribune.
And on what ground?
THE particular things We want 20
secure concerning The Tribune and it's
methods is a clear-cut. truthful and
mercilcss exposure OF crooked and fake
methods in its advertising department
and also the bald facts about it's one
million dollar libel suit"
righteousness could hardly go
further! Impossible for The Times
to conceive that The Tribune or any
other paper could be conducted without
CROOKED and fake methods in its ad-
vertising department" As for the
million-dollar libel suit, the "bald
facts have been presented in The
Tribune, and The Times is welcome
to copy upon request
Here, then, is the case of The Los
Angeles Times to date: | charged
against it the publication of "phony
readers" at 30 per cent premium, in
defiance of the Federal law; the
advertisements of fake abortionists,
gonorrhna quacks, astrologists, "psy-
chics" and swindling stock offers,
and the fact that it prostituted
its news columns TO the pur-
poses of wild cat mining promoter,
in one Of Ichose companies the man
aging editor of The Times Uds n
director. And the best that the OBJ
ject of this foul attack" (it certainly
is foul unless it is true) can do is to
offer money for an exposure of crooked
advertising methods on the part of The
Tribune. Truly pitiable showing,
II The Times secures such article
The Tribune will cheerfully reprint it.
More Light on San Francisco
Mercantile as well as Journal site cir
cles were stirred up in San Francisco
by The Tribune article. One of the
| sore points was the charge that vari-
Gus members of the Retail Drygoods
Association failed TO live up to their
| own agreement not to employ between
! February Is and May I. in their adver-
Using, the terms "Sale," clearance" or
Reduction" or comparison of prices
in advertising ready-to-wear garments.
II. Liebes & Co. courteously but de-
cidedly object TO my including them in
my criticism, and produce a last-mo-
ment change Of the rule, advancing the
date on which the forbidden forms
could be employed TO April 80. There
| are some curious features about this
action; for instance, IL contravened a
I formal notification of only two days
/ previous. and did not reach the adver-
| Using departments of all the stores.
| However, ! am unable to find any ylo-
! lation of the rule by Liebes g. Co. pre-
| vious to April 3O;" therefore. IL is evil
/ dent that they honorably lived up to
what they understood as the terms of
| the agreement and that any imputa-
/ ton OF bad faith is unjust TO them.
/ Roos & Co., whose head is president
| OF the Retail Drygoods Association,
I broke the associations rule on April
! % Therefore credit given to them IN
NY former article is erroneous.
With great show OF indignation
O'Connor. Moffatt & Co. demand re-
/ traction OF my criticism OF them based
! upon their advertising OF April 80.
/ Granted. as 70 that date and that date
only; but without withdrawal OF the
/ charge of bad faith against this firm.
/ The agreement. signed by the firm, pro-
vides that previous to May | (amended
/ TO April 30) it may not use comparative
| prices nor the words sale, clearance
I OF reduction in the advertising OF any
ready-to-wear garments such as suits
| dresses, coats, waists or separate skirts,
and on April 20 the store received an
| official reminder that before the date
agreed upon il should make no allu-
sion to sales, clearance or reductions
/ or comparative prices" In the face OF
! this O'Connor, Moffatt & Co. on April
e26 advertised a two days sale" cover
| ing nearly every department in the
! store" and including house dresses,
regular values from Sl.50 up to $3.50,
at % cents and $l.9j. There we have
/ il, Sales" reduction" "comparative
prices" and all this four days before
/ the expiration OF the period agreed
upon. The fact is, O'Connor, Mofatt &
! Co. have tried to bluff The Tribune
/ Blufing is seldom profitable when the
cards are on the table!
Further complaint from O'Connor
| MoFatt & Co. comes in the form Of a
! letter, written in mingled tones Of high
moral indignation and the warmest
self-approval by a member OF the firm
named Costello.
| at no time in our more than fifty
years OF business" writes Mr.. Costello
has a single misstatement or deviation
from exact truth been made in our ad-
vertisng copy"
Eureka | had thought that infalli-
bility had vanished from this blunder-
ing world, but here it is, incarnate.
"In the face Of this easily prov
able o. fact" continues Mr.. Costello
"your Mr.. Adams has the temerity 70
state that even as nigh class a concern
as this occasionally slips up and un-
dertakes TO sell merchandise for less
than half its actual worth"
OF course, had known of that half
century of easily provable impeccabil-
ity, without so much as one iota of de-
Walton, should never have had the
"temerity," at the very thought OF
which ! now blush and tremble, to do
anything but join in the O'Connor, Mof-
fatt pean of self-prase. Yet, as | read
/ further in Mr.. Costello's demure and
edifying epistle ! begin TO take heart,
for il becomes evident that. however
unimpeachable O'Connor, Moffatt & Co.
NAV be as an institution, their mouth
piece is not above doing a bit Of issue
lodging.
Under our merchandising policy"
writes Mr.. Costello, I'VE have a half
price clean up of remnants and odds
and ends during the last two days OF
the last complete week of each month,
and prices are cut in two before they
are advertised. We challenge any one
to disproye the absolute, unqualified
! truth Of these statements. We do not
believe it to be within the province or
Mr.. Adams or The New York Tribune 20