New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-05-27
The Tribune Answers Gimbel Brothers
Libel Suit to Recover 81 ,OOO,OOO Damages

Using and fair dealing in the sale OF
goods, the advertisements of the PLAIN
tiff would have been as valuable to The
| Tribune Association, at the agreed rates
Of payment therefor. as the advertise
ments of the proprietors Of any de-
partment store in the City Of New
| York" says The Tribune answer, IN
refutation of the Gimbel charge that
| The Tribune nullifed the contract for
Interior purposes and because 1T was no
longer TO its financial interest to CON
tinue II.
The Tribune answer also relates that
several months before the contract was
entered upon, The Tribune Bureau OF
Investigations. prompted by complaints
particularly from the Vigilance Com
mittee of the Advertisers Club OF Mil
waukec, made an investigation, the re
suits of which were laid before Isaac
Gimbel. At this time. too. Mr.. Gimoel
while acknowledging the mistakes that
had been made by the Gimbel firm IN
the past, is said to have emphasized
determination to satisfy The Tribune
I that Gimbel methods in the future
would be essentially clean and free
| from the Misrepresentation charged.
Mr.. Adam. Opposed Contract
Even go, when the question of con
! tract with Gimbcl's arose, II found MT
| Adams decidedly opposed thereto, by
reason Of the alleged general reputs
| ton of the firm, and of the SPECIFIC
information which he had secured while
preparing an article published in ma
/ iional magazine in 1918. In fact, the
answer continues, Mr.. Adams felt SO
/ strongly against the supposed undo
STABILITY Of Gimbel Brothers as
| a Tribune advertiser that he in
! dicatcd desire to sever his connec'
| ton with that newspaper should INC
| Gimbcl advertising be accepted. But
| subsequently. so run The Tribune
averments, he, with the management OF
! The Tribune, was persuaded to give
the firm a trial which was to terminate
whenever proof could be presented that
there had not been true reform in the
advertising and other business methods
of Gimbel Brothers.
The assurances of Gimbel sincerity
as offered by Mr.. Isaac Gimbel. are de.
clared to have been so plausible that
vet another contract, affecting the
| Sunday Tribune, was entered into by
arrangement between Isaac Glmbel and
Mr.. Waldo. When Mr.. c. +. La Nlgne
director of the Tribune Bureau OF In,
vestigations, heard that contract mao
been made for Gimbel advertising IN
| The Tribune, he evinced great skepti,
cism regarding Gimbel good faith and
declared that he would be able TO pro-
duce evidence within a short time
which would convince his co-workers
in the cause Of commercial honestly
that the Gimbel brand OF business
ethics was not consistent with Inc
| Tribune policy of fair dealing. AND
! the allegations of the answer assert
that Mr.. La Vigne carried out his ex'
pressed purpose.
Complaints of Unfair Dealing
For. almost co:ncident with the ap-
: pearance of the first Gimbel advertise
ment, relates The Tribune's answer
came complaints of unfair dealing IN
its sales. Adjustments, so far as the
customers were concerned, were MADE
| bv Gimbe's whenever complaints were
presented To that house based upon IN
yestigations of Gimbel practices by the
Tribune Bureau of Investigations; put
that did not prevent the continuance OF
those Investigations.
II is alleged that the Bureau found
the familiar Gimbel tale retold in the
history of the Especial sale" Of Lang
| field Bros. e. Co., the Markets Fore
most Makers of Leatherware, COM
prising more than $4,000 pieces OF
choice leather goods at half and
| less than half the original prices
and other alleged misrepresentation
that are said to have formed part OF
the Gimbel advertising stock in trade
Questioned on behalf of The Tribune
bv Mr. Waldo and Mr.. Adams. Isaac
| Gimbel is related to have offered plaus-
ible explanations and excuses for what
he is declared to have called these err
rors and mistakes, to have insisted
that these were unintentional, and TO
| have declared that the firm was en-
deavoring to do its utmost to eliminate
such errors. and was devoting itself to
measuring up, in the future, to The
Tribune's high requirements of its adj
yertisers.
Upon this alleged promise of reform
another period of grace for Gimbel
ELAPSED, according to The Tribune
pleadings. Still complaints continued
coming in from the public and from
the staff of the Bureau of 1nvestiga-
tions. SAYS the answer, until it became
only a question OF time when The
Tribune. in justice to itself, its readers
and TO its honest advertisers, could no
longer subject them to the falsity al.
| legged to be characteristic of Gimbel
advertising, and would have to close
it's columns to that store.
Had Their Opportunity
II Gimbel had, in the eyes Of The
Tribune, been guilty of but one mis-
take, that might have been condoned
the newspaper declares, but, runs Its
answer. describing its procedure in The
Tribune's battle for honest advertising
Gin no case was a single, isolated error
of that character allowed to bring q
merchant into the light of publicity
through" it's columns. "There must
have been evidence of a policy on the
part Of the advertiser so unreliable oil
so inimical to the public interest that
the publishers of said newspaper could
not Justly continue to expose its read
ers to it before such advertiser was
ousted from the columns of the paper
and his procedure in such respect
made the text for an exposure in its
columns" Gimbel Brothers "had their
opportunity to reform their evil meth
DDS without the facts being made
known to the public, and wipe out their
evil record"
Such an opportunity was offered to
Gimbel Brothers, relates The Tribune
reply, even after the article exposing
alleged Gimbel advertising practices
was prepared by Mr. Adams. Publica.
tion of the article was delayed until
"it was finally demonstrated that Gin
bel Brothers really thought it more
profitable, and that they really desired
to follow the vicious trade methods
that they had previously pursued. II
was impossible to do so honestly" de.