New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-05-27

not coincide with his own views o.
what was most profitable pecuniarily e
the houses of Gimbel Brothers
II is with the logical outcome OF the
acts of alleged illegal practice cite'
before that The Tribune declares itsel
90 have been concerned. Its pleading
now before tho Supreme Court so
forth how. with the accession OF a nc"
controlling management to the news
paper, IL selected "a the person vh'
would vigorously carry out its idea o.
the new morality in advertising Rich
ard II. Waldo, who had captained tho
fight for truth in advertising through
tho columns of "Thc Good Housekeep
ing Magazine" while its business man
ager. and as chairman of the Publlcitl
Committee Of the Associated Advertls
ing Clubs Of America; Of how DIR
Waldo, as Associate General Manager
Of The Tribune, called in Samuel Hop
kins Adams, q writer known the coun
try over for his fight against vicious
phases Of advertising, to help Mr.
Waldo in cleaning out tho advertising
columns of The Tribune.
"Noney-Back Guarantee Born
10 maintain the high standard
which The Tribune's statement Of ad
vertising policy made necessary The
"Money-Rsck Guarantee" was born, snt
its vigiant guardian and concomltant
The Tribune Bureau OF Investigations.
In the course Of its investigations
The Tribune Bureau was to come upon
and The Tribune's answer here set.
forth. tho following traces of ALLEGED
Cimbel bad trade practices. N tolls ~
detail Of alleged false, misleading an'
deceptive advertisements which STATE
that Gimbel's had bought and had OF
sale at their store in New York the
entire stock of some great manufact
urinc house that had failed or other
wise gone out of business. At the same
time the Philadelphia and milwaukee,
houses of Gimbcl brothers arc said u
have announced sales of parts of thu
identical stocks that the New Yorl
store Wanted for its patrons alone.
These stocks arc said to have beer
offered for sale as value irresistible
and astonishing bargains" as goods
that were new and were TO be sold "a
an average of half-price." Anon,
these so-called special sales" in which
Misrepresentation arc charged e
have been made and deception prac
tised upon the buying public were th'
Bawo e. Dotter and the Simpson-Crsw
ford special sales in the spring anc
summer of 1915. respectively.
The Tribune Bureaus Work
The answer asserts that the latter o.
these was found by The Tribune Blu
reau Of Investigations to include wide
ly exaggerated advertising claims anC
the sale of goods at unreasonably higf
prices; also the sale Of damaged goods
sold as perfect, some of which were
in such bad condition as TO be unfi
for sale on any honest representation
In fact, a large part of the good:
which was offered by Gimbels to theil
buying public at these Especial sales
is contended to have been composed Of
old, out-of-date stock of the house.
whose stocks had been purchased, with
large admixture of similar old good:
from the Gimbel stocks.
Case of the Maurice Company
But. according to the statements o.
the answer, there were activities near
er home arising out of the supposedly
peculiar business ethics of Gimbe
Brothers. There was the Maurice Com
pany, for instance, retail woman:
wear concern, claiming to be in per
fectly good condition, and doing bust
ness as a solvent concern, when it wa:
suddenly called out of absorption in it:
own affairs to face Gimbel advertise
ments blazoning forth that the Maurice
Company, in effect business rival OF
theirs, had become financially embar
raised, that the Maurice Company
through its insolvency being unable tc
claim from the United States Custom
House a consignment of dresses di
rected to it from a London dress-mak
err, Gimbel Brothers had bought I'll,
dresses through their London house al
one-half the sum which the Maurice
Company had contracted to pay there
for. and there would be a resultant
feast for Gimbel shoppers who might
buy, at one-half the normal prices
these dresses of the "very styles thai
will be prominent during the Londor
season" and modes that echo the lat
est of the Paris dressmakers."
What matter that the several hun
dred gowns and dresses-with the ex
cept!on of seven or eight had, as was al
legged, never been ordered, selected oil
purchased by the Maurice Company
but, in the language of the latter com
pany's complaint in suit brought in
the New York Supreme Court fol
100000 damages, were dresses of in
ferior quality, grade and style to those
dealt in" by the protesting company
and were declared in reality to be par
of the ordinary Gimbel stock in trade
The damage action, the answer says
was discontinued by the Maurice Com
pany upon the payment of substan
tial sum of money.
Incident of the Iceland Fox"
The Tribune answer tells Of the al
legged eliminating misdeed-the Birth
day Sales" in New York, in which Sc,
100000 worth of fine new merchandis,
was to be offered as a holiday sacrifice
sacrifice in which iceland Fox" fur
"a genus yet undiscovered, abounded
in company with other alleged falsely
Mr.. Adams's article and in The Trib
ulc dHo"tf. lHeIe were dHhouS lHSo'
bargains" blankets and napkins ant
furniture and mems sweaters and suit!
and women's dresses, all supposedly un
devalued. which Tribune investigator
are said to have found to be selling a
higher price than they were worth
There was the Koch incident. in which
boys suits sold by Koch & Compan.
for 81 are declared to have been Of
the same value as Gimbel suits of tina
character at $3.50. In fact, all of thu
accusations against the plaintiff con
tanned in the Adams article about tn,
Birthday Sales" which gave rise t.
the suit, are analysed in the answer
and their truth asserted.
Of many of these practices The Trib
une answer states, it was aware wher
the Gimbel company applied for adver
Using space in its columns, but il wa.