New-York tribune., 1918-06-19

tion against Mr. Hearst's papers is due
not to any question of his personal
loyalty etc.
And further, wrote Hearst:
II am disposed to think, too, that
you do not disapprove of my methods
quite as much as you think you do"
After that the publisher scooted
abruptly off the subject of war and
devoted himself for some two or three
columns of large-type expression to
sociology.
Mr.. Menken says he had stipulated
that his statement either be published
in full or not at all. He says he be-
lieved he had filled it so with "hot
shot" that not line of it, conse-
quently, would be used. He learned
otherwise yesterday morning and
straightway called the executive meet
ing, at which his case and Hearst's
were weighed.
Says Statement Was Misused
Even before the committee got to-
gether Mr.. Menken had written q real
letter to Mr.. Hearst, by whom he had
been favored with a personal mailed
copy of the Hearst "reply to yours"
This one Mr.. Menken wanted the
leagues executive committee to know
all about, and after the committee hac
read and approved 1t he sent it on it's
way:
"Mr. William Randolph Hearst:
"New York American,
"New York City.
"Dear Sir:
II have your letter referring to my
| interview with your reporter, and
would say your paper makes a mis-
statement when it publishes the entire
Interview and refers to it as AN ex-
tract from a letter. | wrote no letter.
II would further add that you are
entirely wrong when you state: 4 am
disposed to think, too, that you do not
approve of my methods quite so much
as you think you do AS I said to
your reporter, l am unalterably op-
posed to your attitude toward the war
prior to few months ago and to your
attacks upon our allies, particularly
England, and the Federal administra-
tiOn.
ut seems lamentable that my desire
to be fair and provide the basis for
statement of fact as to your posi-
tion on the subject Of preparedness
should have been misused in the way
it has been. I frankly told your re-
porter, when he objected to the words
'unalterably opposed in my statement,
that the only word l could change .un-
alterably' to was bitterly because my
views were certain as to your course.
Il would further add that my state
ment was not made as president of
the. National Security League; it was
entirely personal, as the league only
speaks and acts through its executive
committee.
Mr.. Hearst did not underestimate
President Menken's verbal forcefulncss
ho ,.ofN I.
English" The Security League hea 1
gave demonstration Of his powers i'm
mediately the alleged letter over his
name was brought to his attention.
tits a damned lie!" he said. 81
didn't write any letter to Mr.. Hearst
or to the Editor of The American.
All I can say is that Hearst must be
mighty hard-pressed for praise when
he makes such misuse Of statement
given to one of his reporters.
Il made the statement in answer tc
whom l met last Friday night. He tolo
me that various Security League speak
ers had been attacking him as an op.
ponent of universal training and pre-.
paredness. and reminded me that fo1
the last three years the league has
been making use of preparedness car
toons and preparedness editorials from
the Hearst newspapers. That is fact
We made our mistake when we started
the use of them
~ admitted to Mr. Hearst that he
had been editorially an advocate OF
universal training; and when he asked
If / would object to saying as much
to reporter, I said 1 wouldn't That
was because l have so strong a sense
of fair play that / sometimes, l fear
lean backward
"The following day Hearst reporte,
tried to reach ME. He didn't succeed
, but on Sunday morning he presented
himself at my home. I sat down in my
: library, wrote a first draft of the
statement in pencil to preserve as m,
} own copy, and then wrote it all out ir
ink. wanted to be sure Of not beinl
misquoted. Also l stipulated that al
wrote should be printed, or else
nothing.
. "My family was waiting for me tt
!, start on holiday trip. | was in .
hurry and not overcareful. To-day
! what meant to say. This was in my
last paragraph, where wrote: Il thinl
the agitation against Mr.. Hearst's pa
pers Is due not to any question of hi.
l personal loyalty What | intended t.
write was: I think the agitation
against Mr.. Hearst's papers Is not du,
so MUCH to the question of his per
: sonal loyalty as to the other thing.
which enumerated.
: "The reporter, recall, asked me t.
say believed Mr.. Hearst was loyal.
refused. And I filled the statement 81
full Of hot shot that didn't beliey,
, Hearst would dare to publish It, ha,
> hesitated before writing it. as mat
hoI Ero