New Mexico state record. (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1914-19??, 1918-08-30
HEARST ATTORNEY NOT
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
SANTA FEE NEW MEXICAN

In the August 23rd issue OF the
State Record appeared all article
purporting to be copied from the
New Mexico War News. This article
stated among other things that the
attorney in New Mexico representing
Hearst and Hearstism is the vice
president of the New Mexican Print
ing Corporation, and that the editor
Of the New Mexican is i'll the employ
Of Hearst.
This article was not published i'll
the New Mexico War News, How
ever, we were informed at the time
that it was to be SO published. This
however was an error.
Since the publication of the article,
we have been informed that it was
not based upon facts. We acted on
information which we considered re-
liable, but finding that we were i'll
error, we take this, our first op-
portunity to rectify the error. and
wholly retract the article.
We regret that it was published,
and expressly request that all papers
which reprinted or referred to the
article publish this retraction. In
connection we are glad to give space
to the following letter from F.. Dana
Johnson, editor of the Santa Fe New
Mexican:
Saturday. August "a. 1913
Frank Staplin Esq,
Publisher New Mexico State Record,
Santa Fe. New Mexico,
Dear Sir: -
We note in your issue of yesterday
an article which is printed as coming
from New Mexico War News in which
article you make the following state
ments of fact among others:
|. That Francis C. Wilson, the at =
torney for William Randolph Hearst
in New Mexico, is the vice president
of the New Mexican Printing Cor
poration of Delaware. which you as
sert is the publisher of the New Mex
lean. The New Mexican is published
by corporation named Santa Fe
New Mexican Publishing Corpora
ton. Mr.. Wilson is not and never
has been vice president of that cor
poration. The corporation which you
name has not and never has had
anything whatever to do with the
New Mexican or its affairs.
3 You state that the editor OF
the New Mexican is in the employ
of Hearst. This is not the fact nor
has the editor OF the New Mexican
any relations, business or otherwise
with Mr.. Hearst. or any Of his pub
locations whatever.
g. You state that the New Mex
ican refused to publish the letter ad-
dressed TO it by Charles Springer
which you quote in the article afore-
said. This is not the fact but on the
contrary the New Mexican had writ
ten Mr.. Springer stating that it woulC
publish the letter but that in view
or certain statements contained
therein it would be obliged to &C
company the publication of the lette'
by certain comments or its own re
lating to such statements. and tha
it awaited Mr. Springer's reply as Il
whether he desired the letter publish
ed under those circumstances. Th'
New Mexican has received no repl,
from Mr. Springer
a. The article in question was pub
lished as a purported reprint from
the New Mexico War News which
of course seemed to characterize !
as an official criticism or condcmna
ton Of the New Mexican. The fac
is that the New Mevico War New
/ has never published the article whicl
Won appear to quote from il
There are other objections wh;c'
we might well take TO the article I
question. but before proceeding furth
er in the matter W. deem i prope
to give Won the foregoing inforra
tion and to ask vo to retract n
article. though we feel that we Nigh
properly proceed without giving yo
such an opportunity in view OF th
fact that YOU made the puhlicatio
without taking the pains to inuuir
of us as to any OF the matters therei
contained.
Awaiting your early reply,
we are,
Eerv truly yours.