« AnteriorContinuar »
further important question, and one that cannot be answered. The ways and the ends of destinies like John Lillie's are beyond human fathoming. But, whatever may or may not happen, this is
sure: that the inhabitants of Dorset have been stirred and roused by a gust of that wayward spirit that bloweth where it listeth; whence it comes and whither it goes no man can tell. Like
John Keats, like Walt Whitman, John Lillie has been singled out for a mysterious, unprepared visitation, and all who know him are the more thoughtful and reverent for the experience.
THE INSTITUTE OF POLITICS
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENCE FROM WILLIAMSTOWN BY ANDREW TEN EYCK
PROMINENT New York lawyer, much preoccupied in the duties of his profession, was my guest over a week-end. He knew nothing of the Institute of Politics except what he had read in the newspapers, and his impressions, it is fair to say, were those of the casual reader of the newspapers. He lived through the intimate life of this institution one day. He is not ordi. narily a silent man, but he was so here. I feared the inappropriateness of my hospitality, but in the last few minutes before he left I was permitted to listen to his impressions. "I have enjoyed every minute of this week-end. It has been like a sudden trip abroad. The views I have heard have been so diverse, so sanely practical, and yet so idealistic. I didn't think that any body of folks like this could be assembled anywhere. It is a compliment to America that such an institution has been brought into exist ence."
My New York lawyer represents, I should say, the average intelligent American, much too absorbed, as this gentleman himself stated, in the question of making a living to give close study to international affairs. The Institute of Politics, seen through the eyes of such men, has been worth while. It has been pre-eminently a place of open discussion. It has fostered no programme and passed no resolutions.
When I met Lionel Curtis in New York about a month ago, he said to me that he was attracted to Williamstown because it was a place, as he understood it, where people didn't agree with each other. The trouble with the world, Mr. Curtis believed, was that we have been holding conferences, like those at Lake Mohonk, with people who agree with us, and we keep on agreeing, and all that is accomplished eventually is a sort of mutual admiration. Mr. Curtis appears now to have been a prophet.
It has not been easy for Dr. Garfield to adhere to his idea of maintaining the freedom from commitment. The test has come often. His controlling idea, and circumstances, have saved the day There has been no Round Table conference where the views have been unani
In general, the British lecturers, Lionel Curtis and Philip Kerr, created the keenest interest. Mr. Kerr talked about the prevention of war in the spirit of both a realist and an idealist, and put
forth a plan for world organization along the lines of the Government of the United States and what he termed the British Commonwealth, whose sanction would be backed by force. Although he was always careful to preface his speeches with the explanation that he spoke only for himself, it was never quite possible for his audience to forget that he was formerly the alter ego of a man who has remained in power while the other war Premiers and Presidents have been superseded and repudiated by the people. Therefore whatever Mr. Kerr had to say about the causes of the war, the Peace Conference, or a new world order took on an unconscious tinge of the reflected glory of his chief, and was interesting because of that impression as well as because of the inherent sense of the matter itself.
All through the Institute no issue cropped up more than the one which Philip Kerr stated in the following words: "It is an extraordinarily difficult problem how America is to play her part as a world power in helping to guide world policies while avoiding entanglements with the purely internal problems of Europe."
The Round Tables on the rehabilitation of Europe and Interallied debts were miniature lecture halls largely because of the clash between the New York bankers and such men as Oscar T. Crosby, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. This issue came forward again and again, and I do not think opinion has been much clarified by the discussions. One had ordinarily expected that there would be tense arguments about the policy of the American Government as to the League of Nations in the Round Tables, but, so far as could be gathered, such discussions have figured little in the Institute of Politics. In one Round Table the League was discussed, but it was concerned exclusively with those matters over which the League has some supervision and is functioning, namely, the mandated territories, the Saar Basin, and the Free City of Dantsic. The discussion of international relations, so far as the United States Government was concerned, dealt solely with the system of diplomatic intercourse and individual representations to the different Governments.
I think the Institute of Politics, if it can be said any clear opinion was developed on the subject, clearly foresees
that the future world problems lie in the Pacific. Lionel Curtis said: "The relations of the people of Europe and America to those of Asia and Africa are the ultimate problem of politics. The real question is how to bring those relations within the realm of law properly so called." Then, in stating the principle, Mr. Curtis said: "The problem you have to face in the Philippines and we have to face in India is how much scope you can give the people to hurt themselves without destroying the fabric of government altogether."
It was singular to note that the British delegation and a great many Englishmen and Canadians who came here to visit the Institute constantly used the word "Commonwealth" instead of "Empire" in speaking of the British Empire.
There is unquestionably a group of young Englishmen of the General Smuts school who are anxious to see such a transformation in the relationship of the various Dominions to the mother country. It was even suggested that this group would like to invite America in some. future day to join, perhaps not the British, but an English-speaking commonwealth of nations on the principle of a common language and a system of common law which would prevail universally in such an organization.
The chief value of the Round Table discussions was not so much in the specific thing said or discussed as it was in showing how an idea takes root in a gathering like this. People are rapidly revising their opinions, for instance, about war. Philip Kerr's explanation of the Kaiser's part in causing the war was satisfactory. Mr. Cravath's dictum that we could not afford to let Germany pay the full bill and that it should be reduced two-thirds is not far from the idea many hold who have studied the problem. The French view as put forward by M. Raymond Recouly, French journalist, and doubtless in the confidence of the French Foreign Office, who lectured at the Institute, seemed to show moderation. The thing which concerns us most is not that Germany in equity and right should pay the reparations which have been assessed, or even higher ones, but that the economic collapse which is imminent in Germany carries danger, especially to France, and in the long run would affect Great Britain and the United States.
Dr. Josef Redlich, former Minister of
OF FIVE FOREIGN NATIONS AT THIS YEAR'S "CONGRESS OF THINKERS"
Left to right: Lionel Curtis, Secretary of the Irish Peace Conference; Raymond Recouly, foreign editor of "Figaro" and "Le Temps;" the Hon. Philip H. Kerr, for four years confidential adviser of David Lloyd George; Dr. Harry A. Garfield, Chairman of the Institute and President of Williams College; the Hon. Manoel de Oliveira Lima, former Brazilian Ambassador to Great Britain; Dr. Rikitaro Fujisawa, Japanese political writer and professor in the University of Tokyo; Dr. Josef Redlich, Austrian jurist and former Minister of Finance
Finance in Austria, was a good reflector for the most part of the Austro-German view-point. His addresses were mostly historical, but in the Round Table discussions and in private talks one could gather what is on his mind.
In the last lecture Dr. Redlich urged America to return to the counsels of Europe. There should be a reinforced League of Nations, he said, with Ger many and America in it, a revision of the peace treaties in respect to reparations, a great Zollverein of the Central and near Eastern states formed, and a great European conference called to impose disarmament in all European states.
Dr. Redlich believes that the United States will not long escape the effects of the European collapse. "Tell your people," he said, "to enjoy the summer while they can. No one wants to make history in the summer. The big things come in the crisp October weather, when statesmen come back from the mountains. This American boom cannot last long, and I am afraid you will soon feel the breakdown in Europe."
On our domestic problems the Austrian jurist preserved reticence, but he observed on one occasion that, in his opinion, the Democrats are not anxious to win this fall's election, for they, he thinks, would shoulder the critical re sponsibilities which are impossible of solution.
In general, the Institute of Politics possessed few of the distinguished characteristics that marked its first session. The public lecturers, with one or two exceptions, did not approach those of a year ago; on the other hand, the Round Tables in nearly every case functioned more successfully than a year ago. The interest of the different Round Table
leaders in the work of their associates took concrete expression by the organization of what is called the Super Round Table during the last two weeks. There every evening each leader in his turn would present a summary of what he had accomplished. Usually it did not end there, for nearly every formulation of so-called world policies would be challenged by his associates. As a concrete illustration of just how this Super Round Table functioned, I can do no better than to quote some of the propositions presented by President David P. Barrows, of the University of California
first, because they are an example of how some of the results of the Institute are achieved; and, second, because they concern the problems of the future.
The Government of the United States, following the evacuation of the Czechoslovak legions and the withdrawal of its own troops, is justified in insisting upon the evacuation by Japanese troops of all Russian territory.
The declared policy of the United States of considering Russian national rights and interests, jeopardized by the internal condition of Russia, as a trust to be guarded by all the nations in former alliance or association with whom Russia waged war against common enemies is a policy of moral strength and dignity and deserves the support of all friendly nations.
The continued occupation by Japanese troops of the Primorsk, the establishment of a civil Japanese régime in northern Sakhalin, and the appropriation of Russian mineral properties within these regions will continue to disturb the confidence of both Russians and Americans in the fair intentions of the Japanese Government.
The promise of future friendly and helpful relations between the Chinese,
Russian, Japanese, and American peoples lies in the full and prompt realization of the assurances given by Japan's representatives at the Washington Conference and in the consummation of the policy of withdrawal announced by the present Japanese Ministry.
I have been surprised to find people thinking of another titanic world struggle. In fact, I have talked with few who did not think it inevitable. Some have accentuated the present existing commercial rivalries of nations as being the slumbering flames. The naval and military group see those and have no confidence in avoiding them, and are arguing for us to keep our powder dry. Others would call an international conference to limit the danger of world-wide rival discriminations and recriminations among nations. Others still would pursue the lone game with a strong nationalistic arm. It has not been uncommon to hear an idealistic lecture one hour, and a Round Table conference at another hour virtually discrediting all the idealism that had been heard the hour before. One thing of large significance has been that the idealist left Williamstown encouraged with the vision he had been given, and the realist left with a fuller equipment of the facts and figures to carry on his battle for the increased prestige of his country as a world power. Still further, the practical idealist, who has my sympathy, goes away with both the vision and the facts to settle the issues in order to realize his vision.
Culbertson, Barrows, and Rogers were to me the real contributors to the Institute of Politics. I make this estimate because of the content of their contributions and because the happy solution of the issues they raised are the sine qua non of peaceful relationship of nations in the world, and these gentlemen see the need of a world conference to save us from the inevitable drift. Nationalistic tariff walls are bones of contention. The Far East is the arena of the future world struggle; Dr. Rikitaro Fujisawa himself stated the challenge. Our only hope is to appeal to the liberal forces of Japan, and to do so we must get news here and avoid the present difficulties of having a Jap orator throw a book on the wire when he doesn't like the news we are sending into the Far East. To avoid this, therefore, we must own our own cables, as does Great Britain, and develop a comprehensive system of world cable communications, which, as Mr. Rogers has shown, we have so far lamentably failed to do.
It is an exceedingly difficult task which Dr. Garfield has to perform in keeping the Institute of Politics away from the dangers which threaten its usefulness. He must unquestionably deny its platform to the propagandist. He must keep it uncommitted from dogmatic principles and from worshiping any angel. In my opinion, he has so far succeeded.
Williamstown, Massachusetts, August 23, 1922.
HOUGH I greatly appreciated the honor done me by so distinguished
a publication as The Outlook, when asking me to write a study of Lord Northcliffe, there were many reasons which inclined me to excuse myself from undertaking the task. I had known Lord Northcliffe for a quarter of a century, and at one time in my lifethat is, when both he and I were comparatively young men-we were on friendly, if not exactly on intimate, terms. We always differed a great deal in our outlook on public affairs, and indeed on things in general, and so found it difficult to lay our minds side by side as friends should. At the same time, I admired his push, energy, and great business qualities, and he, I think, liked as well as respected the "Spectator." It happened also that we were near neighbors in the country, and this propinquity made us see perhaps more of each other than we should if juxtaposition had not been an element in our acquaintance.
In later life we came to differ strongly on many questions. This, coupled with the fact that Lord Northcliffe gradually ceased to live much in Surrey, made us meet very little in the course of the last eight or nine years. Still our old acquaintanceship and the thought of the brilliant and eager young man whom I first got to know by a common interest in motor transport, and also the tragedy of his death-it was a cruel irony of fate which made his attempt to rest and restore his bodily and mental vigor the determinating cause of his illness-revived in me many kindly feelings towards the dead man. I should be inhuman if they had not. At the same time, my judgment told me in imperative terms that if I wrote upon Lord Northcliffe I must write the whole truth as I saw it and not partial and fragmentary glimpses. This again, my judgment told me, must lead to a critical attitude and to my saying things which one hesitates to say almost at the side of an open grave. I do not mean by this that I felt any necessity to say harsh things about Lord Northcliffe, but I knew that I could not indulge in the conventional eulogies, nor treat Lord Northcliffe from the point of view of a great man and a great journalist, as he has been treated so largely in the British and American press.
But, though these considerations inclined me strongly to say no more about Lord Northcliffe than I found it necessary to say in the "Spectator," reflection showed me that, after all, I ought to lay what I believe to be the facts before the American public. The reasons which brought about my final decision can easily be stated. The American public understand better than any other nation
BY J. ST. LOE STRACHEY
what is gained by, and what is involved in, the art of publicity. Therefore it is very important that they should not imagine that every one in England looks upon Lord Northcliffe as a competent and representative exponent of that deeply important art.
It would be a cause of serious misunderstanding on a vital matter if the wiser minds in America should come to think that we regarded Lord Northcliffe as the ideal newspaper proprietor, editor, and publicist. Yet if no voice were raised here in protest and no sincere attempt made to show what Lord Northcliffe really stood for, and what was the attitude of better-informed British pub lic opinion in regard to him, they could hardly do anything else but take him at his face value, or, at any rate, at the value apparently set on him by the British press. To judge by the eulogies published in London, one would imagine that Lord Northcliffe was a kind of Delaine and John Walter rolled into one, and that he fulfilled the highest ideals of journalism as understood in this country. I am sure I am right in saying
that the great majority of thinking men would hold such a misconception to be little short of a disaster.
My aim is to show in its true colors his attitude towards the problems of journalism. I know of course that in doing so I shall expose myself to many disagreeable charges. To begin with, people may think me jealous as well as ungenerous. But I would rather incur those charges, and even the still more odious charge of sheltering personal hostility under the cloak of duty, than allow without protest Lord Northcliffe to be described as "the greatest figure in contemporary English journalism, and its ideal representative."
vidious sense. I firmly believe that the money-makers supply a very useful element in human society. I can supply a fact in support of my assertion. Lord Northcliffe, some twenty years ago, said to me in one of those moments of selfrevelation which were common with him as a young man and were in many ways extremely engaging: "I don't pretend to be a statesman, or even a politician, or to know much about public affairs. What I do know, is how to produce a paper and how to sell it." There, I think, he exactly diagnosed his own mental powers and limitations. He was a great merchant, or, if you will, a great broker in the wares of journalism; but he did not go further.
As long as he made it his main business to exploit and develop the machinery, physical, moral, and intellectual, of the press his success was almost unbounded. At the outset of his career almost everything he touched in the journalistic world not only turned into gold, but was from his point of view a well-deserved success. In the perfectly legitimate arts of the producer and salesman he was unrivaled. No matter was too small for his consideration, no enterprise or speculation too big. Though not an expert in any of the many branches of his undertakings, he managed to be what was quite as useful that is, a successful chooser of men to help and serve him. But, though he relied upon the advice of experts, he showed his ability in knowing when to accept that advice whole-heartedly and when to reject it and trust to his own speculative instincts. If he determined to buy or found a newspaper, he followed prudent external advice unless it conflicted with his main and essential decisions.
It was the same story when he was considering whether he should commit himself to new machinery, and to new methods of using that machinery, or whether he should be content to go on in the old ways. Again, in the matter of salesmanship—that is, in the matter of pushing his wares-though his ideas were not his own and were not even original, he managed to use them so ingeniously and so boldly that they took on a kind of originality in his practice of them. Take a very simple example. When he was developing the "Daily Mail," I remember his telling me one of his plans for raising the circulation. He had returns of the daily sales of his paper in every city in the Kingdom. If he found that the proportion of sales per head of population in a particular town lagged behind the general average, he immediately set all his machinery in motion to ascertain the cause of this town's failure to absorb his paper. He kept asking the question, "Why does only per cent of the population here take the 'Daily Mail' when three times x take it in a neighboring town?" He persisted in such interrogations till he had got the answer and applied his
remedy. At the same time, complementary investigations were going on in the towns or districts which showed the highest percentages of readers. Was there any peculiar or extraordinary reason why they should read the "Daily Mail" in greater numbers than their neighbors? If not, then valuable lessons might be obtained by studying the action of his local agents, and applying these principles of action elsewhere. He was armed with facts for screwing up his circulation elsewhere. "What man had done in Blackchester man could do in Whiteville"-that was the "slogan" applied to those engaged in pushing his paper in new districts or in old districts which lagged behind.
But this, though clever and enterprising, was only a good example of the simple art of the vigilant salesman in all kinds of trades. There was nothing actually original about it, though there was a great deal of genuine enterprise and skill in the application of the artifice. No great vision and no special understanding of human nature or of the English people were involved.
As in the case of most successful money-makers-for once more we must never forget that it was in this region that Lord Northcliffe could claim unqualified success-the methods employed seemed to have very little to do with brain power or the higher intellectual gifts. Successful money-makers are rarely thinkers even in their own special trades, and this was, I think, specially true of Lord Northcliffe. As I felt obliged to point out in my obituary notice of him in the "Spectator" of August 19, Lord Northcliffe was not a daring innovator or speculator in the newspaper world, but rather a skilled and prudent user of other men's experiments. He once said to me with great impressiveness, and as if he were saying something which he regarded as one of the lodestars of his life. "Never be a pioneer!" He went on to explain that the pioneers in the various walks of life and business were never the men who succeeded. They went forward and, if they took the delights of exploration, they certainly did not get any other reward. The wise man watched the pioneer at work. If the pioneer fell and failed, and so showed that the ground was impracticable, the forest too thick, or the current too strong, he did not follow him. If, on the other hand, the pioneer succeeded, the wise man could proceed in confidence. The good business man was, that is, he who best availed himself of other men's experiments, but did not experiment himself.
I think an analysis of Lord Northcliffe's methods would prove that he almost invariably followed this plan. He never plunged. He never put his foot into what was alleged to be a ford without the feeling that he could draw it out if, after all, the water should prove dangerously deep. He did not found the "Daily Mail" till he had seen
the experiment of the "Evening News," which was his first venture in daily journalism, succeed. He bought the "Evening News" very cheaply as a going concern, and watched it very carefully. Up till that time he had only been an owner, though a most successful owner, of popular weekly newspapers. When, however, he saw that with wisdom and prudence a halfpenny evening newspaper could be made, not only a good newspaper, but financially a very successful paper, he argued that what could be done with an evening paper could be done as well with a morning paper, or indeed a great deal better. Morning papers, in England at any rate, find it easier to get advertisements than evening newspapers. But when, fired by his experiences in the "Evening News," he determined on creating the "Daily Mail," he took every possible care to make his venture successful. traded, as it were, both with the living and the dead in journalism to find new features and paying features. Especially did he study American models. These afforded him plenty of useful pioneers. He also studied the old ways of journalism in England and adopted features which for some reason or other had been allowed to drop out.
When I say "studied," I do not mean that he himself studied very carefully; but that he got other people to study for him, and then used his judgment. But all this, though excellent business, did not prove him a great journalist, a great editor, or even a great newspaper organizer. It only showed him a great man of business.
I doubt whether, in the true sense, Lord Northcliffe ever reflected or ever thought. His mind, as is so often to be noted in the case of the successful money-makers, was exceedingly superfi cial, as were, indeed, his mental interests private and public. He was, however, keen and alert and genuinely interested in new things. But he liked them as a clever child likes toys-something to be first welcomed as a mystery, but soon only tolerated till a newer or more amusing treasure could be found. He never thought things out, nor, indeed, realized the need of doing so. Above all, he never understood anything in the true sense of the word.
Though he talked much about publicity and, in a sense, practiced it on an enormous scale, and made a large fortune out of it, I feel certain that he never obtained a full and true view of the significance of the thing he was dealing in. Like so many men of his kind, he could throw up a series of balls and keep them spinning in the air, but he could not explain even to himself how his act of legerdemain was accomplished. To put it in another way, he had the faculty possessed by many dealers in the arts. There are plenty of picture dealers and dealers in antiques of all kinds who are totally without any artistic sense or knowledge, and appar
ently without any sensibility in regard to the beautiful. For all they know, Guercino lived in Spain and Goya in Bologna. They confuse centuries, epochs, and schools with the most marvelous profusion. Yet these same men instinctively know a good picture and can often tell far better than men of true learning, scholarship, and understanding in the philosophy of the æsthetic whether a picture is a genuine work or a forgery, and also by whose hand it was painted.
A sincere artist will often tell you that, though he has profoundly studied the work of, say, Leonardo all his life and has a sure intelligence in regard to the master's mind, if it comes to valuing a picture or being quite sure of its authenticity, he would very much rather trust to the judgment of Mr. Blackstein or Mr. Whitestein than his own. Lord Northcliffe, though he did not understand publicity in the true sense, was often instinctively an exceedingly good judge of what would prove successful publicity and paying publicity. Just as a man may do "big business" in rubber without understanding the way in which rubber is produced, or what is its future, or what even are its uses, so Lord Northcliffe traded in publicity without knowing much about it or, at any rate, without understanding it in the higher
A proof of this want of true understanding is to be found in that part of his life which was so conspicuous a failure. During the latter part of the war, and still more after the peace, Lord Northcliffe persuaded himself that the power of the press was greater than it really was. He dreamed of becoming the leader and director of the country, not indirectly and as a great influencer of public opinion, but actually as Prime Minister! That was, I am assured, his visionary aim. His lever was to be the newspapers he controlled. He found himself utterly mistaken when, having quarreled with Mr. Lloyd George as the obstacle to his ambition, he determined to remove him from power. Apparently, Lord Northcliffe was so little experienced or, at any rate, had so little understanding of his strength, that he thought he could write Mr. Lloyd George down-i, e., destroy him by leading articles. If he had been able to reflect, he would have learned that, though Mr. Lloyd George might destroy himself, he could not be destroyed by newspaper opposition. He had, in fact, utterly misconceived the nature of the power of the press.
No one thinks more highly of the profession of journalism, no one is prouder of the position of the press, than I, but it must never be forgotten that the one and almost only power of the press is publicity. Pope in his "Essay on the Characters of Women," speaking of women's place in the world, declares that power is all their end, but "beauty all their means." So with us newspaper
men. Power may be all our end, but publicity is our only means.
But, granted this, what are the consequences? One of the most important is that, though we may "boom" a statesman in whom we believe or whom, for some other and possibly less worthy motive, we want to keep before the public, we cannot unmake him by the arts which we used to make him. As Dr. Johnson put it, "No man is ever written down except by himself." A very few moments of thought will show that this is due to the fact just noticed, the fact that publicity is the newspaper's only means to power. If you are always writing a man down, you are in effect always advertising him, always giving him publicity. But in giving him publicity you bring him before the public eye, and then the public, in that intensely independent way which is theirs, judge him from their own standpoint. But, while judging for themselves, they are very apt to note and so to discount the animus with which a man is attacked. Eulogy is a lubricant which, though it may occasionally weary, does not raise the contradictiousness of mankind. On the other hand, persistent antagonism is sure to bring into operation the law of reversed effort. If one sees a person persistently abused in the press, one is very apt to take the other side.
But there is a higher motive than this of contradiction. When a man is brought before the public merely to be com mended, the thing is soon over and forgotten. If, however, he is arraigned before the court of public opinion, the jurors realize that they must go more thoroughly into the matter. They must hear both sides and judge the facts. But it may well be that in this process of adjudication they take a different view to that of the journalistic prosecutor. This is indeed a happy circumstance. It makes the journalist careful in his attacks, and so acts as an antiseptic. But this limitation of the power of the press Lord Northcliffe never understood, and perhaps never even tried to understand. He took the view of the flatterers of the press-i. c., that a newspaper can do almost what it likes with public opinion. He was convinced that by a careful manipulation and presentation of the news the public, without being directly deceived, could be made to take the view which the newspaper wanted it to take. This danger of manipulation is no doubt real, but it is not nearly so great a danger as it appears to be. Fortunately, there are many safeguards and correctives. If not, the peoples who depend upon their newspapers so greatly as do those of the English-speaking world would be of all men most miserable. As a class newspaper men have an instinctive feeling that they must tell the news, and tell it honestly. I am not going to pretend that this is from a double dose of original virtue vouchsafed to my profession. What I have termed an instinct, no doubt, to a great
extent arises from the knowledge, conscious or sub-conscious, that publicity is our greatest business, and that those who ignore this fact and sell adulterated wares (that is what manipulation of the press comes to) will in the end do bad and not good business.
Here I reach a very interesting point in connection with journalism. I firmly believe that the newspaper that is run as a business concern-run, that is, to pay, i. c., run to sell its readers what they want to buy-is likely to be a better paper and also to serve the community better than the newspaper which Las ulterior ends. The ideal newspaper proprietor, in my opinion, is the honest tradesman, the man who says, in effect, of himself and his work, "My business is to sell the public a good, sound newspaper, a paper which contains nothing that has been adulterated, nothing that is a sham, nothing that is poisonous. I am the servant of the public, but I claim the right to act the part which every honorable and high-minded servant acts. I will obey my master up to a certain point, and no further. If he asks me to do a foolish thing, I may do so, because, after all, the choice is his. If, however, he asks me to do a low, mean, or disreputable, let alone a criminal thing, I must refuse and tell him plainly what I think of his order."
What the ordinary citizen desires to get from his paper is the facts, and the whole of the facts. Now, he may have the highest belief in Mr. So-and-So's good intentions, but he does not want to have his news colored by them, however good they may be. Still less does he want to have his news distorted by the personal likes or dislikes of a proprietor. Therefore he greatly distrusts the newspapers owned by men who are in the newspaper business, not as tradesmen, but for ulterior objects-party objects, personal objects, or pecuniary objects other than those derived from the direct sale of a newspaper. American newspapers, I may say parenthetically, have come to their great position and will, I believe, continue to hold that position by the fact that they are so largely owned by people who are openly and obviously engaged in the trade of selling newspapers, and who know that in the end they can do sound business only by selling "a straight and sound line of goods." Another good example was the London "Times" in the past. The Walters were essentially honest tradesmen. They had a great public relying upon them for a particular class of intellectual product, and they supplied that product. They did not look beyond their trade. For example, when Lord Palmerston lectured Delane on the want of consideration, public spirit, and so forth, which he had shown in publishing a piece of news which was inconvenient to the Government, Delane cut him short with the brief but crushing sentence, "You seem to forget, Lord Palmerston, that my business is publicity."