olly, one of the gang, and an officer of
the city government, if he would sell the "Times," which was then not
worth over a million. Mr. Jones said afterwards, "The devil will never
make a higher bid for me than that." Yet he declined the bribe without a
tremor. A certain religious weekly lost a hundred thousand dollars for
refusing to take patent-medicine advertisements--probably ten times what
the paper was worth. "Everybody's Magazine," and many others of its
class, refuse every kind of questionable advertising.

Many editors and publishers scrupulously eschew politics, lest
obligations be incurred that might limit their opportunities for public
service. Some will not even accept dinner invitations when the motive
is known to be the expectation of a _quid pro quo_.

Perhaps one of the few disagreeable things a conscientious editor
cannot hope to avoid is the necessity of denouncing his personal
friends. Yet this must be done again and again. Indeed, there are
thousands of editors to-day who will not hesitate a moment to espouse
the unpopular cause, though they know it will endanger their
advertising receipts and subscription list.

"The Independent," for instance, could undoubtedly build up a great
circulation in the South among white people if we could only cease
expressing our disapproval of the way they mistreat their colored
brothers. But we consider it a duty to champion a race, who, through no
fault of their own, have been placed among us, and whom few papers,
statesmen, or philanthropists feel called upon to treat as friends.

There is a limit, of course, to the length to which a paper can go in
defying its constituency, whether advertisers or subscribers.
Manifestly a paper cannot be published without their support. But there
are times when an editor must defy them, even if it spells ruin to
himself and bankruptcy to the paper. It is rarely necessary, however,
to go to such an extremity as suicide. The rule would seem to be--and I
think it can be defended on all ethical grounds--that under no
circumstances should an editor tell what he knows to be false, or urge
measures he believes to be harmful. This is a far different thing from
telling all the truth all of the time, or urging all the measures he
regards as good for mankind in season and out. That is the attitude of
the irreconcilable, and the irreconcilable is as ineffectual in
journalism as he is in church or state. Thus "The Ladies' Home Journal"
ha