He thought perhaps he might find such a letter from Doctor
Storrs when he reached home, but instead he met a small corps of
reporters from the Brooklyn and New York newspapers. He told them
frankly that no one was more surprised at the accusation than he, but
that the original contributions were in the New York office of the
syndicate, and he could not corroborate his word until he had looked
into the papers and found Doctor Storrs's contribution.
That evening Bok got at the papers in the case, and found out that,
technically, Doctor Storrs was right: he had not written or signed such
a statement. The compiler of the symposium, the editor of one of New
York's leading evening papers whom Bok had employed, had found Doctor
Storrs's declaration in favor of a clergyman's use of tobacco in an
address made some time before, had extracted it and incorporated it into
the symposium. It was, therefore, Doctor Storrs's opinion on the
subject, but not written for the occasion for which it was used. Bok
felt that his editor had led him into an indiscretion. Yet the
sentiments were those of the writer whose name was attached to them, so
that the act was not one of forgery. The editor explained that he had
sent the extract to Doctor Storrs, who had not returned it, and he had
taken silence to mean consent to the use of the material.
Bok decided to say nothing until he heard from Doctor Storrs personally,
and so told the newspapers.
Pages:
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153