about all over the country to show the control of Boston jour-
nalism by the department stores. A woman who was shortly to
become a mother was arrested at one of the stores on the charge
of shoplifting: she was supposed to have secreted on her person
goods taken from counters of the store. While being subjected
to a search she was taken ill and serious consequences followed.
Her husband, after the loss of the child, sued the store for dam-
ages as he should and was awarded a verdict rather sub-
stantial in amount. The Boston papers, possibly with a single
exception, did not as they should not print the story even
though the testimony was somewhat sensational. For some rea-
son the wishes of the family have been overlooked in a discussion
of the incident. If ever there was a just cause for requesting a
suppression of news it was here. Such incidents do not concern
public welfare and ought to be omitted from the columns of
American newspapers. Had there been any miscarriage of jus-
tice, there would be some justification for printing the item,
but no such condition obtained.
In another city conditions were quite like those in Boston, only there had been several similar incidents, though less dis- astrous in results. A large store had moved farther uptown and with its larger quarters it had been forced to employ green detec- tives who frequently made errors. In fact, they made so many blunders that managers of other department stores went to the press with the request for publicity in order that the evil might be corrected. One newspaper publisher told the representatives from the stores, "You can't get publicity for such stuff in my paper, even if all of you withdraw your advertising." He was quite right, Such an incident does not properly belong in a book of this character, but has been inserted because of the promi- nence it has been given by critics of journalism.
Another Boston incident has attracted much attention. A certain department store in that city desired to unite its two buildings by a covered passageway across a city street. As certain legal technicalities interfered with the construction, the attorney-general of the State rendered an opinion that a muni- cipal permit was not sufficient and that special action of the State Legislature was necessary. The Evening Transcript in
