Page:The Brass Check (Sinclair 1919).djvu/257

 a "Republican" newspaper, maintaining ferociously the "open-shop" policy—so ferociously that some outraged labor leaders blew it up with a dynamite-bomb. But at the same time Otis owned secretly another Los Angeles newspaper, the "Herald"; and the "Herald" was an "independent" newspaper, a "Democratic" newspaper, a "closed-shop" newspaper! So here was Otis handing out one kind of dope to the Los Angeles public with one hand, and handing out the opposite kind of dope to the Los Angeles public with the other hand—and taking in money from the Los Angeles public with both hands. When you read my statement that "Big Business stages a sham-battle every now and then, to make the people think they are controlling the government," you smiled, no doubt—taking it for the exuberance of a radical. But what better proof could you have of a sham-battle, than to find the same man fighting furiously on both sides?

And how comes it that the public of Los Angeles is ignorant of this extraordinary situation? Why, simply that when the news came out, there was no Los Angeles newspaper that would feature it; the newspapers were in on some "deal," and the only place the story could be exploited was in "La Follette's," in Wisconsin! It was told there by Frank E. Wolfe, formerly managing editor of the "Herald," the man who took the orders of Otis and carried them out.

Some thirty years ago my friend Gaylord Wilshire started in Los Angeles a publication called the "Nationalist," advocating the ideas of Edward Bellamy. This paper was printed at the office of the "Los Angeles Express," and one day, walking down the street, Wilshire met General Otis.

"I see you people have got a weekly paper," said the General.

"Yes," said Wilshire.

"Well, now, the 'Times' has a new and modern printing-plant. We would like very much to do that work for you. Suppose you give us a trial."

"Well, General, it's all right so far as I am concerned, because I don't mind such things; but some of my associates consider that you don't treat our ideas fairly in the "Times'."

"Oh, now, now, you don't mind a thing like that! Surely, now, you ought to understand a joke!"