We have answered the appeal of the Westminster Gazette, and
having done so we feel sure that it will meet in a similar spirit a request from us. We have noticed with some surprise that the Westminster Gazette has not had a word to say about our exposure of the extraordinary action of the proprietors of the Daily News and the members of the Cadbury and Rowntree families in regard to the Star and its furious incentives to betting. We should very much like to know whether the Westminster thinks that newspaper proprietors who admittedly regard betting and incitements to betting as most serious moral evils (this is proved by their action in the case of the Daily News and by their membership of the Society of Friends) can be justified in allowing a paper which they control to incite persona to bet. We trust and believe that the Westminster would condemn the proprietor of the Spectator in no unmeasured terms if it were found that, while conducting a campaign against "poisonous litera- ture," he was the owner of a controlling share in a publishing business devoted to its production. If the analogy is not sound, we should be very grateful if the Westminster Gazette would point this out, and tell us generally whether we have or have not been justified in our criticism of the members of the Cadbury and Rowntree families. We feel sure that the Westminster will not avail itself of the plea that the matter is none of its business, or that it is unaware whether the proprietors of the Daily News and the members of the Cadbury and Rowntree families who own the Star do or do not approve of betting and incitements to betting.
Previous page
