SOURCE: "Henry Ford's Seven Years' Calumnies Against Jews," in History of Bigotry in the United States, Random House, Inc., 1943, pp. 333-48.

[In the following essay, Myers examines the anti-Semitic articles Ford published in his newspaper The Dearborn Independent. The articles were originally published in a column entitled "The International Jew."]

Parallel to certain years of the Ku Klux Klan a centralized and intensive agitation was carried on exclusively against Jews by a publication owned and financed by one of the richest and most conspicuous of American industrialists. This was Henry Ford. Born, in 1863, on a farm near Greenfield, Michigan, he had been reared there until the age of fifteen, when he entered upon a job in a Detroit machine shop, and for many years thereafter was a mechanic in various concerns. The automobile had been invented in France and some cars exported to America, but their expensiveness made them available to the rich only. Seeing the automobile's field for general use, Ford harbored the idea of a product to be made by mass manufacturing methods and to be sold at a rate within the reach of the many. With eleven associates he organized the Ford Motor Company, in 1903, on a slim capital. The spirit of the times, demanding this new form of transportation, swept his company on to extraordinary success. In ten years alone, its assets increased to $250,000,000, and millions in dividends had been declared. By early in 1923 the company's assets were more than $536,000,000; it was producing 6,700 motor vehicles a day; and its revenues were between $8,000,000 and $10,000,000 a month. Sales and profits kept on cumulatively mounting; the Ford Motor Company greatly expanded its American plants and established large factories in some foreign countries.

Before about the year 1913 only sporadic mention of Ford was made in newspapers outside of Detroit. But when the realization burst upon the country at large of his phenomenal success and towering money wealth, multiplied by incessant accretions, he at once became the great cynosure. Newspapers, periodicals, magazines and biographical works vied in spreading accounts of his career. His opinion on all manner of subjects was solicited by editors, and treated as the words of an oracle. Thus fed on these deferences and eulogies, the public at large conceived Ford as a supereminent figure and as a fountain-head of practical knowledge and an apostle of worldly wisdom. The mechanic of extremely limited education was forgotten; only the ever-expanding multimillionaire filling the whole countryside with his automobiles was seen, and wherever a Ford car went thither it carried his name and blazoned his ubiquitous prestige.

However, his attributed grasp of practical affairs did not go long unshaken. The first noteworthy evidence of his almost childlike credulity came in 1915 when he was influenced to think that he, by the power of his money and the éclat of his name, could succeed in a maneuver to stop the wide-ranging First World War. Chartering a ship, he gathered on board a miscellany of educators, publicists and others and with them he sailed from New York, on October 4th of that year to Europe. The voyagers were persons of varying degrees of weight in their respective fields, all agreeing on their hatred of war but widely differing in theories and in the proposed steps to be taken. Ford's plan was that of having conferences in Europe to persuade the combatant Governments to cease hostilities. Leading American public men both derided and denounced the whole scheme as supine and visionary, and Ford and the delegation as ineffectuais who presumed that soft speeches could put a stop to a war determinable by force only. The experiment, of course, was foredoomed to be a fiasco, and it was made still more so by the wrangles on the way over between some of the party's members whose belligerent love of their own pet ideas outweighed their professional pacifism. In England the project was scoffed at as a delusion. The war continued for three more years.

Either too obtuse to be disconcerted by the immediate failure of this vaunted expedition or still fixed in the belief that lavish expenditures of money could accomplish any result, Ford set out to campaign against America's taking measures of preparedness for war. He later testified in court to his readiness to spend a million dollars to arouse public opinion for this object. A considerable portion of his propaganda distributed throughout the United States consisted of booklets and newspaper advertisements. That there was a clique conspiring to force President Woodrow Wilson into war was one of the main charges. Of course, Congress alone had power to declare war, but this vital Constitutional provision was not considered, if, indeed, it was known to Ford or his corps of writers, and if they did know the fact, it was shunted aside.

As an outgrowth of a suit for libel brought by Ford on September 8, 1916, against The Chicago Tribune for publishing an editorial "Is Ford an Anarchist?" Ford's irresponsibility in making charges was established by his own testimony. In the trial of that suit in a Michigan court nearly two years later, he was asked: "Do you know of anybody that was trying to drive the country into slaughter?" "I thought," he answered, "there were many people that were." Q. "Can you give us the name of one?" A. "No." Q. "And yet you made the statement in this book that there was a ring trying to impress the President and force him into war?" A. "I did say that, yes." Q. "… Do you mean to tell this jury that you had sent out advertisements printed broadcast all over the country, and you did not know what was in them?" A. "I sent out many statements to cause the people to think." Q. "You said you did not know that statement was in there?" A. "I have said that." The jury awarded Ford a contemptible six cents damages and costs; Michigan law provided only $50 costs.

Such exhibitions of utter heedlessness gave unmistakable evidence of the convolutions of Ford's mentality. Was he either abashed by his self-exposure or did he learn thereby not to repeat the same performance? Not in the least. For nearly a decade more he remained immune to lessons and irreclaimable in practice. By token of his wealth and industrial power he evidently arrogated to himself a special privileged position. He was not satisfied to stick to the production of automobiles, the one thing which he did know, but his publication plunged into a protracted campaign marked by the same recklessness on a more extended scale in attacking Jews.

What led him to do so? Perhaps acquired prejudices. Perhaps the influence of persuasive confidants. Perhaps the effect of the muddled condition in which continents found themselves after the war and the rising tendency to find a scapegoat in the Jews. Possibly the epidemic fear caused in many countries by the seizure of power in Russia by the Communists, or Bolshevists, as they were called. Viewed as a threat to the capitalist and social structure everywhere, this revolutionary new order was represented as the deed of Jews, although only a few of its principals were Jews, and they were not professing Jews.

Leaving aside speculation as to motive or combination of motives, one thing is certain: the continuity of Ford's attacks upon the Jews, beginning in 1920 and persistently carried on for seven years, stamped them as calculated and obstinately deliberate. The instrumentality was The Dearborn Independent, a weekly newspaper owned and published by Ford. In its heyday this publication boasted of a circulation of approximately 700,000. But the attacks were not confined to its pages. They were given permanence by the republication of the flow of articles in issues of paper-bound volumes which were widely distributed in America and elsewhere in English-speaking countries, and translations were brought out in the languages of various European countries and in other continents. Why, in America, at least, considerable sections of the people familiar with the widely published accounts of Ford's self-admitted untrustworthiness in making assertions should now give credence or even a hearing to his charges against Jews was no mystery. In this case every preconception which had been imbued uprose automatically and many were inclined to believe off-hand that what was now said of Jews must be true for no other reason than that they were Jews. In whatever way they thought Ford had been on the wrong tack in some other matters, he was on the right one in administering castigador) to Jews.

The first volume, dated November, 1920, was a reprint of The Dearborn Independent's first twenty articles, and was entitled The International Jew, the World's Problem. The preface opened by assuming the baneful existence of a "Jewish Question." Exactly where this was resident or defined was not explained. Certainly, it was not located in the Constitution of the United States, in the State Constitutions or in the statutes or institutions of the land. Under these, Jews had the inviolate right to be citizens or denizens and pursue their way on terms of religious and civil equality with their fellow beings. In singling out the Jews as an exotic people, Ford's editorial scribes brushed aside this basic fact as having no validity. Like the "Catholic Question" which, as we have abundantly seen, was spawned by bigots, the "Jewish Question" was sheer fabrication.

To brace this phantom, the preface brazenly went on to assert: "The Jewish Question has existed in the United States for a long time." This, at the start, was the beginning of a stream of allegations wholly belied by actualities, and if throughout the whole long-drawn series of articles there was any one thing their author or authors avoided, it was adherence to fact. As has been herein narrated, there were in Colonial times conditions which, by the same designative process, might have been styled the Quaker Question, the Puritan Question and the Catholic Question. But there was no "Jewish Question"; Jews were too few, too insignificant, and offered no challenge to established creeds. That deep prejudice of majorities against Jews was reflected in law was a fact, but not so much so as the same proscription applied in various places to Quakers or to Catholics or to other dissenters from the ruling creed. Had there been a "Jewish Question" after the formation of the United States, it inevitably would have been manifested in law. But save exceptional survivals of old concepts, there was not the remotest evidence of any such situation. On the contrary, as we have shown, founders of the Republic, in order to encourage immigration and development of agriculture, trade and commerce, made an express point of inviting people of all nationalities and religions,, including, of course, Jews, assuring them that in America they would enjoy full religious as well as civil protection.

"There have been periods in our country," the preface had the hardihood to declare, "when it [the "Jewish Question"] has broken forth with a sullen sort of strength which presaged darker things to come." When was that time? Not in America's history. Minor rowdy outbreaks against Jews were occasionally not absent, but need we recapitulate that the repeated great organized movements were against Catholics? The blanket indictment which the preface now proceeded to make against Jews smacked strongly of that against Catholics by the Know-Nothings, the A. P. A. and the Ku Klux Klan. As witness: "Not only does the Jewish Question touch those matters that are common knowledge, such as financial and commercial control, usurpation of political power, monopoly of necessities, and autocratic direction of the very news that the American people read; but it reaches into the cultural region and so touches the very heart of American life." At this identical time anti-Catholic publications, as already noted, were accusing the Catholic hierarchy of controlling politics and the press. The same sweeping charge, switched by Ford's publication to the Jews, was equally groundless, but as professional Catholic baiters were ready to believe it about the "Romanists" so hostiles to Jews were likewise open to accepting it as true of Jews. Nor, as applied to Jews, was the charge without more sinister intent; seizure of control by "usurpation" was presented. This needless to say was a method foreign to Americans and, were it attempted, would have been quickly outlawed. But taking the preface at its word, had this "usurpation" been truth it would have implied gigantic strength on the part of a mere minority of 3,390,572 Jews, and corresponding ineptitude of the overwhelming majority of non-Jews in a total population of nearly 107,000,000 in the United States.

We linger upon that preface because it professed to give the reasons for publishing the attacks, and as an avowal of motives advanced for doing so has its preliminary proof of self-stultification. "The motive of this work is simply a desire to make facts known to the people. Other motives have, of course, been ascribed to it. But the motive of prejudice or any form of antagonism is hardly strong enough to support such an investigation as this." Following this smug self-exculpation, too glib for its own purposes, came a denunciation of the "International Jew and his satellites, as the conscious enemies of all that Anglo-Saxons mean by civilization." To deflect reproach branding Ford as a manufacturer of religious and social poison, the preface disclaimed that the articles proceeded "upon a false emotion of brotherhood and apology," and with bland self-satisfaction declared: "We confidently call the reader to witness that the tone of these articles is all that it should be."

Again and again in the preface came the claim that the substance of the articles was based upon "investigation." It is doubtful whether the world has ever seen volumes packed with more perversions of fact and outright falsities than these in question. Every article in the entire series bore the palpable impress of straining to make out a case against the Jews, and there was not the slightest scruple in the stringing together of myths, suppositions, innuendoes and falsehoods, all solemnly put forth as absolute facts. Obviously, considering the extended scope of those articles, we can do no more than select a few typical instances specifically proving how total lies were made to appear as standing truths.

The indictment in Article I was that by instinct the Jew was a trader and "the Jew is the only and original international capitalist." Anyone with a smattering of history would have known of the great trading companies of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries royally chartered to exploit the resources of North America, South America and the East and West Indies. The London Company, the Hudson Bay Company, the Dutch East India Company, the Dutch West India Company and John Law's Mississippi Company were but a few in the number, and there was not a Jew among the promoters and beneficiaries. In point of fact, the grantees were usually scions of royalty or largely titled noblemen.

For instance, the incorporators of the Hudson Bay Company were Prince Rupert, Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Bavaria, Cumberland, etc.; the Duke of Albemarle; the Earl of Craven; Lord Arlington; Lord Ashley and others. The charter endowed the company with an exclusive monopoly of trade and commerce of all waters and lands adjacent to Hudson's Straits. Heading the South Sea Company was the Earl of Sunderland, who was at the same time Britain's Premier, and the Duke of Portland was heavily interested. All of the other companies likewise bristled with peers who, as favorites of kings, were easily able to get the most comprehensive charters endowing monopolies of trade and commerce in particular areas of the world. The operations of several of these companies were attended by huge stockjobbing frauds with general calamity ensuing. Among the post-Revolutionary American trading merchants, sending their ships all over the globe, there was not a Jew; the list of individuals and firms, headed by John Jacob Astor, was distinctly a roll call of Christian merchants.

And coming to the international industrial corporations of more modern times we need only cite the Standard Oil Company, the world-wide traffic of which made its head, John D. Rockefeller, a billionaire and elevated his colleagues high in the rank of multimillionaires. In this corporation as well as most other corporations of international character the officers, directors and chief large stockholders were non-Jews. And, most pertinent of all the cases, Ford proved himself a shining exemplar of outspreading trade internationalism, grasping, as he ere long did, every opportunity to establish his factories in one country after another and fattening on great profits from divers peoples.

These were the plainest of facts, yet evidently because the Jewish Guggenheim family, only following patterns long since set by predecessor Christians, successfully launched their international American Smelting and Refining Company; that fact, coupled with the sway of the Rothschilds and a few other Jewish enterprises, loomed in the eyes of the Ford propagandists as the proof of exclusive Jewish ascendancy. Consultation of the Directory of Directors or, even more so, of the data given in such an authoritative book as John Moody's The Truth About the Trusts, published in 1904, would have shown the absurdity of this assertion as above made. But suppose it wholly had been true? Had not Jews the same right to engage in international dealings as anybody else—the same right to employ their initiative and ingenuity in any field they chose as Ford had in automobile production? Who was he to disparage a people because, in the essential of international trade, they might avail themselves of opportunities which no one else had the sagacity to see?

However, further to place the Jew in the character of a born trader, disdaining agricultural or menial work, Article III ventured into giving what it termed "Jewish History in the United States." When what is now New York City was New Amsterdam, and Peter Stuyvesant was Director General of New Netherland—later New York—Jews of Brazil, this article related, found it necessary to emigrate because of a disagreement between the Brazilians and the Dutch. They sailed for New Amsterdam. The article refrained from saying how many there were, leaving the impression that it was quite a sizable immigration of Jews who had acquired opulence in Brazil.

What were the facts as recorded in the official documents? After Bahia, Brazil, was evacuated by the Dutch, a meager twenty-three Jews "big and little" (adults and children) sailed on the bark St. Charles for New Amsterdam. They lacked sufficient funds to pay the full fare of the voyage, and upon arriving at New Amsterdam, in 1654, the Court of Burgomasters ordered their goods, "furniture" and other things, sold to recoup the bark's master. [Records of New Amsterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 240-241, 252. "These were seven volumes, transcripts of the handwritten minutes of the Court of Burgomasters, translated and published in 1897 under the authority of the City of New York"]. The twenty-three had naturally gravitated to New Amsterdam because the Dutch West India Company plied a regular trade between there and Brazil. Six years before the first arrivals of Jews, the Dutch West India Company, having virtual sovereignty over New Netherland, complained that "agricultural laborers, who are conveyed thither at great expense to the Colonists, sooner or later apply themselves to trade and neglect agriculture altogether" [Report on the Affairs of the West India Company by the Company's Commissioners of the Board of Accountants, January, 1648, Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, Holland Documents, Vol. 1]. Here we have the picture of non-Jews, repudiating their contract, and turning traders. And it was because of the dearth of agricultural labor thereby caused that a plan was recommended to supply the deficiency. This plan recommended that the tobacco, hides, furs, timber, cotton and other wares exported by the Dutch West India Company should be traded for slaves to be carried on the return trip to New Amsterdam and used in New Netherland for agricultural purposes [Report on the Affairs].

In telling how Stuyvesant ordered the Jews to leave—an act revoked by the Dutch West India Company's directors—the Ford article insinuated that the Jews were considered undesirables by Stuyvesant, while it attributed to the company a partiality toward them because of their stockholdings. As businessmen the directors had no feeling against Jews or anybody else serving their ends, and as Holland had been a refugee country for Jews who had fled from the second great Spanish persecution, its rulers extended much toleration. But Stuyvesant and the Dutch settlers of New Amsterdam were the most extreme of bigots, unwilling to grant to Jews even the moderate rights allowed in the parent country. Prejudice and that alone accounted for unyielding discrimination against Jews in New Amsterdam. Not a single complaint is found in the records against the Jews either personally or in respect of practices.

The frequent complaints made by Stuyvesant and his Council and by the Burgomasters were entirely against the methods of Scottish merchants. "Many Scottish merchants and small traders coming over in ships from Holland," read a decree of September 18, 1648, "injure trade by their underselling and forthwith return to Europe with the profits. Ordered, therefore, that all Scots and small traders be prohibited from doing business unless they remain here three years and build a decent burgher's dwelling house." This law was either outwitted or circumvented; the Burgomasters and Schepens, on January 22, 1657, found it necessary to pass a resolution. This complained to Stuyvesant that the number of Scottish pedlars coming by way of Holland was daily increasing; they pocketed their profits and "go back to Europe promptly"; their practices and trade were in violation of the rights granted to New Amsterdam by the Lords Patroons; and request was made for a law prohibiting any man from trading in New Amsterdam unless he were a City Burgher. Complying nine days later, Stuyvesant and Council recounted "the frequent complaints of the Burghery and other inhabitants of this Province against the inland trading and trafficking of the Scotsmen sailing hither and thither even to the best trading places, taking the bread, as it were out of the mouths of the good Burghery and resident inhabitants." Accordingly came a law requiring all arriving "Scotsmen and traders" to take out a license, costing twenty guilders, before conveying or selling their merchandise.

This was the actual condition, yet the unoffending Jew was made the victim of the severest repression. To swindle a Jew was held a worthy performance; Lourens Van der Spiegel was haled, on October 2, 1668, before the Court of Burgomasters charged with making bran and meal and selling the stuff as flour. His defence was that he had been authorized to "make the flour which he is to deliver the Jew on his account as coarse as he pleased, it being only for a devilish Jew." Jacob Cohin Hendricus, a Jew, petitioned for leave to bake and sell bread in the city; without giving any reason, his application was refused. Another Jew, Asser Levy, requested the New Amsterdam Court of Burgomasters to admit him as a Burgher; in the city of Amsterdam, Holland, he pointed out, Jews were Burghers, and he showed a certificate of his having been a Burgher there; moreover, in New Amsterdam he was "keeping watch and ward" like other Burghers. The Court of Burgomasters would not accede to his petition and referred him to the Director General and Council.

The utter ignorance of the Ford writer was shown by the conclusions reached. No condemnation was made of the refusal of the authorities to allow Jews to enter useful occupations and functions, but this very fact was transformed into the wild assertion that, barred from other sources of livelihood, Jews were driven "into foreign trade in which they were soon exercising all but a monopoly because of their European connections." Just how impoverished Jews, mostly herded in "Jews' Alley," four feet wide, could muster the funds to accomplish this feat was not considered. This omission, however, does not matter. All of the foreign trade was at first entirely monopolized by the Dutch West India Company, and then, in 1660, a measure of it was given to the City of New Amsterdam, but as a privilege only. This was done "to advance its [New Amsterdam's] prosperity." A stipulation was added. All ships going from New Amsterdam to France, Spain, Italy, the Caribbean Island and other countries, whether touching at Amsterdam, Holland, or at New Amsterdam, had to pay duties on sale of cargoes.

Thus cooking up the fiction of Jewish trade monopoly, the Ford publication proceeded to prop it with this companion absurdity: "Unwittingly, old Peter Stuyvesant compelled the Jews to make New York the principal port of America. …" Not then nor until long afterward was New York the chief port, unless it was largely for pirate ships, the captains of which, often in collusion with officials and leading merchants, there disposed of their booty. Philadelphia and Boston often outranked New York in the flow of regular commerce. Even considerably after the English conquest of New York, Jews were prohibited from entering both retail and wholesale business. By an ordinance of New York City's Common Council, on September 12, 1685, on the petition of Saul Browne to grant Jews the right to do business, permission to go into the retail trade was refused, but, evidently with the aim of building up the city's commerce, the Common Council decided that Jews could sell "by wholesale if the Governor think fit to permit the same." Jews could not legally even worship according to their faith. They had petitioned Governor Dongan for liberty to do so; he had referred their petition to New York City's Mayor and Common Council. "They returned their opinions thereupon, that no public worship is tolerated by the Assembly, but those that profess faith in Christ, and therefore the Jews' worship not to be allowed."

The Ford publication made the case appear that even in Stuyvesant's time Jewish mercantile influence overlorded business in New York City. How many Jews were there? Governor Dongan's report, in 1686, gave an indication of the slight number. "Here be," he wrote, "not many of the Church of England; few Roman Catholics; abundance of Quakers preachers men and women especially; singing Quakers; ranting Quakers; Sabbatarians; anti-Sabbatarians; some Anabaptists; some Jews."

In dealing with this era, the Ford writer, contradicting his own assertions as to Jewish trade monopoly, set forth the recourses to which the Jew was driven. Excluded from regular branches of business, he had to turn scavenger in picking up old rags, or dealing in cast-off clothes, or other such out-of-the-way lines. More by way of innuendo than anything else this course was presented by the Ford writer as an example of "Jewish resourcefulness." The implication was that the Jew would descend to any means, however low, to wrest a living, and, from the basest start, would use his adroitness to attain success. But the real and tragic point was characteristically ignored. Namely, that the bigotry against Jews, solidified into repressive laws, left them no choice; their resort to narrow opportunities, regarded with contempt by their oppressors, was far less an example of Jewish "resourcefulness" than it was a shameful proof of an inhumanity loading them with onerous discriminations.

From the most unpromising beginnings some Jews, by dint of industriously attending to their obscure traffic, self-denial and conserving their resources, did get money together. And the Earl of Bellomont, Captain-General of New York and Massachusetts Bay, was both thankful and relieved that they did so. In a communication, on October 17, 1700, to the Lords of Trade, at London, he related his difficulties in procuring funds to pay the soldiers weekly. "The merchants in this town … combined together to traverse me all they could. At first, they lowered the exchange of money considerably, and what is worse they will now advance no money at all on my bills; so that, were it not for one Dutch merchant and two or three Jews that let me have the money, I should have been undone. This at once shows the wickedness of these people, and the necessity of returning the soldiers' pay in trade, that we may not be at the mercy of these merchants." Who, then, were the skinflints?

In perverse imagination that Ford writer could see Jews in earliest times almost as financial conquerors of New York City. But let us get to actualities. Jews were not infrequently harried by rowdies often of the well-to-do official class. One such outrage was indignantly related by Governor George Clinton, in a letter sent from New York City on February 17, 1749, to a Mr. Catherwood. He told how a small mob, headed by Oliver Delancey, brother of the Chief Justice of the Province, had blacked their faces and otherwise disguised themselves. They then went to the house of a Jewish couple who in Holland had means but were now poor. All of the windows were shivered, the door broke open, the house was entered, and the party "pulled and tore everything to pieces, and then swore they would lie with the woman, which put the man and woman to great fright." What later happened? "The Jew was advised to go to Mr. Murray, the Attorney, for his opinion, who took a fee and advised him to make it up, as the persons were related to the principal people of the town, Mr. Chambers advised the like and told him he would be ruined if he proceeded against them, and Mr. Smith advised the same. This shows you that notwith-standing Mr. Delancey is under a persecution by the Crown he goes on in his riotous manner, bidding defiance to everybody, as no lawyer will undertake to prosecute him, being afraid of the Chief Justice's power."

Of the numerous other assertions in that Ford article, "Jewish History in the United States," we necessarily have to pass by many, but will advert to one more. After the American Revolution, this read, the instinct of the Jews seemed to make them aware that New York, as the chief port of America, "was to be their principal paradise of gain. And so it has proved." If Jews had such a pre-science it was more than had George Washington who was of the opinion that Baltimore would remain and rank as America's leading port. It was not until after the Erie Canal, begun in 1817, was well under way that the future of New York City as America's great port loomed in sight, and it was not Jews but such a personage as Chancellor Kent who foresaw that city's consequent and rapid development. New York City, he predicted in 1821, was "destined to become the future London of America" and a "great manufacturing as well as commercial" center. The city then had a population of 123,000. After the completion, in 1825, of the Erie Canal, extending 350 miles from the Hudson River at Albany to Lake Erie at Buffalo, New York City bounded forward as America's preeminent port and emporium.

To apply the same minute test of historical fact and authentic knowledge to the 746 pages of equally reckless assertions in The Dearborn Independent volumes would require infinite space. Embodying another series of articles, Vol. 2 was entitled Jewish Activities in the United States, and still another series was republished in Vol. 3 Jewish Influences in American Life. The nefarious drift and evil purport of all of the incorporated articles may be judged by the specimens already here presented. Yet… we have to note the audacious brag in the Preface to Vol. 2: "The articles thus far printed remain unanswered. They have been denounced and misrepresented but not answered." This was a stark falsehood. Aside from the fact that it was impossible to misrepresent such articles, the most infamous and preposterous of all of the libels therein contained had been thoroughly exposed.…