This Alpha and Omega of all the commandments in the editorial creed some editors learn by sorrowful experience.Bok was, again, fortunate in learning it under the most friendly auspices.He continued to work without sparing himself, but his star remained in the ascendency.Just how far a man's own efforts and standards keep a friendly star centred over his head is a question.But Edward Bok has always felt that he was materially helped by fortuitous conditions not of his own creation or choice.
He was now to receive his first public baptism of fire.He had published a symposium, through his newspaper syndicate, discussing the question, "Should Clergymen Smoke?" He had induced all the prominent clergymen in the country to contribute their views, and so distinguished was the list that the article created widespread attention.
One of the contributors was the Reverend Richard S.Storrs, D.D., one of the most distinguished of Brooklyn's coterie of clergy of that day.Afew days after the publication of the article, Bok was astounded to read in the Brooklyn Eagle a sensational article, with large headlines, in which Doctor Storrs repudiated his contribution to the symposium, declared that he had never written or signed such a statement, and accused Edward Bok of forgery.
Coming from a man of Doctor Storrs's prominence, the accusation was, of course, a serious one.Bok realized this at once.He foresaw the damage it might work to the reputation of a young man trying to climb the ladder of success, and wondered why Doctor Storrs had seen fit to accuse him in this public manner instead of calling upon him for a personal explanation.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.But the clergyman did not stop his attack.
Of course, the newspapers egged him on and extracted from him the further accusation that Bok's silence proved his guilt.Bok now took the case to Mr.Beecher, and asked his advice.
"Well, Edward, you are right and you are wrong," said Mr.Beecher."And so is Storrs, of course.It is beneath him to do what he has done.
Storrs and I are not good friends, as you know, and so I cannot go to him and ask him the reason of his disclaimer.Otherwise I would.Of course, he may have forgotten his remarks: that is always possible in a busy man's life.He may not have received the letter enclosing them.
