The newspaper owners were in a quandary. For several days they debated how to act. All remained silent. The editors of the Herald cabled the news to Bennett who was abroad. Then it was that Bennett exhibited that boldness and directness of judgment which characterized him. He cabled back, “Print the letter.” It was printed in the Herald's editorial col¬ umns, the arrogance of the Jewish advertisers was exposed, and non-Jewish New York breathed easier and applauded the action.
The Herald explained frankly that it could not sup¬ port a candidate of private interests, because it was devoted to the interests of the public. But the Jewish leaders vowed vengeance against the Herald and WHEN EDITORS WERE INDEPENDENT OF JEWS 215 against the man who dared expose their game. They had not liked Bennett for a long time, anyway. The Herald was the real “society newspaper” in New York, but Bennett had a rule that only the names of really prominent families should be printed. The stories of the efforts of newly rich Jews to break into the Herald's society columns are some of the best that are told by old newspapermen. But Bennett was ob¬ durate. His policy stood.
Bennett, however, was shrewd enough not to invite open conflict with the Jews. He felt no prejudice against the race; he simply resented their efforts to intimidate him.
The whole matter culminated in a contention which began between Bennett and Nathan Straus, a German Jew whose business house is known under the name of “R. H. Macy & Company,” Macy being the Scotch¬ man who built up the business and from whose heirs Straus obtained it. Mr. Straus was something of a philanthropist in the ghetto, but the story goes that Bennett’s failure to proclaim him as a philanthropist led to ill feeling between the two. A long newspaper war ensued, the subject of which was the value of the pasteurization of milk—a stupid discussion which no one took seriously, save Bennett and Straus.