Texas Jesse

The Democratic Party, in the shape of its National Committee, went into the law courts. Facts in the case appear to be:

1) In June, 1924, one Harry Newman came to Manhattan from Ohio to conduct the Cox-for-President boom. After the Convention, he besought Robert W. Woolley, who had been engaged as Publicity Director for the party, to place all the campaign advertising through him. Mr. Woolley was "sold." Thereupon Newman went to Van Patten Inc., a recognized firm of advertising agents, got a job as Vice President as reward for getting the business of the Democratic Party.

2) Van Patten Inc. was to receive no compensation except the regular 15% commission from all publications in which they "placed the Democratic advertisements. Hence, the more the Democrats spent, the more Van Patten Inc. made.

3) Van Patten Inc. submitted to Mr. Woolley a contract for advertising. Said he: "I never sign contracts, but I agree to the terms." Van Patten Inc. claims that the contract, verbally agreed to, called for $60,000. Counsel for the Democrats claim that is absurd, as Mr. Woolley's total appropriation for all publicity was only $250,000.

4) At this point, Jesse H. Jones entered upon the scene as Financial Director of the party.

Mr. Jones has lived in Texas since his youthful migration from Tennessee. He made millions in lumber, rose to bank and railroad directorships, took a big man's interest in politics, became international as a Red Cross man with H. P. Davison, became national as a Democratic angel. He was opposed to placing all the advertising through one agency. On money matters, he was a little "hard-boiled." But, at fitful intervals during October, he (or Chairman Clem Shaver, through James W. Gerard, Democratic National Treasurer) paid to Van Patten Inc. $50,000 because, according to the latter, various publishers were demanding cash.

5) After the campaign, Jesse H. Jones called upon Van Patten Inc. for an exact accounting of the $50,000. He was answered, he says, that an accounting had been sent to Mr. Woolley and none other would be forthcoming. On Feb. 10, 1925, Mr. Jones through Chairman Shaver sued Van Patten Inc. for an accounting.

Democrats because of 559,220.08 actually paid out in advertising, for which they had received only $50,000, leaving $9,220.08 due; and for $75,000 damages represented by the loss of their expected commission on $500,000 worth of advertising which Publicity Director Woolley had agreed to buy through Van Patten Inc. and which he had failed to buy.

7) At various times in February and March, meetings were held at the Bar Association to settle the row out of court. Democrats offered $5,000. Van Patten Inc. refused.

8) Last week, the issue was joined. Mr. Van Patten told newspapermen that the trial would bring out awful revelations concerning the Democratic Party, would show how Jesse H. Jones (originally a McAdoo man) had knifed the campaign, would explain why Messrs. Davis and Bryan were not elected. "He [Jones]," said Van Patten, "balled up the campaign more than any other man. He is the man I want to get my hands on."

"Absurd," said the genial John W. Davis. "I don't know what Mr. Van Patten is talking about," said the genial James W. Gerard. "If he [Van Patten] can, by a law suit, disclose the reasons why Davis and Bryan were not elected, it will be very interesting indeed and helpful in future campaigns," said Jesse H. Jones of Texas.