it largely with borrowed money until the property
began to earn a profit. He had a clear vision of
what he wanted to achieve and had the faith to
stick to it against great odds. And Mr. Ochs's
frankness is not limited to statistics of circulation
and advertising. He has laid bare once more the
details of the ownership with a view, probably, to
putting an end forever to the whispered charges that
there is British capital in the Times. There are
only American owners and he and his family hold 64
per cent. of the paper's stock. Nobody in journalistic
circles ever believed this gossip as to foreign control.
In the first place the Times is naturally so pro-English
that the British would never have had to pay money
to it even had its owner been venal; in the second
place during our late hysteria it was the fashion to
charge any newspaper whose views one did not like
with being in the pay of the other side. It is true
that some rich Wall Street men helped Mr. Ochs at
times, notably in the matter of the bonds of the Times
Building. But it is false to deduce from that certain
characteristics of his paper; it would have taken
precisely the course it has followed had Mr. Ochs
never needed to borrow a penny from anybody. No
journalist has ever questioned the fact that it was Mr.
Ochs's paper, or that it bore the stamp of his person-
ality.

During these twenty-five years the Times has been

-4-