Disquisition by Scripps, E.W., The case of Clark, January 21, 1915

              Ohio University Libraries, E.W. Scripps Papers, MSS 117, Series 4, http://bit.ly/scripps_mss117
THE CASE OF CLAE.K
The case of Clark is, in many respects, identical to that of
Rickey, although it did not have its beginning and foundation on a so­called
iron-clad contract.
From the time when Clark was my secretary, through all of my
connection with him, my principle, of making stockholiers in order to
procure permanent bulwarks to the institution as a whole for a long
period of time, was always understood, and many, many times discussed.
He, better than any other man, perhaps, had. the opportllnityof knowing
my five year period rule and my principle that men should never work in
this concern after they were forty years old, on salaries or in positions,
but that their stockholdings should be made so large, compared with all
their other interests, that after the periods of their employments with
salaries should cease they could be depended upon to be active, intel­ligent
stockholders, working for the inte:eest of the concern.
The iron-clad contract, as started with Thorton and Rickey's
employment, spread out through the conoern, in certain oases only by my
suggestion, but in a general way, I think, because Mr. Atwood adopted
the Thorn~on-Rickey preoedent as a good one, and gradually introduced
it as a oustom. It had. its advantages in some Oases and disadvantages
in others.
There were some speoial arrangements made with regard to the
United Press. I felt that this, peouliarly, wa.s an institution which
should always be owned by the men who were actively running it. The
iron-clad oontract might have been made use of in the U.P. case, but
for an entirely different reason from that whioh was applioable to the
caseS of individual newspapers. In the case of the U.P. I felt that
the only non-working stockholders should be myself or someone of ~y
heirs. In this case t more than in the case of any newspaper, some~i one 5