OCR Text |
Show Historic Hoaxes : By ELMO SCOTT WATSON Western Newspaper Union. I 1 Many Ladies' Man PUGENE FIELD took special de-light de-light in tormenting Edward S. Bok, because Bok, who was a bachelor, bach-elor, was editor of the Ladies' Home Journal, That apparent Inconsistency In-consistency was amusing to the poet and humorist One day he Inserted In the news columns of the Chicago Daily News a notice of Bok's engagement to Miss Lavlnia Pinkham, granddaughter granddaugh-ter of Mrs. Lydia Pinkham of patent pat-ent medicine fame. The story went out over the Associated Press and was reprinted in papers throughout the United States. A few days later there was a story about Miss Pink-ham's Pink-ham's departure for Paris to buy a trousseau. Soon letters and inquiries began to pour in upon Bok, who pleaded with Field to put a stop to such stories. sto-ries. Field obliged him by printing a denial of the Pinkham engagement engage-ment but at the same time linked Bok's name with that of Mrs. Frank Leslie. Again there was a flood of letters to the unfortunate editor of the Journal, also some caustic comment com-ment about the fickleness of his affections. af-fections. Shortly afterwards Bok's engagement to the daughter of Cyrus Cy-rus H. K. Curtis, publisher of the Journal, was officially announced and Field was very contrite for the joke he had played on the Philadelphia Philadel-phia editor. But that didn't stop him playing jokes on Bok. His next was a fake interview "at quarantine" with Bok upon his return from a trip to Europe. Eu-rope. Since the Interview dealt with changes in women's fashions in Paris Par-is it was widely copied by fashion papers all over the country and it even fooled Bok's office in Philadelphia. Philadel-phia. The people there believed that he was still in Europe and there was much scurrying around to prepare for his arrival before they learned that it was another of Eugene Field's jokes. John Wilkes Eooth Mummy IF, AT some county fair or in a "museum," you were told you could see the "mummified body of John Wilkes Booth" upon payment of a certain fee, it is to be hoped that you took advantage of the opportunity. op-portunity. For if you had, you would have gazed upon one of the greatest hoaxes in American history. . Around the turn of the century a house painter in Enid, Okla., known as John St. Helen (his' real name bwas David E. George) convinced Finis L. Bates, a Tennessee lawyer, law-yer, that he was in reality John Wilkes Booth. He asserted that he had escaped from the burning barn in Maryland a few days after the assassination of Lincoln, and now, struck with remorse over his deed, had to confess to ease his soul. Bates tried to interest the United States government in his discov- ! ery, so he could collect the $100,000 reward offered for the slayer of Lincoln Lin-coln this, despite the fact that that reward had long since been paid to the captors of Booth. But the federal fed-eral authorities weren't interested. In 1903 St. Helen (or George) committed com-mitted suicide and the Tennessee lawyer claimed the body. In 1908 Bates published a book, "Escape and Suicide of John Wilkes Booth," to bolster up his claim. " For a time the mummified body of his "Booth" was exhibited in Memphis, Term., and in 1929 it was said to have been sold "to parties in the West." Where it is now is unknown but wherever it may be, this is true: it is NOT the body of. the man who killed Abraham Lincoln! Wedding Story DURING the winter of 1929-30, Robert Quillen, editor of the Fountain Inn (S. C.) Tribune, printed print-ed a story about a wedding in his community which wasn't complimentary compli-mentary to either the bride or groom, As a climax, it insinuated that this had been a "shot gun wedding" wed-ding" and then added: "This may be the last issue of the Tribune but my life ambition has been to write up one wedding and tell the truth. Now that is done, death can have no sting." This story was widely reprinted throughout the country, because many an editor, no doubt, had often wished to write just such a story and was glad to know that one of their number at last dared to do so. Some of them suspected that it was a fictitious yarn, but others believed it was genuine and criticized Quillen Quil-len for "exposing and treating people peo-ple so cruelly." It was a hoax, all right, but it Is still often reprinted as a real wedding wed-ding story, perhaps the most famous one ever written. |