Reputation

January 6

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , , , ,

What was advertised in a revolutionary American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Virginia Gazette [Dixon and Hunter] (January 6, 1776).

“Monsieur LAFONG, HAIR-DRESSER, &c. AND BARBER GENERAL!”

George Lafong, a “French HAIR-DRESSER” in Williamsburg, occasionally placed newspaper advertisements in the early 1770s.  When he took to the pages of the first issue of John Dixon and William Hunter’s Virginia Gazette for 1776, he presented himself as “Monsieur LAFONG, HAIR-DRESSER, &c. AND BARBER GENERAL!”  That elaborate and spectacular title served as the headline for his advertisement.  He had not previously dropped his first name in favor of referring to himself as “Monsieur LAFONG,” but apparently decided that circumstances merited this affectation.

That may have been because he jointly placed the advertisement with his new partner, Alexander Wiley, explaining that they went into business together “IN Order to carry on the business more extensively.”  Wiley possessed “great Abilities in Hair-Dressing,” according to the advertisement, yet neither his name nor reputation seemed to suggest any connection to French styles.  Hairdressers frequently benefited from the cachet that their clientele associated with French fashion, something that Lafong understood when he introduced himself as a “French HAIR-DRESSER” and there in a French phrase, “TOUT A LA MODE,” in 1770.  He doubled down on that in his new advertisement, naming himself “Monsieur Lafong” in the body as well as “Monsieur LAFONG” in the headline.

The new partners hoped that the combination of Wiley’s “great Abilities in Hair-Dressing, and the general Satisfaction which Monsieur Lafong flatters himself to have hitherto given” would yield “Encouragement” (or appointments) “from the Ladies and Gentlemen of this City.”  Lafong deserved to lean on his reputation.  According to the entry on wigmakers from the Williamsburg Craft Series, Lafong operated one of the premiere wig shops in the town in the early 1770s.[1]  In his own marketing, he declared that he “makes Head Dresses for Ladies, so natural as not to be distinguished by the most curious Eye.”  If former clients (or their acquaintances who knew who dressed their hair) agreed with that assessment, it did indeed suggest a “general Satisfaction” with Lafong’s work.  Furthermore, Lafong and Wiley promised that “the greatest Pains will be taken” to earn the approval of their clients.

**********

[1] Thomas K. Bullock and Maurice B. Tinkin, Jr., The Wigmaker in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg: An Account of his Barbering, Hair-Dressing, and Peruke-Making Services, and Some Remarks on Wigs of Various Styles (Colonial Williamsburg: 1959, 1987).

October 26

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , , , , , ,

What was advertised in a revolutionary American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer (October 26, 1775).

“We think proper to notify the public, that the charge against us is wholly and totally false.”

Rumors and misrepresentations spread in conversation and in print when the imperial crisis intensified and hostilities between the colonies and Britain commenced.  Upon finding themselves the subjects of gossip that damaged their reputations, Abraham Hatfield and William Lounsbery published a newspaper advertisement to set the record straight.  It started with an entry in the October 5, 1775, edition of the New-York Journal.  Among the news received from correspondents in the city,  John Holt, the printer, inserted this report: “We understand from North Castle, that on last Saturday night, Abraham Hatfield, Esq; of the White Plains, and Lieutenant William Lownsburry, of Mamaroneck, were discovered in the very act of endeavouring to cut down a Liberty Pole, which was so well fortified with iron that it occasioned their being found out, and for that time disappointed in their loyal attempt.”

Whether or not they held Tory sentiments, Hatfield and Lounsbery vigorously denied that they had acted on them by attempting to cut down the liberty pole.  In the next issue of Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer, published on October 12, they inserted an advertisement that identified the allegations and dismissed them as fabrications.  “WE the subscribers” (or undersigned) “having understood that Mr. Holt has inserted in his last week’s paper, a piece charging us with being concerned, and of even being detected in the fact of attempting to cut down a Liberty-pole – we think proper to notify the public, that the charge against us is wholly and totally false.”  It ran twice more, on October 19 and 26.  Hatfield and Lounsbery disseminated their denial that they had anything to do with the incident multiple times in their effort to combat an accusation made in the public prints just once.

Why didn’t they submit a correction to Holt or place a similar advertisement in the New-York Journal since that newspaper carried the piece that spread what they claimed was misinformation?  Perhaps they did, but Holt, a Patriot printer, felt confident enough in the source of the report that he declined to publish anything submitted by Hatfield and Lounsbery.  Alternately, they may have been so upset with Holt that they did not wish to give him the satisfaction of acknowledging the allegations in his newspapers (or contributing to his advertising revenue) that they instead opted for another newspaper, one with a circulation that rivaled or exceeded the New-York Journal.  Whatever the case, they did not allow the accusation that they were Loyalists who had attempted to cut down a liberty pole go unanswered.

The same issue of the New-York Journal that featured the report that identified Hatfield and Lounsbery as the culprits involved in the liberty tree incident in New Castle also carried letters addressed to Holt concerning rumors that colonizers had scalped a British soldier and cut off his ears after the battles at Lexington and Concord.  The correspondents believed that Holt could “serve the cause of truth and liberty” by publishing their accounts of the actual events, stating that they “buried the dead bodies of the king’s troops that were killed at the north bridge in Concord, on the 19th day of April, 1775,” and none of them “were scalped, not their ears cut off, as has been represented” by those who sought to “dishonour the Massachusetts people, and to make them appear to be savage and barbarous.”  In articles, letters, and advertisements, accusations and rebuttals about the misbehavior and even depravity of Patriots and Loyalists circulated in the public prints during the Revolutionary War.

September 15

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , ,

What was advertised in a revolutionary American newspaper 250 years ago today?

South-Carolina and American General Gazette (September 15, 1775).

“He … declares, that he has never made the least Infringement on the said Resolves.”

Richard Lushington was serious about defending his reputation.  When the merchant suspected that rumors circulated about alleged misconduct, he placed an advertisement in the South-Carolina and American General Gazette to offer a substantial reward to anyone who revealed the source.  In a notice dated September 5, 1775, Lushington declared that he “has just Reason to surmise, from the Conduct of the Committee of Charlestown” that was responsible for enforcing nonimportation and nonexportation agreements “that some evil, malicious Person or Persons has lodged an Information of his having violated the Resolves of the Continental and Provincial Congresses, by shipping Provisions to the disunited Colonies.”  The Continental Association did not prohibit exporting commodities to Britain, Ireland, and colonies in the West Indies until September 10, but perhaps the reports contended that Lushington had been overzealous in how much and how quickly he exported provisions to colonies in the Caribbean that had not signaled support for the American cause.  Had the merchant attempted to sidestep the Continental Association, abiding by the letter but not the spirit?

Lushington denied that he acted inappropriately.  “[I]n justification of his own Character, which he esteems as sacred,” he proclaimed that “he has never made the least Infringement on the said Resolves.”  The merchant was so anxious to address the allegations that offered “a Reward of ONE HUNDRED POUNDS currency to any Person or Persons that will discover to him the Informer, on Oath, in order that such false, atrocious Villains may be publickly known in the Community.”  He may have been especially keen to address the charges manufactured against him because, as Amy Pastan explains, he was a Quaker and thus an outsider among the predominantly Anglican population in Charleston.  “While Quakers were tolerated in the southern port city,” Pastan notes, “their anti-slavery views set them apart from the Charleston elite.”  Whatever challenges he faced as fall arrived in 1775, Lushington later demonstrated his allegiance to the American cause by serving as captain of a Patriot militia company known as the Free Citizens of Charleston as well as the Jews Company because several Jewish men, also outsiders in Charleston, served in it.

For more on Lushington and the Free Citizens of Charleston, visit “Rediscovering Charleston’s Revolutionary Outsiders.”

September 4

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , , ,

What was advertised in a revolutionary American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Connecticut Courant (September 4, 1775).

“JAMES LAMB and SON, From BOSTON, … intend to carry on the TAYLOR’s business.”

James Lamb and Son used an advertisement in the September 4, 1775, edition of the Connecticut Courant, published in Hartford, to inform the public “that they have opened a shop at the next door to the Golden Ball in Middletown.”  They listed dozens of items they stocked, mostly an assortment of textiles but also ribbons, buttons, buckles, thread, pins, sugar, indigo, and coffee.  Their inventory rivaled those that ran in newspapers prior to the Continental Association going into effect.  The Lambs did not mention when or how they acquired their wares.  Instead, the header for their advertisement focused on their origins, “From BOSTON.”  Like others “From BOSTON” who advertised that they opened shops in other cities and towns in New England in the summer and fall of 1775, the Lambs might have been refugees displaced by the siege of Boston after the battles at Lexington and Concord in April.  They could have left the city when they had an opportunity, taking merchandise with them in hopes of establishing themselves in a new place.

A nota bene indicated that they offered residents of central Connecticut the same quality and range of service that they previously provided to customers in Boston.  They were not, after all, shopkeepers but also skilled tailors who “intend to carry on the TAYLOR’s business in all its branches as usual in BOSTON.”  That last phrase meant “as they had in BOSTON,” signaling to prospective customers that the Lambs had experience as tailors.  As newcomers, they needed to start building their reputation; for the moment, their own account of their experience substituted for local clients familiar with their work.  Yet that did not prevent them from making bold claims.  “Any Gentlemen who will favour them with their custom,” the Lambs proclaimed, “may depend on having their business done with fidelity and dispatch.”  In addition to exemplary customer service, the Lambs promised the highest quality.  They “warranted” their work “as complear as can be done any where in America.”  The tailors “From BOSTON” asserted that their garments rivaled any from Charleston, New York, Philadelphia, or any other city or town in the colonies.  They hoped such claims would attract customers as they began building their business in Middletown in the first year of the Revolutionary War.

July 17

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , ,

What was advertised in a revolutionary American newspaper 250 years ago today?

New-York Gazette and Weekly Mercury (July 17, 1775).

“I have not at any time, directly or indirectly, held any correspondence with General Gage.”

Stephen Case of New Marlborough, Massachusetts, needed to set the record straight.  To do so, he placed a notice “To the PUBLIC” in the July 17, 1775, edition of the New-York Gazette and Weekly Mercury.  The stakes were too high to let unsubstantiated rumors go unanswered.

“As no person can secure himself from the slander of malicious tongues, and as inasmuch I am not without my enemies, who have spread a number of falsehoods in order to injure me in my character, and property,” Case asserted, “I have therefore thought it expedient, with the advice of good friends, to undeceive the public.”  Even readers who had never heard of case likely found this introduction intriguing and wanted to learn more.  “It has been reported as a truth,” Case continued, “that I have refused to sign the General Association,” the nonimportation agreement devised by the First Continental Congress in response to the Coercive Acts.  Even worse, gossip spread that Case “held secret correspondence with General Gage, in order to supply the army with flour.”  Gage simultaneously served as governor of Massachusetts and commander of the British regulars involved in the battles at Lexington and Concord, the siege of Boston, and the Battle of Bunker Hill.  Such allegations against Case made him an enemy to the American cause and no doubt unpopular among many of his neighbors and associates.

Case strenuously objected.  He denied the “scandalous falshoods” and was “ready at any time to make oath” about them.  As far as the nonimportation agreement was concerned, he had “long since signed the Association, and [did so] on the first sight thereof, without asking” or prompting from others, “and also have as one of the Committee of Observation advised others to do it.”  When it came to the other accusations, Case proclaimed, “I have not at any time, directly or indirectly, held any correspondence with General Gage, nor none of his agents relating to buying flour, or any provisions whatever.”

To deliver this message “To the PUBLIC,” Case purchased advertising space in a newspaper that circulated in western Massachusetts.  The printer served as editor when it came to news items, letters, and other content, yet provided a forum for advertisers to publish their own news about current events.  Case attempted to take advantage of such access to the public prints to repair the damage to his reputation, but perhaps too much damage had been done.  Four months later he placed another advertisement in the New-York Gazette and Weekly Mercury (and the New-York Journal and Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer) that offered his farm in New Marlborough for sale or exchange “for a House in New-York.”  Case may have remained at odds with other residents of his town, despite the assertions he made in his first advertisement, and decided that he would be better off starting over somewhere else.  If so, it was the damage cause by rumors rather than the danger and destruction of battles that displaced him from his farm during the Revolutionary War.

June 15

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , ,

What was advertised in a revolutionary American newspaper 250 years ago today?

New-England Chronicle (June 15, 1775).

“We are satisfied that Mr. Bradish had no Desire … to do any Injury to his Country.”

On the eve of the American Revolution and during the first months of the war, colonizers in New England resorted to newspaper to clarify their positions and frame their own narratives about how their experiences fit into current events.  They used advertisements to set the record straight for a public that might have misunderstood their actions or principles.  For nearly a year before the battles at Lexington and Concord, some of those who signed an address to the former governor, Thomas Hutchinson, upon his departure from Massachusetts to return to England ran advertisements with recantations and assurances that they supported the American cause.

Once hostilities commenced, others depended on advertisements endorsed by reputable patriots to clear their names.  Such was the case with Ebenezer Bradish, Jr., of Cambridge who had been “represented as a Person unfriendly to the just Rights and Liberties of his Country.”  To make matters worse, he moved to Boston on the same day as “the late unhappy Commencement of Hostilities betweed the Troops under the Command of General Gage,” the governor, and “the Inhabitants of this Province.”  That “increased public Suspicions against him” and “rendered [him] more odious and disagreeable to his Countrymen.”

Yet that unfortunate coincidence did not tell the entire story, according to ten men who signed a notice in which they recommended that “all Persons” treat Bradish “as a Gentlemen who is not unfriendly to the Rights and Privileges of his Countrymen,” at least “so far as we are able to discover upon strict Enquiry into his late Conduct.”  They declared that they had investigated “the Cause of his going to Boston at the Time aforesaid” as well as “his Conduct since” and determined that Bradish “had no Desire by that Means, to any Injury to his Country.”  On the contrary, they asserted,” his Design was friendly, and his Conduct was justifiable,” though they did not give more details about the circumstances.  The men who signed the notice came from various towns in Massachusetts (and one from Connecticut).  Most listed their ranks, with “Seth Pomeroy, of Northampton, (General.)” first and then five colonels, two majors, and one captain.  Even though Bradish was suspect, these men were not.  Readers could trust them when they said that they wished “to do Justice to Mr. Bradish” by “remov[ing] from the Minds of our beloved Friends and Countrymen, all groundless Apprehensions” about his conduct.

When Bradish published the conclusions reached by their “Enquiry” as an advertisement in the June 15, 1775, edition of the New-England Chronicle, he appended a nota bene that made clear he had no sympathy for British authorities or the conduct of the troops under their command.  “Whereas a Report had been unjustly spread abroad, that it not the Regulars but our own People who took the Goods lost out of my House,” Bradish proclaimed, “this is to certify to all good People, that said Report is false.”  Furthermore, it “never came from me” but instead from someone else with malicious intent.  To leave no doubt about where he stood, Bradish concluded with an indictment of British troops: “I am certain my House was not only shot at but plundered by the Regulars.”  In publishing the letter from the men who investigated his actions and his own account of what happened to his house as a newspaper advertisement, Bradish hoped to harness the power of the public prints to clear his name and restore himself to good standing among those who supported the patriot cause.

March 22

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Essex Journal (March 22, 1775).

“The mode of education adopted is similar to that of the most approved English Boarding-schools.”

When Eleanor Druitt moved to Newburyport from Boston in the spring of 1775, she placed an advertisement in the local newspaper, the Essex Journal, to announce that she planned to open a boarding school for “young Ladies.”  According to her notice, she had been in the colonies for just three years, yet in that time she had established a reputation for educating young women that she hoped would serve her well in her new town.  Druitt provided a “mode of education … similar to that of the most approved English Boarding-schools,” offering pupils in Massachusetts the same benefits.

The schoolmistress gave an overview of the curriculum, emphasizing that students would learn “French and English Grammatically” and “Writing, in which branch, Epistolary correspondence (that very essential though much neglected part of female education) will be introduced as an established part of their exercise.”  In other words, she taught young women how to write polite letters that would serve them well in maintaining relationships with family and friends in other cities and towns.  Her students also learned arithmetic, “made familiar by a method adapted to their capacities, the want of which makes that study generally disgustful and consequently often ineffectual.”  Druitt had a much higher estimation of young women’s aptitude for drawing, embroidery, and other kinds of decorative “Needle-work,” asserting that she “thinks needless to insert” a longer description “as her abilities in that way are well known in Boston and many other parts of the continent.”  The families of prospective pupils may have seen some of the advertisements she ran in Boston’s newspapers over the past three years since those publications circulated in Newburyport and other towns in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.  In general, her curriculum focused on “polite accomplishment[s]” to distinguish the “young Ladies” that she “tenderly and carefully looked after.”

To that end, Druitt declared that the “faults and defects of the pupils [will] be rectified by mild and gentle usage.”  That meant “rewards and encouragement; rather than harsh severe treatment.”  Parents did not need to worry about the treatment their daughters would receive when boarding with Druitt, though she did state that she would adopt some of those stricter methods as a last resort when “absolutely necessary.”  The schoolmistress suggested that she established just the right balance of encouragement and discipline that allowed pupils at her boarding school to thrive.  Families had a variety of concerns as the imperial crisis intensified in the spring of 1775, but they need not worry about the “reception” their daughters would experience at Druitt’s boarding school.

December 5

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Boston Gazette (December 5, 1774).

“James Bruce of Boston … was never in Company with a Captain Lovett.”

James Bruce resorted to an advertisement in the December 5, 1774, edition of the Boston-Gazette in hopes of rehabilitating his reputation.  From London, the mariner sent a sworn statement that addressed a story about him relayed “by a Paragraph in the Boston Journal, dated 28 July, last.”  He referred to an update from a Captain Lovett published in the Massachusetts Spy on that day.  Lovett had recently arrived in Boston from Antigua, by way of Portsmouth, New Hampshire.  He delivered news that the “merchants and planters” in Antigua “were in great consternation on learning about proposals to suspend trade with Britain and its Caribbean colonies in response to the Boston Port Act and other Coercive Acts.

Despite anticipating hardships, those merchants and planters supposedly supported the American cause, even to the point of intervening when an “old troubler of Boston, Capt. Bruce, was railing against this town in a large company at a principal tavern.”  According to Lovett’s account, Bruce “expatiated largely on the abuse he had suffered for bringing his blessed cargo of Tea” to Boston aboard the Eleanor, one of the ships involved in the Boston Tea Party, and “hoped the next freight he brought them would be soldiers.”  At that point, a “gentleman” confronted him, noting how ungrateful he sounded toward a town that had contributed to his livelihood for so many years, and “caught Bruce by the nose and led him out of the company, requiring him to keep his distance, as a dirty ingrate, unworthy of any gentleman’s company or countenance.”

That story from July came to Bruce’s attention in September, prompting him to compose the statement that appeared in the Boston-Gazette in December.  Whether or not the incident in the tavern in Antigua occurred, Bruce apparently realized that he “got his bread” from the people of Boston and attempted to undo the damage.  He asserted that he “was never in Company with a Captain Lovett … at a Tavern in Antigua” and “the Contents of the Paragraph” inserted in the Massachusetts Spy “in order to hurt him” were “groundless and void of Truth.”  He “never made use of any such Expressions.”  Furthermore, he claimed that he “did not think or know at the Time he took the East India Company’s Tea on Board the Ship Eleanor, that the same would have been either detrimental, or displeasing to the Town of Boston.”  Had he been more aware of the circumstances, “himself and [the] owners would not have suffered any of the said Tea to have been shipt on Board the said Ship Eleanor.”  Bruce not only backtracked from the story told by Lovett but from his involvement in the events that culminated in the Boston Tea Party.

Just as many colonizers who signed an address to Governor Thomas Hutchinson upon his departure from Massachusetts later ran advertisements apologizing for having done so and claiming that they had not fully considered the contents of that address before affixing their signatures, Bruce paid to have his account of recent events run as an advertisement.  Among the five newspapers published in Boston at the time, he most likely chose to submit it to the Boston-Gazette because of that publication’s reputation for supporting patriots and opposing Parliament, thus placing his message before the eyes of those most offended by the reports of his conduct.  In placing such an advertisement, Bruce contributed to shaping the news that readers encountered, though that did not guarantee that anyone believed his version of events or the sincerity of his regret.

October 19

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Pennsylvania Gazette (October 19, 1774).

“I … am really sorry that my Fellow-Citizens should be so unfriendly to me.”

Tensions rose in the fall of 1774 as the harbor in Boston remained closed and blockaded due to the Boston Port Act and the rest of the Coercive Acts went into effect as punishment for the Boston Tea Party.  Yet that port was not the only place that experienced discord.  John Head’s advertisement, published in both the Pennsylvania Gazette and the Pennsylvania Journal on October 19, revealed his frustration with rumors and accusations that he sought to take advantage of the situation through unscrupulous business practices.

He reported that “a Number of unkind People have industriously propagated through this City, Philadelphia, “I made it my Business to purchase a large Quantity of several Sorts of dry Goods, in order to sell them again at an advanced Price.” Head, like many other colonizers, anticipated that the First Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia at the time, would enact some sort of nonimportation agreement in response to the Coercive Acts.  His critics accused him of attempting to sidestep such measures by stocking up on merchandise in advance, thus not having to make the same sacrifices as truly patriotic merchants.  To make matters worse, they insinuated that once goods became scare because of a nonimportation agreement that Head would jack up his prices and gouge consumers who did not have the usual range of choices available to them.

Head vigorously denied those rumors.  That “Report,” he asserted, “I do declare to be false.”  Furthermore, he challenged “any Person to appear to my Face, and prove that I have bought to the Amount of One Shilling’s Worth of Goods from them, since the Arrival of said Ships.”  Continuing to make his case, Head declared that “on a cool Reflection, I cannot recollect that I have bought to the Amount of Fifty Pounds Worth of dry Goods on Speculation since I have been in Trade.”  He did not have a history of acquiring goods in large quantities, nor had he done so recently, despite whatever his adversaries claimed.  Head expressed his disappointment over the gossip that made it necessary to take to the public prints to defend his reputation.  He lamented that “my Fellow-Citizens should be so unfriendly to me, and unjust to themselves, as to propagate a Report of this Sort.”  In so doing, he positioned himself among the ranks of citizens and patriots, confirming his fidelity to their cause.

September 24

Carl Robert Keyes Daily Advert Update , , , , , ,

What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?

Providence Gazette (September 24, 1774).

“I am determined to prosecute him for the Defamation.”

Defamation!  That was the defense Joseph Aldrich, Jr., made against allegations that appeared in the September 10, 1774, edition of the Providence Gazette.  The original accusation and Aldrich’s response both ran as advertisements.  It started with one that read, “I JOSEPH BROWN, of Gageborough, in the County of Berkshire, and Province of the Massachusetts-Bay, give this public Notice, that Joseph Aldrich, jun. of Gloucester, in the County of Providence, hath forged or counterfeited a Note of Hand against me the said Joseph Brown, for Ninety odd Pounds Lawful Money.”  The notice offered a warning: “All Persons are therefore cautioned against taking any Assignment of said Note, as I am determined to prosecute for the Forgery, instead of paying the Contents.”

Aldrich apparently did not become aware of what Brown charged right away since he did not respond in the next issue of Providence Gazette, but not much time passed before he either read Brown’s advertisement or someone told him about it. That spurred the aggrieved Aldrich into action.  He placed his own advertisement that cited the notice “charging me the Subscriber with forging a Note of Hand against the said Brown” and asserting that “the Charge is absolutely groundless.”  Just as Brown stated that he intended to take the matter to court, so did Aldrich.  “I am determined to prosecute him for the Defamation,” he declared, confident that “I shall be able to make my Innocence appear in a Court of Justice.”

Yet it was not a “Court of Justice” that mattered immediately; it was the court of public opinion that Aldrich sought to sway.  Brown had damaged his reputation, perhaps imperiling his ability to conduct business and support his family.  For Aldrich, the most important news in the September 10 edition of the Providence Gazette appeared among the advertisements, not among the articles and editorials that so animated readers as the imperial crisis intensified.  Paying to run a notice gave Brown access to the public prints to share his version of events involving the supposedly forged and counterfeit note.  In turn, taking out his own notice allowed Aldrich to defend himself against that calumny.  In both instances, advertisements doubled as local news.