The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1879-10-28
ADOPTION NO LARCENY.

ADOPTION NO LARCENY.
The charge Of plagiarism is easily made
but very hard to be sustained. The crop
of new ideas is exceedingly limited, and
it is only question of culture or lit
erary ingenuity to present those ideas in
new words, to give them an original
touch of the artists brush. Rev. DR..
Lorimer, now of Chicago, but recently
of Boston, is charged with having
preached a sermon to his new flock that
was largely taken from an alread! pub
lished discourse of a celebrated English
divine, DR.. Parker. There was certainly
not only similarity of ideas and argu-
ment, but phenomenal similarity of
language, in expressing those ideas. But
it must be borne in mind that the simple
principles of orthodoxy are 50 clear and
plain that, among the many thousand
professional expounders of these princi-
pies who have their weekly duties to per-
form toward the worldlings under their
charge, they can ring but few changes on
the few important themes of interest.
There can be no well-tounded charge of
plagiarism against a gospel cxpounder
who quotes freely from the Prophets, the
Apostles, or the Fathers of the Church.
Without this liberty there would be no
use for them. They could only "bray
canticles." Every liberty should, there
fore, be allowed to the gentlemen who
assume to lead the blind, by way they
know not, to ultimate light.
Even in the journalistic world, which
affords the widest scope to comparative
originality, there is no such rigorous rule
applied as is attempted to be applied to
the Rev. DR.. Lorimer. 1t has been the
experience of the STAR to see its edi-
torials copied verbatim ct literatim ct
punctuatim into metropolitan papers
without a word of credit or quotation
mark. Even in the literary ''hub' of
the universe, Boston, one paper has for
mouths past in its Sunday issue taken a
half column or column of the STARS
good things and given them to its readers
rs original matter-leaded editorials
This is accepted by the STAR people as a
delicate compliment.
1t is really not matter of journalistic
plagiarism. 1t is only a phenomenal de-
yclopment in the Boston paper each Sun
day Of the same ideas (and in the same
exact language) which the STAR has SCI
forth to its readers on the secular 81,
days preceding.
1t is but just in this connection, as tt
the charge Of plagiarism, to bring unde
review another of the lea ned professions
and see what is tolerated and ever
deemed commendable in the customs O
it's best members. In legal argumen
no advocate-not even the ablest-is ex
pected to be entirely original in his exor
dunn or even his peroration. If he ad
dresses a jury lie will if for the plaintiff
adopt the course if rot the language 0
Sergeant Buzfuz, in the leading case o
Bardel VS. Pickwick. He will-hc must
, appeal to the heart and sympathies o
each juryman almost in the educated
language of that classical precedent, ant
if he departs from it woe be to his client
Ard he must say, in conclusion, 'gcn
tlemen of the jury, now leave this cas-
with you, relying confidently upon you
intelligence and integrity, and regard fo
your official votes, and -- and - and -
without which reliance, life, liberty, &c
&C., is worthless, for whenever IN intel
ligcnt jury, such as now see before Inc
should render such verdict as is aske'
, for by my learned but misguided oppo
nent, then life becomes a burden an
all our boasted Liberties vanish il
smoke" and 80 on ad infnitum. Eve
in the arguments before the Presidents
D Electoral College or Court, more than on
), ha'f Of the eloquence was stereotypeo
n and had been far way back even befor
: the famous trial of Warren Hasting
c where Burke and Sheridan spouted III
S recorded eloquence for days and weeks.
i Now the fact of the matter is that i
n either Of the learned professions Or any c
l. tie walks of life tie man who attempt
d to be original will be in danger of bein
n called liar like Eli Perkins, or fot
h like Private Dalzell, or literary bol