Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1882-07-22


into labUred argument to prove tn
rights of labor and property and the in
justice it claims to have been done t
it by publishing its article on Bishol
SCOTS death, without giving due cred
it. We have not time to wade through
its labored article to prove its incon
sistencies and no space to spare in gu
columns to answer them in detail
Therefore we shall condense in shor
space few facts which cover the whole
case. In regard to the right in news
what right can paper claim in an ar
ticle after 1t has been spread before the
country twelve hours in advance of
any other paper publishing the same
and after the II oney which paid for the
paper publishing it is in the pockets Of
the proprietors No one will deny the
right the Associated Press has to such
property so long as it keeps that prop
erty for sale, but after 1t has given that
news to the public for consideration,
no matter to whom, it has no farther
claim upon such property. Then the
news goes through a secondary stage.
1t becomes the property of those pur.
chasing 1t, and remains their property
until they retail it through their papers
to the public, when that moment their
right ceases for two reasons; first be-
cause they are paid all they ask for it,
and secondly because the news Is no
more theirs.
Now word as to the means used to
obtain the Bishop Scott article. 1t was
published in the News the morning
after the old christian veterans death.
With oommendable zeal that paper
collected and made a good report, the
best by far that was published. AS
sisted by the Bishops diary. it of
course had all that was required to
make good report. The article ap-
peared in the morning paper, and had
an exclusive run. There were no com.
pctitors in the field, and the publishers
had the full benefit of it financially and
morally. We saw that report in the
News, and being full and the best pub
lished, we were not long in making up
our mind to baseo article upon the
facts and incidents there given. We
commenced as every newspaper man
would commence under the ciEcum-
stances. We first wanted the facts |
stated verified and who was more like.
~ to be able to verify them or to correct
the errors than Rev. Charles Hill, both
from his position as the Oldest preach
er in Wilmington and his intimacy
with the deceased Bishop.
Even the Morning News must admit
that when its reporters see an article of
local importance in any of its evening
contemporaries not yet published in the
News, their first step is to call upon the
nearest person interested and have the
facts set forth in the case verified, COR
rected or refuted as the case may be.
Just the same course was pursued by
the REPUBLICAN. Rev. A. T. Scott,
the son of the Bishop, was not in che
city, and no one could be found who,
from their knowledge of and intimacy
with the Bishop was more able to
authenticate the report than Mr.. Hill.
To him reporter of the REPUBLICAN
went as he would to any other person,
to authenticate any other article of l
local interest. Let US here ask an I'M
prejudiCed public if this was not the a
proper course to pursue?
Our reporter had instructions to ask Z
Mr.. Hill to read the article over and to '
make any corrections necessary to give Z
a correct report. Mr.. Hill said he had n
read the report and the Incidents cen
neCted with it, and the facts set forth,
Of which he had any knowledge were .
correct and there were some things re. p
lated of which he had no knowledge,
and therefore could not vouch. He u
went farther, as if by way of testing the
article, and referred to the time the Bish- I
op entered the ministry /; the time he o
was ordained Bishop the time he went p
to Africa and the time he preached his D
sermon in the Union M. 3
E. Church. Had he sat down and talk. II
ed to our reporter for an hour or more u
he would have probably given about II
the same report in substance If not in a
words, that appeared in the News.
Did we not owe somethingt to Mr.. o.
Hill ? Was 1t not right for us to give =
Mr.. Hill credit for his information =,
We might at the same time have said -
that Mr.. Hill verified the Morning
News article, but as that paper has
been very spariDg In its couItesies to
the REPUBLICAN, we felt under no spec y :.
ial obligations toparade Its GREATNESS" "
before the community. Now then as "
70 the article being taken verbatim as a
has been intimated from the News, u
those who read both articles will find 8,
the foolishness of the assertion. Iuci- "
dents are related that do not appear and d
others are omitted that do appear Il
in the News article and the make up 81
and lar suage are materially changed, II
and yet we are free to say that the main Q
facts and dates are the same as they Il
necessarily had TO lie. We have no
more to say at this & mo ~ on The sub
jcct. @'H"l '"H'f r'' .'a"' A
...y - ...r.U. .....-.
Gv a.r '-.a. So
st