Daily Republican., 1882-07-25
soealipg news Illustrated.

Yesterday morning we noticed in
the Morning News, local article IL
reference to the arrest of the notorious
Bob Allen, by detective Jones. We
would not refer TO this at all were ii
nos that the local appeared first in the
late edition of Saturday REPUBLICAN,
and to illustrate what the News calls
news stealing. Neither are we COM
planning that the news made use of the
article for its columns. 1t Is welcome
to all such and as many more as 1t can
find in the REPUBLICAN no matter how
much it may revamp them and rewrite
them to destroy their identity in the
paper in which the local first appeared.
Let MS look at this matter little far
cher and compare it with the Bisb. Scott
article for the sake of illustration and
SEQ who are the greatest offenders, and
If the REPUBLICAN is a literary thief
how far the News falls short of the
same. The article, 1t is true, is not go
long as the Bishop Scott article, but we
presume it will be admitted that theft
d oes not depend upon the size or char.
act or OF the article stolen. The school
hoy who wrote upon the door of the
school house: "It is sin to steal a
pin, it Is a greater to steal a later" had
mot fair conception of what oonstitu'
Ted theft. The Bob Allen article does
mot appear in the News as it appeared
in the REPUBLICAN,. 1t was revamped
and rewritten to death. One half the
truth was taken out of it for the pur--
pose of deceiving the people and max
ing it appear original in the News. The
ientprprising News man evidently did
not interview any person that knew
much about the arrest or he would
have learned that two men were ar
rested" Bob" Allen and Shadrech
Trusty, both charged with the same
offence. Why did not the News repor-
tor state all the facts in the case? Why
state that Bob Allen was arrested, and
not state that Shadrech Trusty
was arrested at the same tine. The
purpose is self evident. 1t was only to
steal the article as the News has de-
lined stealing, but to disfgure and de.
face the goods that they could not be
identified by the public. We have not
the least objection to the News or any
other paper "model" or otherwise,
using the locals they find in the RE-
PUBLICAN and they find great many
there not in their cwn papers, but when
we do the same thing, it is little hard
to be called thieves by those more
guilty. The News may say that the
Bob Allen local was shorter than it ap-
Peared in the REPUBLICAN,; so was the
Bishop Scott article shorter In the RE-
PUBLICAN, than in the News. They
may say that statements in the " Bob"
Allen article we're left out and others
supplied; that was just the case in the
REPUBLICAN with the Bishop Scott ar.
ticle. The News took the bob" Al
len article from the REPUBLICAN,, re
YRmped it, rewrote it, besmirched it,
made it uptruthful by not publishing
all the truth and gave it to the public
without credit or thanks to anybody
The REPUBLICAN acted differently with
the Bishop Scott article. 1t first veri-
fed the truth of it by Rev. Mr.. Hill
who mentioned some distinct points to
cur reporter that he (Hill) well knew
to make himself sure that the article
was correct. With the facts Mr. Hill
gave us, with what we knew ourselves
owing to personal acquaintance with
Bishop Scott and with what we CLEANED
from the News article, we wrote our
own, and we gave credit to whom cred
1t belonged--to Mr.. Hill. With this
plain illustration Of two local articles
ono of them a small one 1t is true and
the other large one, but with the
Same principle involved, we rest the
judgment OF the case with the public,
ND6 would advise our contemporaries
10 give and ia ke a. we have done in
the past and expect to do in the future.