Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1884-02-20
The COpyr1sht1ng of Nsws-soms view.

The COpyrf9httng OF News-SOms Views
of Opponents OF the WsttsrsOn BAH.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19.-An influential
member of the House. referring to the Wat
terson bill, spoke as follovs'to-day concerning
it: 1.-THE proposition on its face seems Sir,
but it is deceptive. The value of news is not
in holding it. but in giving it; not in slowing
it away, but in disseminating it. How can
one expect to retain a property right in that
which has no value unless given away1
What is news? The statement of facts, the
story of occurrences. If one should get the
first account Of thing should he be permit
ted to patent it and secure the exclusive right
of publishing itp The newspapers have ann.
pie protection in the first use Of their own
special news. The first use is about the
value there is in it to the worst newspaper.
The country press can get some benefit by
reprinting the news, but it is no injury to the
city press. It Is oftensr q benefit, for
it is usually credited. The country
press would be injured by the passage Of the
bill. It is q scheme of the Metropolitan and
Associated Press to confine the printing of
news to the journals Which are rich enough
to spend larger sums or gather into gigantic
combinations to secure the news. It would
cripple the local press, dam up the dissent
nation Of useful intelligence and create by
law gigantic monopoly in news and render
valueless all newspaper properties not backed
by large resources or capital. The great
metropolitan newspapers are now enormous
ly profitable. They need no protection of
this kind. shall vote against the bill"
gentleman largely identified with several
papers published in the smaller cities said:
''This is the protest of q decaying organize
ton, the Associated Press, against the prog
ress of the times. The cost of collecting
and saving news has been greatly cheapened
within the last year or two. Already the
smaller papers are able to receive a very ex-
cellent news service at a price within their
means. The thing I object to chiefly in the
projectors of this scheme is their hypocrisy.
Il is an awful crime, they say, to steal
the news, and yet there Is not q man
among them who does not systematically and
regularly steal the news. The San Francisco
papers steal from Chicago, the Chicago
papers steal from New York, the New York
papers from London, the London papers
from st. Petersburg, and if the st. Peters
burg don't steal it is because there are no
newspapers east to crib from. How many
of these virtuous great papers have stolen
the Presidents message, bribipg officials to
get it and then made a merit of it? I heard
the publisher of one of Chicsgo's greatest
dailies say once that he wouldn't paw for
cable dispatches when the first copy of the
NeuYork Herald from the press cost him twen-
ty-fiye cents day. The originator of the
idea in Watterson's bill, am told, is Mel
vile E. Stone, of the Chicago News. Before
Stone got into the Associated Press, when he
was struggling and fighting to keep his little
paper above the waves, he used to 60 around
regularly to the bulletin boards of the Jour
nal and steal its news for his own paper.
The bill is intended to bolster up the big pa
all there is in it. The virtuous horror of the
crime of stealing news expressed by its sup
porters is nonsense and Hypocrisy"