The Savannah tribune. [volume] (Savannah [Ga.]) 1876-1960, 1888-09-01
..If Was . eegus Pieture !"

EpIIoh.-f tease all W US space IN
your respected columns to correct an
article which appeared 10 fhe Savannah
Daily Times Tuesday August 18th 1888
under the abeve caption. The caption
is the product Of the iueeniously profit
ic brai.s of The Times. The Times is
able to assume grave Responsibilities
and make serious charges W tn intrepid
ty-esp eeiaiy in the case Of two help
less Negro preachers. But we suppose
that the Times will allow US to tip our
hats, make polite bow and deny its
serious charge against us, especially if
we urge our people to take this eminent
ly justssand pre- eminently learned paper
that does our race such kind act of
justice In publishing two OF its represeu
tatives sto. the world as frauds, without
knowing whether they were guilty or
not. The article of De, T, Jones does
not make SO serious charge as the
just and learned editor OF the jmes.
Indeed, it is hard for US to see how the
editor of the Times 9educed his head
ing from the note of DR.. +. Jones. It
may be that we, as many others don't see
as the Times does. We honestly deny and
stand ready to prove that the charge is
not true. We have not "palmed off,
the picture of the said Jones for Rev.
Andrew Bryan and neither eau the
Times prove this serious Charge it has
without pro, ocatiou or foundati N
made agains us. Mr.. Jones
statement was wit h the lacts
in the case which We stand ready to
prove. Indeed. upon cross examination
Mr.. Jones would be good evidence for
us. We did not say one word to Mr.,
Jones about tout lines or nything con
corning picture, as we can prove by
him (Joues) We can prove that Nr,
Jones was distinctly told by the artist
that he did not want to take his picture
but simply wished to copy the color Of
his skin. This was our trouble in HAYS
ing the picture of Rev, Andrew Bryan
painted 1t was paitred from an old
centenarian cut. The features, size and
everything else was painted before we
went for De Jones at all 1t was paint
ed about the color ef an Indian at first
We objected to tha clor--the artist
painted it over several times trying to
get the color to suit us. bur he failed;
finally, he asked us to bring him Iiv-
ing man about the color Of the man
whose picture VIC had gotten him to
paint, We carried him Jones. This IS
all the connection Jones had with the
picture at all 1t is just Jones color
and that is all We have the original
cut from which the picture was painted
and there is no more "strong resem-
blance' in the picture and De. f. Jones
than there is between the original cut
aud the picture. There was no "decep
ton" practced and none intended.
Jones card in the Times is Substantially
false. This we can prove by Jones him
self at the proper time and place, We
are sure that the picture resemb les the
cut from which it was taken and it
strikes us that we ought not to be held
responsible for it resembling any body
else. There isl strong resemblance"
b tween a great many people and it is
uot styled deception" either may be
bec4usa the learned Times is not called
to sit in judgment on the case. The
Times would be proper juror and
very becoming judge as well as an able
lawyer to try cases. 1t needs only to
hear one side Of the case and
it passes its righteous judgment
according to she laws Of the
Modes and Persians May the Times
have long and useful lie.
A HARRIS,
n X LOW