Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-08-11
Ininstice to q Police Officer.

In the Richmond Times Of Sunday morn
ing appeared an account OF an interview
between representative of that paper and
Chief Of Police John PoH. Jr., in which the
Chief is reported as having used the fol-
loving language:
"As 10 the discrimination between the news
paper Offices, have given orders on three DIFF
ferent occasions that there should 10 no dis
elimination. Whatever IL given TO ono paper
should be given 70 the other, and feel assured
that you reporters Of the Times will have no
trouble hereafter. How q man could 80 dis
crlmInato as to carry news 70 one paper and fail
to furnish the other with 1t Is past my compre-
hcnsion. and that man will not do so again."
Yesterday, in reply to letter from the
DISPATCH asking the Chief If be was cor
rectly quoted. that officer replied:
As well as I can remember the clipping
enclosed IL correct. The conversation about the
discrimination between newspapers was brought
about by the reporter telling Of himself or some
other man connected with the 7imes going to the
Second station and asking the officer sergeant
Junius a. Cosby.-Bddorl for news and being told
that there was none and that on the same night
alter the sam officer went 10 the DISPATCH ONCE
and handed out his notebook 70 some one, at the
same time remarking that II would make the
Times people mad. and that made me say pretty
much Just what is on your clipping. Truly yours
J. POE, JR.
As we understand this charge OF dis
elimination as made to the Chief OF Police
and as 1t is understood by him, 1t is that
police sergeant on duty at the Second
station-house when asked by Times re-
porter il there was any news answered that
there was none, but that later the same
night the said sergeant took TO the DIS
PATCH Office items of news OF which he
knew at the time no was questioned by the
Times reporter.
So far as we have any information on
the subject this is not true, and great in
Justice, we believe, has thus been done by
the Chief TO o faithful and deserving
officer.
The Chief himself we feel sure, Is not
more innocent of such an offence than is
Sergeant Cosby OF this. The Sergeant
should have had hearing and we should
have had hearing before any utterance
of this character was made. The CHER
has committed blunder which every
member of his force and the general COM
munity see and which no doubt he, too.
now realizes. He should have made q
careful inquiry and collected all the infor-
nation possible before pronouncing ajudg-
ment-even a qualified judgment.
We now call upon him as fair-minded
officer, who would not like to be tried and
censured (by implication even) without a
hearing, to cause such an inquiry TO be
made as will establish, and at once, the
truth or fslsity of the allegation.
While our conviction Is strong that the
Chief made mistake in venturing any
observation at all, our faith in his integ-
rity is such that we are perfectly willing
for him to conduct the examination which
is now necessary to elicit the truth. He
can do it or the board can do it. 1t does
not matter to US, and we imagine that 1t
is immaterial to the accused Sergeant.
But an investigation Is what we insist
upon. And we believe that it cannot and
will not be denied.