The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-08-09

in one OF tfc city papers. II Immediately
In tho centre thereof. and directly In
front OF the front door--wlthout seeing
the body" The Dispatch published yes
terday a photograph Of Mr.. Poiiards
house. taken. az 1t stated. by stan co'-
respondent. from a point just outsae OF
the yard gate the camera being so ar
ranged. II tells us. las 10 secure Vie"'
not only Of the house and the pody' out
all Of the surroundings which has piayen
a conspicuous part In the case Inc let
ter from its correspondent was piaihTy
intended TO discrcdt The Times picture
The Dispatches photograph was an a'.
most exact reproduction OF The limes
picture. the only differences being those
inevitable between n careful sketch anu
a photograph. The D.spatchs picture
however. brought out even moro d-stlhc'-
Is than The Times picture. the con-
spicuous position Of the body as viewer
from the gate.
In view of the Dspatch's own picture
the reflection upon The Times statement
seems unjustilable. though 1t is possible
the person who took the photograph ala
not write the letter.
The Dispatch says in the article REFER
red to: "Then again. the yard was over
grown on that side with tall grass and
weeds probably eight inches in height
and the body was almost obscured from
view by them" There were no weeds
and very little grass, and that not more
than three inches tall. The D.spatchs
photograph shows this TO be the TACT.
The article says again, From the gate
they could hardly have seen anything
but a portion of the dress on account OF
the weeds. which have since been tram
pied down. 1t is common in country
homes among house-keepers, where they
wash dress to lay ii out on the grass
to dry, instead of hanging II out on
line. as Is done in the city, and had Mr..
Pollard and MIR. Clements seen the BODY,
the thought OF murder being foreign 10
their minds. they would probably nave
thought IL a dress and nothing more.
The Dispatches photograph contradicts
every word OF this. and would seem 10
make it at least improbable that Mr..
Clements and Mr.. Pollard should have
failed to see Mrs. Pollards body If 1t
was there when they came through the
gate.
The Times, .n its earnest effort 10 get
at the truth. was the first paper TO SEND
a special correspondent TO the scene OF
the murder This gentleman first dis
closed to the public. through the columns
of The Times the striking fact-which
was in no way brought out at the trial,
or If brought out was not deemed of suiii-
cent importance 10 be reported to any
paper-that the body of full-groWn
woman lying at the spot where Mrs.
Pollard was found dead. was in full ana
plain view of the gate through which Mr..
Pollard, Mr.. Clements. and Mr. Clements
son passed and repassed and only about
forty yards distant from the gate. THIS
remarkable fact, which is one OF the
undisputed facts Of the case, made an
impression upon the minds of all who
learned IT, To show the actual situation
The Times sent an artist to the place and
sketched the scene and printed a rough
plat Of the grounds. This sketch and the
facts of the case as brought out by The
Times. have been the subject of dis
crediting statements by the Dispatch;
which. by a singular fatality, IL has IT.
self overthrown by its own photograph.
The Times thinks the important thing is
TO get at the facts of the case. our
neighbours object seems TO be to try TO
belittle any facts which. the superior dill
g.nce of The Times may bring out ahead
OF it,
We have no objection to any correc-
tons OF our errors. especially when made
in the interests of TRUTH but we do OBJ
ject TO the assignment of errors by
contemporary which are so superficial
and unfounded that the assgnor him
self unconsciously refutes them.