The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-05-02

10 no nroud. II has long been the one or
the greatest powers for good this world
has in IL. and 1t has exercised and Is
still exercising an influence upon British
thought and British character that cam
not be measured.
The Times has recently undertaken and
won a nght in behalf Of the public that
deserves the emphatic endorsement and
approval OF all Independent newspapers.
IL Is the habit Of the news agencies In
London. receiving. as they do, cable dis
patches from every part OF the habitaoie
globe at great cost, 10 receive these tele-
grams In greatly condensed form ana 10
expand them In the London Office, thus
making the readers OF the newspapers
which get their news from them think
that much which they read comes from
distant part of tho world that has really
been written In the city Of London. Ihese
kilograms are always expanded by capd
bic ana intelligent men and there Is
very little risk that matter will be put
into them that is Daeiy misleading.
Nevertheless the thing is a fraud, whether
harmless or not.
The Times became satisfied that the
Central News had been making IT the vic
tim Of an imposition Of this sort, and
1t boldly charged it with furnishing DO
gus news Of that kind. The Centrh
News sued II for a libel. and the case
ct In a
triumph for the Times. When the evil
dence had been heard. the lawyer Tor
the Central News advised his client That
they had no case and, upon the Times
declaring that ii did not believe the News
Company intended any fraud, and that
all the Times desired was TO establish It's
point. the Central News paid the costs
and a judgment was entered against II.
In other words, the Times had 1T declared
and established as law that the News
Company had no right 10 furnish dis
patches OF that sort, which was all that
the Times aimed at doing, whether done
honestly or dishonesty.
The particular matter in controversy in
the suit related 10 the capture by the
japanese OF the Chinese fortress Wei-hai-
wei. The Times proved that the dispatch
which was received in London by the
Central News was no more than wei
hai-wei taken" Yet, when 1t was furnish
ed to the newspapers, the Times In the
number it had been expanded into quite
rio !, dot al e nf no
capture. II contained a graphic descrip-
ton of three assaults previous TO the
fourth and successful one, and an in
telligent British naval officer was made
10 certify 10 all the Incidents as an eye
witness, when no British naval officer had
seen the assault, so far as the Central
News knew; and a certificate from such
a person lent immense value. OF course,
TO the authenticity and value of the dis
patch. The Times found also that this
course was customary with the News
Company. The Times took the very just
ground that If the Central News had
supplied It with the telegram ii actually
received it would have paid for that at
the regular rates, and then, if the Cen
trail News had chosen to append its ex-
panHons, 1t would have published them
or not as 1T chose. but, If it published
them. IT would have paid for them as
news comments and not as cables; and its
readers would have been informed exact
ly how far they were reading cables from
Wei-hai-wei and how far they were read
ing history written in the office Of the
Central News Company.
The London Times IS perfectly justified
In claiming. as II does. that In this mat
ter 1t has fought at its own charges the
battle Of the press at large, as well as
that of the public" Honesty and candor
in journalism are just as necessary TO
Journalism occupying its proper relation
to the people as honesty in anything
else is to that other thing occupying its
proper place.