Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1901-05-11
MR.. STEWARD REPLIES.

Editor the Planet
mus ense more beg permission to
sp-ak tbroughrthe colum ms OF she PLAN
ET.
In yo1r Issue OF the 4.h inst the Ray
Il. Brice attempted 90 reply to m7
letter in rhe issue of the 9th of April
ult. IL IN only an attempt. Il Ia no
answer to my letter, My reason for
writing again 70 TO point out the fall
scies which Rev M. Btice's letter
contains This done I shall not furth
er pursue the controversy.
Tne reverend gentleman raised a
lot OF dust which, no doubt he thinks
will blind the public 80 that it will no,
zee the true issue in the case. He
poses well as I'M ared innocence.
Ist. Heasserts shat 1 charged him
with literary theft. This deny. For
l stated what he had done ana then
said distinctly that would not charge
him With plagiarism but would leave
that for the pu6lie TO decide.
he weDders IL understand Il 9
meaning or the term plagiarism, say
ing II did not. he would proceed 60
inform nae; and then ne gees to work
and. gives ths identical defiuition of
pisg srism whichlI had Qupted from
Weoster's Dictionary in my letter call
ing attention to hls conduc,. Il that
not dust with ssvengssDce ? Is will d /.
observed that the Rev. NJ Brice does
rot d~ny that he, has violated the rules
observed By literary people all over
the world Out attempts 80 justify him.
sell 10 dotng so. he says shat he had
perfect right TO recite my poem with
out telling the audience from whom or
whence it came. Let us test the
soundness of this argument. A few
years ago DR.. Talmage published IN
the public press q series of splendid
sermons which he had written and
Presched. Now il the position Of Rev.
Nc. Brice bee correct one he has q per
teot right co preach any one Of DR.. Tai
images sernonsrfrom HE (Brice's) pul.
pit without telling the congregation
from whom or whence it came Does
any reason sb q person believe that he
hes any such righri ER .sides, he did
not only "reeite" but ~coutributedr
the poem along with other matter "for
over his owB name. Hs
claims that he read she poem from q
cilpping, that be did not reprodu uce il.
lHes, but he contributed" it TO be
seproduceo. Then too. that Clipping
must have had the name of the author
OF the poem st the bottom of it or else
it had been so clipped 90 to leave of
the name OF the author.
Rev. Me-. Brice asks il have not
borrowed from other minds. To this.
answer that borrowing thoughts
from others and taking the thoughts
and language of others bodily and
using them as one's own are two Alto
gether different things.
Shakespeare says "This world is n
stage, and all the men and women are
actors, Now, after readipg this in
shakespeere's works, Imay say sny.
thing please in my own language or
style about the world being q stage,
etc., without giving credit. This is
what u understand as borrowing from
osher minds. Else shat do we read
books for But when i use the exact
language, and style. word for word
from ShakesPeare's or any body .else's
writingsn q must give due credit or be
guilty Of plagiarism. 81 thisbs not so,
As to what Rev Mr.. Erice says about
vihhsatioR. ,Quarrelipg.
Negroes being Jealous os each other,
and about the 10Th century. etc., all
that is siCapty some more OF hIs dust,
but it wall mystify no one.
All attempted to do ie the ouset
vas to call public attention to the yvio-
lation by Rev. Me-. Brice OF certain
rales recognized by the literssi OF
the world and in the present letter
to the fsllacies in his attempted reply.
This. I think j have accomplished
and 1 shall have nothing more to ssy
On this subject.
Thanking you, Mr.. Editor, for your
,oueSesy, am,
Respectfully,
q. M. STEWARD.
Richmond, Sa., May 8, 1901. J