The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-03-03

need of q new paper and concluded
as follows: The people of Virginia
need such n newspaper In Richmond.
not newspaper whose prime purpose
Is to make money, but whose prime
purpose. is to serve the people. There
has been considerable consultation
among gentlemen from different parts
of the State and many feel-that the
time has come to establish new
daily in Richmond"
There was certainly no concealment
In this statement. The reason for
the establishment of the paper was
given to be the unreliable and unfair
conduct of the Times-D Dispatch. 1t was
also frankly stated that the prime
purpose would not be to make money.
although business men know that
paper must make money, IL 1t Is to
exist and carry out the purpose of the
founders The occurrences in May re-
ferred to above had great effect in
causing the final decision to be
reached.
There has never been any conceal
ment as to the chief promoters and
officers of the company. The stationery
OF the company sets forth that James
Cannon, Jr., Is the president of the
company, r. S. Barbour Is the vice.
president, and J. S. Peters Is the
secretary and treasurer. The stock
holders are men of standing and
aha rfn tn tChr
Petersburg, Danville, Lynchhurg.
Blackstone. Suffolk and other places
In Virginia. They are in sympathy
with the purpose set forth above,
namely, that the prime purpose of
the paper is not to make money, but
to serve the people of Virginia" II
may be impossible for the manage
ment of the Times Dispatch to be-
lieve that anybody viii invest any
money. unless the prime purpose
is to make money. 1t may be
uncomfortable to them that men
may invest money to serve the
people of Virginia. But the stand
ing and character of the stockholders
of The Virginian in the various COM
munitics in which they live and the
people of the State at large makes
the charge of hypocrisy on their part
for the sake of salvage and plumber
to be an evidence to the people of in
telIigence that the Times Dispatch is
desperate. and that If there Is
In. &c
the fin1es-Bispatct, which in Its pain
full CD "Discharging a Public Duty
is simply trying to damage The Vir-
gilman In order to protect its own sub
scription list and finally its own ex-
chequer
2. The reason given by the Times
Dispatch for Its sudden zeal to pro-
tect the public from the Hypocritical
Virginian is the discovery on its part
that an editorial in The Virginian had
been copied bodily into the columns
of the Christian Advocate without
to Indicate some kind of arrangement
between the two papers. some COM
munity of interest between the two
through some identity of ideals, hopes
and ambitions" and this incident
proves that 1.-The president of the
Christian Advocate appropriates his
writings, circulates them as the
Advocates -own and-.thus thriftllY!
fights The virginian's battle with a.
double barrelled gun"
Well, there is nothing hidden or
concealed or hypocritical in this mat
ter. and there never has been. James
Cannon, Jr., is the president of the
Advocate Company. and j. s. Peters
Is the secretary and treasurer. ana
the same gentlemen occupy similar
position In The virginian Company.
Their names appear in their proper
capacity on every letter and every
circular that Is sent out from both
papers. What horrible hypocrisy Is
there In this fact? Why should any
body wish to conceal 1t. What dam
age does 1t do to either paper for 1t
to be spread broadcast? The gentle
men in question do not desire to ap-
pear immodest. but they have not
considered the fact that they were
connected with both papers to be a
damaging fact to the interests of
either paper, and they have made no
effort to conceal II, but on the con-
trary their letters have proclaimed 1t
daily Why should not the Advocate
Publishing Company arrange with
James Cannon. Jr., to do Its editorial
work and why should not The Rich
mond virginian arrange with James
Cannon, Jr., to write editorials for its
columns? And why should not James
Cannon. Jr.. the editor OF the Advo-
cate, print in the columns of that
paper an article that he had written
for The virginian, and which had ap-
peared in the columns of that paper
II he thought 1t suitable for the
columns of the Advocate? But no
credit was given? That is true. The
editor of the Advocate having been
employed by The Virginian to do edi-
torial work for it, forgot to be cour-
teous to himself. and failed to put
the credit at the bottom of the article.
But who was damaged or deceived by
1t? Hundreds of people take both
papers and recognized 1t at once. II
either the Advocate or The Virginian