The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-11-18
PEOPLES FORUM
EDITORIAL. TEARS "PENANCE FOR THE
PRESS


Editor of The Richmond Virginian:
Sill see In the Times Dispatch of Sunday.
November IL fomnious day., editorial I'M
der the above plaintive and aterative cap
ton. The editorial Is anent the polite clint
nation of the Times Dispatch reporter from
the precincts of the Virginia Conference. then
IN session in Richmond. The editor grows
quite laehr3mous over the action OF the con-
ference in striking trustworthy and hon.
orable wfiter with the weapon OF public re-
buke." Then, drying his tears the office
towel. probably, the editor braces himself for
a final fling Of vituperative eoquence. lie
gets in a broadside. not only at the individual
object OF this wrath but offers a gratuitous
insult to the great body of Methodist preach
ers and laymen gathered in the capital city
For. However individuals might be disposed
to condone the offense, the action taken at
last was the action OF the body,
1t is regretable that the incident occurred
But. occurring as it did. the conference is
to he profoundly congratulated upon it's
tiCn in the matter
II 1t mad been smpy ii reporters mistake
or If even it had been simply reporters
individual malice, it would have been beneath
the dignity of the conference, or any individ-
ual member of the conference, to take notice
1t, Tut those who know the attitude OF
the Times Dispatch toward DIR. Cannon for
several years past know that it not mere
~ reporters mistake, nor yet reporters
individual animus. They know that it war
III strict accord with the settled policy and
attitude Of that paper toward that man. They
know that the Times Dispatch has not missed
in recent years opportunity to abuse Or
Cannon, both in its editorial columns and in its
news reports. The anmus of that paper to-
ward Dr. Cannon is notorious. And the in
slant seizure of Its reporter Item In the
current business of the conference, which APP
peared to reflect on DR. Cannon. and the
frank refusal to retract apologize when
confronted with the facts Of the case at
tested by the word OF the chief actors and
the endorsement OF the conference, puts the
whole case out of the category Of .merly the
impartial transcript of unbiased onooker
into the category OF militant prejudice that
prevails in the Office OF the Richmond Times
Dispatch.
There is another potent fact with which
everybody who has kept up with the case il
perfectly far liar. That fact, known and read
OF all men. is that the attitude of prejudice to-
ward Or. Cannon that prevails in the Office Of
the Times Dispatch is apparently contemporary
eous with his extraordinary and most
full activity in the interests Of the Temperance
Cause in Virginia for the past ten years. DR..
Cannon has won the hatred of the whisSey
press of Richmond by his open. fearless ef-
fectiNe advocacy of the cause of prohibition
in the state. The only way BY which he can
make friends with the Times Dispatch is to
cease his warfare the open saloon and
abandon the whole cause of Temperance.
Being possessed of these indisputable facts,
II was eminentiy proper that the conference
should stand by DIR. Cannon and request the
withdrawal OF the representative of the Times
Dispatch unless he would give accurate ano
candid report OF conference action The re-
porter may have been very estimable gem
honored father, as was stated on the confer
cnce floor but he represented his paper and
whether he personally shared the animus of his
paper toward the gentleman in question or
not he had to make his report concur-run
with the prevailing sentiment of his employ
ers. That he evidently did, and in doing so
he manifestly forfeited his right to the cour-
tesy of the body. not man. but as the
representative of his paper. And when a great
paper persists in sending a reporter out with
the handicap of known and recognized office
prejudice. 1t is idle--more, 1t is ludicrous-to
shed official tears over the mishap OF the
young man. II is well enough for certain
brethren to attempt pour oil on the trou-
bled water and spare the feelings OF the son
Of an estimable father But II ought not be
forgotten that whoever he was >or whoever his
father was, he represented the intolerance and
prejudice of his home office, and ought to Be
dealt with accordingly.
All honor to the brave and clear-si9hted
men who, seeing through the dust raised bv |
hte bringing In OF mere side issues and per-
sonal feelings, could 60 straight to the mark
and vindicate the right Of a Methodist preacher /
10 advocate the cause OF Temperance or any
other righteous cause. without being pursued
and villified by vindictivc press The action
II the conference meant far more than simply /
standing by neutrality-suspicious. when assailed /
That we're much. But II far more 1t was
standing by the chief advocate OF great cause
when openly assailed by the known and UNI
blushinE enemies Of that cause
j. H. LIGHT.
Front Royal Va