The New York herald., 1921-11-01

our nelgnDOr the IYl6une SUBJECTS
to the deadly parallel the text of Mr..
JOSEPH P. TUMULTY's published state
ment of the reason why General
LEONARD WooD was not allowed by
President WILSON to 60 to the<front
and the text of Mr.. GEORGE CREEL' s
statement concerning the same Incl.
dent contained in q book Of Mr..
CREEL's printed about year ago.
Both statements seek to put the
responsibility for General WooD's sup
preston upon General PERsHING
rather than upon President WILSON,
but that is not the matter Of present
interest. The point of present in
terest relates to the good faith and
independent origin and historical
soundness of the eulogistic recital
which is offered as "Mr. TUMULTY's s
own story"
The deadly parallel is convincing.
The slight variations in phraseology
are Insignificant. Where they occur
they denote nothing more than a
feeble attempt to differentiate. 1t is
| impossible for the observant mind
least given to accusations of plagiar-
ism to escape the conclusion that
one of two things must be true:
Either the Tumulty version is sub
stantially literal appropriation Of the
Creel version, or both the Creel yer.
sion and the Tumulty version are
derived from a common source in
some written document or memoran-
dunn adopted by each biographer and
exhibited by him as his own with
only trifiing alterations Ct text.
When the Washington correspond.
ent of the Tribune called the atten.
tion of Mr.. TUMULTY to the close ap-
proach to identity, in words and
punctuation as well as in the sub.
stance Of statement, Mr.. WILsoN's
former private secretary is reported
as saying by way of explanation:
There is no reason why the two
narratives should not be alike.
CREEL knew the facts and I knew the.
facts. There Is no memorandum on
the subject, so far as I know. I
certainly did not consult any memo
randum. CREEL knew all about it,
and so did I. and the two versions
would necessarily be much alike
Necessarily they would be much
alike in substance, under these cir.
cumstances, but that is no. the ques-
tion. The question is how they came
to be so much alike in form; and as
to that Mr.. TUMULTY's explanation
is lamentably insufficient, even il 1t
is accepted as entirely ingenious.
For although two writer's knowing
the same facts and undertaking to
tell the same story would necessarily
cover the same ground, there is not
one chance in thousand, or in a
million, that in the course of their
Independent recitals they would both
be guilty of precisely the same gram
matical misdemeanor appearing at
the same place in each version.
"The decision was not the decision
Of the President, nor the Secretary
of War, nor the Chief of Staff, but
the weighed judgment Of General
PEBsHING," &c., wrote Mr.. CREEL. OF
course what he should have written,
to be within the law, is THE decision
was not the decision Of the President.
or of the Secretary Of War;" &c.
And Mr.. TUMULTY, in his "own
story" writes: "The decision with
reference to General WooD was not
the decision of the President, nor the
Secretary Of War, nor the Chief OF
Staff, but it was the judgment Of
General PERsHING," &C.
Mr.. TUMULTY's "reminiscences and
disclosures" of the Wilson Admin.
istration will have value only in pro.
portion to general confidence in their
spontaneous origin and their perfect
candor.