Dear aemonthly,

Thank you for the interesting article about the Betjeman hoax. For me, however, this was slightly spoilt by four mistakes:

1. There is no such word as "shined". The part participle of "shine" is, of course, "shone".

2. The writer says that Sir John Betjeman is "not exactly a household name". This may be the case in America, and clearly the writer had never heard of him before learning about the hoax, but the fact remains that Sir John is without any doubt the most famous and best loved English poet in history. Ask 100 English (not Scottish) people to name one English poet and probably 98 of them will say Betjeman, even if they can't spell it. (The Scots would go for Burns, of course).

3. "Hoaxter" might be an American word, I'm not sure, but over here the word is "hoaxer".

4. "The universe contains about one person" is not a very acurate statement unless we are talking about some very deep philosophy indeed. I think the word "such" has been accidentally omitted.

Kind regards,

Jonathan Cocking
London


Writer's response

You will have to forgive us Americans for not being very adept at speaking United Kingdomish. In a land where we count George W. Bush among the "best and the brightest," just four errors in an article should be looked upon as a step forward.

I just read your article on the stolen Mormon books from DUP and our subsequent involvment. I just thought I'd point out that your story had a couple of things wrong.

1. The books were not worth 1 million dollars; they were poor quality Mormon books and were probably worth little more than $200,000. The more the story progressed the more the press and the police added to their value.

2. The two books offered to Eborn Books were not two first editions. One was a 1858 New York edition worth about $2,000. We offered $1,000 for that one. The other book was indeed a first edition, but it a) had no title page; b) had about 30 missing pages; c) did not have the original binding; and d) was in horrible condition. (DUP didn't even know it was a first edition; they had it listed as an "unknown edition missing title page." At best it was worth $20,000 and we offered $10,000 for it. [We usually pay half of what we're going to sell things for.]

Not that it really matters now; but the press and misinformation sure exaggerated the story and left out details. For example, it wasn't Lindsay who sold us the books; it was a woman. Anyway.........just thought I'd give you a few more accurate details.

Bret Eborn / Eborn Books 10-10-6

re: Munselliana

Dear Mr. McKinney,

I'm at last catching up on my reading this evening, and am enjoying your August issue of AE monthly (as I enjoy all of your issues).

I was particularly anxious to read about your travels through upstate New York, having been born there and having spent the last three years in Syracuse. I was therefore particularly gratified to find mention of Joel Munsell and your interest in his imprints. Perhaps you are not aware that Syracuse University Library has, to my knowledge, the largest and most complete collection of Munselliana, formed largely by collector Henry Bannister. The collection is mostly, if not entirely cataloged, so I would encourage you to browse the Syracuse University Library online catalog. Nearby Hamilton College also has an excellent collection of Munsell imprints. Although not quite so complete as the collection at Syracuse, there are variants at Hamilton that are not found in the Syracuse collection. At Syracuse, the most knowledgeable person about the Munsell and Bannister is curator William La Moy.

Now back to my reading, and your next article.

Christian Dupont
Director, Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library
University of Virginia

re: Texas Missing Documents

Dear Bruce and Michael:

I was glad to see on Americana Exchange Michael Stillman's article about the missing Texas documents, even if I do not agree with some of the statements.

I think it would have been a great service to everyone to post the link to the Texas Missing List, making it possible for collectors, dealers, auction houses, appraisers, and institutional buyers to know what is missing.

Here is the link: http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/arc/missingintro.html

I have worked with the State and Texana quite a bit, and I can tell you that the State of Texas is incredibly conservative and even-handed in its claims. If you want to see other cases of replevin of documents gone missing long ago, check out the current case in South Carolina. That makes Texas look exceedingly mild.

The best intelligence on the Texas Missing List is in the State's internet inventory and statement.

Dorothy Sloan

www.dsloan.com

Sir, I have two books in manuscript of the late great indian poets, writers, and writups with their Sketch and painting since 1941. Can You suggest me the best auction prise will be and how can i realise its value. Thanks Sanjay Srivastava

re: "Texas Sues Private Owner"

Dear Bruce,

I always read each AE monthly avidly, but I did have a concern with Michael Stillman's piece on Texas. In no place did the word "replevin" appear, and the case clearly derives from the principle of replevin. I was bit surprised not to see the word mentioned. Would you please direct Michael to the Manuscript Society (which has a "Replevin fund"), on the question (Oak Knoll has just started distributing their titles). A number of state archivists have started pursuing replevin vigorously since the 1990s, and it looks like Texas has joined that number. It's a hot button issue with archivists.

You might also consider having an interview with Rich Oram of UT's Harry Ransom Center (he's also current chair of the RBMS Committee on Theft), to talk about the HRC's attempt to retrieve books stolen by a volunteer, and you might use his comments and HRC's strategy to contrast with how archivists have used replevin. HRC has a "compensation fund" which, while it seems to be used to "buy" back books, is being used to compensate innocent buyers, and seems to make people more amenable to returning books. I was quite skeptical of the idea, but personal experience has changed my perspective.

I can't recall if replevin was used in repatriating the North Carolina Bill of Rights which were liberated from that state by a Yankee soldier.

All best,
Paul

Paul W. Romaine


Michael Stillman's Response

Thank you for the heads up on replevin and the Manuscript Society's involvement. The legal doctrine of replevin does not appear to be used in this case for two reasons, though the underlying principle is involved. To the best of my recollection, "replevin" is one of those old common law concepts that applies to the return of goods inappropriately converted, or taken. The reasons why it does not appear to be used here are:

(1). Texas has a specific statute which enables governmental entities to take back old public records. There is no reason to employ older, less certain common law rules when you have a clear statute that allows you to act.

(2). The replevin rules are based on an improper taking of the material. From what I can see, no one has made the claim of improper taking in the Texas case, and if that is what they believe, it does not mean the state can prove it. The Texas statute makes it easier to retrieve the goods as it does not require proving the material was inappropriately taken, which could be difficult here. Most likely it was, but it is also possible they sold the material or simply tossed it away.

Of course this is a special circumstance, these being public documents and Texas having a specific law dealing with the issue. The greater overall issue is more difficult. Certainly the monitoring of sites like eBay for stolen material is an important issue, and the fact of wrongful taking much easier to establish on material that recently disappeared. Material that disappeared long ago is harder to establish rights and wrongs. There must have been tons of old government records thrown away as junk two centuries ago which today would be valuable. Should the government have a right to seize, without compensation, things legally obtained long ago because it is now valuable? I have books sold off by libraries that lack deaccession stamps, though I know they were legally obtained (I bought them myself years ago). How could I prove now I bought the books rather than stole them? Should libraries be able to go back and seize the books they sold off a century ago because today they are valuable? Will I have to return arrowheads thousands of years old since perhaps they were stolen from some ancient Indian leaders? This whole issue is an enormous can of worms, and hard to figure out how to settle fairly. However, the creation of a fund to recompense innocent owners of such material is, at least, helpful.