Update for all you Charles Glidden Haines fans out there: the New  
York Times (with a little nudging) printed a correction earlier this  
week and now includes that correction in the online version of the  
original story. The Times blames "an erroneous spelling from an eBay  
listing." Who knew that the paper of record takes its editorial  
guidance from thieves?

On Feb 7, 2008, at 12:00 AM, NYHIST-L automatic digest system wrote:

> There is 1 message totalling 18 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. News of arrest for alleged theft of historic NYS artifacts
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:45:01 -0500
> From:    Gerard Koeppel <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: News of arrest for alleged theft of historic NYS  
> artifacts
>
> Has anyone noticed that the AG's press release
> (http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2008/jan/jan28a_08.html)  
> identifies the recipient of the stolen
> Calhoun letter as a "New York General", while the NYTimes story
> (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/nyregion/29library.html)  
> identifies the recipient as DeWitt
> Clinton secretary Colonel Charles "Haine"? Certainly, the correct  
> identity is Colonel Charles
> (Glidden) Haines, yes? It would be unfortunate for the first man  
> who called New York the "Empire
> State" to not get his digital age moment in the sun...
> Gerard Koeppel
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of NYHIST-L Digest - 5 Feb 2008 to 6 Feb 2008 (#2008-4)
> ***********************************************************