lol, I think you're being more than little hard on R.A.
Besides the cop who found it, who had any idea that an original manuscript still existed? And, if every author in the world felt compelled to search out and travel to visit original manuscripts for their research nothing would ever get published.
Lou Figueroa
Googled it and EKU archives listing of it showed up on the first page - now, were those archives available 2008 and before? - no idea and maybe not. He sure may not have even thought about such a manuscript existing, and no problem there. Having said that, most authors writing about history will check relevant original manuscripts any chance they get, that's the rule not the exception. Not saying his book was meant to be a "scholarly" work and again, he may have had no thought about it.
Not being hard on him, just asking some questions, I love his book and have read it a couple of times which is why the article got me thinking.
As I said, maybe he didn't want to steal any thunder from the other guy's discovery, and that very well may have been the case.
But that issue and the new assertion that Tevis may have traveled much more widely than he suggested in his own book I just thought would have been an interesting addition to the piece - average Joe reading it wouldn't necessarily know about Dyer's book, even pool folks.
Here's an interesting link to a nice piece by Tevis' wife. Sounds like when he was young he did get out to some nearby towns in Kentucky anyway for a little pool playing.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/75c3/2b739c5849934ce9082af6720303809974ee.pdf
Again, just musing a bit and thinking through some questions and by raising them, maybe some additional insights from some people on here will turn up.