The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1852-03-11
THE PRESS AND CONGRESS.

Lately we had occasion to comment upon the
stvle in which the New York Tribune under
took to lecture Congress upon its bad manners.
The New York Times is following up the work
Il is unmeasured and indiscriminate in its re-
hike of Messrs Rhett and Clemens, of the Sem
ate
aThey have INDUCED, . il says ain personal ac-
cusatons and in the use Of epithcts OF the most
offensive and reprehensbie character Lam
onage which no man having respect for the
ordinary courtesies Of life would permit himself
to use in private intercourse, has been freely
handled from one to the other upon the floor Oh
what has been styled oftentimes, and with JUS
tjce the most dgnifed deliberative body IN the
world. Charges Of knavery, lying, and coward
ice. have been hurled from one to the other, IN
omen Senate. with all the volatility and more
than the vulgarity of Billingsgate."
Mr.. Rhett is stranger to us, and his politi-
cal course is certainly in direct opposition TO
our notions of things but we like to see justice
done. 1t is not true that he INDUCED IN any
such personalities as the Times attributes to
him, or that he disgraced the Senate by ungen-
tlemanly conduct Mr.. Clemens was the Of
fender and why should not the Press that at
tennis to administer censure bestow it where
il is deserved! No good is to be gained by
this undiscriminating denunciation.
The Times holds that the power of the Press
alone can apply the corrective to this habit OF
offensive personalities, which is growing up in
Congress.
aNeither House of Congress" it says, seems
:. 81. sop stiye to the degrsa daf,Dn yh'no such
practices are bringing upon both. From neither
are any measures to be expected, which will
correct the evil, or check the downward tend
ency of Congressional manners The only
remedy is in public sentiment, and in the Press
as its chief organ 1t is the duty of the Press
never to allow any such outrage upon propriety
to pass unscathed When members of Congress
in either branch shall come to feel that no
breach OF ropriety can escape severe censure
from the public press, and that neither party
adhesion nor personal regard can procure inn
munity for such offences, they will be more
careful in their conduct, and pay steadier re-
gard to the requirements of decorum and of
selfrespect'
There is much truth in all this !; but how can
the Press be expected to be very sensitive to a
vice in Congress, which is q dark blot upon
itself or to have weight rs a teacher of good
manners while notorious for its breaches of oil
decorum! We do not mean to single out the
Times as specially blameworthy far from it;
but Immediately following the foregoing para
graph, on the duty of the Press to take Con-
gress under discipline for its offences against
propriety, we could not help noticing an edito-
rial paragraph, in which the most insulting
epithets were applied to a brother editor.
And so, after having abused each other as pick
pockets we, gentlemen of the Press, turn upon
Congress- and grow sublimely indignant that
members should so disgrace themselves and the
nation by indulgence in coarse, ungentemanly
epithetsl
Let editors prove their fitness to teach good
manners by praeticing courtesy towards each
other They are just as much bound to con-
duct themselves like gentlemen as are MEM
bers of Congress. 1t ought to be law of the
profession, to say nothing of personal char
acter, editorially, which could not be said with
propriety, face to face, between man and man.
This would forbid rudeness, brutal invective,
contemptuous sarcasm, but not plain, full, d.
rect, and severe Truthfulness.