New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-09-27

this accountability was to be enforced IN the way
of duel. be determined to refer the subject 70
two confidential friends, and to be guided strictly
by their decision. The Judgment OF these gentle
men was opposed to bis previous admission. lney
repudiated the idea that the conductor OF q Puo'
lie journal should regard himself as personally
answerable for his comments on public AFFAIRS
and this decision Mr. McAlichael adopts in his
last letter to Mr. Cooper's representative whicn
virtually closes the correspondence. For inter-
ference BY the Journal under bis control in the
private concerns Of any one, be is still ready 70
hold himself amenable, even, ss he implies, to the
extent Of fighting, if required; but on the be-
havior Of public men and on public questions ne
maintains his right to comment freely. without
pistols or blunderbusses in the background.
On the propriety Of dueling, which is
asserted and allowed throughout this cor
respondence, We now have no considera-
tons to offer, nor any feeling to express
except one of regret that men holding positions
so distinguished, in state of society so advanced
as that of Philadelphia, should justify and con-
template so useless remedy for personal differ
eAces as firing bullets, or running knives into each
others bodies. But with regard to the response
bity Of journalists We must give our Judgment
with Mr. McNlichaels friends rather than with
the previous opinion of Mr.. McMichsel himself.
Even recognizing dueling as the law, the dis
tinction they make between public and private
concerns is a msnifestly just one The freest
range of comment on the former is not only es-
sential to the power and dignity of the press
but to the public welfare, and any attempt
to make such comments a merely personal
matter ought not to be suffered. What if Gen.
Pierce or Mr.. Marcy, or even the Hon. Scion
Borlsnd, were to arraign every Journalist who
has done justice to their exploits at Greytown,
and to propose such settlement as Cooper
profered to Mr.. McMchaeli Why even South
Carolina fre-eater would boot them out Of his
Office, and assert the right of fully discharg-
ing his duty to the public, subject only to
the judgment of the public and TO the laws.
Mr.. Cooper simply makes himself ridiculous
in proposing a handto-hand fight, because
false pretenses and malversation had been
charged in an enterprise with which he was
connected. The charge was such one as any
journal was perfectly justifable in making on
suitable evidence, since ii concerned public
transaction with reference to great public uu-
dertaking, in which public men were engaged.
Moreover, if the charge were true, fifty dues
could not overthrow it; if it were false surely
proof of such falseness could not be difficult TO
procure.
This occurrence illustrates one of the inconve-
niences of that system Of personal journalism
which is in vogue in France, and which we par
TALLY adopt in America. A newspaper brings
charge against public man, and he at once
seeks the editor with horsewhip or challenge,
because he regards the newspaper as the embod-
iment and manifestation of that single individual.
In this process the justice or fasehood Of the
charge is apt to be left out of view, while the ac
custd eDorces what he calls personal satisfaction
from one who did or did not write the obnoxious
article. The English newspapers avoid any such
difficulty by substituting the collective response
bility of the journal for that of single writer's
Thus, a man aggreved may sue the journal for
libel but cannot send cartel to the writer, since
he does not know who he is. In this way the
tlutn OF Vi ltdulug dTtlclcs uul COEIt-
spondence comes to have its own weight quite
independent of the names of the authors. The
journal gains in dignity and power, and is recog-
nized by the public as an entity in itself, and not
the mere mouthpiece of single person, to whom
every word in its columns, from the advertise
men.s at the beginning to the market reports at
the end, is yulgarly attributed. But newspaper
which occupies such an impersonal position must
be less servicable to the private ambition Of
those who make it, than one on the French plan,
which bestOws immediate notoriety and political
advancement on its writers. In France, under
every constitutional government, to ably edit
newspaper is high ROAD to power; in England,
it is a rare thing that member of that calling
attains any prominent Office. The two systems
of journalism are radically different; that of the
French will be preferred by writer's and editors
who would fain make of their labors the direct
means Of their own political elevation; that Of
the English by those who earnestly love their
profession and would see it developed in its high
est dignity and usefulness. Whether the exclu-
sive application Of either in American journals
and in our state of society would be advantageous
or possible, is question We will not now discuss.
The Fr,eman's journal has manifestly more
space and leisure at command than We have or q