New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-05-04
r., abstinence from iOtc1ic ,siog Ilquors,

It'll Gbstiuence from intoxicating iqaors'
w, p,,,.b neps, Sci j Reform. tho Tariff and
UaIits. We are equsly ignorant OF the pro-
-, Of those among the ususl contributors
y 90, Is,dipv columns who agree IL all points
ni,b the views Of The jouFnal Itself Nor Goes
n .,em Necessary thai there should BE- any suen
agreement, si0ce the ofganizstlon OF 70 i''ge ."
establishment provides FOR such ei'i"on OF IL
boy that esch man writes only uPoD cc''''u
cl.,s Of topi,s with which bis sss'e' .uu
.ardiss have made him familiar. Thus Tor
exampl, the writer who discusses 's0 ="
,gem,nt Of the Patent Once ana VINO
IN that subject perfectly tgTefs WIN
,be polcy which il il decided the Journal shAl
pursue. msy totally differ 10 opinion touching tne
Army and Navy. with another whote duty 1t Is
81 d,cuss those topics. 50, too, tho writer On
Education msy be radically opposed t. the doc
t,ine OF Industrial Protection, and the man VITO
u,ed the editorial ave in speaking of the East
srp war msy be Of opinion that Total Absti-
nepoe ia, on the whole, az erroneous dogm4.
But are these gentlemen guilty OF hypocrisy, be-
cause thus differing on individual points. they
give their abilities and requirements 70 Ehe ser
rice OF the zane journal We cannot 81 view IL;
And five did. THE TRIBUNE would have at once
10 resign it, position IS cOmPfehensiVo mstro'
poIitsn organ. For where could we hope 20 fod
SalfS dozen men, MT 10 say three or fodr Il mes
that number, endowed With tue requls's ability
md culture, who would absOlutels agree with
esoh other on ali disputed questions Of morals or
Iee,.atiou 1t seems TO us quite elouga shat
each should 40 warmly sppTove ibe general ten
DEL CT ard character OF The TRIBUNE as 20 over
lock aBy point on whic1 II m'y not exere" his
convictions, and fna IN it & sphere Of genial aud
eptbu,iast.c h1or 10 some line Of discussion
where there is not only no such disagree ,ment
but toe most eGtire accord.
But while tn re are o. necessity m1ny persona
diyereeucies, auch as we have described, among
sle editorial wTitrs as well as among the pro-
prietors Of this Journal, we are hsppy to relieve
the anxiety Of Tie Ar.eTiean By assuring 1t taat
no man has erer v1.uea IN JaJOr Of Total Absn-
nsnce in he leading columns Of The TRIBUNE,
,eho ,c0s mol personally total obstinent; nor has
anu man erer traien IN JauOr Of the
Pyoh,Jitory Lac, wao uas not sincere
and thorough ProhibitiORist. This seems pretty
thoroughly to cover the chHge in question:
but we will go fur her. and say that 80 far as we
are awue--fcr We have never thought 1t neces-
ssry to make special investigation oo the sub
jeot-there are none of the writers or Of the pro.
prittOrs Of this journa', no matter whas their
rews OF the question Of TOTAL Abstinence or on
The s.sirtly poisonous character of alcoholic
dIilks, who DO not desire sbat the law should be
rieioly aud thoroughly enf, reed as measure
promising vast public benefit here, as it has
Produced such benefit elsewhere. Aad when
gHE TRIBUNE is found on both sides of any ques-
hon it will be amp'o time, We think to accuse it
Of hypocrisy and DOUBLE dealing.