Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1857-03-05
EDITORIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

| "Whle every prudential consideration requires
the exclusion of personal articles, 1t occasionally
happens that special views of duty cause them to
! he admitted. When such an articlek1s appeared
in the columns of paper, fair reply to such
personalities is entitled to bcmade and the writer
! to he protccted-the terms of such reply depend
! inc upon the provocation. We claim that in such
case the editor is not personally responsible,
! and we desire n free expression Of the opinions
! of the press on the two points suggested. ."-Somh
! Carolinion.
Without intending to express any opinion as 70
the merits of the two cases which have called
forth the article from which we quote VIC take
ND the suggestion, that the press unite in free
and fearless expression of opinion as to the bounds
of editorial responsibility. The editor, we think,
should be considered in the light Of other public
functionarcs. 1t is his business to labor for the
political, moral, social and intellectual welfare OF
the community-as much so as it is the normal
duty of q minister of the Gospel, Of the school
master, or other public servant. The minister
who criuges from his duties, who is afraid to pro-
clnim the truth and shrinks from the thought Of
"spcaking of He'll to ears polite" is not more
contemplate than is the editor who skulks from
AN open, manly, and fearless position. And after
he hns assumed what he deems the proper atti
tude, we do not see by what species of reasoning,
he can be made amenable to any tribunal but pub
lie opinion, so long as he does not overstep tue
limits assigned by the laws Of his country. Like
the minister of the Gospel, he is bound to raise
his voice against immortality, and like him should
be sustained by public opinion so long as his cas-
tigation is inflicted OIL deserving culprits. Even
personalities may ut times be justi6able. Hehas
the patriots right to launch his thunder against
the corruption and corruptors Of his native land,
and why should he not likewise have the patriots
hope that his country will respond to his words
and rally to his position?
1t is as much his duty to prevent swin(ler
from imposing on the community, as it is to adver-
tise business notices, watch political tendencies,
or elaborate from floating items, palatable article
to suit the taste of fastdious readers. Yet some
one is offended if any of these are omitted.
Aud if in tho discharge of any of the incum-
bent duties OF his post, he publishes what he is
afterwards convinced is mistake or misrepre
scntation, the manly and courageous course is to
make all due apologies, and if they are not rccei-
ved as satisfactory, to igaore the ocqnamtdnceshQ
of the offended parsonage. To undertake to fight
every mad-cap, who chooses to flesh his maiden
sword, is, exclusive Of the terror the very idea
arouses too laborious and troublesome. Suppose
an editor was compelled by an imaginary, inexo-
rable law of honor, to leave his post once month
ifor some one is piqued at least that often) and
visit ncighboring State for the mere pleasure Of
viewing the dsagreeable sccnce-ry Of fierce look
ing opponent and one of Colts Rcvolvers-would
not the sport be rather expensive ana laborious ?
Suppose there is no one to shoot at linn, and ell
that he has to do, is to ride couple Of hundred
miles, fire Mt post (as easy Drained as some chal-
lcngers) and then return; still the duty wou!I be
oncrous and oppressive. But it is certainly
novel idea to make an editor responsible for what
another writes, any further than to give his name.
This is post facto law Of honor, moro tyrannical
than has ever fettered the slavish minds of the
old world When the name Of the writer is SUBJ
mtted, tho onHs is certainly removed from the
shoulders Of the editor and lie is not only placing
himself in o censurab!e position. but is trammel-
ling the liberty of the press when he suffers him
self to be drawn from his neutral ground. We
may rccur to this subject again.