The Union and eastern journal. [volume] (Biddeford [Me.]) 1854-1858, 1857-06-19
The Eastern Argus--Revision Of the
Statutes.

Statutes.
The editor Of the Eastern Argus, JOIN
VI. Adams, is n gentleman who quite re
Gently assumed the direction of the Argus
Wehaye not the pleasure OF his Acquaintance
and have seldom, if ever, heard his nam
mentioned in this community, or elsewher
in our State. lie is, 50 We learn by dligen
enquiry, a lawyer by admission, but having
for u term of years, woOed but not VOL
practice in the profession, has retired frOu
the solitude of an Office unvisited by clients
and is now seeking to shine as an editor
Ills name now appears in the Argus rs III
editor, and that ancient sheet is now illu
mined by the coruscatiOns of his genius, anC
its dullness enliyened by his sparkling wit
Without being aware that there had been
any change in the editorial department oil
the Argus, and feeling that il would be safe
to do 50, we yentured to correct some errors
that paper had fallen into respecting the
revision OF the Statutes. In doing this We
used no personalities, and transgresscd no
bounds Of editorial prOpriety. \ notice of
our article, nearly column in length, writ
ten in no genial temper and grossly person
al towards ourselves appears IN the Argus,
probably intended as u reply. The writer
mentions our name, and no doubt thinks
his personal snecrs and attempted irony have
demolished US entirely. We beg leave to
inform our brilliant eotemPOrary that " we
still i've and feel very little injured by his
combination of personal maleyolencc and
scurrility.
We aro not ambitious of personal contro-
ycrsy, and have no taste for assailing our
cotcnporaries by name, and separating them
from the papers which they conduct. five
were ever ~ inclined, we were early cured
by pereeiylnS that among sensible men per-
sonal abuse, while it may serve to indicate
peculiar taste, never passes for argument,
and is seldom taken as an evidence Of smart
ness. Our cotcmporary must therefore ex-
cusc US il we decline answering him at
length and in kind-we must, however, re-
peat what was said in our first article, that
what he has said upon the revision, shows
conelusively that he Is entirely ignorant Of
the subject on which he writes, adding to
this declaration, that his PERSONAL abuse
shows that he Is very great and
the oltencr lac ilourishcs his pen the more
apparent this will appear.
But what about his reference to the Stat
utcs, and what he is pleased to call our de-
fence OF the old Commissioners. and the last
Legislature. We stated expressly that
Judge Shepley, by the terms of his appoint
mcnt, had power 10 make such alterations
and amendments rs he thought expedient,
and that the first commission had no such
extensive power. This fact, in itself, fur
nishing reason for such abridgment as he
says was made by Judge $, the very candid
editor Of the Argus, meanly, land we like
good saxon to apply to mean thing, ignores,
docs not alludc to in the brieGest manner.
Had he admitted the fact, all Of his beauti-
ful argument would have been upset. q,
most magnanimous Adams What beau
tiful specimen OF candor he presents.
The editor Of the Argus, we almost pity |
Judge Shepley in having such trumpet
blower, says the chapter on ways was rcdue-
cd to the extent of Fifty sections. Thi, is
he says the great fac, which "eats." Al
hitting this to he 80, does the learned
lawyer Ofthc Argu, know whether Judge ).
has really made any abridgmcnt? Has he
counted the lines, measured the pages, and
can he tell whether or not the sections are
compressed or lenstheued? Judge shepley |
may have made the sections long, embrac-
inc in one Section what was before con- |
tanned in two, and the section Us reported |
by HIM may occupy as much space as the
two reported by the first commission. As
sumlng this to be so, and what becomes Of
the great "hct" 50 triumphantly stated by
our learned lawyer, which he says ett, ~
hard.
But Judge ShePley by such process of
reasoning Us the Argus indulges in woald
be cut nearly as hard as it cuts the old com
mission The legislature reduced the chap
ter ON Taxes some thirty sections from Judge
Sheplcy's revision, and in various other in
stances great abridsement and rdaetion'
were made. The editor Of the Argus in en-
dcavoripg to cut his opponents should be
careful and not cut his friends.
We stated in our first article that we
should not di,pange the labOrs of Judge