The Portland daily press., 1866-05-10

Jney beut An pCioio wv cioCh III tuc
About Personalities.
Weare indebted to the argus and Adoef-
tiser for complimentary notices OF yesterday
and the day before. The argus devoteo no
less than three articles to our comparison Oh
the amount of news published in the three
morning papers of Portland, passing easily
from grave to gay, now "ebjecting" to SUCH
proceedings, and again rehearsing ancient ana
fishlike stories, with immense satisfaction 10
ITSELF The Advertiser takes more solemn
tone, and runs through column OF deiiDei-
ate obiurgation. Neither of them questions
the facts anon uAich our comparison a1Gs
based. And both, of course, have much tc
say about the superior quality of the reading
matter they furnish, which is another affair al
together and one on which we do not feel call
ed upon to give an opinion.
The facts, 1t is conceded, are precisely as
we have stated them. The argus, however,
uses the word "meddlesome," and the Aduer-
tiser speaks of Espionage" in connection
with our statement. Another newspaper not
long since complained of an article in which
we expressed doubt whether its published
opinions were in sympathy with the Republic
can party, as personal" attack. All these
words have common meaning, and it is
worth while to consider what constitutes "per-
sonalty." That personalities" are disgrace
to the editorial profession is a proposition to
which any man who habitually reads the New
York dailies, will readily agree. The New
to al. Gt," which it frequently interprets
"Honest Greeley" in totally unjustiiable
manner. The Tribune is responsible for its
own utterances. Mr.. Greeley's name nowhere
appears in its columns. Even if it did, the
assumption that he writes every leader and
paragraph is absurd, and the Worlds free use
of his name is indecent and indetensible.
1t is this prying impertinence, seeking to
find the man under the opinions and not
meeting the opinions themselves on their mer-
its, which constitutes one form of personality.
If a writer publishes an article over his own
name, he is responsible. Ifa newspaper pub
fishes an article without signature, the news
paper is alone responsible, and it is nobody's
business to enquire the writer's name. The
Argus avoids Of late the improperly of des-
ignating "the editor of the Press, whenever
1t has occasion to refer to anything in these
columns If the Advertiser would correct its
clownishness in this respect, the improvement
would be worth considering.
Both papers, however, whine about our
"mcddlesome" comparison of Monday. We
had supposed that these journals were not
printed "for private distribution" We had
supposed they were published in the proper
sense OF the term, and that accordingly we
had as unquestionable a right to count and
speak of the number of columns of news i'll
their daily issues as we have to mention the
number of pages in new book. If we. have
plain; otherwise, not. The facts may be adj
vantageous to either party. They are open
to the public, and our neighbors have per-
feet right to make the best Of them, but not,
in our opinion, to insist that nobody shall
speak of them.
In short, whatever is done publicly is
proper subject for public discussion and vice
vesa. That is the golden rule Of good man
ners. When Vice President johnson appear
ed ON public occasion, in the unfortunate
condition which all of us remember, public
comment was justified by the publicity of the
offence. When Mr.. Seward was intoxicated
in public assembly at Baltimore, Theodore
Tilton was justified in publicly referring to
the fact. The rumors about President john 4
sons private life in the White House, and
about Secretary Stewards "black bottle" at the
State Department, are indecent and unjustii-
able invasions of the privacy to which even
Presidents and Secretaries are entitled.
In the same way, public journals are res
ponsible for theirpublic utterances. The only
way to enforce upon Journalists proper sense
ofresponsibility, is to require of them constant
readiness to defend the opinions they advance.
The public course of any journal is fairly sui
ject to public criticism. The shock of conflict
ing opinions, the compulsory retreat from in
defensible positions, the development of views
by the various suggestions which arise in the
course of argument-are agencies of public
good. The Truth lies usually somewhere be-
tween the two disputants, however honest,
and in time appears. 1t is ofno advantage to
the public however-it is positive disadvan-
tage-to be distracted from the consideration
of the question in hand by the indecorum of
one or both of the combatants.