The day book. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 1857-1867, 1866-07-25
The proposition" Accepted.

DISCUSSIONS and controversies are not con-
genial to our taste, especially where details
OF business management, which are by no
means interesting to the public, are involved;
but, there are occasions, as has been recently
shown in Richmond, when journals find it
necessary to discuss affairs which are of mo-
ment only to small part of the community
and themselves. A necessity, however, for
self assertion has risen in the history of this
paper, and while the controversy with our
friend the Virginian on the subject of adver-
Using is personally painful to us, we cannot
allow the public to be led to conclusions in
furious to the Day Book by the boldness with
which our contemporary advances its superior
claims to public support.
With this explanation we proceed to ex-
anime its proposition" to submit the claims
we advanced in opposition to its own to a
"crucical test" The Virginian says:
We are willing, and hereby propose, to
leave investigation of the question to COM
mittee of three disinterested parties, to be APP
pointed by the editor of the Day Book-the
examination to be based upon the books of
each concern, supported by affidavits of the
mailing clerks and the following to be the
points at ISSUE
We will first compare our daily circulation
with that of the Day Book
Then our daily against its tri-weekly.
Then our daily against its weekly
Then our daily against the Day Books three
editions combined.
The paper proved in each case to have the
least patronage to pay forfeit to the Monu-
mental and Memorial Associations of Norfolk
and Portsmouth the annual subscription of
every copy issued by the other journal i'll ex-
cess of its own actual subscription.
This trial to come off at once, and the re-
salt to be printed in all the Norfolk papers
for one week, attested by the signatures Of the
Day Books appointees
Will the Day Book accept the "crueical
test?'
We accept this proposition" with two
notifications. First-Each paper shall name
one arbitrator, and these two select third,
to conduct the examination suggested by the
Virginian. Secondly-We object to the "for-
felt (" for it is clear that the Virginian has
three chances to our one under this PROPOSE
ton; and thirdly-the element of wager
has nothing to do with the substantial fact at
issue-which, as our cotemporary justly
says, is one of circulation, based ON Figures"
10 this investigation, stripped of all ilegti-
mate issues-llegitimate because the ques-
ton is purely one of circulation-we cheer
fully agree. We have thus frankly and fair
ly accepted the proposition" made by our
contemporary, simply eliminating from the
discussion foreign issue, and Suggesting a
mode of arbitration which can leave neither
of the parties any ground of complaint on
the award. Our cotemporary remarks that it
challenges comparison with the daily pa
pers." This, however, is nothing to the pur-
pose; for the question is not whether the
daily issue of the Day Book exceeds that of
the Virginian, but schich paper, ,oith all the
means at its command, offers the best medium
Of advertising 10 the business community
We maintain that we meet the necessary
condition of more numerous circulation,
and, on the Virginiaas own proposition -
stand ready to make good our assertions
The assertion that the Day Books patronage
in '62 is foreign to the issue, is an objection
to one part of our original argument which
we are not prepared to admit for adver-
tisers have to consider the prospective develop
ment of the medium they select through
which to reach the public, at home and
abroad
Ia this aspect of the case we maintain, that
the great number of friends the Day Book
had at the date indicated, furnished us good
reason to expect large increase of patronage,
and the fairness of this inference will be
shown when the investigation is begun, to
which we have agreed as above set forth.
We repeat that these comparisons are per-
sonally painful, especially so from our warm
regard for our antagonists, but we must remind
our contemporary that the Virginian has under
gone mechanical changes, which deprive it of
many of the advantages which were offered its
patrons at the time its columns were receiving
the names of its central advertisers. It's SUI
periority in this particular no longer exists;
and while the Day Book may claim few
modest improvements our friend must confess
to deprecated attractions in exterior appear
ance. In short, able and attractive as it is it is
not the sheet in mechanical advantage which
achieved the success now under discussion
But not to indulge further in the unpleasant
details of a comparison which has no attrac-
ton to our readers, and for the necessary dis
play Of which we crave their pardon, we en-
brace our friend the Yirgnian in fraternal
manner, and prepare for the combat to which
we are invited. We present ourselves armed
with pencil and display as shield a mighty