The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-07-01
instrumentation of the Opinions of
. Public Men.

FuDllC NAOhs
NorHrNo can be more reprehensible than that
Misrepresentation of the opinions of public
man which is sometimes indulged in by the
press. Not only is injustice thereby done to
those misrepresented, but the community
itself is misled, its passions excited, and its
preiudoes aroused.
An example of this kind has just occurred
in regard to a recent speech delivered by Sena-
tor Wade in Kansas. That speech contained
words of sympathy for the toiling masses OF
our countrymen, and the expression of the
conviction that a more equitable division OF
the profits of industry was among the more
important questions of the immediate future.
There was nothing in the speech of a 'start-
ling'' or uncommon character. A thousand
men might have made it. 1t was no
mysterious or Delphic utterance calling
for profounder sagacity than usual to
understand it. 1t was a simple, straight
forward utterance, carrying its meaning on its
face. Nevertheless, no sooner was it made
than certain journals pounced upon it, and
pretended to find in it agrarianism, Proud
honism, the advocacy of general division of
property, and we know not what other mon
strosities. The New York Times was foremost
in this excellent work. It's columns teemed
for days with elaborate articles, duly setting
forth what terrible pass the country was
coming to when the acting Vice-President
could openly advocate such dangerous doc
trines. All the changes were rung upon
''agrarianism" which that mysterious and
.awe-inspiring term could give occasion for.
The public were warned, with many a
solemn shake of the head, of the dangerous
tendencies of radicalism, and of the blosd-
thirsty proclivities of its disciples. In Short
the thing was "worked up'' with all the
gusto Of the most reckless partisanship.
Now we will not impeach the intelligence of
the Times by supposing that for moment it
really misunderstood Senator Wades remarks.
1t did not; but it thought the speech gave oc-
casiOn for making little capital against the
radicals, and it could not forego the temptation
TO improve the opportunity to the utmost. No
considerations of justice towards an eminent
and worthy statesman-no thought of justice
towards the public, which has a right to de-
mand truth and candor in journalism, re-
strained its utterance. 1t saw chance to make
point against the radicals, and that was all
it cared for. The Times never supposed that
Mr.. Wade meant agrarianism," or that he
was in favor of division of property. 1t
knsU better. 1t was case of pure, premedi-
tated, gratuitous misrepresentation, and en-
~tirely unworthy of the character which that
journal processes to maintain.
It was to this vice of the Misrepresentation
Of the opinions and sentiments of leading pub
Lie men at the North, that the ignorance, preju-
dice and false public sentiment of the South,
previous to the Rebellion, was in great mea-
sure due. The Southern people had been
misled-utterly, totally-as to the real senti-
ments of the leaders of the Republican party.
We can very well remember how, for some
time after the delivery of Mr.. Stewards great
speech in which he first used that notable, and
now historic expression, the 'irrepressible
conflict" the New York Herald denounced
that speech as "brutal and bloody mani
festO' against the rights and interests of the
South. It was for years the persistent custom
of the Northern Democratic press to represent
theyTgpsb sblicaRk leaders asfAbolitionists of the
Garrison and Phillips school, This kind of
teaching finally brought forth its fruit in a
bloody civil war. It is now being repeated by
journals which call themselves Conservative.
Wedo not apprehend similar results, but no
thanks therefor to those who are doing all
they can to mislead the Southern people.