, 1872-11-30

ter now lnsidlously or indirectly made. In the
relatons Of husband and father, he was ire
proachable, e1torting from adversaries the just
tribute to his kindness, bis forbearance, and his
manly respect and devotion to his family.
As Journalist, Mr. Greeley WAS his own ex-
emplar. He was not copy. He entered jour-
nal1sm when 1t Was not very exalted in it's spirit,
it's objects, or its conduct While he took things
as he found them, aud while he made no pre-
tence to be better than others, he nevertheless
80 bore himself that, in order to maintain suc-
cessful rivalry with his, other journals had soon
to elevate their tone, enlarge their general
sphere, increase their enterprise and cultivate
knowledge and display an ability not previous
" considered requisite. Mr.. Greeley, though on
all questions q man Of strong convic-
tlons, WAS one Of the first among Aneri-
can Journalists to adopt the policy of
allowing both sides to be heard. Prior to his
day, tho invariable practice had been for each
journal to be partisan, and to ignore the other
side- In this innovation, l1r. Greeley WAS not
the less remarkable, because he exposed himself
to Misrepresentation and misunderstanding
from which he never afterward wholly recoy-
cred. He opened his paper to the discussion Of
Fourierism and other PHILOSOPHERS which at that
time we're even more unpopular than at present,
and which could find no respectable channel
through which to reach tho public mind. To the
horror of many, he permitted the friends of
these isms to use bis columns he even partici-
pated in their discussions, commencing what he
considered right, and condemning what he held
to be wrong. He held, On these as On other
questions, that discussion WAS the most certain
way Of sitting truth from the chAff that sur
rounded it. For this course, he was severely
criticised in the rough language Of the papers Of
that time. It WAS insisted that he was Fou-
rierite, and D Free-Loyer, and Grahamite, as
well as IN Abolitionist; and 30 generally was
this accusation made, that there are thousands
Of honest, intelligent people who at this day be-
Geye that Horace Greeley WAS believer in Free
Loveism, Fourierism, and all the other isus Of
the time.
Having made this innovation in journalism in
the case Of unpopular social doctrines, he had
the courage to persevere, and, up to the last,
while his paper was intensely partisan On all
questions, it's columns we're always open to an
adversary to any extent which it was proper to
demand. He lived to see his conduct in this
case approved and adopted as a rule by every
respectable Journal in the country.
He began tho publication Of the New York
in :,,
he had to take sides with one or the other of the
existing political parties. He was q Wing, but
more particularly he was Protectionist, and he
Was an AboGtioniBt. The Tribune became
Wing paper, supporting the policies and candi-
dates of that party, but, at the same time,
maintaining the Protective policy, and resolute-
ly making war upon the institution of Slavery,
The maintenance Of these special views brought
him into constant collision with large
numbers Of the Wing party, and hence, though
his ability Was recognized and his fearlessness
admired, the party managers, who relied upon
harmony and smooth waters for SUCCESS, were
forever at war with the New York Tribune. The
Whig party, at that time, WAS as comparatively
strong in the slaveholding States as it WAS at
the North, and yet this great and able paper at
the North, claiming to be Wing, was as relent-
less in its war upon Slavery as was Garrison
himself.
Mr. Greeley was, by nature and by education,
opposed to every system of human injustice
He tested all questions by inquiring whether it
wac for the general good, and whether it inyol7-
ed the oppression Of others. It was immateria1
whether measure or policy WAS proposed by
his party, by his personal friends, or by his ad-
versaries; If it involved injustice. If 1t recogniz-
ed human oppression, if it degraded one man to
elevate another, he rejected it, and no efforts Of
friends or exigencies Of party could induce him
to sTerye from his convictions Of right. Hence
it was that, from the very earliest
days.. he was regarded as uncertain
party man. He was accused OF &C.
centricity, charged with moral cowardice,
and frequently branded as an apostate, because
he would not yield his Judgment and approve
what he felt to be wrong, nor blindly follow
party in cause he Was convinced VAS unjust.
It is popular, We know, to accuse 1Ir. Greeley of
q propensity to separate from his friends just at
the momentw when his serviceswere most needed,
and this has been attributed to an excessive per-
sonal vanity, and to an erratic, experimental dis
position that was never at rest. But it should
be remembered that this estimate Of Mr. Gree
ley has been taken in every case from the stand
point Of party it presuppoBes that the party
was, in all instances, right, and that he was
wrong, and it OF necessity rests upon
that greatest Of all monstrosities Of
doctrine, that, when man belongs
to d political party, he must have
no opinions or Judgments Of his own, and much
less express them but must follow wherever he
may be led, without asking question OF doubt
ing the wisdom Of his leader. So long as the
infelibility of party is recognized, the judgment
that he was cratic will hold good; but among