Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1873-09-26
In Replv.

attorney acting as amanueusis r,r
him, might he treated with the con.
tempt of silence, it is deemed no
more than Justice to ourself and to
another party alluded To therein that
certain imputations which it contains
be retuted, and that their falsitv h..
made transparent.
A few hours previous to the brino.
ing OF the manuscript of the article
i'll question To this office. the writer
thereof called upon us and asked To-
he informed if a second PARTY had
suggested the remarks rejecting n.
on'Bi>nlark" or ifthe writer had made
lhPm through any inducenien. from
oherS. lie was answered negative.
lN-and told that the production was
wholly the reInrter'S. and that the
ldea OF writing it originated in a con
NerSatinn with the subject himself
and a friend of his. during which the
appearance of 3" Bisnark" was iok.
ingly alluded to as a fit theme for Il
para graph of local news; aud that
" BlsInark was then Informed ofthe
probability Cf his appearing in print
the mex. morning. These fac 5 were
stated To the anIanuensiS uneQuivo-
calIv and in language unmiStakable ;
so that his reference To the item as a
p" loi't p~radrction" bears paibablr ev-
idence Of having been knowingly
fabricated for the double purpose of
gaining for his communication a place
in the paper 10y throwing IL portion of
the blame upon Il person o an at.
tiche of the office. and of casting
the weight of his article in a direction
from which there would probably he
little or no reaction. The "one-sided
misstateIuent spoken Of. then, is
clearly shown to have been made by
the cnInmunicant, eve meanthe aman-
uenSisl and not 10y the reporter: for
how far am'SS could 4 statement
have been made that bore a general
reference to the attire OF an individual
mau? Certainly the party will not
now di>0Wn that he was dressed on
that occasion, when he Was an object
of such particular interest. II would
be foil to ttemI t negative pr0OtOfan
occurrence the unfrequency Of which
renders the impression il produces
lasting on the minds OF observers. 1t
must eve stand As a fact that Bis
marck" WAS neatly clad on the Jewish
New Years day.
That it is anuoving to be assailed in
mutilated English, whether c%olluquial
or written. no one will attempt to
DENY. But since the item which calls
a RESPONSE from " Bismarck" through
the attorney is absolutely free from
any s~vntactical, orthographical or
typographical errors whatever, the
point of the remark-which, taken
a~bstractlv, is { good one-iS lost. That
there are rhetorical inaccuracies.
faulty diction. and a lack of literary
taste displayed in tie piece. We do not
deuv; that degree of perfection in
which these faults cannot he found is
rarely attained 10y the Lieratj. much
less bv those showing the quill in the
mountains. But the ability of the at
turnev to instruct the local in En@lish
grammar is seriously called in QueS-
tiCn. The ease of a personal prnuOun
in the article which he attempts to
criticl>e is no doubt what leads him
e>traV. The construction III which 1t
occurs j. Il rare one, 1t must he adm t.
ted. but one which beautifully Illus
trateS All important rule OF >yntaN.
Therefore. if "mutil tied English Is
Intended TO apply to our composition,
at least t that portion of it under no
/ lltt. IL bltlN Itii'NlN NV NIibNi
deficiency in his language.
The paragraph of the commnnica-
ton devoted to telling how kir>chncr
came hv the Suhriquet OF Bismarck
is as foreign and il elevant tothe sub
iect matter of the arti le as II the
writer had launc ,pd oil in "A tangent
and dilaled upon the Eranco.PrUsslan
war. the Tputunic and Gallic races.
and commenced each noun COR at
least some of thern) with Il small let
ter. as he dit in his Ms. The use OF
the name Bismark" was in no lnNldi-
Gus sense. and was not thrown Wit IN
QUO alton marks aS Il name supposed
rot to he real would rave been.
OF the concluding paragraph of the
review before us, Il Will suffice TO say
that il is about as ambiguous Il tll',g
for the amount ut matter contained IN
il As we have been called upon [" de
cipher la'elv. inaccuracies IN COM
position are unl ardonaOie IN proper
lion to the literary standing of the
author. FNr "A man who boasts ina
he is an fat in the use of Engl sh to
make an error 50 egrcgrious as that OF
which we speak, is at least a SUBJECT
of surprise had an unpretentl us
writer tallen into such an abuse or
grammar, the error might have been
rhrerfuliV overlooked. we ask
in all earneStuess 10 he shown
the detiuate grammatical, logical,
or sensible autccedent OF the prohoun
his" in the tilth line Ut the
last division OF that scholarly (D pro-
duction. If this be done we WILL pro
cecd with |alacritv To remove me
beam from our eye, or remove the
beam from the eye of the mvthlca'
D~erNnntgp STYLED our 'prnnlptor, or
ia if him :emove the bean from
our eve, or let him remove the beam
from his own eve, as the case may
no for we confess our abll 10
tell what is meant by the sentence
or To which OF the antecedeht nouns
the singular pronoun refers.
In addition 10 the lngratnmallcl>ili
cited and the errors in capltalizilloli
referred to, the punctuation IN tne
n,anuscript of the critic ana reviewer
was simply horrible. Not the rtilHt-
est evidence of a knowledge OF me
rules for the use of points was DE-
trayed in the copy given To the com
nosi,ors. and many important "il'>-
SionS i'm this respect were Su ppiieo uN
them. The change OF the ih"eiili'e
article so that it would compofl WIN
the FOLLOWING oun 10 tiie
accertcd rules of agreement WAS aiSu
fnund necessary. The errors woulu
Inc PASSED If they had not emiiiIa'ed
Illf-lnlllll