, 1877-10-19
THE PUBLIC STREET QUESTION.

From the ARGUS EXTRA Oh INC io'nI
A communication over the sigma
ture of Taxpayer" published in
the last issue of a contemporary, at
tacks us in manner unjust as it is
ungentlemanly.
It is underhanded, to say the least,
and bespeaks cowardly and vindic-
tive spirit, for any individual to at
tack the private character of another
under the cover OF nom de plume
which hides the accuser from the
public. Come out Mr.. "Tax- Payer
and meet US like q MAN. Never
sneak behind an assumed name to
vent your personal and uncalled for
abuse upon one whom you dare not
meet in an honorable manner. We
are as willing to have the matter
thoroughly ventilated, as our SER
pent-like assailant is to exhibit his
malice.
In regard to the implied charge
that we will not publish anything
calculated to hurt Anybody's feeling,
we plead guilty, to the extent that
we do not propose to hurt anybody's
feelings unless it is our DUTY to do
30. Unlike some other publications,
the ARGUS does not seek to run
rough shcd over the feelings OF others
when there is not the shadow OF an
excuse, or the vestige of principl
ofright to prompt the action. At the
same time we brand, as an uncondi
tional lie, the assertion that the
people have no chance, through our
columns, to "place their views be
fore the public"
Some time ago n communication,
regarding the public stree. question,
was written by Mr.. +. ". James, Of
this place, and handed to US for pub
lication. 1t WAS signed "Veritas;"
however, the writer assured US that
we could attach his name instead Of
the other if we wished, 80 that we
had no idea hs was ashamed of it, or
had "trusted it to us in confidence"
The communication was duly pub.
lished in our columns, exactly as it
was received; and, AS it is the ONLY
communication we have ever re-
ceiyed upon that question, the con.
temptible accusation that the views
of the people cannot be made public
through our columns, comes without
the first sign of foundation for its
truthfulness. We have never yet
received a solitary communication
that we have not published. The
article in question, was respectfully
referred to as coming from Mr..
James--not because OF desire to
call attention to him as its author
but because we wanted the public
to read and consider it. We believed
at the time, and do yet, that it rep
resented the views oil many Of our
citizens; still, while we respect the
views of Mr.. James, aud coucede to
''' 80 W al y OlUCl CIL'GCi--'bhC
right and privilege to express those
views, it does not necessarily follow
that we must concur with those
views. If another article were
brought, we would insert it as will
llngly as We did the Hrst--proyided
the writer would be willing to father
his production. As it was, the manu-
script OF "Veritas" was brought to
our office and hung upon copy
nook, along with other MSS, and if it
was taken away and shown SO its au-
'hor on the street, previous to its
publication, the action was without
our knowledge. As to the stale
sIurs about the ownership and man
sgement of the ARGUS, it is we'll
knovn fact that people make these
assertions simply because it suits
'nelr PURPOSES to do so, not because
OF a conscientious belief that they
are stating facts.
We hope never to stand in the