The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1877-02-01
q, A, KINGS COMMUNICATION,

e. A. KINGS COMMUNICATION.
A communication from II. A. King,
of Salem Station, appeared in the TEL
EGRAPH last week without remarks in
| this way: After it was in type the
| foreman said it would have to go over
until the next week, but afterwards,
| finding room for it, put it in without
our knowledge. We deem Mr.. Kings
communication much more objectiona-
bic than the communications he COM
plains of. He characteriZes the re-
marks of the writers about their neigh
bors as Scurrilous and untrue and COM
plains of us for admitting them.
There have never been any remarks in
Eany of the communications referred to
as scurrilous as Mr.. Kings remarks in
relation to the communications and
their writer's, and we doubt if there
have ever been any as untrue.
MI. King speaks of himself as citi-
zen of Salem Station and thereby an ag-
grieyed party, and as one of too many
who share the reward, the full measure
of which should be received by the Wri-
ters. From this it would seem that MI.
King has been supposed to be the writer
of the communications or at least some
of them. And as Mr.. King is not a
subscriber for the TELEGRAPH, and, as
| far as we know, not reader Of it, it
may be inferred that he got his inform
alton of the communications he COM
plains of more from those who were
| trying to find out whether he was the
writer than from the communications,
and, while smarting under what was
said, wrote his communication.
| We have been several times anxious
| ly inquired of who the writer's Of the
communications were, and once Wheth-
er Mr.. King was the writer of one par
ticularly referred to. We have declin-
ed to answer who the writer's We're say
! ing there was nothing Objectionable in
| the communications if true, and that
unless untrue it did not matter who the
writers were And in answer to the
| inquiry whether Mr.. King Was the
writer Of one referred to we said he
was not the writer of any Of the com
municatiOnS, that he was not SubscrI-
Der for the TELEGRAPH, and, rs far as
we knew, had never written any thing
| for it, and that we did not know him
and had never till then even heard Of
him. The inquirer then admitted that
there was nothing Objectionable iu the
communication and said if Mr.. King
did not write it the one making the in
quiry did not care anything about. it,
! 1t would seem that there are few
perhaps very few-curious people at
Salem Station who are very anxious to
find out who the writers of the c0Inmu-
nicatiOns from Salem Station are. They
want to know whether the writer's are
of Our Set or not. If they are, the
communication are all right: If they
are not, they all wrong.
/ We say more of this case than we
otherwise would in hopes that what we
say may tend to induce people to. Judge
OF communications by what they are,
rather than by whom the writer's are.
1t is Of much consequence what the
communications are, and OF little con-
sequence who the writers are. We
have always been glad to receive COM
munications giving the news, transpir-
ing at Salem Station and we have
never thought them to heseurrilous
or untruthful.
| In conclusion we would recommend
Mr.. King to subscribe for the Telegraph
and hereafter to judge the conmunica-
J, tions from Salem Station by what they
| are and not by what may be said OF
them by. those trying to find out wheth-
er he is the writer of them And then
: II he thinks he can write better than
the other Salem Station writers do, and
can furnish communications which
VIII be more satisfactory to the readers
OF the TELEGRAPH, we hope he will try
, his hand and see what he can do as q
news CORRESPONDENT