The weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1878-1881, 1879-07-22
EXPLAINING A RIDDLE.

presumes to differ with 1t?
- 3 L.
"a EXPLAINING A RIDDLE
That true merit is invariably accompanied
by modesty, is an accepted axiom in worldly
wisdom, but if any one doubts it he need
only refer to the New North West, where he
will find at least a negative demonstration,
since the converse is shown to be attended by
the antipodal attribute. awe do not wish
to dAbase ourselves by argument with its
(the MINER's) editor" Indeed. If the in
dividual who writes in this style could only
be disposed Of al his own valuation and re-
purchased at the valuationof a discriminat-
ing public, what a railroad fund Montana
would have, to be sure. No need then to
fume and fret over such trlt1ss as exemption.
But this assumption Of dignity does not sit
with good grace according to the judgment of
the dispassionate locker on. Let us take its
last article and see il. we can find in it the
traces Of a pitiful malice, the very antithesis
of dignity. Its last editorial devoted to
abuse Of this paper contains the sentence /:
Gin politics 1t is permitted to be saucy, you
know" This sentence, as given, is utterly
uninteligible to the public. Here is the key
to explain the riddle. In the campaign pre-
ceding last falls county election the contest
became somewhat. warm over the Probate
Judgeship,, as our readers will remember. In
that contest the ground taken by the MINER
was contested by the opposite party, and
more especially by three gentlemen of Deer
LNage, Mr.. Howard Fl. Zenor, Mr.. Geo. W.
Irvln and Mi. o. b. O'Banno,n, each of whom
wrote a personal letter to the editor of this
paper explaining wherein he had been misin-
formed in regard to certain facts to which it
is not necessary al this time to make more
particular reference. Those letters were re-
ceived and answered. Whatever we may
have thought Of the course taken by poll
ticians in writing private letters to an editor
when they had a subservient organ at their
beck, we nevertheless not only replied but
we also couched our answer IN the most re-
spectful language we could command. In
one Of our letters in reply, after disposing Of
the point at issue, we referred to the warmth
Of the campaign deprecated the introduction
Of acrimonious personalities into political
discussions ; hoped no ill-feeling would result
from the one then under way, and id so
speaking made use of the phrase in politics
it is permitted to be saucy, you know" This
is The explanation. Only this, and nothing
more. The letter containing that phrase was
written to one Of the above gentlemen. We
are not quite certain as to which, but we are
almost positive it was to Mr.. Zenor. That
gentleman is at liberty to correct us IL we
are in error. Now, without more than Incl
dental reference to the individual who VIC
lates the sanctity Of private correspondence,
what are we to say Of the Journal which
noses about through private letters, drags out
q single sentence Of which the public knows
nothing whatever, gives an untruthful &C
count Of the circumstances under which it
was written, and Incorporates it into an edi-
toriai with . view Of injuring q contemporary?
Does such q proceeding partake OF dignity or
Of malice? 2
Here re drop discussion with the North
West on this and all other subjects. The
journal whose only weapon in discussion is
personal abuse may turn in some other direc-
ton for the opportunity to exercise its taste
and talents. But we ask the reader to con-
slider the course of late pursued by the valley
paper. Consider the step taken in publishing
the Fish Creek letxr ; the offensive PERSONAL
tiles lately INDUCED in; the raid on private
correspondence, and see ii the Ne,o North
West has not greatly deteriorated from its
former standard-decide whether or not it is
deserving the respect OF .fair-minded men.