Litchfield enquirer. [volume] (Litchfield, Conn.) 1829-current, 1880-07-29
Truth in Politics.

A recent editorial of the New York Even
ing Host treats very forcibly of the harm done
by partisan journalism. 1t begins with the
following quotation from sermon recently
delivered by the Rev. DR.. Armitage on the
harm done by its wholesale detraction.
"This detraction in6cts widespread injury
upon public morals There can be no more
desolating maxim in country like ours than
that which declares, All is fair in politics.
fair anywhere else is unfair here. This SLAM
derous practice reflects discredt upon our
common country and institutions, and de-
grades us with other nations. Besides, the in
jury is not ended with the election. TIE pub
lie conscience for truth isdebauched; trickery,
instead of integrity, is sanctified in the man.
agement of public affairs, and chcanery IN
augurated as leading law of action In a pure
ly democratic form of government. Which
ever of the maligned candidates is elected, his
influence for an honorable administration is
weakened. In every way this form of un-
justificable attack overreaches itself, by it's
own reaction and hardening influence. is an
unmitigated wrong, and so is to be resisted by
every true American"
The Post further refers to the injury done
by the party papers in their indscriminate ad.
miration of their own candidates. Already
our party papers are fairly putrid (to adopt
an expressive Mark Twanism) with praises of
the men they are urging before the. people.
This invariabe abuse of opponents and eu-
logy OF friends comes at last, to have no sort of
EJECT on anyone, or, if it has any effect at all,
1t IS that which any mere noise produces 1t
may thus excite partisans to stupid extremes
of partisanship, just as shouting turns a
crowd into mob, but its sole power is W it'll
mems passions, not over mems reason. 1t is
this debasing style of journalism that will turn
half our liable editors" for three months to
come into mere heaters of gongs-shouters of
nonsense; or, worse, of lies
Over and over again have we been remon-
strated with by Republican friends, since we
changed the Enquirer from party to an in
dependent paper. in this wise: Your paper,
as you now conduct 1t, is doing our party
more harm than Democratic pape. could, for
this reason every word you say against Re-
pubicanism is believed, as sort of confess
sion of guilt; but all that you say against De.
mocracy is thrown aside as due to Republican
prejudice" In other words the public pro
| ceeds upon the rule of evidence which once
prevailed in the courts. They reject all of
party's declarations in his own favor. or against
his opponent; they admit all his declarations
against himself, or in favor of his opponent.
The old law presumed, in Short that the par
ty interested in the result of suit would al.
ways lie in his own favor and against his 3D.
ponent. Our courts now adopt wiser rule,
They hear what each party has to offer in his
own behalf, as well as against his interest
they take into consideration the natural bias
OF interest, and thus get much nearer the facts
OF case than when they rejected every in.
terested witness as of necessity liar
The difference between the party journal
and the Independent journal is this: The par
ty paperclaims to be nothing but an advocate.
He thinks it no sin to suppress facts, to gar
BILE evidence, to appeal to passion instead Of to
reason. He expects that the party papers of
the opposite side will correct all his misrepre.
sensations, and dilate upon the facts he sup
presses. The difficulty is that in a political
campaign there is no taking in of the evidence
before the case is argued. Few have the fair
ness even to hear any arguments except upon
one side. The crying need of the times is
more testimony and less argument. tits pre-
cisely this necessity that independent journal
ism tries to meet. The independent editor
does not offer himself as a lawyer but as a
witness. He confesses to more or less politi-
cal bias, but he swears to tell the truth, the
whore truth and nothing but the truth, to the
best of his ability. If honest, what he saws
regarding both parties is entitled to very
different reception from the mere advocacy of
the party paper. The one is to be considered
as mere lawyers talk, the other as evidence
under oath.
The party paper has its just place. All
our political causes need thorough argument.
The great difficulty with American politics as
connected with journalism is, that the papers
that play the lawyer are so many and the pa
pers who are sworn as witnesses are SO few,
that the great jury whose votes decide, have
no just comprehension of the facts upon which
their verdicts should have been based. Instead
OF fairly hearing the evidence, they are be.
Wildered by multiplicity of pleas based on