Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1882-02-24
The Editorial "We.v
Oil City Derrick.I

Oil City Derrick
Some people are unreasonably in
quiSitive and curious, especially about
matters which do not concern them in
the least. For example. here is a
correspondent who makes the start
ling revelation that be is "a constant
reader Of our valuable and influential
paper" and would like to be informed
why it is an editor or newspaper
writer, invariably uses the plural
prOnoun we instead of the singular
"I."
There are several reasons. Self
preservation is the first law of nature.
1t begins at home, like old Mother
Charity. There is some human nature
about an editor, public opinion to the
contrary Notwithstanding. An editor
thinks too much Of his rs to wear
them in mourning, and therefore
when speaking of some slab-sided
s~ix-footer as a miserable, red-nosed,
pusillanimous, wife beating snoozer,
he considers it the better part of
valor to drop in an occasional I'VE"
This creates in the mind of the six
footer the impression that tho edito.
rial force consists Of a standing army,
armed with deadly weapons.
Furthermore, in cases where the
victim comes around to the Office to
kill the writer Ofany particular item.
1t is so pleasant to have the guilty
man identity buried in the obseurity
OF the plural we" The editor in
chief, the commercial editor, the city
editor, the local editor, the river ed
itor, the reporters, bookkeepers, COM
positors, boOkbinders, jobbers, press
men, devil, and all the delivery boys
are thus placed on a common footing
BY the little pronoun we and when
the enraged person looks about him
and finds how many homes be would
make desOlate, how many wives he
would make widows and how many
children orphans, by killing off all
included in the little I'VE" at one fell
swoop, he sickens Of the sanguinary
undertaking, turns sadly away, goes to
some barroom, takes a drink, condemns
the paper, prophecies that it is being
run intothe ground, and declares that
he will henceforth use his political
influence to squelch the sheet.
And again, having tackled this sub
ject, we feel called upon to correct an
erroneous impression, which has gone
forth through the Vaccinations and
m%anipulations Of the machine.
A few years ago, the fends of the
opposition, for whom we have but
feelings OF contempt and loathing, and
for whom we car fud in our book of
synonyms no sufficiently opprobious or
condemnatory title, caused to be pub.
llshed in certain sheets which we will
not mention, a story to the effect that
the use Of the pronoun we" by the
newspapers originated in this wise: "In
England the King, Lords and Com
mons constituted the three estates of
the realm. The King spoke of him
self as We the Lords of themselves as
we, and the Commons in the same
manner"
The scurrilous article referred to
above endeavored to convey the i'm.
preston that the editors tried TO ape
the customs Of the King and the Lords.
and, by considering the newspapers
the fourth estate, they acquired the
habit Of using the pronoun I'VE"
This is a most ridiculous assumption,
as the intelligent readers Of the Der.
rick will see at a glance, and the story
was gotten up merely to detract some
thing from the popularity of the news
papers. The facts in the case are
these: The editors commenced using
the word we long before the Kings
and Lords ever thought of such a
thing, but, after awhile, the Kings,
Lords, ETC., adopted the style under
the impression that they could dead
head their way into some Of the female
minstrel shows. But it didn't work,
and, after being kicked out a few
times, they tried to make folks believe
the use Of the plural prOnoun, origi-