The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-08-09
COURTESY PAYS

Our cotemI orary the Central Presbyterian
calls upon the religious press 10 be courteous
and as specimen, we suppose, of what it means
by that term, gives US the following:
We have no idea of bandying phrases with
the South Western Presbyterian on any subject,
and certainly hot on the issue whether Long
fellow was great poet. We think the re
hgious press. at least, ought to be courteous 1t
1t unfortunately too often otherwise and about
the merest trihe."
We venture a word or two on the specimen.
Now, if this represents the CentraEs idea of
courtesy, every one will admit that its views are
surprisingly moderate. Public sentiment, even
of the irreligious press would have sustained it,
if it had raised the standard good deal higher
We endorse the sentiment that the Press
should be courteous, and venture to add, that
courtesy pays. 1t, at all events, pays in those
instances where one is tempted to make a little
capital by trying to put neighbor in false
position. For a time the unfair thing may seem
a success. But when straightway his neighbor
cometh and searcheth him. it is found that he
loses by the exposure more than he had gained
So that, if the courtesy of fair dealing requires
some selfrestraint, it pays in the long run.
l. For instance, when the Central insinuated
that we had misstated its position in regard to
Longfellow, it seemed to give it a temporary ad-
vantage over us. But the advantage was short
lived for 1t compelled US, in self defence, to ex-
pose the CentraPs extremely youthful theory in
regard to that author. We think that its repu
tation a critic is not likely to gain in conse-
quence.
2. And, again, when in the passage we quote
above. the Central seeks to belittle what we
said, by describing it as Z" a bandying of phrases
on the issue whether Longfellow was great
poet only one thing can take place The lack
of courtesy compes us, in self-defence, to remind
our readers-of what they themselves will clear
ly perceive-that our cotemporarY deliberately
misrepresents the issue between us. We had
no discussion whether Longfellow was great
poet" We simply undertook to show that our
cotemporarys Characterization of Longfellow,
was denial of his right to be'considered a poet
at all according to the common meaning of the
word This we were bound to show, in order
to disprove the CcntrdEs assumption that we had
misrepresented it. 1t is a very disagreeable
duty to be compelled even in selfdefence, to
point out our cotemporarys failure in veracity.
We should have been much better pleased, if it
had raised its standard Of courtesy high enough
to have spared us the painful necessity. And
If, as 1t assures us, the thing in question was
the merest trifle, where can be the justfca-
tom for the course it has pursued
Butlittle things sometimes reveal character,
or illustrate important principles And if we
are found to be unfair or INSCRIPTIONS in trifes,
we can hardly expect public confidence, when
we discuss questions Of public importance.
South Western PresbyteriGn.
Possibly some of our readers did not
quite understand why we said, I'VE have
no idea Of bandying phrases with the
South- Western Presbyterian" We pub
lish the above by way Of explanation.
They will all understand now.
Nobody will be so sorry for these utter
ances, after little reflection, as the edi-
tor Of that journal, and then we shall be
quite ready to discuss with him the
"greot" topics which conceEn the adj
vancement Of religion and the promotion
Of whatsoever things are true, what
soever things are lovely and whatsoever
] things are Of good report"