The Portland daily press., 1884-01-28
The Conclusion of The Matter,

The controversy which for two or three
days has been carried on between the PRESS
and the Advertiser is not of the kind in
which the PRESS takes any pleasure; but 1t
was not of our seeking We propose to end
it now, being quite well aware that
there are certain classes of disputants with
whom it is proftless to pro'ract discussion
any further than serves for a clear state
ment of our and their position. In such
classes are those who do not apprehend the
plain meaning of simple English words !;
those who do not apprehend the logical sig
nifcance of carefully defined expression I;
those who substitute for the language of
their opponent their own loose differences
from it; those who assert that things are
said which are not said, reply to denial by
reassertion, and respond to challenge for
the proof by parrot-like iteration unsuppoft-
ed by particle Of evidence; and mot to at
tempt to enumerate all) those who have
SEINE other motive in discussion than to get
out the real facts of the case and reach
right conclusion upon them.
In dismissing the matter we may be par
doned for briefly revie wing the original cir
eumstances: On Wednesday last the PRESS
contained an article entitled EASY Enter
PRISE. in which it was stated that we had
received o MONDAY previous the advance
sheets of "-ning report of the Secre-
tary OF State, WILL = liter from that officer
giving us permission to publish the report, or
any part Of 1t, 'on or after "Wednesday" The
time was made emphatic by being twice IN
derseored. A fter setting forth the custom
in such eases, and stating that we consid-
cred ourselves honoraby bound to observe
the condition imposed on us in connection
with this courtesy and confidence, and our
presumption that the Secretary OF State had
dealt fairly with the PRESS by imposing the
same conditions on all papers, we said
that we were "not little surprised" to dis
cover that the matter was printed in the
Lewiston Journal Of Tuesday. Plainly
there was fault somewhere, and we tele-
graphed to the Secretary of State asking him
whether he had imposed the same condi-
lions on that paper as on the PRESS. He
promptly responded Eyes I did, without
any qualification whatever.
Upon this reply we made comment,
nor did we make any further reference to
the Lewiston journal. The PRESS affirmed
nothing regarding The Lewiston Jouroal ex-
eept that it contained the article in question.
The PRESS made no accusation against the
Lewiston Journal. If The Lewiston Journal
was accused it was accused by certain fac s,
fairly and honestly presented for what they
were worth. Up to this hour neither the
Lewiston Jo9rnai, nor the Advertiser, nor
anybody else, has denied or questioned the
entire accuracy, or the per,inence, of any
abatement in that article, and We do not be-
lIeye anybody will have the temerity 10 do
so.
There is one other matter. The Adver-
,iser saws the PRESS added insult to injury
by not accepting the explanation of the
lewiston Journal as complete and sufficient.
We accepted it for just what IL said and no
more. We have never questioned the
Journals statement that the publica-
tim was due to "a misunderst anding,"
although some Wore definite state
ment to rs. If not to the public, of the way
in which the misunderstanding occurred
n eed not have strained the pride Of gentle
men who deeply reeketled their action. If we
n i'd done anything, uni sntentiona iy, which had
.sAe appearance of violation of personal or
professional good faith howard the Lewiston
Journal, or any other paper, friendly or
hostile, We should have desired to yindicate
ourselves by an explanation of the circum-
frances as frank and complete as Ii could be
m de. This is rot saying-we viii add In
Difference to The Advertisers weakness In