New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-05-26
mnnLlSnmr uISCLPLLNE.

dcliherote Justification, always reminds MS OF
Ste,ne's famous donkey. Do not beat me, |
bcsccch you; but you may beat me, II YOU
will" The plaintve, submissive air with when
# rctracts some of its least important misState-
ments and mildly dcprccatcs discussion tends to
excite compassion but the pcr>lstency with
which if adhcrcs TO its most glIring cIlumnies
forces us to punish it once more. 1t admits that
if made two mistakes in the LOthrop matter
- One was in saying that the Court had not mon
toned Mr.. Lothrop by name III it, .censnre'' and
- the other was in crcIiting the morning news
that the Michigan Senate had concurrcd in the
House resolution" But there" it adds, The
TRIBCNE's innocence ceases Ihcreupon 1t
proceeds to censurc MS for not publishing Mr..
Lolhrop's letter in full, rs well rs a letter from
the son of the late Attorney General Howard.
What TIE TRIBUNE had done was 10 print
extracts from u decision of the highest Codrt IN
this State IN which Mr.. LothrOpS conduct as "a
lawyer and man was most severely ccnsured
rs soon as his letter appeared IN me Posi
the substance Of it was at once published
in The TRIBUNE, not one important statement
being omitted Now what has The Post done
Has it published the extracts from Judge
Pottef's decision and enabled its readers to find
1ut what are the charges made 10y the Court OF
Appeals against the Minister to Russia ! II has
not done so; and until yesterday It had not
even read them, for if it.had done SO, II would
not have dared 10 say that the Court did not
mention Mr.. Lothrop by name. But its own
unfairncss and ignorance did not stand in the
way of its charging THE TRIBUSE with " ia
geniously distortinS the charges so as 10 make
il appear that censure intended for others APP
Piled to him, and also with printing only small
portion of MrLOthrops letter and = editing and
falsifying the Associated Press dispatches. II
II had taken the trouble to read Mr. LOthrop's
letter il would have ascertaned that he did not
assert that the censurc WIS meant for any one
else and if il had examined file OF the New
York press OF Saturday morning it would have
learned that THg TRIBUNE, instead of suppress
ing ANYTHING i'm the Associated Press dispatches
favorable to Mr. Lothrop, had published every
important statement Of his defence. 1t was
easier for The Post to assume that Mr.. Lothrop
had "cxposcd the falseness OF the charge COM
pletely," and that The TRIBUNE had first dis
tortcd and then suppressed the facts OF the case
than It was to find out the truth of the matter.
1t was not only easier but more natural for
The Post TO do this A year ago it sought to
|
an old scandal Did it repeat the charges NJ
they stood on the record 1t did not. IL in
geniously distorted" them. 1t deliberately and
maliciousy enlarged those charges precisely IA
a counterfeiter takes II fye-dollar note aud
raises it to fifty dollars and toward the close
OF the campaign we compelled it to confess that
it had done so and to retract its false and
wicked charges. Its maleYolence and eilrontery
drew forth from the leader of the New York
bar this scathing Indictment: 81 have never
known more shameful mscOnceptOn or
more yindictive msstatemcnt than these argu-
"ments which have been met by these very re-
atractions" That was The Posts method of
taking an old scandal, working upn a case,
imposing upon public credulity, and trading
wholesale upon the reputation acquired by it
in William Cullen Bryants day That was the
way in which, few months ago, it ingeniously
distorted some base accusations against Gen
cral Gordon, assuming him to be an advcnturer
and bringing down upon itself the righteous
wrath of Mr. Stead, the Editor of The PaH Mall
Gazette The Post has acquired a reputation
on both sides of the Atlantic for "hypothecat-
ing and raising" scandals about public men,
Let it glory i'll its own shame but not confOund
the methods OF just and honorable journalism
with its own disgraceful practices.