Evening journal., 1890-04-29
-IN RgeARD 10 eooD MANNERS

Courtesy, amiability and mutual rec
ognition of merits are due alike among
contemporary papers and to each paper s
self respect and dignity.
There is nothing but cheap notoriety
to be gained by bitter and foolish
personal recrimination or silly par
tisan Misrepresentation. The fallacy
that mean and low partisanship
constitutes politics is not creditable
to the mental calihre or moral
strength Of an editor. Questions Of
public policy may be discussed with
out personal invective or partisan rancor,
Men may differ on such questions hon
estly, because they reason from different
premises, use q different set Of facts,
and necessarily arrive at different con-
clusions. That does not make either the
one or the other a bad man, and it
should not prevent reasonable men from
holding each other in mutual esteem.
Such should be the case among news
papers
The EVENING JOURNAL wishes to dis
cuss public questions-to discuss men
only as incidents when germane to the
questions. 1t does not care who edits
paper, If he does not push his ugly per
sonality to the front SO that it cannot be
ignored. II man pushes him self on us
like that gyas cults Of the Georgetown
Republican, Of course we shall take SHE
at him, but even with him and his kind,
J we still preserve a perfect amibility.
/ We would scorn to be ill-tempered even
, with the Georgetown Republican. That
{ paper, as is the case with any paper,
] would make stronger arguments, and be
more respectable in addition, by being
. impersonal, courteous and amiable.
But here comes the Dover Delawarean,
a which is edited BY strong man and an
5 able writer, discussing the public ques
s tion Of harmony ia the Democratic par Is
I with personal and false drivel as untrue
Z, concerning It's subject as it IS unworthy
i Of selfrespecting editor and irrelevant
Il TO the question.
i The methods Of these two papers, 3,
IS widely different in other respects, arr
" similar in mistaking personal abus'
S for argument The one uses the tern
I? idiot" the other "cattle, TO fortify veal
arg lments by stigmstlzing the allegato
r. whose propositions they cannot answer
Is They are both reprehensible, but pev
il haps more so in the one who has the wi
ot to do better than in the one who sup
ot plies malice for pitiable dirth Of wit
We shall be pleased to discuss publ
questions with either one or both Of then
In but the personnel Of neither one Of thes
rs papers is such that we feel called upon
ce make either exposition or comparisC
he Of respective merits or abilitie
he If we cared for that sort Of thing Il
ce personnel Of both papers cffers enouf
re material to hang many stinging par
he graph upon. But that would be useles
lat unamiable and cowardly. We are bus
its friendly, and we trust we have suf
us cient courage to meet any situation tn
nd life or death may have in store. v
.en have neither time nor inclination to
full silly.
tic A simple and wise rule which bo
eiI papers may follow to advantage, is: L
ese an argument that cannot be answer
md severely alone; an attempt to meet
em with personal, irrelevant invective on
her proclaims mental poverty where silen
art might have been accepted as wisdom.