The prison mirror. [volume] (Stillwater, Minn.) 1887-1894, 1891-10-08

l hold. and here desirous of bringing out,
is, that it is Fame, and not Wealth that
goads the newspaper man on to Fraud,
FalsehoOd and Flattery. You will appre
ciate this when point out that the most if
not all of the "stuff Is written up by em-
ployees. not by the bOss the man who gets
the dollars. There is more pleasure to a
newspaper scribe in saying scoop" (we)
and ''soup" (ye) than there is to him in a
we'll filled wallet. He is generous to a
unit. and though the policy" Of his paper
is binding. it is the big II" that talks in his
writings. But while l assert these things,
l have not absolved myself from the charge
of my own mercenariness. My dear broth
ers in exile. your editor is not in need of a
$40 bill-well. for THE MIRROR. perhaps;
but not for the purpose of 'prostituting his
wisdom to his physical necessities. Some of
you have made good resolutions-l dare say.
all of you have at one time and another
while doing time; when you have done it.
and got out again. have YOU kept that one
that whispered. II will sooner starve than
steal 2" You know what mean. Is there
one among you who can say. Il kept it F"
Offense in accepting $40 bill was not be-
cause l should have committed theft if 1
had MT accepted i'll had struggled too long
to lapse again at that mOment-but because,
forsOOth, was hungry and wanted pair
OF clean socks. Il have no affinity, as yet.
with Jerry.) AS for being mercenary. l
am mercenarY enough and to an extent
that. when l need meal, and 1 find
an honest way of procuring one-well.
that's all. 1 am mercenary.
This introduces the second question::
Have l deepened prejudice against you?
Internationally. perhaps may have done
so; but long ere those articles fell into the
hands of the editors who published them,
my sentiments bearing Oh crime and GRIM
inals and criminal matters in general were
fully known to few of the prominent litter
ateurs of to day. and l do not think that L
am guilty of breach of confidence when l
mention Gen. Lloyd Bryce, of the North
American Review. B. Belford. ESQ.,. of the
BelfOrd Publishing Co.. John Scribner. of
Scribner's Publishing House, j. j. Roche.
editor of the Boston Pilot, and others, in
this connection. These know my status
on the subject. and that is precisely the one
outlined i'll The Greed of Liberty. In fact,
SO radical and aggressive were my comments
on and developments of the study, and my
antagOnism to certain establishments. that
Scribner refused to accept for publication
book l offered him in MS. So, might
say. in reference to other editors and pub
fishers. But to fully develop this part Of
my explanation would take up too much
space. if it did not take up too much of your
time. Il presume you have lots of that;
but be patient. boys.) However. l must
remark. that the articles as published by
the New York Herald, were condensations.
In part. of the book in MS. have men,
toned as offering to publishers. Some of
the chapters in this book were cut down by
an editor. and certain inter workings made
that we're not in the original MS: but these
addings did not. in any way, destroy my
ideas so far as published. The omissions,
however. did so to great extent, and that
is where your editors remark about my (?)
''sn OF omission" comes in. THE worst
half" probably. had more descriptive mat
worse half" your editor might have said.
There is not such thing as worst" in this
world, gauging things by even prejudice.)
am aware the average newspaper reader
is superficial and credulous. imbibing the
mere mOmentary impressions derived from
newspaper matter of whatever kind. He
is not thinker" and this ia one of the
reasons why l antagonize the press; for
this latter, instead of pandering to the
worse passions of humankind, should teach
it to think for itself. and not think, or
properly, manufacture neutrality-suspicious.
for 1t. Still, the newspaper reader. if he
is thoughtless. would read my articles for
interest solely. His thoughtlessness would
prevent his prejudice "deepening." The
thoughtful reader. on the other hand.
would not be guided by my words alone;
but would question las my integrity was
questioned anent some of the articles)
wherein l was standing. or at what was
driving. should do so; l have not for
many years now accepted any mans opin-
ions on any vital subject. II l want to
form an opinion on anyone, run neither
to the Herald's editorial department nor to
the sanctum Of the North American Re-
view. Why should I? Is not there too