The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-12-13
MaliRnant Critics.

Much of the criticism OF public men
and public acts is hasty and is modified
when clearer Understandings Of the facts
is obtained. Such criticism has no malice
! in it, though it is not without harmful eff
/ fects. AS a general thing the newspapers
are quick to correct wrong impression
they may have assisted in creating. There
! are newspapers, however, that are so
bitterly partisan that they never admit
that political opponent is influenced by
good motives. They are quick to think
| the worst of those who are opposed to
| them in politics and no amount of evil
| dence is sufficient to induce them to right
a wrong they may have done.
| The Philadelphia Press appears to be a
paper of this kind. 1t is really a great
paper, but it is not great enough to be
| just In its issue of Wednesday, speak
ing of President Cleveland it says:
The autocratic tone and attitude as
sumed by President Cleveland towards
/ congress and the American people, espec-
tally within the last few weeks, have left
painful impression 1t is not too much
TO say that these extraordinary nantes
tatiOns have created a deeD rcvulsiOn of
public feeling respecting the Pres1-
dent. He has adopted manner
more in keeping with the position of
an irresponsible despOt than that of re-
sponsible ruler. He has proceeded as if
ours were a mere personal rather than a
representative government
His letter in response TO Mr.. Van Allen s
resignation of the Italian mission was an
illustration. The criticism of that APP
pointment was universal Outside of
few sycophants there was absolutely no
dissent from the condemnation. This
public Judgment was not whimsical or ca
PRECIOUS or mistaken, but rested upon
solid grounds and showed just sense OF
the principles which should regulate such
selections. 1t was a feeling to be re
spected and honored. Yet the President
petulantly stigmatized it as malignant
criticism" and insisted that there should
be no yielding TO this noise and clamor."
1t was not only petty and unbecoming
display of querulous spirit, but it betrayed
a feeling that the country had no business
to have any opinion not in harmony with
his wish.
Could anything be more unjust than
the foregoing! 1t is true that the criti-
cism of the appointment of Mr.. Van
Allen was very general and very harsh,
but it was hasty, and based upon state
ments which were not true A great
deal of this criticism was of the most ma
lignant character. It ridiculed Mr.. Van
Allen and attributed improper motives to
Mr.. Cleveland Such criticisms were
neither honest nor wholesome. The pur-
pose of them was not to create a healthy
public sentiment, but TO arouse hostility
to the President and his administration.
When Mr. Van Aliens letter, resigning
the position of ambassador to Italy APP
peared, the great majority of the papers
that had condemned his nomination
promptly admitted that they had been
lead by false reports to do him and the
President great injustice. They saw
that Mr.. Van Allen was a fit man to repre-
sent this country at Rome, and that his
nomination was proper one in every re-
spect. They also saw that the charge
that the President had nominated him be-
cause he had made contribution to the
national democratic campaign fund was
unfounded The prOmptness with which
they sought to repair the wrong they had
done was proof that they were not ma
lignant critics. But other papers, among
them the Philadelphia Press, still insin-
uate that the President was influenced by
an improper motive in nominating Mr..
Van Allen, and because he resents such an
insinuation they call him a despot and in
other ways endeavor to bring him into
disrepute with the people. Such papers
have no use for the truth