Goldsboro weekly argus. [volume] (Goldsboro, N.C.) 1885-1909, 1893-09-28
JUDGES AND NEWSPAPERS

y nQer CnlS nedu we uuu du eOls S
torial in the issue of the Ashevillel
Citizen that cam /, Wednesday 5
evening which reads as follows:
The Citizen yesterday contained this
item:
Judge Sh,.fora is noao holding court at Colds
bor0. The Argus says: His honor's chdrcs to the
grand jury not only admirable for its conprs
hensice legal lore and in,prsssiOe tenor, but also
for its rare literary merit, its refined ethics and
sound political doctrine. 1t liberal education
to all those aoose good fortune it acas to be in the
courthouse during its deziuery.''
1t is pleasant, of course, to see COM
mendation of a townsman, but the Citizen
is sure its motive cannot be misunderz
stood, either by Judge Shuford or his
friends here-among whom we count
ourselves-when we say that this kind of
comment by either the Goldsboro ARG US |
or any other paper is as sorry staff as the
approval of Judge Boykin by the bar of
Marion. In the first place, it is not the
business of the newspapers, except under
extraordinary circumstances, either tol
praise or to blame judge. Few editors
are qualified to do such piece of work.
Such comment is pretty certain to be
shallow and to have an insincere ring if
they attempt it. Look at THE ARGUs's
superlatives. They are ridiculous. We
| are confident that Judge Shuford would
be the last man to claim that a charge of
his to the grand jnry twas a liberal edu-
\ cation" to all who heard it; or that it had
"rare literary merit" Liberal educations
are not acquired in few moments in
| court room or anywhere else; and a
judges charge has no business to possess
literary merit. 1t is not literature, and
cannot by any possibility rightly be cons
| sidered to be that.
| The kind of comment the ARGUS ms
dulges in has mischievous tendency, in
that it suggests that judges must look to
newspapers for approval of their work
rather than to their own consciences. It is
setting up a false standard and, generally
speaking, a cheap one. The ARGUS
might, however, with doubtful propriety,
say that the bar of Goldsboro had spoken
highly of Judge Shuford's charge, if that
was the fact and if such comment as the
reporter heard appeared to be sincere and
not made with the idea of publication to
curry favor with the judge; but we do not
see how it could go farther unless its
editor was known to be a thoroughly
qualified authority on such subjects
isomething we see no signs of in this case.
1t does not often occur to newspaper
men, perhaps, but it is the fact that they
tshould he as careful of their praise as OF
their censure.
| We venture the assertion that the
, opinion of the average reader of, the
above would be promptly formed
that the writer thereof is-what a
higher statute than that enacted by
any legislative body enjoins that We
shall not call our brother.
Taking this view of the subject W;
would dismiss it without further
t comment, but, in behalf of broade,
and more elevated spirit of profes-
sional journalism, We are persuaded
= that it is our public duty to read I
lesson which We hope will prove ben
lefcial, if not Wholesome, TO the by
: peroritical, jaundice-eyed write
q that welded the didatic pen which
s |annihilated space on the editoria
t page of the Citizen on this particmza
S occasion.
We are aware that in using tn
e language Italicised we are guilty o
a editorial discourtesy, for which W
q make haste to apologize; but it is al
= honest conception of ours, neverthe
x less, thatthe regular editor of tn
8. Citizen did not write the article IL
!. question. Its style is so foreign ant
~ weak to what usually emanates fror
q his vigorous pen, its criticism s
" far-fetched and illiterate, and its ed
IS itorial discourtesy so glaring an
% gratuitously INDUCED in-and the
& it comes ''second hand" as it wer'
: after having published the item o
which it is based day previou!
:. (and that, too, as a compliment
% Judge Shuford, that we cannot be
, lleye but that it had other origi
!, than from the brain and pen tia
is usually presides over the Citizen
\. sa,,ctxm.
= In the first place, as to the skin
e of comment" we INDUCED in, {
above quoted, it's merits or demerit
le it is for an intelligent public to hol
ID the opinion as to whether it be $50
J ry stuff or not. If it struck Il
- - editor (?) Of the Citizen as such wh
a. did he not say so the day hefor
l. when he first copied its Did it tai
g, his mountainous brain.so long tolabt
a and bring forth the puissant prod Ut
30 lion to which We are now addiessin
- these remarks?
Secondly, as to the "business' {
= !, a newspaper tampering with tie 81,
= diciary," we beg to hold our own opil
as ion on that subject, as well as On a
of others-yielding the same right
oy all others to do likewise. The Il
st tellsqent press are the custodians-