River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1901-06-06
AFTER THOUGHTS AND
Some Corrections.

foresight. This little epigram is
respectfully submitted to the candid
consideration of our friends of the
quill in Hudson, ct a., who knew so
much and spoke so certainly with
regard to the result of the declama-
tory contest in Madison, before 1t
happened. We would especially
most deprecatingly call the attention
of our esteemed and observant friend
Of the Observer to the sometime true
assertion that che laughs best who
laughs last" and we beg to suggest
that, inasmuch as ''he did not fear
the result at Madison" he now
come out and explain what it was
that he did not fear, lest at distance
we be led to believe that ''thc blow
almost killed He" Now that
the Supreme Court has handed in
It's verdict in the case, it may be well
to call attention to some of the mis-
takes in the statements of supposed
fact, and to some of the reasoning
from assumption, by the aid of
which our friends in the onc-time
Gretna Green of Western Wiscon-
sin sought to bolster up their case,
before it had been submitted to the
highest tribunal.
We have no quarrel with our
neighbors for thinking that a Hud-
son speaker is better than one from
River Falls. We disagree, but we
do not quarrel. Our objection IS to
the manner in which they state their
reasons for their belief.
On the 10Th of April a declama-
tory contest was held in Hudson.
Five judges, good and true, decided
that Hudson had first place and
River Falls second. One hundred
and fifty disappointed people re-
turned to River Falls from the CON
test. On May 10th a contest was
held in River Falls and five Judges,
good and true, reversed the verdict
of the Hudson contest. At Madi-
son, on May 81, the court Of last re
sort sustained the decision of the
River Falls court. 1t seems that
the brethren at Hudson had doubts
of the validity Of the first decision,
else why their laborcd efforts to
prove it just? So far as we know,
no one here or elsewhere, ever chal-
lenged that decision, yet printers
ink galore was used in Hudson to
prove it right. They said that Mr..
Reeds piece was too difficult for an
amateur, and that that fact probably
weighed with the Judges. Yet it
may be a matter of opinion as to
which Of the selections, first or sec
ond, is the more difficult of proper
delivery. Again we know no law
of defamation or oratory or iudg-
mcnt which warrants the conclusion
that because a selection is difficult,
therefore it is not a winner. Our
neighbors say: "Mr. Reeds delivery
would have done credit to one much
older and more mature" All, so!
One must be old and mature to re-
ccive credit! There is no credit,
then, in the young man doing a
thing as well as the older man could
have done it. perhaps the crowd
would have reversed the decision of
the judges" first contesD. Yes,
we believe they would, with a
whoop. "The masses will often pick
out as best that which is most lurid. !"
Then according to this statement
the Hudson masses are not
competent to Judge Of defamation.
but the expert abandons all such
superficial impression and is inhu-
enced only by certain well estab.
J lished rules ofexcellence." 0, brave
Mmption! Who is the "cXpert. y
fixes the swell established
&ellence" Unfortunately
FL Nption, of the two Eek
judgment on the