The Washington times., 1903-06-20
Is the Star" Read ?
1t May Be, But We Doubt It - and
for Reasons Stated.

| airy, the Evening STAR" informs us
that 1T enters more homes than all the
other Washington papers combined"
on words to that effect.
We may well believe it. Indeed. we
, do believe it. In fact, we haven't the
slightest doubt that 1T enters" etc.
We know it, we know it. We have
seen it there ourselves. We have seen
II on innumerable cupboards and pan
try shelves. We have seen it careful
" stacked in wood bins and cellars
1t Is SO dry. We have seen package
after package of winter clothing put
away by the careful housekeeper in
the loving embrace Of its pages-they
are so dense. We have seen il do its
duty IN all sorts Of places and under
all sorts Of conditions; :. as a frugal
substitute for the enticing hustle, and
when II became a question Of life and
death to snatch a victim from the
jaws of insomnia. We have seen it
but why pry further into the domestic
mysteries of the households entered
by our esteemed contemporary 1t
enters them; we admit it cheerfully.
And 1t must enter them, since it saws
1t does. Don't we recall with a sol
emn shudder the admonition of the
heroine in the ''meelodrayma" to the
gentlemanly villain, "the Star-r-r-s
never hew And should our own par
tcular ~Star" be guilty of a fb7 We
refuse to believe it. The proposition
is monstrous.
But is our esteemed and, domesti
cally speaking, useful contemporary
ever read2 Are its solemn assevera-
tions of superior virtue and Its fear
less spells of silence, whenever
graft" looms up on the horizon, ex-
erting that influence for good in the
community, to which it so vociferous-
ly lays claim2 Has it ever inspired
single thought of lofty devotion to
duty, or quickened the pulse Of
worthy ambition into a strenuous
struggle for the highest ideals2
Has it not, on the contrary, under
a cover Of amazing dullness and in
nOcuous eoneeit, preached, day after
day, the most abhorrent doctrines Of
selfshness and egotism9 Are not its
columns fairly bristling, of late, with
defenses of its friends of the "unsel-
fish and warm-hearted philanthro-
pist" type2 Has it aught but words
Of fulsome praise for a discredited
official of its own making, and doesn't
it almost seem to glory in its insistent
advocacy of that officials retention in
a place Of trust?
When the country is ringing with
indignation, from one end to the
other, at the dastardly attempt to drag
in the name Of William Mckinley for
the purpose Of shielding a set of
thieving officials-what does tie
Star" do? Lift It's voice and swell
the chorus2 Not on your life! 1t re-
mains silent and with characteristic
thrift calculates the chances it will
have for filling a public office with
one Of It's henchmen. Oh, it is "a
great moral force" that very same
Starr
But is the "Star" read7 We ''re-
turn to our muttons," as the French
would say For a moment we per
mitted ourselves to become serious III
trying to solve this interesting con
undrum. But we cannot maintain
that attitude long. Is the Star"
read2 1t may be, but we doubt it.
We doubt it, because the gorge Of
every decent man would rise, if he
were to confront in black and white
the cynical contempt Of the Star" for
everything that spells honor, integri-
ty, principle, and good faith. We
doubt it, because, if he did, he'd want
moral disinfcctant. We doubt it,
because we know he has too much self
respect.
Besides. he doesn't wish to be IA
tally shocked, for he might, one Of
these days-who knows2 find an
apology in the columns of the Star
for having suggested in January last
that The Times engaged IN blaclluail-
ing operations when it exposed the
irregularities" Of the STARS" Post
office friends lie might be, we say,
fatally shocked. And yet we have no
hesitation IN recommending him as
pretty safe risk to any insurance COM
pany willing to insure him against
that contingency.
The Russian naval maneuvers OFF the
coast Of Manchuria continue 'Ostenta-