The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1903-05-29
A Friendly Suggestion.
In View Of Recent Developments" in
the Postofice Department the
"Star" Should Apologize.

Early in the year-to speak accu-
rately, On January 5-the Evening
Star" did us the honor, in reply to our
suggestion that its apparent indiffer-
ence to what was going on in the
Postofiice Department might in a
measure be due to a frugal desire not
to disturb the profitable relations it
sustained, and still continues 10 sus-
tain, toward the rural free delivery
service, Of landlord and tenant-on
January 8, we say, the Evening
Star" did us the honor to remark that
we were engaged in matchmaking OPP
erations.
The argument advanced by our
contemporary to clear its skirts of the
lmputation-if the flood Of billings
gate 1t poured forth on that occasion
can be dignitied by the term "argu-
ment"-was sufficiently novel to war
rant Its reproduction in these columns
as line example of the impotent
rage which seizes every solemn hum
bug when the mask is torn from his
face and his lack of wit is exposed in
the market place. We reprinted our
contemporaries somewhat irascible
and dyspeptic effusion for the further
reason that, had we not done so, this
manifestation of Chesterfeldian re-
pose, this outpour of all that is gen
tie, naive, and, we might as well say,
dull IN our contemporary, would
otherwise not have been read at all
here, or elsewhere; then, or at any
other time.
Our contemporary, we fear, has
never appreciated the disinterested-
ness of our motives in this matter. 1t
has never risen to thank us. 1t has
never by so much as nod-and, or
dinarily, 1t does a good deal of nod
ding-indieated its pleasure at receiv-
ing, free of cost, all this valuable pub
licity. 1t has never permitted, in
fact, its solemn and torpid ease to be
disturbed long enough to say "Much
obliged; but don't, pray don't, again
interrupt my slumbers"
We shan't. In us the milk of
human kindness flows freely. Not for
the world would we tap the Journal
ism from Bedlam" so aptly illustrated
IN the "Star's" own case. Nothing,
indeed, shall knowingly be done by
US to tempt our contemporary to
abandon again the white marble path
of superior virtue for the filthy bog
of vituperation in which the unduly
excited harridan of the gutter wal
lows whenever her chastity is called
into question. In short, we hope our
contemporary will keep cool, while
we proceed to examine some of its
more remarkable, not TO say amazing,
contentious.
The public, so the "Star" thinks, or
affects to think, "was not vitality con-
cerned in the unfortunate but not es-
peeially significant episode of safe
opening"-referring to Mrs. Tyners
exploit in carting away the contents
of an official safe. Perhaps not. Yet
we venture to say that the public is Of
q different opinion. 1t will presently
wish to know, for instance, who the
official was by whose connivance the
"safe opening" was made possible.
And if it shall be shown that it was
either guilty cunning or criminal
idiocy on the part Of that official
which permitted public records to
be tempered with by interested
persons, the public viii wish to know,
and it will be entitled to know who
it was that urged the appointment
and maintained in Office. so dangerous
q uOhhSy'
More than that, it will be interested
IN learning that for weeks after the
investigation of his bureau was start
ed and charge after charge had been
made against his administration, this
official found no difficulty in filing
the columns of our contemporary
with cheap puffs of himself and his
doings. The "Star" fools itself, if it
faneies the public is not "yitally con-
eerned" in what Mr.. Christiancy's Of
fetal record is, or in knowing who his
s'backers" were.
Nor is the STAR displaying much
sense when it asserts that the public