The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1907-01-10
general in the financial community it.
self that we need no longer heed

last weeks issue of the Review must
have appeared ridiculous. According
to the Bulletin the Review snake had
been fairly and brilliantly scotched
to we'll merited death. While ac-
cording to the doctrine as preached
by the Review the Bulletin had been
backed down and disgraced. The
average reader must have been inn
pressed by the fact that some editor
was making fool Of himself. The
Review is not able to concede any
thing. 1t knows that it has the
larger list of subscribers and it also
believes that its proposition to leave
the matter to the judges without any
stipulations in advance, to be emin-
emily fair and one that the Bulletin
would have accepted had it not known
that it was doomed to defeat before
any fair tribunal. Nevertheless we
have been trying, since the last is
sues of the two papers to ''see our
selves as others see us. /" Out of the
twenty odd thousand people of this
county we do not suppose there are
more than dozen who really care
which has the larger list. the Review
or the Bulletin. Others may take
mild interest in the matter. just as
almost any man will 20 around the
corner to see good dog fight. but
beyond that there is no such general
interest as to justify the space in the
county press which the people have
right to expect will he taken up with
the news of value. For this reason
we shall pursue the matter no farther
in public print. Our money will be
left at the bank. together with our
certified list. If the Bulletin wishes
to accept the wager as we have offer
ed it,leaving the question of bona fide
subscribers entirely with the judges.
we will go ahead in absolute good
faith. Otherwise we have come to
realize that the matter is of no more
Importance to the general public than
the question as to which of our
bakers sells the more bread. There is
one thing we can do. without wagers
and without other judges than the
people themselves. and that is to get
out better paper than the Bulletin
every week in the year. There is no
egotism in this. There might be
with some competitors, but not with
the present editor of the Bulletin.
He has neither the brains the educa-
ton nor the inclination to qualify in the
Review class. His near-smut column
is entirely representative of his grade
of intelligence and the only argument
which he can weld with skill is to
call someone names. We ask nothing
more than that the people should take
the last issues for instance of the Re-
view and the Bulletin and compare
them side by side. Not Only in
amount of news matter but in the
character of it's matter and the gener-
al tone of the paper the Review is
not at all afraid of comparison. The
editor of the Review does not claim
to be great editor. 1t is not nee
essary in order to claim infinite super
iority over the present editor of the
Bulletin. We give him credit for
being a shrewd business man, a
genial. pleasant spoken fellow. and q
good printer. but his most fatuous
friend would never accuse him of hav-
ing intellect. 1t is simply casting
pearls before swine to attempt to ar
que with him. as argument only
serves to open the sluice gates of his
Billings gate. 1t is really unfair fol
us to trifle with him. One should be
merciful to the weak Intellectually as
well as to the weak physically. We
shall try to bear this in mind ant
while we cannot help it that poepl.
of judgment shall compare the tw'
papers to his disadvantage, we shall
try to prevent ourselves from maxim.
his cerebral paucity any more pain
fully apparent than he makes it him
self.
We would not have our reader
think that we blame the editor of tn
Bulletin for his conspicuous lack o
, intellect. He is no more to blam
, for that, than he is for his conspicuou
lack of chin. or the editor of the Re
| view for his conspicuous length 0
t nose. But we can properly blame hir
: for his evident lack of fairness an
J common decency. Truth is far strang
, er to him than fiction. For instance
r in his article touching the subscrip
: ton controversy he studiously refrain
ed from quoting the Reviews repl
\ offering to leave the question of bon
) fide subscriptions entirely with tn
J, judges. Had he had any desire to b
e fair or honest he would have publish
4 ed this reply, Just as the Review
published his letter. The above
but an instance of the unscrupulOu