Ladysmith news-budget. [volume] (Ladysmith, Rusk County, Wis.) 1907-1927, 1917-07-13

Who is the liar, anyway?
Judge Maloney glibly calls the
editor of the News-Budget liar
because we stated that the Journal
had discouraged subscriptions to the
Liberty Loan. We appreciate this
touching evidence of fraternal feel
ing on the part of Judge Maloney.
One would hardly think that a man
occupying a position that should re-
quire a calm, judicial temperament
would FLY off the handle" and re-
sort to guttersnipe tactics SO read
lily, and just because he found him
self in position that could not be
justified by argument.
BY what line of reason can any
one maintain that the Journals at
tack on the Liberty Loan, in its is
sue Of June 8, was not dlscOuraglng,
as far as lay in it's power, subscrlp-
tons to the loan? Would that ar
ticle encourage subscriptions to the
loan? The Journal says, there are
plenty of milliOnaires to take up the
loan, and they are the ones whose
duty it is to assume the burden. .
After reading that statement, how
many readers of the Journal, or
how many residents of Rusk coun-
ty would feel that they were called
upon to subscribe? It takes more
than nerve, it takes an astound-
ing disregard of truth or reason to
assert that such a statement and
others in the Journals article was
not discouraging subscriptions to the
bonds.
"The Journal is ready to furnish
free advertising to any project OF
public benefit, but it refuses to be
stung on this Liberty Loan stuff. :
Then the Liberty Loan is not a
project of public benefit! The words
admit of no other conclusion. If thai
isn't discouraging subscriptions to
the bond, what would be?
And yet, Judge Maloney calls us a
liar and even puts emphasis on a
repetition of the offensive epithet,
because we said he discouraged sub
tons.
After cheerfully donating our
space to boosting" and encouraging
subscriptions to the bonds, we nat
urally took exception to the Jour,
nails article of June 8. We did not
feel that we had been stung in pub
fishing the Liberty Loan "stuff,' nor
that we were furnishing free adver-
Using to a project that was not
of public benefit. After doing what
little lay in our power to encourage
subscriptions, we could not do less
than protest against such an untime-
ly and unpatriOtic article as that
published by the Journal. And would
Ladysmith as community want
such an article to go out unchal-
lenged as an index of sentiment
in Ladysmith? Hardly.
The Journal has not attempted a
defense of it's article of June 6, but
its editor isn't frank enough to adj
nit that, in his keen anxiety to find
something to rant at the rich about
in AN attempt to gain popularity, he
had, with not unusual disregard of
fact and reason, gone off half cooked
and attacked proposition that was
purely of public benefit. instead, he
replies to our protest, first by an
evasion, then by calling the writer
a liar for making a statement the
truth of which cannot be controvert-
ed by fact.
The lie is an ugly word, an cpl
tibet that will not be hurled without
the greatest proyocation by anyone
not given to irresponsible utter
ances, or possessing a scintilla of
real manhood. 1t seems to be a
prominent word in Brother Maloney's
vocabulary. You will note that the
government even is given to send
ing out "damnable ies.'' Apparent
ly, ours were not damnable anyway,
which affords us some consolation.
Judge Maloney, we do not relish
being called liar. It looks espec-
tally bad in cold print. If mistaken,
We would not deserve to be called
a liar, but we have demonstrated the
truth Of our statement in making
which you say we lied. And brother,
we challenge you to read your first
article over again, and say we lied.
We further challenge you to find
one of your readers who will say
we lied when we made the state