Year: 1876




Pierrepont was gentleman-even the Ish-
maelite of the New York Sun admitted
this ard spoke good words of him when he
became Attorney General-and all the rest
of the Independent, Detective and Demo
cratic press pretended to be grateful that
General Grant had invited at least one re-
spectacle gentleman into his Cabinet be-
sides the Secretary of State, who, being
from New York, and of its wealthy aris.
tocracy, was of course respectable in the
eyes of this cery fastidious press. But now
that Judge Pierrepont's back is turned, and
he is representing our Government abroad
at the first Court in Europe, this press must
needs with one accord ridicule, abuse and
SANDER him, forgetting that the effect is to
render itself ridiculous. However, this is
of little consequence to the Judge. His
merits will be his credentials and shield
wherever he is known. 1t is the character
Of Americans as people who tolerate such
license of the press, and the reputation Of
the press itself abroad, which must pay the
penalty. When General Fighting Joe"
Hooker commanded the Army of the Poto-
mac he issued an order for the regulation
of press correspondence from within the
"lines, which had an admirable effect in
restraining the slanderous propensities Of
the "history makers" if it did not entirely
control their romantic tendencies. This
order required each correspondent to have
his letters printed over his own signature,
or forfeit his ''psss within the lines" This
principle will probably have to be enacted
into law by Congress before the
press of this country will be restored
to that plane of credibility which
it should hold in the minds of the people
at home and abroad. Anonymous Journal
ism is as demoralizing to our politics and
social well-being as nation as were the
tatlings of the Mrs. Malaprops at their tea
drinkings of the last century. Freedom
of the press" as illustrated in the un-
trammeled discussion of political principles
and the accurate record of current events,
is blessing which cannot be overrated.
But that this is very different thing from
the unbridled retail of unverified personal
scandal of all people in private as well as
public life, male and female, by anonymous
writers, for the sole purpose of gratifying
the personal malice, spite or love Of scan
dal, which they roll as sweet morsels
under their tongues, all respectable peo-
pie will admit. 1t is growing evil that
Why Congress should not look the matter
full in the face, and take the initiative at
once by passing an act requiring all writers
for publication who attempt to criticise
their neighbors to affix their real names to
their letters or articles we do not see.
Such an act would exert q most whole
some influence both upon correspondents
and editors by compelling those who wish
to indulge in SANDER of their fellows to do
it upon their own responsibility, and if
shame or dIshonor should result, these
would alight upon the writer instead of
"reliable correspondent, or the ubiquitous
"they say" or 'it is reported" or 1--WE
have reason to believe" &c, go. Under
such statute those wishing to indulge
in personal journalism would be obliged
to couple with this qualification the
assumption Of the personal response
bilities that naturally, reasonably and
legally might follow their criticisms,
structures or ISLANDERS. 1t would greatly
circumscribe the SANDER by innuendo and
insinuation which have become so common
and so disgraceful to American politics and
society through our licentious journalism.
Mere mischievous rumors would cease to
rise into the respectability of recorded facts.
The grievances Of a fertile imagination, su-