Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
August 2, 1824
Palladium Of Virginia And The Pacific Monitor
Lewisburg, Greenbrier County, West Virginia
What is this article about?
The Lewisburg newspaper editors reluctantly republish 'Mutius' as a final response to personal attacks by the Courier's editor, criticizing his undignified language like 'greenhorn' and 'pettifogger,' defending Wm. Smith as not the author, and urging decorum in journalism.
Clipping
OCR Quality
95%
Excellent
Full Text
LEWISBURG.
MONDAY, AUGUST 2nd, 1824.
We have again admitted Mutius, and we hope for the last time, as we really cannot see what advantage he, or the Editor of the Courier can derive from a further discussion of the subject in controversy. We regret that our brother Editor, should so far lose sight of the dignity of his vocation, as to be induced to vent his private spleen through the medium of his respectable paper. And the words greenhorn, gosling and pettifogger do not belong to an Editor's vocabulary (of decent remarks and none other ought to be seen in his paper.)
He accuses Wm. Smith of having answered him disrespectfully. Mutius requested him to publish this "disrespectful letter" he has not done it; we hope for his own credit that he will yet do it; the people can then judge of it themselves.
We assure the Editor of the Courier that Wm. Smith is not as he suspects the author of Mutius. What Mutius expects to gain by thrusting his hand in the fire, we cannot conjecture, we by no means commend his spirit; and we could not have been by any inducement prevailed on to give it a place in our paper, if it had not been for the personal attack made by the Courier and to which it is a reply.
MONDAY, AUGUST 2nd, 1824.
We have again admitted Mutius, and we hope for the last time, as we really cannot see what advantage he, or the Editor of the Courier can derive from a further discussion of the subject in controversy. We regret that our brother Editor, should so far lose sight of the dignity of his vocation, as to be induced to vent his private spleen through the medium of his respectable paper. And the words greenhorn, gosling and pettifogger do not belong to an Editor's vocabulary (of decent remarks and none other ought to be seen in his paper.)
He accuses Wm. Smith of having answered him disrespectfully. Mutius requested him to publish this "disrespectful letter" he has not done it; we hope for his own credit that he will yet do it; the people can then judge of it themselves.
We assure the Editor of the Courier that Wm. Smith is not as he suspects the author of Mutius. What Mutius expects to gain by thrusting his hand in the fire, we cannot conjecture, we by no means commend his spirit; and we could not have been by any inducement prevailed on to give it a place in our paper, if it had not been for the personal attack made by the Courier and to which it is a reply.
What sub-type of article is it?
Press Freedom
Partisan Politics
What keywords are associated?
Editorial Dispute
Press Decorum
Personal Attacks
Mutius
Courier Editor
Wm. Smith
What entities or persons were involved?
Mutius
Wm. Smith
Editor Of The Courier
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Editorial Dispute Over Personal Attacks And Press Decorum
Stance / Tone
Defensive Criticism Of Rival Editor's Conduct
Key Figures
Mutius
Wm. Smith
Editor Of The Courier
Key Arguments
No Advantage In Further Discussion Of The Controversy
Courier Editor Loses Dignity By Venting Private Spleen In Paper
Undignified Words Like Greenhorn, Gosling, Pettifogger Unfit For Editors
Courier Should Publish The Disputed Disrespectful Letter For Public Judgment
Wm. Smith Is Not The Author Of Mutius
Mutius Published Only As Reply To Courier's Personal Attack