The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1903. NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENCE.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11057, 19 September 1903, Page 4

The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1903. NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENCE.

Letters to the, editor in a daily paper often form the most interesting part of ita contents. Indeed, if properly written and managed, the correspondence columu can be made, to a large number of readers, the brightest, the most attractive, of all. But — alas for the "buts" — it .frequently fails from ,the weakness of all concerned. In the heat' of argument letter writers make reflections they would recoil from in calmer moment^, and^thc editor, who should know hotter, has not the heart to deprive them of their "say" — or possibly, in an unguarded ' moment, he has passed , over an assertion in 'Constant Subscriber's" letter which renders "the rejoinder of , his old friend, "Pro Bono Publico," in a sense privileged. Prom such a beginning much' acrid invective may spring, and a correspondent — "Pro Bono Publico" in .particular — will belabour his opponent week in and week out in compositions that have nothing to recommend them but the signature. In that, indeed, there is often a touch of humour, none the less welcome for its innocence. It is .easy — quite easy — we are told, to be calm when i one is out of the sweep of the storm. That is true enough — so true, in fact, that it should be the first article in the angry correspondent's catechism of reform. If our friends could but remember, in the midst of their wrath, that their . readers, possibly with one exception, are all safe outside the storm area/ that, to put it plainly, they are providing fun ifor the Philistines, they would perceiye w.ith greater judgment the purport of .their phrases. They would, in many cases,- have advanced, by a single step, more than half wgy to the defeat, of their opponents. In the days when' literature itself was .debased into, little more than controversy, Bishop. Warburton's stock argument is said to have been a threat to cudgel anyone who disputed his opinion. We strong^ suspect the worthy Bishop's norn de. guerre, «had he lived' in our day, would have been "One who Knows," or Some paraphrase of fthe samp idea. Perhaps this kind of argument ought to convince; t 'but somehow it, does not. The writer t once heard a truculent visitor, offer'to throw an editor out; of the window by way of proof,' not, aB one might suppose, of his own strength, but of an opponent's mendaqjty. Perhaps where most correspondents fail is in for 1 getting that they are writing for the public. The fact, that "A Constant Subscriber"' wears spectacles, or doesn't know what he is talking about, or beats his wife, often works powerfully on. the mind of "Pro Bono Publico." He brings the circumstances out fully in his next contribution, under the heading "Land Nationalization" — the same the controversy started with. Then he feels that the last word has been said; but his readers, and as often as not his opponent, are not convinced. He has made the common error, of offering abuse for argument. Next day, when the rejoinder comes, he is disgusted to, find that it is, mainly made up of personal- allusions to .himself, quite j beside the question, and, ac he asserts with j pardonable warmth, utterly, false. To abuse ! one's opponent shows very .bad taste, ; and whatever force such methods contribute to | •a discussion is* added to the side of the abused person. , Thus the weak controversialist props the edifice he seeks to shake', and becomes a greater menace to .his friends than to his foe. Similarly, the bald assertion that an opponent is wrong, not backed up with facts to prove.it, leaves one's case rather worse than better. It does violence both to the common sense and the patience. j of the reader, and at once enliste l f his pr.e- J judice against the writer. Among^pomc cor— ; respondents a letter writer- attains to the highest pinnacle of. virtue and foree f when To,© foots his contribution with his 'own name. A few.ijndeedi are so powerfully moved by sucha^eiblbition of their'courage -that they persuade themselves that the best arguments' of * mere anonymous scribblers -are; thereby answered in anticipation. Anbnjpiity is, and alwaysJias been, the \ greatest £$ojrqe, in English journalism, arid' for the .tijpe' being the correspondent is in the- Battle boat .with the -professional writer. Personally, we confess, we like to see a' H mo"n's*owh name at the foot of his letter; but for. quite other reasons than those often ' connected with it/ Tho . man who can venture to put his daily signature to i\is opinions is clearly a man free and independent, and to make all men so is the true aim of our political faith. That, we think, is all there is to be said for signed letters. We do believe, however, that an anonymous writer, in dealing with an opponent who has made his name public,, should be on his guard not to let slip anything of a personal nature, or anything that might be construed to be so. And he should exorcise such care riot only for the sake of liiß adversary's feelings, but to add to his own* reasoning the weight that always has attached, and we hope alwajs will attach, to the manners of a chivalrous fighter.'